How do "Advanced Techniques" or "Game Physics" affect casual players?

[nLiM8d]

however you want the new players to feel like they can reach the pro level.

That feeling that you're describing, it is and would be completely artificial in practice. The reason I say this is because of the nature of the learning curve itself.

Learn > Perform > Success - Potential Efficiency
> Failure - Potential Forfeit

I'm not sure where you got that catering to the casual crowd is a matter of how to make them feel better.

The nature of things is as what was described earlier: there will always be someone who is better at the game. Even without the presence of Advanced Techniques, there will still be players who become more efficient than the rest. There will still be barriers to the pro category because of the varied skill levels.

 

[GamerGuy09]

But they DO have the same tools as the Pros. What is to stop them using Wavedashing? It's not like they have to unlock it by playing the game longer, they have access to it if they wish to practice it. If they can't be bothered to practice then they should lose.

If you want a Free for All with items on go ahead, AT's don't affect it in the slightest. If you want a proper 1v1 match then adapt to the playstyle. It's not a difficult concept.

Most casuals don't want to learn most ATs from the start. If it seems like they need to learn wavedashing from the get go to be any good, we failed. If wavedashing wasn't there, they would slowly begin to learn the different tactics of the game and feel like they can become the best like no one ever was.

That feeling that you're describing, it is and would be completely artificial in practice. The reason I say this is because of the nature of the learning curve itself.

Learn > Perform > Success - Potential Efficiency
> Failure - Potential Forfeit

I'm not sure where you got that catering to the casual crowd is a matter of how to make them feel better.


The nature of things is as what was described earlier: there will always be someone who is better at the game. Even without the presence of Advanced Techniques, there will still be players who become more efficient than the rest. There will still be barriers to the pro category because of the varied skill levels.

There is a difference between feeling as if the game cheated you and that you aren't skilled enough. Let's look at Super Meat Boy. That game is EXTREMELY difficult, however you keep playing because YOU feel like you screwed up. You don't feel like the game tricked you or didn't show you any strategies. The same could be said with other games like Hotline Miami.

 

[Phan7om]

But they DO have the same tools as the Pros. What is to stop them using Wavedashing? It's not like they have to unlock it by playing the game longer, they have access to it if they wish to practice it. If they can't be bothered to practice then they should lose.

If you want a Free for All with items on go ahead, AT's don't affect it in the slightest. If you want a proper 1v1 match then adapt to the playstyle. It's not a difficult concept.

I think we all understand that, but new players WILL NOT want to learn wavedashing and they probably WILL NOT want to do a 1v1 match. Its like saying that the game glitched and all you could play was your worst character, then you pick that character to use against someone who mains that chracter. 99.9% of people in that situation would just quit playing the game, not "adapt" and keep playing just to get smashed.

 

[SKM_NeoN]

So your saying it is easy to master brawl? That any old chump can become the best at the game? That is really rationalizing.

It's not easy to become the best at that game, of course not. This topic is about advanced techniques. Brawl's "advanced" techniques are easy to master, yes.

You seem to think that there is more hardcore smashers than there are casuals. Many coming from Brawl to SSB4, mostly under the age of 15. We WANT those kids to be the pros of the next generation of Smash. However, if we stomp them into the ground and make them feel bad they won't even try online.

I don't give a flying crap about 15-year-old kids. If they're so bothered about having to practice with all the free time they get, they can suck on their mom's teet for all I care. I just want a good game that gives me a reason to continue playing.

 

[TheTuninator]

I should also point out that I am not specifically arguing for the inclusion of Wavedashing and L-cancels in SSB4, just against the basic notion that it is undesirable for a game to have advanced techniques or secrets that require some work to learn and master.

I'll use Starcraft as an example again, although BW this time. BW was a game massively loved by casuals and competitive players alike, with one of the biggest competitive scenes in modern gaming. BW had advanced techniques such as magic boxing that you could not read in a manual, and that gave players who knew them an advantage. BW also had a thriving community for years, with many, many new players making the jump from "casual" to competitive player, and some rising all the way to the top.

