Gamespot Sakurai Interview: Character Customization, Smash a '4-player Battle Royal Action game'

[Dark Phazon]

Pretty much any and everything Sakurai says about this game is going to be heavily analyzed and distorted.

RealTalk
..thats why i dont come here as often anymore...to much Bull* drama....whatever happens happens...i couldnt care less anymore....

 

[[Corn]]

That's exactly where the analogy falls apart, that single concept is not at all consistent. The two forms of competition differ and have unique entertainment values.

It's an apples to oranges comparison.

Wasnt he comparing the 50 yard dash to Not be like Smash? Cause thats what I got out of it.

He wanted Smash not to be just about one aspect of things, for example speed. What I understand, he wanted a holy trio of skills that will be needed, but not a singlular one will win a match if the other two arent somewhat decent.

Speed/Technical Inputs, Reading/Prediction, and Character Knowledge.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

He isn't saying that the 50 yard dash is like fighting games or Smash, he's talking about the concept of knowing the outcome of the match from the offset being undesirable.

I'm completely lost as to how people can be confused with this and make the analogy to be anything more than that.

Is the point being made that in Smash this is a quality that isn't undesirable because of the differences?

 

[El Duderino]

Wasnt he comparing the 50 yard dash to Not be like Smash?

He isn't saying that the 50 yard dash is like fighting games or Smash, he's talking about the concept of knowing the outcome of the match from the offset being undesirable.

Sakurai is talking about his idea of what pure-competition is (50m dash), what its own entertainment value setbacks are, and then relates it to fighting games. All I've suggested, as well as others in this thread, is that the interaction differences make it difficult to directly carry these conclusions over.

 

[[Corn]]

Sakurai is talking about his idea of what pure-competition is (50m dash), what its own entertainment value setbacks are, and then relates it to fighting games. All I've suggested, as well as others in this thread, is that the interaction differences make it difficult to directly carry these conclusions over.

What I got out of it, was that he doesnt like the idea of victory in competition to be based or noticable due to a single strength, he would like it to be a multitude of skills together.

 

[El Duderino]

What I got out of it, was that he doesnt like the idea of victory in competition to be based or noticable due to a single strength, he would like it to be a multitude of skills together.

Which is already what fighting games are about, at least the decent ones anyways.

 

[[Corn]]

Which is already what fighting games are about, at least the decent ones anyways.

I understand that, which is why his comparison makes sense to a good game to watch/play.

 

[Erimir]

ETA: About that analogy. It did seem to mostly be about the inevitability of the faster runner winning.

And the fact that it's not a sport with interaction doesn't matter much for the point of that. Of course, items and such add this element of unpredictability and they'll be able to be turned off just like before.

Not sure why people are reading this as him introducing more things like tripping when we already know that tripping is out and because people didn't like it. Looks like there will be plenty of neutral stages.

I read it more as wanting to make sure that the people who like unpredictability and like games like Mario Kart will be able to enjoy it as well, not as forcing everyone to play it that way.

Problem with doing so today is that online play is a must. People didn't complain about Melee because they were playing with their friends, so unless your friend was Gimpyfish you'd probably not be that far outmatched. If Melee was released today with a total lag-free online play, the newbie would get completely crushed, and before he could play online he'd have to sit down and practice L-Cancelling, Wave Dashing, Dash Dancing etc.
[...]
The one thing Smash Bros has over all other fighters is that it's all about fun, we each see fun in a different way of course, that's why the best solution is to hit the middle ground. It's not fun for everyone to sit down and practice stupid techniques, but it's not fun for everyone either to not have any techniques to practice, it's a dilemma which can't be solved.

I agree with most of this post.

At the same time I definitely want a more Melee-like experience than Brawl. I definitely hate random tripping in Brawl and I prefer the pace of Melee. I liked Melee's system better despite not being an advanced/tourney player - I never bothered mastering wavedashing and so forth. But I am competitive when I play games... just not dedicated enough for that. I identify with a lot of what Jack Kieser said about why I enjoy Smash more than other fighters. So I'm glad to hear that Smash4 will be more like Melee. But I don't want wavedashing and I'd prefer auto-cancelling. Wavedashing was never intended and Sakurai probably wouldn't have included it had he known what was going to happen with it. I like the faster play enabled by L-canceling, but I don't see any particular reason it needs to be in the game. My guess is that neither feature is returning, so I'm pretty happy about the direction it's taking - no tripping, faster pace, better balance, but not a game where high-level play is all about constantly doing little hop jumps and air dodges.

The problem with this argument is that Brawl was not capable of having competitive matches online, you only get to play with friends, obviously of your own choosing, or randomly. There's almost no chance of finding a tournament player or highly skilled player on the other end, as they're a tiny percentage of players, unless you go out of your way to find them.

I'm still competitive and I definitely hope that the online play is much much better than before. Getting rid of lag, making it possible to friend people you've matched against randomly, some kind of ranking system, etc. I'd like all of that. Because I don't have a lot of people to play against in real life and I'd like to be able to play against people who are near my skill level.

At the same time, I want there to be options that are fun for casuals.

So like I said, the fact that Sakurai is going for a middle ground between Melee and Brawl is exactly what I wanted (hopefully like 60% Melee and 40% Brawl).

