For smash 4 to succeed, we need to change

[Mr. Mumbles]

It was a game that was littered with programming errors, unintended compromising game mechanics, lots of bugs, poor regard for character balance, tripping... .

This is the quintessential sentence of your entire post, and I disagree. In what way was it littered with programming errors, or have lots of bugs? If we ignore it's predecessors and judge Brawl on it's own merits, the only quality issue I can think of is that the load times can be slightly ridiculous at times.

As for tripping, yes it was a bad decision, but I'm tired of people making a huge deal about a mechanic that kicks in 1/100 times. You could play for hours and likely never trip once. Let's no make a mountain out of a mole hill.

I honestly have no idea what you are referring to with unintended compromising game mechanics.

And what of character balance? In a game of 35 characters, what did you expect. Sure it could have been better, but it wasn't that bad, particularly for casual players who were the focus.

So remind me, why was Brawl so bad again? I'm willing to accept it if given a good reason, but I haven't heard one. Maybe it's because I'm casual but my friends and I have had tons of fun beating each other up in that game, and didn't come across any of these quality issues you mention.

 

[El Duderino]

If we played Smash 64 competitively we can play anything competitively.

What's that suppose to mean? Competitive Smash64 is insane. It's no a stretch at all.

 

[[Corn]]

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:



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.

"Bad" and "Not very successful in the competitive scene" are entirely different things. That was my point. People generalize heavily when they use the word bad or crap here. Its like saying Checkers is a bad game compared to Chess, doesnt exactly make sense. I dont have any issue with people calling Brawl a less competitive game simply because it is, what I do take issue with is people calling it generally bad or unfun, which is highly opinionated.

What mechanics are you refering to that 64 had that was part of the core interactive gameplay? I am generally curious.

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

If you dont enjoy it or it ends up being worse competitively then dont play it. I dont think me thinking that SSB4 will be fun and somewhat competitive if it has Less elements of randomness/Cross Between Melee and Brawl Physics/Still has skill being the deciding factor in play will end up setting the bar at mediocre.

What's that suppose to mean? Competitive Smash64 is insane. It's no a stretch at all.

I mean that it is still clearly in the shadow of other games.

 

[Ulevo]

I can also give you another appropriate example if you like. Guilty Gear and BlazBlue.

Both are made, I would assume, by the same party of developers. They are both made by Daisuke Ishiwatari and ArcSystem Works, just as both Brawl and Melee/64 were by Sakurai and his team. Both games have very similar styles of play. BlazBlue being the "spiritual successor" as quoted by ArcSystem Works, naturally adopted a lot of GG's mechanics and fighting philosophies in to its own works. However, BlazBlue is regarded as a watered down version of Guilty Gear, in one respect or another.

Whether or not this is a bad thing is up for an entirely different discussion. However. I don't see anyone within either community having heated arguments about Guilty Gear vs BlazBlue to the absurdity that I do Melee vs Brawl discussions. I don't see players go out of their way to modify their game console so they can reshape one or the other to better fit the one they think is better. I'm looking at you, Project M. We don't see Daisuke releasing press articles about how his next instalment of Guilty Gear will not be including feature X, Y, and Z, because he knows it made a lot of people unhappy in his previous games.

In short, both games are capable of being successful alongside one another because they have the quality and excellence to stand alone by themselves as individual titles, even despite their relationship. It doesn't matter that BlazBlue wasn't Guilty Gear 2.0, because BlazBlue was still awesome. And while there are some Guilty Gear fanboys out there like with anything that has a following, most people can reasonably agree with this (especially after BlazBlue has received several patches.)

Brawl does not have this stability. It has two things on its resume that entice people to want to play it. It's relationship with Melee and 64, which were widely successful competitively and casually, and the fact that it is a Nintendo title with Nintendo characters. We as a competitive community, who know this game to its finest of details, should be able to look past both of these and discern its quality for what it is, not what is standing next to it.

 

[[Corn]]

I can also give you another appropriate example if you like. Guilty Gear and BlazBlue.

Both are made, I would assume, but the same party of developers. They are both made by Daisuke Ishiwatari and ArcSystem Works, just as both Brawl and Melee/64 were by Sakurai and his team. Both games have very similar styles of play. BlazBlue being the "spiritual successor" as quoted by ArcSystem Works, naturally adopted a lot of GG's mechanics and fighting philosophies in to its own works. However, BlazBlue is regarded as a watered down version of Guilty Gear, in one respect or another.

Whether or not this is a bad thing is up for an entirely different discussion. However. I don't see anyone within either community having heated arguments about Guilty Gear vs BlazBlue to the absurdity that I do Melee vs Brawl discussions. I don't see players go out of their way to modify their game console so they can reshape one or the other to better fit the one they think is better. I'm looking at you, Project M. We don't see Daisuke releasing press articles about how his next instalment of Guilty Gear will not be including feature X, Y, and Z, because he knows it made a lot of people unhappy in his previous games.

In short, both games are capable of being successful alongside one another because they have the quality and excellence to stand alone by themselves as individual titles, even despite their relationship. It doesn't matter that BlazBlue wasn't Guilty Gear 2.0, because BlazBlue was still awesome. And while there are some Guilty Gear fanboys out there like with anything that has a following, most people can reasonably agree with this (especially after BlazBlue has received several patches.)

Brawl does not have this stability. It has two things on its resume that entice people to want to play it. It's relationship with Melee and 64, which were widely successful competitively and casually, and the fact that it is a Nintendo title with Nintendo characters. We as a competitive community, who know this game to its finest of details, should be able to look past both of these and discern its quality for what it is, not what is standing next to it.