You could say the same thing about bunny hopping in CS, or disjointing projectiles and transferring tower aggro in DotA, skiing in Tribes. All of these games had or have large fanbases, many of whom are casuals, and all of whose many competitive players were casuals at one point. The need to learn and perform techniques that a game did not instruct you on while holding your hand historically has not proven a significant barrier to creating a game with a thriving community of players who strive to improve.

If somebody has the desire to get good at a game, they will. If they're put off by losing a match to a guy who did a fancy trick, they were never serious about getting good to begin with.

The only real argument against good ATs is that they are unfair to players who do not know how to perform them and detract from pure proficiency using only the intended game mechanics. There is no solid proof to back up the fact that advanced techniques kill a game's community, and indeed the experience of many other games speaks to the opposite.

 

[GamerGuy09]

It's not easy to become the best at that game, of course not. This topic is about advanced techniques. Brawl's "advanced" techniques are easy to master, yes.

You just disproved yourself with your statement. Easy techniques don't make the skill ceiling any lower. Which make

I don't give a flying crap about 15-year-old kids. If they're so bothered about having to practice with all the free time they get, they can suck on their mom's teet for all I care. I just want a good game that gives me a reason to continue playing.

Those 15 year old kids WILL become the next pros if you treat them with respect. They want to become better at the game, if they feel like they can. If they don't then we failed and Smash, or atleast the competitive side, will die out because no newcomers would want to join.

 

[Phan7om]

What i guess most people don't know about Brawls ATs are that they are *Character Specific* unlike Melee. In Melee there are Wavedashing and L-cancel, there are character specific moves such as SSFFL, Moonwalking, WaveShine, and maybe more. But in Brawl i would say about half of the characters have at least 1 AT that is specific to itself... and they are hard to preform. Prove me wrong by showing me you can do Yoshi's DRCDJCTL. <--- Real Thing.

 

[TheTuninator]

Those 15 year old kids WILL become the next pros if you treat them with respect. They want to become better at the game, if they feel like they can. If they don't then we failed and Smash will die out because no new players would join.

You cannot offer any proof for this, and indeed Melee's thriving competitive scene alone rejects this notion rather completely.

ATs can maybe be harmful in that they intrude upon normal game mechanics, but the claim that the existence of ATs will kill a game's community relies on unsupported generalizations.

 

[Vkrm]

If they don't care about analyzing the mechanics and optimizing their play style, then it's safe to assume they don't care about winning either. You guys are saying we should remove AT's which would make the game less appealing to vets, only for the sake of maintaining the self esteem of weaker players right? Just so you know, that puts you at odds with the foundation of the entire smash franchise. The point of these games is to be all encompassing.

 

[HeroMystic]

There is something called a Learning Curve. If the new players feel like they can never be that good because of wavedashing, whether or not that is true. We have failed. We want new players to feel as if they CAN be has cool as the pros. So giving them the SAME tools as the pros use will make them understand that the game is all about the skill of the players rather than a single wavedash.

Okay, I know it's just an example, but seriously, Wavedashing is not bad. It's a mechanic in a lot of fighting games in some form or another. I'm not sure of any Smash player here even from a Brawl standpoint that would care if wavedashing was in SSB4 or not.

I personally don't understand the notion that seeing a competitive player using ATs would put a casual off. I remember when I first watched a Melee video on youtube (before it was gobbled up by google) and saw all the ATs at work. It confused the hell out of me, and I even thought some of them such as Wavedashing was useless, but it was also fun to look at and I wanted to do it myself.

 

[GamerGuy09]

If they don't care about analyzing the mechanics and optimizing their play style, then it's safe to assume they don't care about winning either. You guys are saying we should remove AT's which would make the game less appealing to vets, only for the sake of maintaining the self esteem of weaker players right?

You know why people like games? Because they are fun. If they aren't fun, especially online. They won't want to learn. If we make losing for them FUN and not INFURIATING, they will become the enxt pros. Veterans will still be good at the game, if we take out wavedashing its not like they won't be good at the game any more if that is what your saying.

You cannot offer any proof for this, and indeed Melee's thriving competitive scene alone rejects this notion rather completely.