This is why I find it baffling that Sakurai adds features to Smash Bros. that are meant to make it less competitive. They don't actually do that, all they do is hamper competitive play. It's reminiscent of DRM in how it shuts you down if you try to do anything 'illegal,' but it's up to the players to do what they want with the game and Nintendo trying to force them to play one way is reprehensible.

I'm not sure what you're referring to aside from tripping, which thankfully won't be in Smash4...

Do you actually mean the removal of features like L-canceling and wavedashing?

Sure doesn't always work, you'll always find players who start a new account just to bash the noobs. I haven't played a single game with an ELO or level system which isn't plagued by this.

A simple way to deal with that is to take into account margins of victory, I suppose. If you beat the crap out of someone, you get a lot more points than if you merely won. In which case, to maintain your low rating you'd have to purposely let them beat on you, which would remove a lot of the "fun" of doing that.

I really hope they have a good online system.

 

[HeroMystic]

Initially, this article seems to antagonize competitive players, but on closer glance, it isn't. All Sakurai is really saying is he wants to keep Smash accessible to everyone.

And I can relate to this as I've played in one of the biggest competitive games at the moment, Starcraft II. The multiplayer scene is not all that accessible due to the incredibly high skill cieling, and a lot of people shy away from multiplayer because the skill gap between a newbie and a veteran is often night and day. Some would say this is how it should be, and I would opt to agree, but I can also stand with Sakurai when he says Fighting Games should stop being a "hobbyist genre", in that it takes a lot of dedication time to get decent at the game. This is why I stopped playing Starcraft II, because while I always want to get better at the game, I realized it ultimately doesn't matter because I'll never be as good as Pro-level players or Korean players because they practically breathe Starcraft II.

Though, I don't agree with his comparison to Melee and Brawl. Melee is perfectly accessible to any audience, and I can attest to that as I've played with competitive melee players when I was just a novice. The skill gap is wider, but that's really because there's a lot of depth to the game, and all it really takes is watching a few videos and a few practice matches.

 

[SmashChu]

Looking at some of the post, it seems some people here are saying "This game needs to be made for MY taste." I expect some people are looking at this from a emotional standpoint and not a rational one.

Melee sold over 7 million copies and Brawl over 11 million. There are a lot of people who play and enjoy Smash. It's Sakurai's job to try and please as many people as he can. So he can't just listen to a vocal Smash Brothers community site that has only about 1 percent of all players. Sakuari is clearly trying to please the vocal minority as well. The game will be faster than Brawl. It wont have tripping. Both were criticism of Brawl from the vocal Smash Boards crowd. So he is listening, but he has to make the game for everyone. Not just the vocal minority. So things like accessibility need to be considered. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or so they say.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Let me spell out what he's saying in different terms as it makes a lot of sense and is a sensible design philosophy.

Most fighting games are built solely for "competition" in a particular sense. The game is about a road of continuous improvement for players, and the design is built exclusively to propel people along that road. Those games don't tend to be accessible since overcoming the difficult controls etc. is a part of the road, and in the end, those controls can give very skilled players a lot of options. This has some real appeal, but in the end, it's pretty niche. Honestly if you're on a site like smashboards you're probably more inclined to look at these games like that, and to be honest I sure do myself, but most people aren't looking for this kind of experience.

Sakurai is saying that smash includes that but also includes a lot more stuff. There are many ways to play the smash games with the traditional "competitive" method of play only being one of them. In his design, he's seeking to make a game that can appeal to as broad of a base as possible and that can engage people on many different levels. He seems to be suggesting in this and a few other interviews that his "compromise" design is meant to appeal to everyone. Some people don't understand the word "everyone" so I'll spell it out. We the tournament scene are people and are a part of "everyone". We're being aimed at. Non-competitive players are also a part of "everyone". They too are being aimed at. "Everyone" who is drawn to smash is being aimed at with his design philosophy being to increase his spread rather than narrow the target; it's supposed to be a big tent game.

As per the gameplay point, he's saying that being able to adapt to situations on the fly is a skill he considers important. Random events may be a part of that (though not necessarily the only thing); you can't just have a plan from the start and have your victory defined on your execution of that plan. The game is supposed to create circumstances that force you off-script and require you to adapt. This is in no way anti-competitive.

For my part, I welcome this direction. In the end, what makes our scene succeed is a broad base of players. Every smash game, even the Brawl that some of you don't seem to like so much, is far beyond the minimum level of depth required for solid tournament level play. A game that can appeal to as many people as possible, bringing in more potential players, stream viewers, supporters, etc., is the best game for us.

I'd also point out something important here. The game will be what the game will be. It's useless to stress out too much over anything Sakurai says since, in the end, the game's design is not something we control. The way Sakurai tends to word things seems apt to confuse a lot of people on here anyway; I read his words twisted so many ways back when Brawl was the popular topic of argument. It's smarter to just take a lot of his statements at face value (the objective things like game speed, tripping is out, both versions will have the same characters but different stages, etc.) and otherwise just focus on the game itself. There's not a lot of need to argue with each other trying to convince others about the virtues of this or that in terms of the design since, in the end, not only is it probably pretty hard to win those arguments, but even if you did, it wouldn't really do anything for you.