I have no issue at all if you look at it from a purely competitive standpoint. Never did.

Stating a game to be horrible because it isnt as competitive as its predecessors is what I had an issue with.

 

[Mr. Mumbles]

I can also give you another appropriate example if you like. Guilty Gear and BlazBlue.

Both are made, I would assume, but the same party of developers. They are both made by Daisuke Ishiwatari and ArcSystem Works, just as both Brawl and Melee/64 were by Sakurai and his team. Both games have very similar styles of play. BlazBlue being the "spiritual successor" as quoted by ArcSystem Works, naturally adopted a lot of GG's mechanics and fighting philosophies in to its own works. However, BlazBlue is regarded as a watered down version of Guilty Gear, in one respect or another.

Whether or not this is a bad thing is up for an entirely different discussion. However. I don't see anyone within either community having heated arguments about Guilty Gear vs BlazBlue to the absurdity that I do Melee vs Brawl discussions. I don't see players go out of their way to modify their game console so they can reshape one or the other to better fit the one they think is better. I'm looking at you, Project M. We don't see Daisuke releasing press articles about how his next instalment of Guilty Gear will not be including feature X, Y, and Z, because he knows it made a lot of people unhappy in his previous games.

In short, both games are capable of being successful alongside one another because they have the quality and excellence to stand alone by themselves as individual titles, even despite their relationship. It doesn't matter that BlazBlue wasn't Guilty Gear 2.0, because BlazBlue was still awesome. And while there are some Guilty Gear fanboys out there like with anything that has a following, most people can reasonably agree with this (especially after BlazBlue has received several patches.)

Brawl does not have this stability. It has two things on its resume that entice people to want to play it. It's relationship with Melee and 64, which were widely successful competitively and casually, and the fact that it is a Nintendo title with Nintendo characters. We as a competitive community, who know this game to its finest of details, should be able to look past both of these and discern its quality for what it is, not what is standing next to it.

First off how many people own guilty gear vs how many people own Brawl? Second Brawl was intentionally catering to a casual audience whereas blaze blue wasn't. No one is denying this, and of course this is going to drive competitive players nuts.

 

[Vkrm]

No one doubts brawl is a fun game to play casually. But playing a game casually usually means you aren't overly critical of the game to begin with. Me and my buddies used to get together and play superman64 all the while cracking jokes. That game is definitely bad, but we enjoyed playing because we played in a casual way. Anyone here a fan of gamegrumps? I think they're terrible, but its the same way they approach sonic 06. Brawl definitely has flaws that make an objectively bad game. 0-2 frames out delay for every single input which make brawl feel clunky on top of adding an element of uncertainty to engagement. Rco lag, and moves staling to point where they become to weak to function as they should. This can lead to a kill move not killing or extended chain grabs from ICs. In a fruitless to stop players from "spamming." And the ten frames of buffer do way more harm than good. And of course, tripping.

 

[Ulevo]

This is the quintessential sentence of your entire post, and I disagree. In what way was it littered with programming errors, or have lots of bugs? If we ignore it's predecessors and judge Brawl on it's own merits, the only quality issue I can think of is that the load times can be slightly ridiculous at times.

As for tripping, yes it was a bad decision, but I'm tired of people making a huge deal about a mechanic that kicks in 1/100 times. You could play for hours and likely never trip once. Let's no make a mountain out of a mole hill.

I honestly have no idea what you are referring to with unintended compromising game mechanics.

And what of character balance? In a game of 35 characters, what did you expect. Sure it could have been better, but it wasn't that bad, particularly for casual players who were the focus.

So remind me, why was Brawl so bad again? I'm willing to accept it if given a good reason, but I haven't heard one. Maybe it's because I'm casual but my friends and I have had tons of fun beating each other up in that game, and didn't come across any of these quality issues you mention.

I'll be honest, its been a while since I've been around. The Project M team would be more than qualified to highlight some of the silliness they found while scouring through the games coding. I kept up with Project M for quite some time but fell out due to other obligations, so I don't have a proper recollection to all the specific examples of what I'm talking about. I would just say ask them, or take my word for it. Which may not be enough for you, but whatever. I don't have anything to prove.

However. Things like infinite grabs. Grab release mechanics and exploitations. Landing delay after up B on characters like Marth and Squirtle. Ignoring hitstun durations with aerials. Inconsistent loading times between Sheik and Zelda transformations. These are examples of either poor design choices, or lack of time in development. I would assume the latter, as these seem more like oversights than something that was purposely implemented.

Then we get in to all the core mechanics that were removed that did nothing but add to the games depth and enjoyment. Wall grappling. Light shielding. Dash dancing. Crouch cancelling. Jump cancelled....anything. Moonwalking. Shield reflecting projectiles. There are plenty more.

Then we look at all the things that point to a complete and blatant disregard for character balance. Move decay on top of Pokemon Trainers natural decay? Chain grabs that lead to death on characters like Dedede, Falco, Pikachu? Meta Knight? Snake? Ice Climbers?

And let's not forget just the poor choice of philosophies that define how the engine operates. Escaping hitstun with virtually every move you make, and the absence of real combos. Ledges being forgiving to the point of being meaningless. Shields being a safe option for nearly everything, thus invalidating specific characters like Captain Falcon. An overabundance of recovery options on an exorbitant amount of characters.

This is a very brief synopsis of the overwhelming problems plaguing Brawls competitive and casual environment from many different perspectives. If I were to make a detailed list of all the problems, you wouldn't bother to actually read it.