ATs can maybe be harmful in that they intrude upon normal game mechanics, but the claim that the existence of ATs will kill a game's community relies on unsupported generalizations.

I guess your right, the inclusion of ATs wouldn't decrease or kill the competitive scene. However it would grow faster if new players wanted to become pros. We need to make it so that new players feel as if they can become pro and not for some ATs.

 

[SKM_NeoN]

You just disproved yourself with your statement. Easy techniques don't make the skill ceiling any lower.

Do you know what a skill ceiling is? The harder the techniques are to pull off, the higher the skill ceiling will be. Why do I have to tell you this?

 

[TheTuninator]

You know why people like games? Because they are fun. If they aren't fun, especially online. They won't want to learn. If we make losing for them FUN and not INFURIATING, they will become the enxt pros. Veterans will still be good at the game, if we take out wavedashing its not like they won't be good at the game any more if that is what your saying.

ATs have nothing inherent to do with whether or not a player is having fun, though.

I really have to question the notion that losing because you suck, and knowing that you lost because you suck, is somehow more fun for a casual who actually cares about losing than losing in a manner which allows you to blame your failure on a perceived inequity created by the game. Maybe it's just me, but in my experience gamers love to make themselves feel better about losing by blaming their loss on opponents using "cheap" moves, knowing more about the game, etc.

 

[GamerGuy09]

Do you know what a skill ceiling is? The harder the techniques are to pull off, the higher the skill ceiling will be. Why do I have to tell you this?

Why do we need that though? How does making things harder to perform any more fun if it is simple. Learning it would be just a chore, or a required technique, to be better at the game.

ATs have nothing inherent to do with whether or not a player is having fun, though.


I really have to question the notion that losing because you suck, and knowing that you lost because you suck, is somehow more fun for a casual who actually cares about losing than losing in a manner which allows you to blame your failure on a perceived inequity created by the game. Maybe it's just me, but in my experience gamers love to make themselves feel better about losing by blaming their loss on opponents using "cheap" moves, knowing more about the game, etc.

That is extremely weird to me. Why would you want to feel like you've been cheated, like you felt forced to learn a technique to be any good at a game. Instead of simply learning from your mistakes in that game and getting good at the mechanics you already know.

Okay, I know it's just an example, but seriously, Wavedashing is not bad. It's a mechanic in a lot of fighting games in some form or another. I'm not sure of any Smash player here even from a Brawl standpoint that would care if wavedashing was in SSB4 or not.

I personally don't understand the notion that seeing a competitive player using ATs would put a casual off. I remember when I first watched a Melee video on youtube (before it was gobbled up by google) and saw all the ATs at work. It confused the hell out of me, and I even thought some of them such as Wavedashing was useless, but it was also fun to look at and I wanted to do it myself.

Casuals won't want to learn how to be the best at first. Unlike either you, me, or anyone else on this forum. They just want to have fun. We want them to WANT to become good and make them FEEL like they can achieve that. We want them to get sucked into the competitive scene and become the next Pro Smashers.

 

[TheTuninator]

Why do we need that though? How does making things harder to perform any more fun if it is simple. Learning it would be just a chore, or a required technique, to be better at the game.

Many games use "artificial" difficulty induced by mechanical inputs to create a higher skill ceiling. Look at Street Fighter, for example: many moves could have far simpler inputs, but they are given complicated ones so that even advanced players are at risk of dropping a move from time to time, and therefore greater mechanical competency is rewarded.

Smash is of course inherently a different beast due to not being designed as a purely competitive game, and thus I would expect any ATs in SSB4 to be wholly accidental.

 

[Vkrm]

Why do we need that though? How does making things harder to perform any more fun if it is simple. Learning it would be just a chore, or a required technique, to be better at the game.

If you have the desire to improve, the work required doesn't seem like a chore. Not mention there's definitely a certain kind of satisfaction that comes from overcoming a challenge.

 

[Ogre_Deity_Link]

I don't give a flying crap about 15-year-old kids. If they're so bothered about having to practice with all the free time they get, they can suck on their mom's teet for all I care. I just want a good game that gives me a reason to continue playing.