 

[Revven]

RealTalk
..thats why i dont come here as often anymore...to much Bull* drama....whatever happens happens...i couldnt care less anymore....

What's with this attitude? How is this drama? It's taking apart an interview where Sakurai was asked a loaded question and he tried to answer it with a terrible analogy, showing he has no understanding of competitive fighting games, much less competitive Smash.

Is it not okay to be skeptical? Is it not okay to be cynical? Are we expected to be 100% hyped happytime all the time? Like, what do you expect? This is a forum to share/express opinions and share info (whether it's about Smash 4 or competitive stuff). Personally, the kind of discussion that is interesting to me is analyzing the words of this man who introduced tripping in 2008's latest release of the Super Smash Bros. series and I'll be damned if I'm told I can't examine what he says just because it offends you that we don't agree with what he's saying. I want to understand this man's perspective more, since he has gone quiet ever since he released Brawl, and now that he's come out of his shell to speak again this is a chance to try and understand his perspective a bit more.

If you don't like this discussion, then don't make a post or view the thread. You won't be swaying people (like me) who want to actually talk about what Sakurai says and tear it apart. THIS is the kind of info that we need to be paying more attention to, not filtered Nintendo PR crap (this includes trailers and screenshots as things shown in those are subject to change).

And thus, my take away from this interview question is simple: Sakurai has learned nothing over the years since Brawl, other than he has learned there's some group of players who are loud and vocal about Melee and want some of that speed back. He doesn't see tripping as a toxic gameplay mechanic and had we not been vocal about it, he very well would have kept it in for Smash 4.

Look, I'm glad you're at least trying to compromise, Sakurai. But it's clear your views of Melee have not changed since '08 (which is extremely depressing) and your views of accessibility vs depth have also barely changed. That said, with the feedback taken in at least you're trying to appease everybody, even if it's only meeting some of that "everybody" halfway.

But your position as Director still, coupled with these remarks, leads me to continue to be skeptical and cynical about this next installment. I will continue to keep my expectations in check unlike last time; I learned my lesson and this interview solidifies that stance further.

 

[Pseudomaniac]

Sakurai's always loved the elements of randomness and accessibility. Look back at Melee. Items are hugely random, and most of the stages are too. This is probably what he's referring to by "randomness".

And he's right about competitive fighters. They cater to a niche audience and everyone else (myself included) find them insanely boring to watch. I only enjoy watching competitive Smash because of (guess what) the element of "randomness"; the emphasis on mindgaming, reading, and coming up with combos on the spot that makes the game much more entertaining to watch than, say, Street Fighter or MvC. Unlike most fighters, it's very hard to tell who the winner is until the very end.

And for people complaining that he only cares about money, knock it off. If he only cared about money, SSB would be coming out yearly like CoD, he wouldn't have made any compromises between Brawl and Melee fans, and the game would just be Brawl with HD graphics and more characters. He wants to make the game appealing to a mass audience because, guess what, he makes games for the largest amount of people to enjoy, not for a small minority of players that just simply whined the loudest.

Also, I have spoken to people who thought that Melee was too fast and chaotic. They just don't show up on Smashboards because, simply, they aren't hardcore players. I personally only played Melee when I was a kid and before I even knew there was a competitive scene and haven't really revisited it since. However, Project M is currently my go-to game for when I'm bored and looking for something fun to do, and my brother and I play pretty competitively.

Finally, having to do with accessibility and depth being mutually exclusive; unfortunately, they aren't anymore. Starcraft II is a perfect example. On the surface, the game is pretty easy and self-explanatory. If it were just a group of friends playing it on LAN with each other and they were all of similar skill, it would probably be pretty fun to play. But the moment one of them stepped online, they would be crushed by far superior players and would probably become discouraged and quit the game (which is exactly what I did with Starcraft). If Melee were played online, it would be the same deal. Having a high skill ceiling can make stepping into online multiplayer a very discouraging experience to the average player.

 

[Erimir]

And for people complaining that he only cares about money, knock it off. If he only cared about money, SSB would be coming out yearly like CoD, he wouldn't have made any compromises between Brawl and Melee fans, and the game would just be Brawl with HD graphics and more characters. He wants to make the game appealing to a mass audience because, guess what, he makes games for the largest amount of people to enjoy, not for a small minority of players that just simply whined the loudest.

Also, he cares about making fun games, but he always want more fun for more people, not just the hardcore players.

So I agree, I don't think he's being a money-grubber. Sakurai's responsible for the Kirby series, so he pretty clearly cares about making fun games that casual players and young children can enjoy. It's not surprising that he sides more with casuals than tourney players, and it's not indicative of him selling out compared to before.

He's not ignoring the hardcore players though, and I do hope he gets the balance right because even though I'm not super hardcore I still would like it to be more like Melee. Somewhere in between is the sweet spot.

 

[SKM_NeoN]

Also, I have spoken to people who thought that Melee was too fast and chaotic. They just don't show up on Smashboards because, simply, they aren't hardcore players.

Are you serious? Do you teach preschool or something?

When I first played Melee I played as casually as you can imagine. Jumped with the joystick, played with all items on, had no idea who Ken or Isai were, never visited a Smash Bros. forum in my life. DODGE ROLLING felt like a technical skill far beyond that of my skill level. Yet I never felt overwhelmed. I found the game extremely easy to play. Melee is a very accessible fighting game that just so happens to have a high ceiling. That's what makes it so great.

