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

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

Dude, you've got Melee alongside 2 or three other Melee-like clones through hacked versions of Brawl.
You've got many more options if you want a Melee-like game.
Also, you're not seeing it from the other side of the spectrum.
Rather, you're forcing your excitement, over being stomped into the dirt, out into the open as if it's the way everyone should be feeling, and that any other way of looking at it is wrong.
You make it especially clear after using terms like "butt hurt people need to get a grip" that you just don't give half a crap about how these issues affect anyone who isn't as competitive as you.

Tell me something; how are you going to feel when someone uses that same exact line of reasoning on you, when Smash 4 is NOT like Melee?

Think about how others feel before you go off insulting them.

In all honestly it just sounds like that they don't like losing. If you are going into an online game with potentially hundreds of thousands of people playing with the expectations that these players should be warranted to hesitate from defeating you then you are in the wrong realm.

You keep saying to think about other peoples "feelings" when losing. Do these people have emotional damage? Suffer from clinical depression? Have suicidal or self destructive tendencies? If they do, then they shouldn't be on the internet in the first place. Odds are these people aren't going to appear a lot, so i'm just going to assume that they are regular people. If you feel the need to be upset and blatantly thrash about your losing without even taking into consideration that the other player may simply just put more time into playing, then you just have a rotten attitude point-blank-period.

I agree with VA3TO, I get excited when I lose to someone good. Granted, I've been completely stomped in Call of Duty, and while it's not the most fun experience, it shows how well the players understand the positioning of the maps, accuracy, and overall team work of the players. It's comforting to know that these players are so capable given that they have access to everything i do, so I feel confident that when the day comes that I feel the need to get better I have the resources and community at my disposal to do such rather than yell at everyone online and call them a bunch of cheaters.

I played someone last not online in Brawl. Dude literally used like three moves and had a terrible connection, he lost several times after cursing at me and calling me garbage, he also claimed my connection was an issue even though mine appeared to be fine and attempted to kill me when I was simply waiting for the lag to end. When he won (Barely, lag was tremendous" he just left, called me a "****ing cheating ****" and proceeded to brag in a chat room like an idiot. Now, if you feel that anyone should cater to arrogant ass little kids like these then i'm just gonna assume you're out your damn mind. These kinds of people could go **** themselves, seriously.

 

[Morbi]

In all honestly it just sounds like that they don't like losing. If you are going into an online game with potentially hundreds of thousands of people playing with the expectations that these players should be warranted to hesitate from defeating you then you are in the wrong realm.

You keep saying to think about other peoples "feelings" when losing. Do these people have emotional damage? Suffer from clinical depression? Have suicidal or self destructive tendencies? If they do, then they shouldn't be on the internet in the first place. Odds are these people aren't going to appear a lot, so i'm just going to assume that they are regular people. If you feel the need to be upset and blatantly thrash about your losing without even taking into consideration that the other player may simply just put more time into playing, then you just have a rotten attitude point-blank-period.

I agree with VA3TO, I get excited when I lose to someone good. Granted, I've been completely stomped in Call of Duty, and while it's not the most fun experience, it shows how well the players understand the positioning of the maps, accuracy, and overall team work of the players. It's comforting to know that these players are so capable given that they have access to everything i do, so I feel confident that when the day comes that I feel the need to get better I have the resources and community at my disposal to do such rather than yell at everyone online and call them a bunch of cheaters.

I played someone last not online in Brawl. Dude literally used like three moves and had a terrible connection, he lost several times after cursing at me and calling me garbage, he also claimed my connection was an issue even though mine appeared to be fine and attempted to kill me when I was simply waiting for the lag to end. When he won (Barely, lag was tremendous" he just left, called me a "****ing cheating ****" and proceeded to brag in a chat room like an idiot. Now, if you feel that anyone should cater to arrogant *** little kids like these then i'm just gonna assume you're out your damn mind. These kinds of people could go **** themselves, seriously.