Oh, so suddenly Smash Bros. is YOUR game? You self entitled asshole, those 15-year-old kids are the next generation of gamers and you're willing to throw them under the bus and exclude them, crush them utterly online, just so you can have YOUR fun? Unless you're the one who is spending millions and millions of dollars on Smash Bros, YOUR opinion doesn't mean ****. My opinion doesn't mean ****. Individuals don't count. So learn to accept trying to make everyone (or most people) happy and find a middle ground or GTFO.

I'm fairly certain neither the competitive nor casual crowd needs your kind of self-entitled selfish bull**** philosophy.

 

[GamerGuy09]

If you have the desire to improve, the work required doesn't seem like a chore. Not mention there's definitely a certain kind of satisfaction that comes from overcoming a challenge.

Guess what though, most casuals don't have that desire. They just want to have fun at first, they don't want to learn this ATs because they are tough to pull of and aren't that fun to learn. To them it feels like a chore for them to be any good at the game and that might turn them off from the game entirely.

Many games use "artificial" difficulty induced by mechanical inputs to create a higher skill ceiling. Look at Street Fighter, for example: many moves could have far simpler inputs, but they are given complicated ones so that even advanced players are at risk of dropping a move from time to time, and therefore greater mechanical competency is rewarded.


Smash is of course inherently a different beast due to not being designed as a purely competitive game, and thus I would expect any ATs in SSB4 to be wholly accidental.

The thing is that there are already risk vs reward tactics in the game already. Most Up Bs in the game are extremely powerful, such as Luigis. However if you miss them you are extremely open to attacks. Most casuals can grasp this concept early on, unlike wavedashing.

 

[TheTuninator]

Oh, so suddenly Smash Bros. is YOUR game? You self entitled *******, those 15-year-old kids are the next generation of gamers and you're willing to throw them under the bus and exclude them, crush them utterly online, just so you can have YOUR fun? Unless you're the one who is spending millions and millions of dollars on Smash Bros, YOUR opinion doesn't mean ****. My opinion doesn't mean ****. Individuals don't count. So learn to accept trying to make everyone (or most people) happy and find a middle ground or GTFO.

I'm fairly certain neither the competitive nor casual crowd needs your kind of self-entitled selfish bull**** philosophy.

Why don't we dial it way, way back so we can have a rational discussion about this?

Guess what though, most casuals don't have that desire. They just want to have fun at first, they don't want to learn this ATs because they are tough to pull of and aren't that fun to learn. To them it feels like a chore for them to be any good at the game and that might turn them off from the game entirely.

I hear what you're saying, and more people definitely need to be concerned about new players. There just isn't any real proof that the existence of ATs in a game is harmful to the growth of that game's playerbase, and indeed I have provided many examples to the contrary.

If you make a good, fun game, many casual players will want to learn and get better whether or not your game has ATs. Melee and Brawl are both proof of this point.

 

[HeroMystic]

If you have the desire to improve, the work required doesn't seem like a chore. Not mention there's definitely a certain kind of satisfaction that comes from overcoming a challenge.

The bolded, definitely, applies to me.

This is actually why when it comes to Smash or any fighting game, I have the tendency to ignore tiers and just play who I want, because I want to take up the personal challenge of overcoming a character's weakness. If every fighting game was just a case of running up to your opponent and mashing a single button to do a flashy "touch of death" combo, then the novelty would wear off really fast and I would get bored.

 

[Vkrm]

Guess what though, most casuals don't have that desire. They just want to have fun at first, they don't want to learn this ATs because they are tough to pull of and aren't that fun to learn. To them it feels like a chore for them to be any good at the game and that might turn them off from the game entirely.

That's exactly what I'm driving at. They don't associate victory or defeat with success or failure. The casual's enjoyment of smash doesn't come from outplacing other players. Most of them will play the game out ever looking for the competitive elements. That's why the pressance of ATs don't hurt or help their experience.

 

[SKM_NeoN]

Why do we need that though? How does making things harder to perform any more fun if it is simple. Learning it would be just a chore, or a required technique, to be better at the game.