Finally, having to do with accessibility and depth being mutually exclusive; unfortunately, they aren't anymore. Starcraft II is a perfect example. On the surface, the game is pretty easy and self-explanatory. If it were just a group of friends playing it on LAN with each other and they were all of similar skill, it would probably be pretty fun to play. But the moment one of them stepped online, they would be crushed by far superior players and would probably become discouraged and quit the game (which is exactly what I did with Starcraft). If Melee were played online, it would be the same deal. Having a high skill ceiling can make stepping into online multiplayer a very discouraging experience to the average player.

Awwww boohoo. "Someone kicked my butt online. How come I can't beat these guys without doing any research or practice? I quit! Back to Farmville"

If these are the people SSB4 will cater to we're in trouble.

Edit: After reading this response the next morning I realize I may have sounded a bit like a butt. My apologies.

 

[Mr.Showtime]

Sakurai's always loved the elements of randomness and accessibility. Look back at Melee. Items are hugely random, and most of the stages are too. This is probably what he's referring to by "randomness".

And he's right about competitive fighters. They cater to a niche audience and everyone else (myself included) find them insanely boring to watch. I only enjoy watching competitive Smash because of (guess what) the element of "randomness"; the emphasis on mindgaming, reading, and coming up with combos on the spot that makes the game much more entertaining to watch than, say, Street Fighter or MvC. Unlike most fighters, it's very hard to tell who the winner is until the very end.

And for people complaining that he only cares about money, knock it off. If he only cared about money, SSB would be coming out yearly like CoD, he wouldn't have made any compromises between Brawl and Melee fans, and the game would just be Brawl with HD graphics and more characters. He wants to make the game appealing to a mass audience because, guess what, he makes games for the largest amount of people to enjoy, not for a small minority of players that just simply whined the loudest.

Also, I have spoken to people who thought that Melee was too fast and chaotic. They just don't show up on Smashboards because, simply, they aren't hardcore players. I personally only played Melee when I was a kid and before I even knew there was a competitive scene and haven't really revisited it since. However, Project M is currently my go-to game for when I'm bored and looking for something fun to do, and my brother and I play pretty competitively.

Finally, having to do with accessibility and depth being mutually exclusive; unfortunately, they aren't anymore. Starcraft II is a perfect example. On the surface, the game is pretty easy and self-explanatory. If it were just a group of friends playing it on LAN with each other and they were all of similar skill, it would probably be pretty fun to play. But the moment one of them stepped online, they would be crushed by far superior players and would probably become discouraged and quit the game (which is exactly what I did with Starcraft). If Melee were played online, it would be the same deal. Having a high skill ceiling can make stepping into online multiplayer a very discouraging experience to the average player.

Why would competition make people unmotivated? So you are saying that only if they win, the game is fun? What is the purpose for playing the game in the first place.....?

My Opinion (Please Note): If a game gives me a challenge, its enjoyable. I'm sure others disagree with me, which is fine. That is why there are stages in the Smash series with a random variable. That is why there are items in the game.

BUT (this is where you are wrong)

Removing the competitive play in order to make a game "fun" (which is honestly impossible to do, due to there not existing a true definition of fun) , is going in the total wrong direction. When you add mechanics in purposely to persuade more people to play your game.....that's a marketing trait. That is why I stated earlier that I feel money is becoming a centrifugal force for the production of this game. Does he deserve money? Sure. Does he realize that forcing people to play casually will make him lose a good 15-40% of his player base? I'm not sure.... Can't tell to be honest.

Your statement about Starcraft is untrue at most. First off, if people do not want to play online.....they have that option. When you force a game to be played competitively (Brawl), the competitive option is taken away. By keeping the competitive aspects while having the ability to play causally is a great game design decision. This hits all markets. Guess what....both the original Smash and Melee succeeded in doing this. Just because "your" friends could not compete into tournaments, means that they are not skilled enough (at the moment) to take on a feat such as this. In Melee, you had the option to play for fun, you had the option to play competitively. Instead of complaining how unskilled you are....practice....if not, don't play competitively...you have that option. It's quite simple, really. The competitive community and I do not want to be on par with other players who have no practice. In all honestly, this can easily be seen as a communist way of gaming. Regardless of how good you are, you still have a chance to lose. Everyone has a chance. Why should someone unskilled be on equal footing with me? If I have a harder job, I should be getting paid more compared to someone who does not even have an education.....Do you see where I'm going with this?

As a last note, I think you are confused on what I was complaining about. I do not want the game to be fully casual nor do I want the game to be fully hardcore. The middle-ground that he has been speaking of in his past posts is what I'm looking for. A choice!

 

[EdreesesPieces]

How are fighting games hard to get into? I used to play street fighter 2 as a 6 year old and I had a ton of fun. Honestly sounds to me like Sakurai is just sucky at video games, and I'd beat players who were 12, 13. Tekken was a game tons of people got into when ps2 came out. He has no basis to claim that fighting games are hard to get into for new players. As long as the new players are playing other new players, i see no issues whatsoever. It's not like a noob is ever gonna beat a good player at any video game ever, whether its brawl or melee, so I don't see his point .