First off how many people own guilty gear vs how many people own Brawl? Second Brawl was intentionally catering to a casual audience whereas blaze blue wasn't. No one is denying this, and of course this is going to drive competitive players nuts.

And I'm not arguing against any of that. The only intention I had by saying what I did was to emphasize that a successor doesn't necessary have to meet all of the expectations or design choices and philosophies its predecessor had in order to be an accepted and successful game. However, Brawl had problems with this. The Brawl vs Melee debacle comes down to a lot more than just Melee fanboyism, and that a lot of the responsibility and blame inevitably falls on Brawls shortcomings as a game itself, and not just because it doesn't adhere to the blind religious faith perpetuated by players who will play Melee till the end of time.

 

[El Duderino]

I mean that it is still clearly in the shadow of other games.

If you're talking about attendance, sure. As far as Smash64's competitive value is concerned though, I would say that is not an accurate assessment. Might not be as expansive of a game, but there are elements of 64 that exemplify competitive Smash in ways not nearly as prevalent in the two other tittles.

Smash64 is not my personal preference, but damn do I respect it.

 

[[Corn]]

No one doubts brawl is a fun game to play casually. But playing a game casually usually means you aren't overly critical of the game to begin with. Me and my buddies used to get together and play superman64 all the while cracking jokes. That game is definitely bad, but we enjoyed playing because we played in a casual way. Anyone here a fan of gamegrumps? I think they're terrible, but its the same way they approach sonic 06. Brawl definitely has flaws that make an objectively bad game. 0-2 frames out delay for every single input which make brawl feel clunky on top of adding an element of uncertainty to engagement. Rco lag, and moves staling to point where they become to weak to function as they should. This can lead to a kill move not killing or extended chain grabs from ICs. In a fruitless to stop players from "spamming." And the ten frames of buffer do way more harm than good. And of course, tripping.

I dont think anyone is referring to those points as good...Well, I like IC chain grabs and buffering myself...

Regardless, It just depends on the game being fun to play whilst at the same time requiring skill to beat the opponent to make a game viable for any competition. In absolute competitive terms Melee wins. But I don't believe everyone here playes a game they hate, enjoying the actual playstyles and such of the game make a difference as well. Personally I enjoy Brawl more then Melee, but I recognize each as separate games.

If you're talking about attendance, sure. As far as Smash64's competitive value is concerned though, I would say that is not an accurate assessment. Might not be as expansive of a game, but there are elements of 64 that exemplify competitive Smash in ways not nearly as prevalent in the two other tittles.


Smash64 is not my personal preference, but damn do I respect it.

That is what I mean. Contrast to something like MvC3 for example.

 

[El Duderino]

That is what I mean. Contrast to something like MvC3 for example.

What's the point in that? Not following why your drawing this comparison.

 

[[Corn]]

What's the point in that?

Might just be my area, but people always jokingly say that MvC is so broken its not broken yet has a large scene in contrast to 64 where the game is quite respected yet has a small scene.

 

[El Duderino]

Might just be my area, but people always jokingly say that MvC is so broken its not broken yet has a large scene in contrast to 64 where the game is quite respected yet has a small scene.

Yeah, but I don't think anyone is worried that Smash's competitive scene is going anywhere soon, regardless of what Smash 4 turns out like. It's a non-issue.

 

[Vkrm]

Melee being the superior competitvely isn't up for discussion. Pretty sure we know that already. That is unless you like the fact that everyone gets force fed defensive play, and even then melee comes out on top because the players don't have to contend with the luck factors in brawl. Damn, see what you did, I was trying to bring up why brawl is a lack luster experience with out referring to melee.

 

[[Corn]]

Yeah, but I don't think anyone is worried that Smash's competitive scene is going anywhere soon, regardless of what Smash 4 turns out like. It's a non-issue.

Was just trying to say that a game can be suited for competition and be fun, but people will pick what they like in terms of the ratio of fun/competition thus allowing different scenes to be formed even if one is competitively better then another.

Melee being the superior competitvely isn't up for discussion. Pretty sure we know that already. That is unless you like the fact that everyone gets force fed defensive play, and even then melee comes out on top because the players don't have to contend with the luck factors in brawl. Damn, see what you did, I was trying to bring up why brawl is a lack luster experience with out referring to melee.

Hmm?
Trying to say that Fun plays a factor in every competitive games scene, and fun is subjective so different players and such argue and debate over pointless things.

I like Brawl even though I realize alternative more competitive games exist because I am willing to sacrifice some of the competitive natures of the other games simply because I enjoy the one that I am playing more.

 

[El Duderino]

Was just trying to say that a game can be suited for competition and be fun, but people will pick what they like in terms of the ratio of fun/competition thus allowing different scenes to be formed even if one is competitively better then another..

Well yeah, that goes without saying. It's actually why I don't buy into this whole idea that the Smash community is at dire crossroads. It's pretty silly 'the sky is falling!' type of melodrama.

 

[Ulevo]

Something that I'd like to shed some light on is the context in which people use the word "competitive."

People use it all the time, and seemingly as blanket statements. "Melee is more competitive than Brawl." But what does that actually mean? If I were to ask a lot of people, for example, what they think makes Melee more competitive as a game, I think a lot of them would come up with answers akin to "its more complex." But to be honest, I'm not even sure I'd get much of an answer since it seems to be its own self perpetuating, self rationalizing blanket statement nowadays.