I agree with your sentiment, You're just misplacing it. Let's look at wavedashing as an example. You jump, shortly followed by a directional airdodge. It's not a complicated input. Same with SHFFLing, just short hop, attack, and fast fall (I won't argue that you shouldn't exclude L-canceling, though I don't mind it personally). These techniques couldn't be executed any easier unless they mapped these input sequences to one button, which would be very difficult to implement. The only other option is to exclude them entirely which, without replacement techniques, gives you less options, making the game shallow and less fluid.

 

[GamerGuy09]

I hear what you're saying, and more people definitely need to be concerned about new players. There just isn't any real proof that the existence of ATs in a game is harmful to the growth of that game's playerbase, and indeed I have provided many examples to the contrary.

If you make a good, fun game, many casual players will learn and get better whether or not your game has ATs.

That may be true for fighting games because of the straight up appeal of the fact it is a fighting game. Smash is completely different though. Smash is half fighting half party game. The goal for us is to get those people who got the game for the party aspect to stay for the fighting aspect. The only way we can do that is to make sure they have a good online experience.

We need to understand that there is a difference between Hardcore, Competitive, and Casual. Everyone on here is a Hardcore fan of smash bros, or you wouldn't even made an account in the first place. Casual people only played brawl for a small bit, or never played a smash game to begin with.

I agree with your sentiment, You're just misplacing it. Let's look at wavedashing as an example. You jump, shortly followed by a directional airdodge. It's not a complicated input. Same with SHFFLing, just short hop, attack, and fast fall (I won't argue that you shouldn't exclude L-canceling, though I don't mind it personally). These techniques couldn't be executed any easier unless they mapped these input sequences to one button, which would be very difficult to implement. The only other option is to exclude them entirely which, without replacement techniques, gives you less options, making the game shallow and less fluid.

I'm guessing that you are a hardcore smash fan. If they are so easy to understand, tell a 7 year old to do it without any experience. A 7 year old can block, roll, and attack. However of course, we would all beat a 7 year old into the ground in any game. The fact that they can understand the basics means we did something good. It is easily accessible.

 

[HeroMystic]

Guess what though, most casuals don't have that desire. They just want to have fun at first, they don't want to learn this ATs because they are tough to pull of and aren't that fun to learn. To them it feels like a chore for them to be any good at the game and that might turn them off from the game entirely.

I understand this point, as I am also in this camp when it comes to any competitive game. For instance, I got really burned out with Starcraft II and just stopped caring about winning games. I now only buy the game for Single Player and Custom Matches.

And that's just it. Casuals don't have to be competitive if they don't want to. They have a choice. ATs may or may not affect this, but I can say from experience that most fighting games rely on their basic intentional mechanics before going to ATs, that's why they're called Advanced Techniques.

 

[Ogre_Deity_Link]

Why don't we dial it way, way back so we can have a rational discussion about this?

Sorry, sorry, I just get pissed off when people act like they're the only players who matter. We were all n00bs at one point (whether or not you think casuals still are) and I feel that it's a very selfish and narrow-minded mindset to not give two ****s about the new generation of players.

 

[GamerGuy09]

I understand this point, as I am also in this camp when it comes to any competitive game. For instance, I got really burned out with Starcraft II and just stopped caring about winning games. I now only buy the game for Single Player and Custom Matches.

And that's just it. Casuals don't have to be competitive if they don't want to. They have a choice. ATs may or may not affect this, but I can say from experience that most fighting games rely on their basic intentional mechanics before going to ATs, that's why they're called Advanced Techniques.

That's exactly what I'm driving at. They don't associate victory or defeat with success or failure. The casual's enjoyment of smash doesn't come from outplacing other players. Most of them will play the game out ever looking for the competitive elements. That's why the pressance of ATs don't hurt or help their experience.

The thing is that we WANT casuals to become the Hardcore smashers like us. If we use ATs right off the bat and kill them instantly, it isn't any fun for them. However if they see that we have the same tools as they do, they realized that they could get better and become people like us! Also trust me, casuals will play online at one point or another. Humans are geared for competition, to show who is better. So I highly doubt they would ignore online.