No matter what they did to Brawl, you still aren't going to see M2K even so much as lose a stock In brawl to someone who just learned how to play a smash game. So why all this effort? I just don't get it. Brawl is a highly competitive game, so I just can't comprehend what his point is here.

It doesn't matter what he does to a game. Players who practice and learn the game will always beat new players REALLY badly. I've never played a video game in my life that I didn't practice hard, and then wasn't able to completely destroy new players. The only way to do that is to make the game completely random and based on luck. So I don't understand what he is trying to accomplish. It's a sad, and lost cause.

The only thing he can accomplish is narrowing the gap between decent players and great players, which IMO is what Brawl did. But he says he's trying to help NEW players into the game, and "decent" players are NOT new players, theyve been playing for years. There's just no logic to this.

Does anyone seriously think a new player has a better chance at beating M2K in brawl than a new player does in Melee? He's gonna get destroyed as much either way. These competitive changes are only gonna change the result between M2K, and say, a player like me, and I'm not a new player.

TLDR: I don't mind if he wants to get new players into the games, but he is DELUSIONAL if he thinks the changes he made in Brawl help new players whatsoever in beating highly skilled players. It did absolutely nothing in that regard. A new player picks up the game, plays as a character who gets chain grabbed by DDD, I dont even use DDD and I will demolish him. Too many aspects for him to control, he's not gonna get it done.

 

[Mr.Showtime]

How are fighting games hard to get into? I used to play street fighter 2 as a 6 year old and I had a ton of fun. Honestly sounds to me like Sakurai is just sucky at video games, and I'd beat players who were 12, 13. Tekken was a game tons of people got into when ps2 came out. He has no basis to claim that fighting games are hard to get into for new players. As long as the new players are playing other new players, i see no issues whatsoever. It's not like a noob is ever gonna beat a good player at any video game ever, whether its brawl or melee, so I don't see his point .

No matter what they did to Brawl, you still aren't going to see M2K even so much as lose a stock In brawl to someone who just learned how to play a smash game. So why all this effort? I just don't get it. Brawl is a highly competitive game, so I just can't comprehend what his point is here.

It doesn't matter what he does to a game. Players who practice and learn the game will always beat new players REALLY badly. I've never played a video game in my life that I didn't practice hard, and then wasn't able to completely destroy new players. The only way to do that is to make the game completely random and based on luck. So I don't understand what he is trying to accomplish. It's a sad, and lost cause.

The only thing he can accomplish is narrowing the gap between decent players and great players, which IMO is what Brawl did. But he says he's trying to help NEW players into the game, and "decent" players are NOT new players, theyve been playing for years. There's just no logic to this.

Does anyone seriously think a new player has a better chance at beating M2K in brawl than a new player does in Melee? He's gonna get destroyed as much either way. These competitive changes are only gonna change the result between M2K, and say, a player like me, and I'm not a new player.

TLDR: I don't mind if he wants to get new players into the games, but he is DELUSIONAL if he thinks the changes he made in Brawl help new players whatsoever in beating highly skilled players. It did absolutely nothing in that regard. A new player picks up the game, plays as a character who gets chain grabbed by DDD, I dont even use DDD and I will demolish him. Too many aspects for him to control, he's not gonna get it done.

That was also one of my points. Regardless of how hard and try to make a competitive game casual (unless the game totally revolves around randomness), a professional gamer will always beat you.

I wasn't quite talking about how Brawl is purely not competitive, I was using Brawl as an example of trying to make a competitive-like game noncompetitive by trying to add in factors such as tripping.

 

[Aduross]

Smash Bros has always been about accessibility. Simple controls, simple mechanics, easy to understand. I think he's just saying he is staying that course with the next installment. What exactly that means for the competitive side of things I can't say. I got super excited for Brawl, and was let down extremely. Mostly by the awful online experience among other things. For this next game, I'll follow the news and enjoy the hype, but I'm not getting overly invested. I learned my lesson and I'm fully ready for this game to disappoint me. But until we get a better look at it, I'm not gonna worry. It's still a long way from release.

 

[Jack Kieser]

ITT: "Other people's experiences are different from mine, therefore they are wrong."

 

[soviet prince]

honestly trying to play a match where the player kills you with one huge combo before you get to even make a move yourself is not fun. a middle ground is defiantly needed.

 

[smashmachine]

the casual base that is currently running away from the Wii U?
sure

 

[Pseudomaniac]

Are you serious? Do you teach preschool or something?

I'm in high school close enough.

Also, I guess I should have clarified in my original post that I don't approve of Sakurai basically neutering Brawl. Tripping annoyed casual and competitive players alike, and matches lasted waaaay too long because of floaty characters and magnetic ledges.

Also, I didn't say that I approved of the online problem. I simply stated that it exists and that it's a fallacy to keep saying a game can be accessible and have a high skill ceiling. The Starcraft example I gave was just to illuminate my point. When I bought Starcraft, I knew I would probably lose my first few matches online due to inexperience and the game not having a chance to rank me. But then I kept losing and realized I didn't have the time to invest in getting better at the game and gave up on it since I didn't buy the game to play offline against the AI. SSB4 does have a slight advantage in that offline multiplayer is much easier, but the online issue is still present because some people will buy it just for online. I think that it's an issue that has to be taken into consideration is all. I'm not saying the way Sakurai handled it in Brawl was the right way to go. Something as simple as different playlists would work.