A competitive game isn't a game that's balanced, or a game that is intensely complex. A competitive game is a game that invokes and perpetuates the need for competition. This usually happens when a game has attributes and characteristics that make it engaging and highly enjoyable, while focusing on a system that rewards and even promotes the players continual progress to becoming better, both as a means to fulfill their own self entitlement, and to beat other players who also play the game for similar reasons.

What a lot of people wind up confusing this with is a game that is designed around balance, or is incredibly in depth, or other such notions. There's a lot more to it than that. Chess is probably one of the most balanced games ever created that is played competitively, and its been said that it is so complex that it would take decades to master. That being said, if someone were to ask me if Chess was more competitive than say, League of Legends, I would have to say no.

There are a wide variety of reasons for this. The wide arrange of appeal, the accessibility, the hype perpetuated by both the community and the company, the ability to identify yourself with aspects in the game, and the list continues. In short, its the ability for a game to entice and excite the passion in the players who play it for the sake of enjoyment while always having new heights to ascend to, goals to reach, and obstacles to overcome, while also having an environment that supports and sustains this for the long term.

The reason people foam at the mouth for Melee is because it did all these things and more. It's the reason why to this day nearly anyone can pick up a copy of it and have a blast, while its more passionate players have kept it going for what is it now? 10+ years? It creates a hole in you for you to fill while also filling it for you. It rewards you for continually playing it.

Brawl isn't as unsuccessful as Melee because it was less balanced or wasn't as complex. I mean, those were big components, but not the primary de facto. The environment Brawl puts the player through is fundamentally different from Melee because Sakurai emphasized its focus less around the continual progression and reward for competition between players, and more about the subjective fairness in each experience from game to game and moment to moment. Brawl at its fundamental foundation did not want to reward you from trying to dissect it, study it, learn from it, and grow with it, but to receive light hearted pleasure from it regardless of personal and exterior outcome.

This is sort of unrelated to the topic at hand. I just kind of went on a tangent. But its how I see the two approaches to each game separately from design intent, and I think its why Brawl is met with so much friction when talked about under competitive context.

 

[[Corn]]

Well yeah, that goes without saying. It's actually why I don't buy into this whole idea that the Smash community is at dire crossroads. It's pretty silly 'the sky is falling!' type of melodrama.

Same

I take some issue when people don't consider all variables or the other side when in a discussion. Completely defeats the purpose of even discussing anything then.

Stuff.

When I use the term, I am exclusively using the word to describe what many consider the term to mean in relation to anything that can be played competitively.

Mainly:
-Random Occurrences being minimal or non existent
-Completely Controllable in terms of human limitations
-Correct Risk vs Reward Ratio
-Skill/knowledge of the game being the largest factor in determining a victor

Are what make something competitive from a definition standpoint. Things that violate the things above can still be played competetively, but are certainly not as competetive as something else that doesnt violate them.

Stuff like:
-Scene
-Likability/Fun
-Accessibility

Do not factor into a games purely competitive nature but are closely related to them.

So in pure definition, something like Olympic Running would be less competitive then Chess.

 

[Reizilla]

I couldn't even get halfway through the second page. Some of you people really need better comprehension skills. No one is telling you what to enjoy or what opinions to have. Whatever opinions you have about Smash4, whether negative or positive, there will very likely be a thread for that. If you don't like the game, it's only respectful to not invade the space of those that do enjoy the game and spread your hate there. If you want to share what you think would make it a better game, go ahead, but don't form some vendetta against a community of people that are simply doing something they enjoy. If you still love Melee more, feel free to join the others in the Melee forum.

That said, the same applies for those that think Smash4 is the best game in the world. No need to go the Brawl or Melee forums shouting "LOOK WHAT WE HAVE AND YOU DON'T" although, with this communities overall mindset, I think that'll be very unlikely to be the case.

As far as the off-topic "depth" and L-cancelling argument:

Spoiler

I really liked this post.

Spoiler

This is the exact opposite of what I think made smash a better game for me than, say, SF. Let me explain with an analogy: I'm a competitive chess player, have been for 17 years. Chess is a fight between my mind and your mind, or more precisely between my ideas and your ideas. When playing against you, I don't have to worry that if I pick up a piece and place it somewhere, I might falter and place it in the wrong spot. The "technical barrier" to chess is zero. This makes it pure in a way that boxing isn't, for instance: you might want a punch to land in a specific way but mess it up because your muscles were tired or you hiccuped or whatever.

Clearly there is a spectrum for technicality, and a game like SCII might lie near one end, with moves that require a large combination of inputs to pull off, and a game like Divekick at the other end with only two buttons. And there is also clearly a trade-off: if sequences of 10 inputs can correspond to distinct moves in game you will clearly get a larger move set and hence deeper strategy, but you will also introduce impurities in the sense I explained above. Conversely I don't expect any deep strategy from Divekick (although I can't say without playing it).

I believe that the beauty of Smash is that it broke the paradigm that games like SF put forth. Moves like Dhalsim's teleport or Zangief's piledriver were harder to do then Ryu's hadouken, and in general some moves could be attempted and failed even by competitive players, which meant firstly that there wasn't an equal experience for people playing different characters, and that one had to deal with more mistakes than was necessary. I understand that the reasons for this paradigm have to do with the history of the franchise and the controls it started out with, but in all honesty I think that it would have made for a better game if, like Smash, the set of inputs required to perform moves was the same for every character, and as simple as possible. My opinion of course.