 

[SKM_NeoN]

Oh, so suddenly Smash Bros. is YOUR game? You self entitled *******, those 15-year-old kids are the next generation of gamers and you're willing to throw them under the bus and exclude them, crush them utterly online, just so you can have YOUR fun? Unless you're the one who is spending millions and millions of dollars on Smash Bros, YOUR opinion doesn't mean ****. My opinion doesn't mean ****. Individuals don't count. So learn to accept trying to make everyone (or most people) happy and find a middle ground or GTFO.

I'm fairly certain neither the competitive nor casual crowd needs your kind of self-entitled selfish bull**** philosophy.

I have no say in the game's direction so I don't know where you're going with this. My opinion is that making the game less appealing to the majority (people who prefer Melee are the majority, despite Sakurai's stupid assumption) in order to accommodate the needs of the less gifted is a ridiculous notion. I think this design method is hurtful to the game's quality. I'm simply expressing my ideas for the best possible Smash, not the Smash that sells the most copies and gives kids a fuzzy. Don't get so bent out of shape.

 

[TheTuninator]

The thing is that we WANT casuals to become the Hardcore smashers like us. If we use ATs right off the bat and kill them instantly, it isn't any fun for them. However if they see that we have the same tools as they do, they realized that they could get better and become people like us!

I really do like your sentiment, but again I have to point out that there just isn't any proof for this assertion. Plus, a brand-new casual player is going to be annihilated instantly against a competitive player regardless of the presence of ATs in the match.

The best thing for encouraging casual players to become more competitive, and something SSB4 absolutely needs, is a very well-done online matchmaking system that allows new players the feeling of gradual progression. ATs are an extremely minor consideration by comparison, especially when you consider that any new player who is put off by a sharp defeat will be put off whether or not their opponent is using ATs.

I have no say in the game's direction so I don't know where you're going with this. My opinion is that making the game less appealing to the majority (people who prefer Melee are the majority, despite Sakurai's stupid assumption) in order to accommodate the needs of the less gifted is a ridiculous notion. I think this design method is hurtful to the game's quality. I'm simply expressing my ideas for the best possible Smash, not the Smash that sells the most copies and gives kids a fuzzy. Don't get so bent out of shape.

I prefer Melee's gameplay, but let's be real, casual Brawl players comprise the majority of the Smash fanbase at this point.

 

[Vkrm]

Sorry, sorry, I just get pissed off when people act like they're the only players who matter. We were all n00bs at one point (whether or not you think casuals still are) and I feel that it's a very selfish and narrow-minded mindset to not give two ****s about the new generation of players.

It's not like you don't see casual smashers claim to be the more important audience 1000 times more often.

 

[GamerGuy09]

I have no say in the game's direction so I don't know where you're going with this. My opinion is that making the game less appealing to the majority (people who prefer Melee are the majority, despite Sakurai's stupid assumption) in order to accommodate the needs of the less gifted is a ridiculous notion. I think this design method is hurtful to the game's quality. I'm simply expressing my ideas for the best possible Smash, not the Smash that sells the most copies and gives kids a fuzzy. Don't get so bent out of shape.

You do realize where new smash players come from right? Why did YOU play smash at first? Was it because of the online tournament scene? Was it because of the sick combos you could do? No! It was because you could use Mario to kick Kirby's face in! Then to evolved into getting into the competitive scene. We want that to happen with the newer generation because the more people who play the game, the more competitive the smash scene gets.

I really do like your sentiment, but again I have to point out that there just isn't any proof for this assertion. Plus, a brand-new casual player is going to be annihilated instantly against a competitive player regardless of the presence of ATs in the match.


The best thing for encouraging casual players to become more competitive, and something SSB4 absolutely needs, is a very well-done online matchmaking system that allows new players the feeling of gradual progression. ATs are an extremely minor consideration by comparison, especially when you consider that any new player who is put off by a sharp defeat will be put off whether or not their opponent is using ATs.