I hope that made sense. I'm pretty tired and typed that up really fast.

 

[Mr. Mumbles]

I'm in high school close enough.

Also, I guess I should have clarified in my original post that I don't approve of Sakurai basically neutering Brawl. Tripping annoyed casual and competitive players alike, and matches lasted waaaay too long because of floaty characters and magnetic ledges.

Also, I didn't say that I approved of the online problem. I simply stated that it exists and that it's a fallacy to keep saying a game can be accessible and have a high skill ceiling. The Starcraft example I gave was just to illuminate my point. When I bought Starcraft, I knew I would probably lose my first few matches online due to inexperience and the game not having a chance to rank me. But then I kept losing and realized I didn't have the time to invest in getting better at the game and gave up on it since I didn't buy the game to play offline against the AI. SSB4 does have a slight advantage in that offline multiplayer is much easier, but the online issue is still present because some people will buy it just for online. I think that it's an issue that has to be taken into consideration is all. I'm not saying the way Sakurai handled it in Brawl was the right way to go. Something as simple as different playlists would work.

I hope that made sense. I'm pretty tired and typed that up really fast.

It's one of the most sensible things I have read on this thread. Props.

 

[Revven]

And he's right about competitive fighters. They cater to a niche audience and everyone else (myself included) find them insanely boring to watch. I only enjoy watching competitive Smash because of (guess what) the element of "randomness"; the emphasis on mindgaming, reading, and coming up with combos on the spot that makes the game much more entertaining to watch than, say, Street Fighter or MvC. Unlike most fighters, it's very hard to tell who the winner is until the very end.

Who is this "everyone else"? Are you grouping together all Smash players, here? I find this an extremely gross exaggeration and huge assumption on your part. And your remarks about other fighting games only shows you have no understanding about them... because you say that Smash has mind games, reading, and "coming up with combos". Guess where all of that originated from? Fighting games. Smash didn't invent those ideas, those ideas aren't exclusive to Smash.

If you actually spent any amount of time in your day to tune into a stream of a tournament that had SSFIV, Marvel, P4A, Tekken, etc you would immediately notice all those fighting games share the exact same things you're talking about: mind games, reading, and "coming up with combos" (well, the last bit is something you have to "figure out" based on the systems in place and they aren't freeflow). You've misrepresented what other fighting games are like; acting like they share no similarities with Smash at all... when they do.

You wanna know the real reason why people play Smash and not traditional fighting games? Because it's a game that's easy to pick up but has insane depth to it. The buttons are all very simple, you have one button for your aerials, smash attacks, tilts, etc. and you have one button for your specials. How you use those moves is where the depth lies and it can go even further than that with the game's systems/mechanics (as seen in all three games). Traditional fighting games are harder to pick up from the get-go, it has an issue of understanding them too but they're really not all that dissimilar from Smash.

Traditional fighting games typically have three punch buttons (with a low variation) and three kick buttons (with a low variation) and to perform specials you need to do a specific motion with the stick and press one of the six buttons. It's much more complex in nature just from that standpoint alone: buttons. But once you get over that barrier to entry, the games aren't all that dissimilar from Smash. You have combos, reads, mind games, zoning, spacing, blocking, etc etc. All of the concepts are practically the same with small differences in the systems that... obviously make them different (i.e shields vs blocking) but the general idea behind a shield is blocking.

There are plenty of Smash players who, because of Smash, got into traditional fighting games. Look at Alukard or Forward for example. Both are (mostly Alukard) prominent Marvel 3 players now, you'll almost always see Alukard on streams for Majors that have Marvel 3. He wouldn't have probably got into Marvel 3 if it weren't for Smash and he probably wouldn't be as good in Marvel 3 if nothing transferred over. But things like mind gaming, reading, techskill, etc DO transfer over and that's a big reason why he's so successful in Marvel 3.

I can understand if you just don't like traditional fighters, but at least try to understand that they aren't some kind of alien thing no one can understand. It's really not that hard to see what the players are doing in a given match in SSFIV. And it's really not that hard to tell who is winning or losing, there are health bars and commentators explaining what the players are doing.

 

[SonicFlash]

._. Taking it too far guys.

 

[DefenseTech]

And he's right about competitive fighters. They cater to a niche audience and everyone else (myself included) find them insanely boring to watch. I only enjoy watching competitive Smash because of (guess what) the element of "randomness"; the emphasis on mindgaming, reading, and coming up with combos on the spot that makes the game much more entertaining to watch than, say, Street Fighter or MvC. Unlike most fighters, it's very hard to tell who the winner is until the very end.

This is one of the dumbest statements I have ever read in my life.

http://youtu.be/KS7hkwbKmBM

 

[HeroMystic]

._. Taking it too far guys.

How so? This is pretty tame compared to when Brawl was released.