I don't know which CoD you are talking about. Most of them are pretty connection dependent though. I am extremely good at the game. I have 25+ days logged on most of them. If you don't have the best connection you are going to get stomped regardless of what set-up you are using, who you are up against, or what map you are on. Just FYI... it is more connection based than a lot of beginners think. At tournaments it is all Lan (thank the lord). Also the skill barrier between getting good at shooting games and getting good at fighting games is HUGE. Take it from someone who spends a lot of time playing both.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

I don't know which CoD you are talking about. Most of them are pretty connection dependent though. I am extremely good at the game. I have 25+ days logged on most of them. If you don't have the best connection you are going to get stomped regardless of what set-up you are using, who you are up against, or what map you are on. Just FYI... it is more connection based than a lot of beginners think. At tournaments it is all Lan (thank the lord). Also the skill barrier between getting good at shooting games and getting good at fighting games is HUGE. Take it from someone who spends a lot of time playing both.

Yeah the gap is different, and I didn't know that so thanks for informing me. I guess the point of my statement was that i'm not going to blame others for something i'm losing in and that there is information to help me understand why i lost. You responding to my posit is a prime example of that argument, where i'm not even in that particular part of the web community there are still people with information to clarify an issue.

Yo, do you have PSN?

 

[Spin3no]

I mean, there's not one technique that may be harder than the one technique for which you asked, but movement in general in Melee links everything together, and using everything makes it harder to maneuver your character.

So maybe you'd dashdance, commit to a direction, wavedash to change directions for another dash, jump to waveland on a platform, dash and fall off the platform into a fast fall, waveland and dash again...This is just jumping around a stage.

You need to use everything to get the most out of your characters.

I also realize this is sort of an empty answer, but I do want to stress that it's hard to move your character everywhere you want to, and in the blink of an eye too

Its fine I new the answer, it is just some people are acting like brawl has no techs. I love both games but I feel that I need to defend brawl more so then melee sometimes. So instead of sounding preachy I chose to ask a question. I love both games but I feel like I need to defend brawl more sometimes.

 

[Morbi]

Yeah the gap is different, and I didn't know that so thanks for informing me. I guess the point of my statement was that i'm not going to blame others for something i'm losing in and that there is information to help me understand why i lost. You responding to my posit is a prime example of that argument, where i'm not even in that particular part of the web community there are still people with information to clarify an issue.

Yo, do you have PSN?

Yes, yes I do. If you want to add me. PSN- GoreHand

 

[smashbrolink]

In all honestly it just sounds like that they don't like losing. If you are going into an online game with potentially hundreds of thousands of people playing with the expectations that these players should be warranted to hesitate from defeating you then you are in the wrong realm.

You keep saying to think about other peoples "feelings" when losing. Do these people have emotional damage? Suffer from clinical depression? Have suicidal or self destructive tendencies? If they do, then they shouldn't be on the internet in the first place. Odds are these people aren't going to appear a lot, so i'm just going to assume that they are regular people. If you feel the need to be upset and blatantly thrash about your losing without even taking into consideration that the other player may simply just put more time into playing, then you just have a rotten attitude point-blank-period.

I agree with VA3TO, I get excited when I lose to someone good. Granted, I've been completely stomped in Call of Duty, and while it's not the most fun experience, it shows how well the players understand the positioning of the maps, accuracy, and overall team work of the players. It's comforting to know that these players are so capable given that they have access to everything i do, so I feel confident that when the day comes that I feel the need to get better I have the resources and community at my disposal to do such rather than yell at everyone online and call them a bunch of cheaters.

I played someone last not online in Brawl. Dude literally used like three moves and had a terrible connection, he lost several times after cursing at me and calling me garbage, he also claimed my connection was an issue even though mine appeared to be fine and attempted to kill me when I was simply waiting for the lag to end. When he won (Barely, lag was tremendous" he just left, called me a "****ing cheating ****" and proceeded to brag in a chat room like an idiot. Now, if you feel that anyone should cater to arrogant *** little kids like these then i'm just gonna assume you're out your damn mind. These kinds of people could go **** themselves, seriously.

You know as well as I do that that one single person you faced last night is not representative of most of the non-competitive base.
Your example in CoD also doesn't entirely match up.
In CoD, there aren't many complicated AT's like there are in Melee.
It's all down to strategic thinking and twitch responses, and to what gear you're using and how you use it in conjunction with your team.
Aside from twitch responses, which is down to each individual's natural dexterity limitations and reaction times, none of those things are hard to master without tons of training.