For me things would be ideal if I didn't need to use a controller at all to control Smash and simply thought about the move I wanted and it occurred. Then the best player would be the one with the best ideas, not the fastest fingers or the most perfect "slight-of-hand" type skills.

Now, I'm not saying that it is better for a game to be pure in that sense. I have a friend who actually enjoys the fact that SC has moves that are more difficult to execute and that this might lead to errors when playing. If those are the aspects of a fighting game that you like that is all well and good, and based on your comment it does seem that way, but then I would have to ask if Smash isn't really the game for you. Among all sufficiently robust fighting games I can think of (which aren't Smash clones), Smash is the one that seems to strive most for the purity I've expounded. The notion of a technical barrier such as the one that exists in Melee and you seem to delight in seems almost anithetical to the spirit of Smash.

Like many, my feeling is the deeper the strategy the better. I just think it is silly that you think it is a good thing that player 1 beats player 2 in your example. If Steven Hawking has awesome ideas about how to kick *** in Smash, he should be able to do so.

Personally, I don't care for tech skill because I'm lazy and I prefer thinking about options than spending countless hours trying to just perform them. On top of that, I respect the developers' decision to make really powerful moves have a lot of lag. The same is true for ground attacks, I don't see the point of having lagless aerials. It doesn't add more depth, it just changes the decision making process. If you could press R during hit/shield stun to halve the lag of smash attacks, I would be completely against that as well. Powerful moves should generally be high risk-high reward moves. If you don't want to worry about getting punished, use a safer move.

That's just my preference. The reason why I feel it was such a big "problem" in Brawl is because of the lack of stun when moves connected, so nothing was safe. Feel free to feel whatever you want. It makes no difference on how much I enjoy a game.

Now, I agree with most of what AA said in the OP. However, I don't think the community needs a unified ruleset, ever. I was always against it in Brawl and I'm sure I always will be against one for Smash4. A recommended ruleset, like the BBR used to use is what I'd like to see, but it should be just that, recommended, not required. What makes a Smash game great and better than other fighters, in my opinion is the many ways it can be played. Whether I agree with someone else's ruleset or not won't stop me from playing and having a great time. It makes things more interesting to play outside of your comfort zone. Just my two cents.

 

[Mr. Mumbles]

I couldn't even get halfway through the second page. Some of you people really need better comprehension skills. No one is telling you what to enjoy or what opinions to have. Whatever opinions you have about Smash4, whether negative or positive, there will very likely be a thread for that. If you don't like the game, it's only respectful to not invade the space of those that do enjoy the game and spread your hate there. If you want to share what you think would make it a better game, go ahead, but don't form some vendetta against a community of people that are simply doing something they enjoy. If you still love Melee more, feel free to join the others in the Melee forum.

That said, the same applies for those that think Smash4 is the best game in the world. No need to go the Brawl or Melee forums shouting "LOOK WHAT WE HAVE AND YOU DON'T" although, with this communities overall mindset, I think that'll be very unlikely to be the case.

As far as the off-topic "depth" and L-cancelling argument:

Spoiler

I really liked this post.

Spoiler

Personally, I don't care for tech skill because I'm lazy and I prefer thinking about options than spending countless hours trying to just perform them. On top of that, I respect the developers' decision to make really powerful moves have a lot of lag. The same is true for ground attacks, I don't see the point of having lagless aerials. It doesn't add more depth, it just changes the decision making process. If you could press R during hit/shield stun to halve the lag of smash attacks, I would be completely against that as well. Powerful moves should generally be high risk-high reward moves. If you don't want to worry about getting punished, use a safer move.

That's just my preference. The reason why I feel it was such a big "problem" in Brawl is because of the lack of stun when moves connected, so nothing was safe. Feel free to feel whatever you want. It makes no difference on how much I enjoy a game.

Now, I agree with most of what AA said in the OP. However, I don't think the community needs a unified ruleset, ever. I was always against it in Brawl and I'm sure I always will be against one for Smash4. A recommended ruleset, like the BBR used to use is what I'd like to see, but it should be just that, recommended, not required. What makes a Smash game great and better than other fighters, in my opinion is the many ways it can be played. Whether I agree with someone else's ruleset or not won't stop me from playing and having a great time. It makes things more interesting to play outside of your comfort zone. Just my two cents.

You have made me like a gif; clearly, you are a wizard! I will listen to whatever you have to say. Resistance is futile.

 

[Mr. Mumbles]

Something that I'd like to shed some light on is the context in which people use the word "competitive."

People use it all the time, and seemingly as blanket statements. "Melee is more competitive than Brawl." But what does that actually mean? If I were to ask a lot of people, for example, what they think makes Melee more competitive as a game, I think a lot of them would come up with answers akin to "its more complex." But to be honest, I'm not even sure I'd get much of an answer since it seems to be its own self perpetuating, self rationalizing blanket statement nowadays.

A competitive game isn't a game that's balanced, or a game that is intensely complex. A competitive game is a game that invokes and perpetuates the need for competition. This usually happens when a game has attributes and characteristics that make it engaging and highly enjoyable, while focusing on a system that rewards and even promotes the players continual progress to becoming better, both as a means to fulfill their own self entitlement, and to beat other players who also play the game for similar reasons.

What a lot of people wind up confusing this with is a game that is designed around balance, or is incredibly in depth, or other such notions. There's a lot more to it than that. Chess is probably one of the most balanced games ever created that is played competitively, and its been said that it is so complex that it would take decades to master. That being said, if someone were to ask me if Chess was more competitive than say, League of Legends, I would have to say no.