Also, I didn't say that I approved of the online problem. I simply stated that it exists and that it's a fallacy to keep saying a game can be accessible and have a high skill ceiling. The Starcraft example I gave was just to illuminate my point. When I bought Starcraft, I knew I would probably lose my first few matches online due to inexperience and the game not having a chance to rank me. But then I kept losing and realized I didn't have the time to invest in getting better at the game and gave up on it since I didn't buy the game to play offline against the AI.

Pretty much this. Starcraft 1 had a horrid matchmaking system, and while Starcraft 2 has a much better matchmaking system, it doesn't fix it's problem that getting better takes a lot of dedication time. Again, this isn't a problem for the people that actually do put in that dedication time, but for people like me, who tried to go from Bronze to Masters (I only made it to the top of Platinum), it's very exhausting. Personally, when I play competitive games, I want to get better. But I want to enjoy this process as well. Eventually I got burned out and haven't touched the game for an entire year so far. It doesn't help that Starcraft has one of the most insulting communities as well.

Admittedly Starcraft is an extreme example, as it's probably the hardest competitive game to master. However, it's a crowning example of having an extremely wide gap between Novice players and Veteran players (and pro players are on a completely different planet). It's one of those reasons why I agree with Sakurai when he says Fighting games should stop being a hobbyist genre.

 

[Renji64]

You are suppose to learn to get good at a game it gives your money's worth. The more accessible these games become the less depth they seem to have.

 

[Kyu Puff]

"When you look at fighting game forums, you'll see a preference for Melee, and yet, I think there are lots of people in the silent majority who don't post online who prefer Brawl. Ever since I started working on the Kirby series, I've always thought about the needs of the less vocal, beginning players of games."

I'm sure there are a lot of people who prefer Brawl, but why does he assume it's the majority? It's like he put so much work into Brawl that he can't even entertain the possibility of Melee being the better game.

I know a lot of casual players who prefer Melee. Casual players don't usually care about game speed--they're oblivious to mechanics like l-cancelling and wavedashing. In my experience, casual players tend to prefer the game they grew up with--people who started with Melee prefer Melee and people who started with Brawl prefer Brawl. So it's weird that Sakurai keeps focusing on "game speed", like newer players will be turned off by a game because it's "too fast". How will they know it's too fast when they are limited by the speed of their fingers?

The truth is, newer players will eat the game up, even if it's a steaming pile of crap. So rather than "slowing the game down" for newer players, he should focus on making it fun, and complex, with a lot to discover. Newer players will have freedom to come up with their own strategies. Unless they happen to be friends with someone competitive, they will never even know that they're barely scratching the surface, and the depth of the game shouldn't deter them.

It should never be a goal to "level the playing field".

 

[Erimir]

the casual base that is currently running away from the Wii U?
sure

Are you suggesting they make it for hardcores and ignore casuals because they aren't on the Wii U right now?

Because I mean, it's not like bringing a multi-million selling franchise that casuals love to the Wii U will help them with that problem. They should just make it for hardcores and forget about getting that casual base to come back.

 

[HeroMystic]

You are suppose to learn to get good at a game it gives your money's worth. The more accessible these games become the less depth they seem to have.

I agree with your first statement but not with the second. Easy accessibility doesn't equate to less depth. IMO, Melee did this perfectly, which is why I disagree with Sakurai's comments towards it.

 

[Mr.Showtime]

I feel like no one reads my posts. Too long I guess?

 

[Revven]

I agree with your first statement but not with the second. Easy accessibility doesn't equate to less depth. IMO, Melee did this perfectly, which is why I disagree with Sakurai's comments towards it.

Yes, it's established that Sakurai has this "accessibility and depth are mutually exclusive" or "casual play and competitive play are mutually exclusive" philosophy going on. He thinks you can't have both, you have to have one or the other. His views have not changed since 2008 and that's why it's worth being concerned/skeptical still about this game going forward.

People who brush these comments under the rug don't realize that these are the thoughts he has going into making the game and more often than not, what Sakurai "thinks" is usually what is represented in his Smash games.

His goals with Smash 64 were to create a "fighting game" that was easy to pick up and play. Smash 64 only had five main buttons compared to a typical 2D fighter: A, B, C button, R, and Z with its simple to understand mechanics Smash 64 matched what his philosophy/goal was at the time.

His goals for Melee were to continue on from 64 and refine it further. He set out to make it for the "hardcore" Nintendo fans and while it kept the majority of what 64 introduced, it expanded upon it with a new move and a whole slew of new mechanics. I'm not sure what his philosophy was for Melee, but the target audience he has claimed before was for "hardcore" players. It's funny how his philosophy mirrored Nintendo's at the time (Nintendo was after the core gamer)

His goals for Brawl were to make something that wasn't Melee or 64 and appealed to casual gamers. His thoughts/philosophy going into make this game was the idea of "everyone winning". He wanted to make it super accessible so any old joe can win and narrow the gap between a high level player and a low level player. Did he succeed? I don't really know. I know that he made the game that way, though, mirroring his thoughts 5 years before the game came out. It's funny how his philosophy mirrored Nintendo's at the time (Nintendo was after the casual gamer). It's also interesting to note that this is the FIRST time he has explicitly come out with the idea that "each Smash game is different" and that was intentional on his part. (I, personally, don't buy it because Smash 64 and Melee play so much more similarly than they do differently).