You know what I like about you? Is that you have common sense. You don't ignore the things we need to concentrate on like new players. Anyways back to the conversation. We want the new players know they can become as good as the pros, and that they don't need the ATs. If we kill them with advanced tactics that they can't comprehend, they feel like they won't ever be as good as us.

 

[SKM_NeoN]

I'm guessing that you are a hardcore smash fan. If they are so easy to understand, tell a 7 year old to do it without any experience. A 7 year old can block, roll, and attack. However of course, we would all beat a 7 year old into the ground in any game. The fact that they can understand the basics means we did something good. It is easily accessible.

If the game is designed for a 7-year-old to master it's going to suck. What about the 1-year-olds? They're people too. Smash should only have one button that give random commands, otherwise the infants will feel bad and quit.

 

[TheTuninator]

You do realize where new smash players come from right? Why did YOU play smash at first? Was it because of the online tournament scene? Was it because of the sick combos you could do? No! It was because you could use Mario to kick Kirby's face in! Then to evolved into getting into the competitive scene. We want that to happen with the newer generation because the more people who play the game, the more competitive the smash scene gets.

You still haven't offered any proof that ATs hurt the desire of new players to become competitive, though. Arguments can easily be made for and against the ability of ATs to incentivize or decentivize a desire to become competitive.

 

[GamerGuy09]

If the game is designed for a 7-year-old to master it's going to suck. What about the 1-year-olds? They're people too. Smash should only have one button that give random commands, otherwise the infants will feel bad and quit.

When did I say master? I specificly stated that we of course could stomp them any time. I'm saying is that if a 7 year old can begin to understand the controls, they would want to master them as they get older and want to get better.

You still haven't offered any proof that ATs hurt the desire of new players to become competitive, though. Arguments can easily be made for and against the ability of ATs to incentivize or decentivize a desire to become competitive.

Your correct, it could go both ways. I guess it is all about how good the ranking system is. I'm just saying that the casuals will hit a wall at some point in which they would have to learn wavedashing, which some would and would not want to learn.

 

[Ogre_Deity_Link]

I have no say in the game's direction so I don't know where you're going with this. My opinion is that making the game less appealing to the majority (people who prefer Melee are the majority, despite Sakurai's stupid assumption) in order to accommodate the needs of the less gifted is a ridiculous notion. I think this design method is hurtful to the game's quality. I'm simply expressing my ideas for the best possible Smash, not the Smash that sells the most copies and gives kids a fuzzy. Don't get so bent out of shape.

Sakurai's...stupid...assumption.

Sakurai.

As in, the guy who is in charge of the creation of Smash Bros. As in, the guy who probably knows who to base the game around in order to make the most amount of money. As in, the guy who'd know more than anyone who the majority is.

Sakurai's stupid assumption.

There are no words. Literally no words. You have me speechless. That level of selfishness is actually kind of impressive. Like, that's to the point of delusional, kind of selfishness. Wow.

 

[SKM_NeoN]

When did I say master? I specificly stated that we of course could stomp them any time. I'm saying is that if a 7 year old can begin to understand the controls, they would want to master them as they get older and want to get better.

My point is I don't want to play a game that's designed for 7-year-olds to understand at a competitive level. Why don't I tune in to Dora the Explorer every morning while I'm at it?

You still haven't offered any proof that ATs hurt the desire of new players to become competitive, though. Arguments can easily be made for and against the ability of ATs to incentivize or decentivize a desire to become competitive.

Exactly. We're waiting.

 

[GamerGuy09]

Sakurai's...stupid...assumption.

Sakurai.

As in, the guy who is in charge of the creation of Smash Bros. As in, the guy who probably knows who to base the game around in order to make the most amount of money. As in, the guy who'd know more than anyone who the majority is.

Sakurai's stupid assumption.

There are no words. Literally no words. You have me speechless. That level of selfishness is actually kind of impressive. Like, that's to the point of delusional, kind of selfishness. Wow.

I'm guessing he thinks casuals would ruin the competitive scene or something weird. He doesn't understand that the way to grow the competitive scene is to make the competitive game more accessible.