There are a wide variety of reasons for this. The wide arrange of appeal, the accessibility, the hype perpetuated by both the community and the company, the ability to identify yourself with aspects in the game, and the list continues. In short, its the ability for a game to entice and excite the passion in the players who play it for the sake of enjoyment while always having new heights to ascend to, goals to reach, and obstacles to overcome, while also having an environment that supports and sustains this for the long term.

The reason people foam at the mouth for Melee is because it did all these things and more. It's the reason why to this day nearly anyone can pick up a copy of it and have a blast, while its more passionate players have kept it going for what is it now? 10+ years? It creates a hole in you for you to fill while also filling it for you. It rewards you for continually playing it.

Brawl isn't as unsuccessful as Melee because it was less balanced or wasn't as complex. I mean, those were big components, but not the primary de facto. The environment Brawl puts the player through is fundamentally different from Melee because Sakurai emphasized its focus less around the continual progression and reward for competition between players, and more about the subjective fairness in each experience from game to game and moment to moment. Brawl at its fundamental foundation did not want to reward you from trying to dissect it, study it, learn from it, and grow with it, but to receive light hearted pleasure from it regardless of personal and exterior outcome.

This is sort of unrelated to the topic at hand. I just kind of went on a tangent. But its how I see the two approaches to each game separately from design intent, and I think its why Brawl is met with so much friction when talked about under competitive context.

My opponent actually has a point? ****, I don't have a contingency plan for this! Retreat! Full speed retreat!

Seriously though, I think it was the subtlety of the disdain for Brawl in this post that helped me to see your point. To be quite honest with you, I have always enjoyed Melee style more, but I had thought this was merely nostalgia. It's been a long time since I've played Melee after all, because my disk is scratched pretty badly.

I will say this though, even though I'm not convinced it even relates to your post. If we feel owed a game that is as competitive as Melee or even close to be that competitive, or really if we feel owed anything at all, we are in the wrong.

 

[Vkrm]

I don't know about you, but I'm entitled to a lot of things for upwards of 60 dollars.

 

[Mr. Mumbles]

I don't know about you, but I'm entitled to a lot of things for upwards of 60 dollars.

Not really. When you buy a video game the only thing you are owed is for it to actually work. Beyond that the onus is on you to do the research. If you don't feel like doing said research, or are already convinced to buy the game due to previous entries, how is that their fault?

I'm not saying they shouldn't try to make a good game, but entertainment is so subjective, risk is always involved in a purchase.

 

[Vkrm]

Not really. When you buy a video game the only thing you are owed is for it to actually work. Beyond that the onus is on you to do the research. If you don't feel like doing said research, or are already convinced to buy the game due to previous entries, how is that their fault?

How much research can be done without actually owning the game? How many people do you think bought brawl expecting the smash bros experience and got shafted? My point is 60 bones is pretty steep. For that amount of money I think it's fair expect way more than a game that just functions.

 

[Vkrm]

Double post.

 

[Vkrm]

Personally, I'm kind of glad the new game is more like Brawl than Melee. I enjoyed both games, but the satisfaction of knowing that the people that spent all of their time hating on Brawl solely because it wasn't a Melee clone will never get their sequel. Brawl players get exactly what Melee players would have wanted AND we get megaman.

It's delicious.

Project m. Triple post.

 

[gantrain05]

ehhh, i see alot of posts regarding brawl sucking and melee being awesome, guys its 2013, grow up. why does a game have to be retardedly complex and have a million AT's to be "deep" street fighter is "competetive" but that game is shallow as balls. brawl takes alot more work to be good at than street fighter or MvC or really any "traditional" fighting game, you don't have to just memorize combo inputs. imo most of the people i've seen who just want to hate on one game or the other is just being childish and immature. i loved melee and brawl and i'll probably love smash 4. anything can be competetive and fun, it all just depends on how the community wants to handle it.

 

[El Duderino]

ehhh, i see alot of posts regarding brawl sucking and melee being awesome, guys its 2013, grow up. why does a game have to be retardedly complex and have a million AT's to be "deep" street fighter is "competetive" but that game is shallow as balls. brawl takes alot more work to be good at than street fighter or MvC or really any "traditional" fighting game, you don't have to just memorize combo inputs. imo most of the people i've seen who just want to hate on one game or the other is just being childish and immature. i loved melee and brawl and i'll probably love smash 4. anything can be competetive and fun, it all just depends on how the community wants to handle it.

I'm not sure what you are hoping to accomplish here by making these generalizations, calling Street Fighter shallow, and going out of your way to say the skill required for Brawl trumps franchises like MvC. If you want to make a strong case, I would suggest not throwing your credibility so haphazardly out the window. You really come off as someone lacking perspective.

 

[gantrain05]

well basically, street fighter is rock, paper, scissors in a nutshell. its just meh...it hasn't really changed since the snes days and imo, its just not fun anymore. sure they added "flair" and "high def graphics" but its just okay imo, and when everyone outside the smash community is treating smash as a joke game, i can't help but disagree. just in the basic gameplay alone, theres more to smash than any traditional fighter i've played.

 

[SmashChu]

Something that I'd like to shed some light on is the context in which people use the word "competitive."

People use it all the time, and seemingly as blanket statements. "Melee is more competitive than Brawl." But what does that actually mean? If I were to ask a lot of people, for example, what they think makes Melee more competitive as a game, I think a lot of them would come up with answers akin to "its more complex." But to be honest, I'm not even sure I'd get much of an answer since it seems to be its own self perpetuating, self rationalizing blanket statement nowadays.