And now we have this game, where so far while he's trying to cater to both groups, he still has these really narrow minded thoughts about competition and what his AUDIENCE wants. That's worrying to me because it means we really might not get anything more than a "speed" enhancement while every other mechanic from Brawl (even ones that were coded incorrectly!) remains the same.

 

[Big-Cat]

This thread reminds me of how so many Smash players don't understand how fighting games work and why they have so much appeal.

 

[SKM_NeoN]

I'm in high school close enough.

Also, I guess I should have clarified in my original post that I don't approve of Sakurai basically neutering Brawl. Tripping annoyed casual and competitive players alike, and matches lasted waaaay too long because of floaty characters and magnetic ledges.

Also, I didn't say that I approved of the online problem. I simply stated that it exists and that it's a fallacy to keep saying a game can be accessible and have a high skill ceiling. The Starcraft example I gave was just to illuminate my point. When I bought Starcraft, I knew I would probably lose my first few matches online due to inexperience and the game not having a chance to rank me. But then I kept losing and realized I didn't have the time to invest in getting better at the game and gave up on it since I didn't buy the game to play offline against the AI. SSB4 does have a slight advantage in that offline multiplayer is much easier, but the online issue is still present because some people will buy it just for online. I think that it's an issue that has to be taken into consideration is all. I'm not saying the way Sakurai handled it in Brawl was the right way to go. Something as simple as different playlists would work.

I hope that made sense. I'm pretty tired and typed that up really fast.

Ok that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Mr.Showtime]

Yes, it's established that Sakurai has this "accessibility and depth are mutually exclusive" or "casual play and competitive play are mutually exclusive" philosophy going on. He thinks you can't have both, you have to have one or the other. His views have not changed since 2008 and that's why it's worth being concerned/skeptical still about this game going forward.

People who brush these comments under the rug don't realize that these are the thoughts he has going into making the game and more often than not, what Sakurai "thinks" is usually what is represented in his Smash games.

His goals with Smash 64 were to create a "fighting game" that was easy to pick up and play. Smash 64 only had five main buttons compared to a typical 2D fighter: A, B, C button, R, and Z with its simple to understand mechanics Smash 64 matched what his philosophy/goal was at the time.

His goals for Melee were to continue on from 64 and refine it further. He set out to make it for the "hardcore" Nintendo fans and while it kept the majority of what 64 introduced, it expanded upon it with a new move and a whole slew of new mechanics. I'm not sure what his philosophy was for Melee, but the target audience he has claimed before was for "hardcore" players. It's funny how his philosophy mirrored Nintendo's at the time (Nintendo was after the core gamer)

His goals for Brawl were to make something that wasn't Melee or 64 and appealed to casual gamers. His thoughts/philosophy going into make this game was the idea of "everyone winning". He wanted to make it super accessible so any old joe can win and narrow the gap between a high level player and a low level player. Did he succeed? I don't really know. I know that he made the game that way, though, mirroring his thoughts 5 years before the game came out. It's funny how his philosophy mirrored Nintendo's at the time (Nintendo was after the casual gamer). It's also interesting to note that this is the FIRST time he has explicitly come out with the idea that "each Smash game is different" and that was intentional on his part. (I, personally, don't buy it because Smash 64 and Melee play so much more similarly than they do differently).

And now we have this game, where so far while he's trying to cater to both groups, he still has these really narrow minded thoughts about competition and what his AUDIENCE wants. That's worrying to me because it means we really might not get anything more than a "speed" enhancement while every other mechanic from Brawl (even ones that were coded incorrectly!) remains the same.

This is exactly how I feel as well and couldn't agree more.

 

[EdreesesPieces]

That was also one of my points. Regardless of how hard and try to make a competitive game casual (unless the game totally revolves around randomness), a professional gamer will always beat you.

I wasn't quite talking about how Brawl is purely not competitive, I was using Brawl as an example of trying to make a competitive-like game noncompetitive by trying to add in factors such as tripping.

Yeah I wasn't talking about your post or any post in general, my post was a response to Sakurai himself. i agree with you

 

[Mr.Showtime]

Yeah I wasn't talking about your post or any post in general, my post was a response to Sakurai himself. i agree with you

Oh, yea I know. It was just something that I worded wierdly and left clarification on. =)

 

[EdreesesPieces]

Are you suggesting they make it for hardcores and ignore casuals because they aren't on the Wii U right now?

Because I mean, it's not like bringing a multi-million selling franchise that casuals love to the Wii U will help them with that problem. They should just make it for hardcores and forget about getting that casual base to come back.

the way to bring casual gamers is to get more casual games on the Wii U. Changing the hardcore games into casual games is a method that is NOT going to work to bring casual gamers to buy games. Casual gamers like games like The Sims, Candy crush saga (#1 free game on android market right now), UNO, angry birds, scrabble, wii sports. they aren't gonna like Smash no matter what you do to it. At least if we're talking about the casual crowd that the Wii managed to grab - people who barely play video games.

If a casual gamer doesn't like Melee with 4 players with all the items and stages on, then no matter what changes you make to the physics of any new smash games, you just aren't going to get them to like it with little changes like auto sweetspot, or less hitstun, or whatever...they can't even tell the difference. It's just not a game for them. The only people these changes affect are the hardcore crowd.