My point is I don't want to play a game that's designed for 7-year-olds to understand at a competitive level. Why don't I tune in to Dora the Explorer every morning while I'm at it?

Again.....you keep saying like I'm saying that 7 year olds can master the game. I'm saying that they can begin to know the basics.

 

[HeroMystic]

The thing is that we WANT casuals to become the Hardcore smashers like us. If we use ATs right off the bat and kill them instantly, it isn't any fun for them. However if they see that we have the same tools as they do, they realized that they could get better and become people like us! Also trust me, casuals will play online at one point or another. Humans are geared for competition, to show who is better. So I highly doubt they would ignore online.

I don't really understand how the bolded goes with your point. It seems really contradicting actually.

Maybe I am out of touch with casuals. The only experience I have with the casual community is Brawl, and just about every Brawl player I knew at my university wanted to go into tournaments. We did 1v1s mostly, but we also did FFAs with items when we just wanted to fool around. I beat their faces with Ike, Link, and Mario. And I also got wrecked at times myself, but we all had fun.

Yes, there are times when I called bull**** on stuff, but they weren't ATs. It was stuff like D3's chaingrab or IC's grab infinites, or Metaknight. So I don't see how ATs should be singled out. I mean, ****, even to this day I hear people say Ike is a cheap character to play.

 

[SKM_NeoN]

Sakurai's...stupid...assumption.

Sakurai.

As in, the guy who is in charge of the creation of Smash Bros. As in, the guy who probably knows who to base the game around in order to make the most amount of money. As in, the guy who'd know more than anyone who the majority is.

Sakurai's stupid assumption.

Metacritic's user reviews are higher for Melee than they are for Brawl.

Gameranking's user reviews are higher for Melee than they are for Brawl.

Over 30% of Gamecube owners own Melee as opposed to just over 10% of Wii owners owning Brawl.

There's my proof. Where's yours?

 

[TheTuninator]

Over 30% of Gamecube owners own Melee as opposed to just over 10% of Wii owners owning Brawl.

Which frankly probably still equates to a much larger amount of total current Brawl players given the Wii's insanely large userbase.


ATs only create a wall if it is literally impossible to win against somebody using them without using them yourself. You can beat somebody who wavedashes or L-cancels without needing those techniques. It's harder than if you knew them, sure, but you can still win.

 

[GamerGuy09]

I don't really understand how the bolded goes with your point. It seems really contradicting actually.

Maybe I am out of touch with casuals. The only experience I have with the casual community is Brawl, and just about every Brawl player I knew at my university wanted to go into tournaments. We did 1v1s mostly, but we also did FFAs with items when we just wanted to fool around. I beat their faces with Ike, Link, and Mario. And I also got wrecked at times myself, but we all had fun.

Yes, there are times when I called bull**** on stuff, but they weren't ATs. It was stuff like D3's chaingrab or IC's grab infinites, or Metaknight. So I don't see how ATs should be singled out. I mean, ****, even to this day I hear people say Ike is a cheap character to play.

Just asking, does "Casual" mean "New to Smash" or "Plays Smash in Free Time". Because people who play smash in their free time probably already know about the tournament scene. However, players new to smash probably think it is ONLY a party game. We want to learn to them that smash is a viable fighting game via online matches. Also that stuff at the end is mostly balance problems, not accessibility problems.

Metacritic's user reviews are higher for Melee than they are for Brawl.

Gameranking's user reviews are higher for Melee than they are for Brawl.

Over 30% of Gamecube owners own Melee as opposed to just over 10% of Wii owners owning Brawl.


There's my proof. Where's yours?

You do know the Gamecube only sold 22 million world wide while the wii sold almost 100 million world wide? Kinda defeats your point.

Which frankly probably still equates to a much larger amount of total current Brawl players given the Wii's insanely large userbase.


ATs only create a wall if it is literally impossible to win against somebody using them without using them yourself. You can beat somebody who wavedashes or L-cancels without needing those techniques. It's harder than if you knew them, sure, but you can still win.

Yes, it is possible to win against them. However casuals will feel as if that they are losing just because that the enemy can wavedash.