A competitive game isn't a game that's balanced, or a game that is intensely complex. A competitive game is a game that invokes and perpetuates the need for competition. This usually happens when a game has attributes and characteristics that make it engaging and highly enjoyable, while focusing on a system that rewards and even promotes the players continual progress to becoming better, both as a means to fulfill their own self entitlement, and to beat other players who also play the game for similar reasons.

What a lot of people wind up confusing this with is a game that is designed around balance, or is incredibly in depth, or other such notions. There's a lot more to it than that. Chess is probably one of the most balanced games ever created that is played competitively, and its been said that it is so complex that it would take decades to master. That being said, if someone were to ask me if Chess was more competitive than say, League of Legends, I would have to say no.

There are a wide variety of reasons for this. The wide arrange of appeal, the accessibility, the hype perpetuated by both the community and the company, the ability to identify yourself with aspects in the game, and the list continues. In short, its the ability for a game to entice and excite the passion in the players who play it for the sake of enjoyment while always having new heights to ascend to, goals to reach, and obstacles to overcome, while also having an environment that supports and sustains this for the long term.

The reason people foam at the mouth for Melee is because it did all these things and more. It's the reason why to this day nearly anyone can pick up a copy of it and have a blast, while its more passionate players have kept it going for what is it now? 10+ years? It creates a hole in you for you to fill while also filling it for you. It rewards you for continually playing it.

Brawl isn't as unsuccessful as Melee because it was less balanced or wasn't as complex. I mean, those were big components, but not the primary de facto. The environment Brawl puts the player through is fundamentally different from Melee because Sakurai emphasized its focus less around the continual progression and reward for competition between players, and more about the subjective fairness in each experience from game to game and moment to moment. Brawl at its fundamental foundation did not want to reward you from trying to dissect it, study it, learn from it, and grow with it, but to receive light hearted pleasure from it regardless of personal and exterior outcome.

This is sort of unrelated to the topic at hand. I just kind of went on a tangent. But its how I see the two approaches to each game separately from design intent, and I think its why Brawl is met with so much friction when talked about under competitive context.

Good post. Though one thing to remember is that part of the reason people in the community say Brawl sucks is because it's not Melee. SSB4 will likely such because it's not Melee or "Too close to Brawl." I don't think Brawl rewards you any less. You still have to learn the game. The better player still wins. You still can study it and dissect it. It's just different and tries to remove the barriers and silly techniques most players don't want to deal with. While you make a good point, the issue is more with Melee worship than with Brawl.

 

[El Duderino]

well basically, street fighter is rock, paper, scissors in a nutshell. its just meh...it hasn't really changed since the snes days and imo, its just not fun anymore.

Any fighting game can be reduced to those types of exchanges, even including Smash. What makes a great fighting game is often the subtitles behind it, which yeah, the Street Fighter franchise does have.

As far as change goes, let's not get ahead of ourselves here, Smash 4 is so far not a shinning example of it either.

 

[Reizilla]

Any fighting game can be reduced to those types of exchanges, even including Smash. What makes a great fighting game is often the subtitles behind it, which yeah, the Street Fighter franchise does have.

As far as change goes, let's not get ahead of ourselves here, Smash 4 is so far not a shinning example of it either.

Yes, if only other games could have subtitles like Street Fighter.

 

[BentoBox]

ehhh, i see alot of posts regarding brawl sucking and melee being awesome, guys its 2013, grow up. why does a game have to be retardedly complex and have a million AT's to be "deep" street fighter is "competetive" but that game is shallow as balls. brawl takes alot more work to be good at than street fighter or MvC or really any "traditional" fighting game, you don't have to just memorize combo inputs. imo most of the people i've seen who just want to hate on one game or the other is just being childish and immature. i loved melee and brawl and i'll probably love smash 4. anything can be competetive and fun, it all just depends on how the community wants to handle it.

The irony is so strong.

 

[APC99]

I'm probably dancing on dangerous grounds here, but I'm going to put a twist on it here: I'm not a complete Smash Bros. player. I'm not good at tournaments or texture recreation or anything most of you guys do. I play Smash because I love it. It takes my favorite characters and allows them to fight and make my imagination run wild. I can go home, relax and unwind every day by popping in Melee or Brawl and just enjoying smacking other people. Haters can hate on Smash, but it's their opinion. If somebody says that they prefer Brawl over Melee, is there REALLY need to attack the other person because you prefer Melee? As for Meta Knight, if you're going to be a jerk and use Meta Knight's overpowered abilities just because you want to win, it's not about winning. Meta Knight is kind of like a weapon some people master but others can't. The choice is there, experienced Meta Knight players know that it's too dangerous to use and will get them a lot of hate, but newbies to Meta Knight will use him because of his "Top Tier" status and will not be able to control him correctly. Stages are completely irrelevant like Meta Knight. If you don't like a stage, fine. If a stage has a chance of you losing, fine. You're supposed to accept the risk. If you chose randomly, there would be a chance it could be a normal fight with equal odds, it could be a stage you're really good at, or it could be one you hate with your being. IT WAS RANDOM! By god, you can't just storm out like "I'M DONE NOW! FORGET THIS PILE OF DUMB TOURNAMENT!" Some prefer the Capcom VS. games. Some prefer Street Fighter. Some prefer Tekken. Some prefer Mortal Kombat. Some even prefer Cartoon Network Punch Time Explosion. They're all good games. Does it matter if you can do one thing in Mortal Kombat you can't do in Smash? NO. Why? The games are supposed to be different. Honestly, if all the games were EXACTLY like Melee, we'd be bored. If all the games were like Brawl, we'd be bored. If all the games were like Smash 64, we'd be bored. Smash 4 is going to be different from the past 3 games, and we need to accept that. People may not like certain parts of it. Do you really need to fight someone because you don't like the moves Villager has? You think Miis are a bad rep? They didn't include Batman? Just take a Chill Pill from Dr. Mario and PLAY ON. We are here at Smashboards to talk about Smash and our appreciation. If every member on Smashboards agreed on ONE character (let's just say Geno) and we all signed a petition and sent it to Nintendo, with THAT much support they may actually go ahead and consider Geno big-time. So let's use our power for good. Let's not waste time saying "SMASH 4 SUCKS BALLS!" or "I BET YOU IF SMASH 4 WAS LESS LIKE BRAWL AND MORE LIKE MELEE I MIGHT ACTUALLY CONSIDER ONLY HITTING IT WITH A HAMMER TWICE!" and let's refocus that power on doing what this board was meant to do: Have fans talk about their enjoyment of Smash and speculate. And with that, I'm done. You can hate on me, you can report me, you can even send me rude messages, it'll only prove that you really aren't here to enjoy the game like everyone else.

 

[mimgrim]

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.

I think it's impossible to actually get a game without any programming errors or bugs to be honest. The problem is wether or not if they are game breaking. And for my part if i have ever come across any bugs they were never game breaking. As for unintended compromising game mechanics, again it is almost impossible to have a game without those, espically fighters, programmers are only Hume. It again comes down to wethere it is game breaking. And the game breaking ones that are in Brawl are usually banned from competitive play if I am not mistaken. Melee probably had it's own programming errors and bug in it to and I am quite sure it had unintended game mechanics with some of them being compromising (and no I am not talking about L-cancling or wavedashing as I know L-cancling was made on purpose and that Wavedashing, while made unitnentonally, was left in there on purpose). Now I'm not trying to diss Melee or anything just trying to show that most games will have these kinds of things, sometimes moreso then others, but as long as it nothing game breaking (Like say the bug in Pandora's Tower, when you get to the last towers the game for some people will freeze up when they try to enter it, now that is game breaking). So even if a game has lots and lots of bug, as long as they are not game breaking they are not a problem. aAlright yea Tripping is annoying but hey it beings taken out in Smash4, so just deal with it if you can, I feel like its been whined about enough and is pointless to continue to bring up when it is getting fixed. As for character balance.... Any game that allows you to pick from a roster or whatever is going to have this issue. You will always have that one character that is considered the best character in the game, but at least MK is still beatablein competitive play as if I'm not mistaken a ZSS play defeated a MK player at soemthing called APEX which I presume is a big tourney thing (still new to the competitive scene of Brawl, sooo :/)

Now that I got that out of my system.

I do prefer Brawl of Melee, it plays smoother to me. The main reason I prefer over Melee though is that it is not as combo based or all about combors or combos aren't always guaranteed to happen. I've tried play the "traditonal" Fighters is because I am unable to execute the long azz combos that require you to press so many different buttons in such a short amount of time. Now I realize Melee combos are easier to preform but I still can't preform them good cause I can only press buttons so fast. And this is why I prefer Brawl, it is not as combo based, you aren't always guaranteed to land the combo and you can preform much short combos that don't require you to press several different buttons in a short amount time and be totally fine. It becomes less technical and more strategy, which yes I prefer. Now don't get me wrong, I ain't saying Melee is bad or anything, I still love Melee and have good memories of when I was able to play it with my friends, but Brawl suits me better due to me being unable to preform the combos that require so amny buttons pressed in a short amount of time. Now can you see why some people might prefer Brawl over Melee, even prefer it competivily wise though the competitive scene isn't as big?

Sorry but I felt like I had to get that out there. And again let me state I am not trying to bash Melee just trying to show why I, and maybe some other people, prefer Brawl over Melee, but I still think Melee is a great game.


Inb4Igetflamednowforpostingmyopinion.

 

[Vkrm]

I feel that literally everybody who plays brawl exclusively never experienced melee in a competitive setting.

 

[mimgrim]

I feel that literally everybody who plays brawl exclusively never experienced melee in a competitive setting.

I've watched videos of competitive Melee, as I was curious about that scene since I started seeing all these discussion. To much technical stuff for me, and I don't mean L-cancle or Wave Dash as if I had known about that a long time ago I probably would have tried those 2 things out since they seem simpler then performing long azz combos, and I'm just not good at preforming all thos long combos, and believe me i actually have tried. It just is not my cup of tea. Is that so hard to understand? >_>

 

[Ogre_Deity_Link]

I feel that literally everybody who plays brawl exclusively never experienced melee in a competitive setting.

I've seen people play competitive Melee at what was ironically a Brawl tournament. (Few people who loved Melee decided to have their own tourney) I was IMMEDIATELY turned off. It was quite possibly one of the most boring things I'd ever seen. Now, before everyone jumps down my throat, this is entirely my opinion. I'm sure there's people out there who love the tourney scene, and good on 'em. Just saying, not everyone who loves Brawl is blind and has no idea what the competitive scene looks like. For some of us? It's the exact opposite of what we want.

 

[StarshipGroove]

Seeing Melee being played is not the same thing as experiencing it.

If SSB4 succeeds it will be on its merits. (Or on the strenght of its cast for the casuals)

 

[Terrazi Terrajin]

Melee tournaments have a twice as potent smell of body odor in the air compared to brawl tournaments.