Edit: Morbid expressed the difference between the kinds of skill required better than I did, though.XD

None of this stuff is complicated in the same way that learning to Wave Shine or SHFFL second-nature during a heated match would be.

 

[otter]

the skill barrier between getting good at shooting games and getting good at fighting games is HUGE. Take it from someone who spends a lot of time playing both.

Are you implying that shooters are more difficult to get good at? Not questioning you, just not sure if thats what you mean.

 

[smashbrolink]

Are you implying that shooters are more difficult to get good at? Not questioning you, just not sure if thats what you mean.

Pretty sure he meant it the other way around.
Of course, I'm just going off of my personal experience; I never had to practice harder than normal to get good enough on a shooter to avoid being stomped. Yeah, I'll still lose a lot, but rarely will I get entirely stomped.
With Melee and Brawl[though mostly Melee], huge reversal of that situation. And I'd imagine that more traditional fighters have an even larger gap due to being far more technical.

 

[Morbi]

Pretty sure he meant it the other way around.
Of course, I'm just going off of my personal experience; I never had to practice harder than normal to get good enough on a shooter to avoid being stomped. Yeah, I'll still lose a lot, but rarely will I get entirely stomped.
With Melee and Brawl[though mostly Melee], huge reversal of that situation. And I'd imagine that more traditional fighters have an even larger gap due to being far more technical.

This.
It is easier to get good at shooters than it is to get good at fighting games. Shooters are all about memorizing numbers and developing good habits. Fighting games are SOOOO much more (although you still need to memorize numbers and develop good habits). Don't get me wrong. I like shooters a lot. I commit a lot of time to them. Getting good at them took me about a year. I am still not very good at fighting games. I have been playing them for 10 years plus.

 

[SKM_NeoN]

This discussion makes me feel like Hank Hill trying to argue common sense with a Californian/hippie.

The idea that the competitive spirit of the game should be removed to accommodate people who don't try hard is asinine, I tell you hwat. You have to earn the right to compete through hard work and self reliance.

 

[Ulevo]

This discussion makes me feel like Hank Hill trying to argue common sense with a Californian/hippie.

The idea that the competitive spirit of the game should be removed to accommodate people who don't try hard is asinine, I tell you hwat. You have to earn the right to compete through hard work and self reliance.

What's even more absurd is that Smash isn't like Street Fighter, or other traditional fighters with a high baseline for a learning curve to play adequately. It's entry level for literally anyone on the get go. What this equates to is a game that has something for everyone. More than that, whether or not Smash has a high skill ceiling has nothing to do with whether or not a newer or lesser skilled player can play this game and enjoy it, because it isn't a traditional fighter.

All removing mechanics and tactics and other such options in the name of making Smash as a series 'more casual' does is hurt the enjoyment of dedicated tournament goers while the casual onlookers are less the wiser, and play the game as they always will.

This is the root reason Brawl was so heavily criticized.

 

[otter]

What this equates to is a game that has something for everyone.

I do sympathize with the casual point of view, but as I said in earlier posts, Smash is in a unique position to have something for everyone. To throw away a design that pleases casuals and competitors in hopes to please casuals doesn't work for me.

 

[Ulevo]

I do sympathize with the casual point of view, but as I said in earlier posts, Smash is in a unique position to have something for everyone. To throw away a design that pleases casuals and competitors in hopes to please casuals doesn't work for me.

That's because it doesn't make logical sense.

 

[Morbi]

I do sympathize with the casual point of view, but as I said in earlier posts, Smash is in a unique position to have something for everyone. To throw away a design that pleases casuals and competitors in hopes to please casuals doesn't work for me.

This. I mean Melee appealed to casuals too. It was considered the most competitive Smash game too. I mean you do not have to take out hardcore elements like ATs to appeal to casuals. It doesn't work like that. Look at Injustice. It is a hardcore fighting game that attracts casuals simply because of the premise of the game. It was best selling for two months. Smash is the same way. Easy to learn, hard to master.

 

[smashbrolink]

What's even more absurd is that Smash isn't like Street Fighter, or other traditional fighters with a high baseline for a learning curve to play adequately. It's entry level for literally anyone on the get go. What this equates to is a game that has something for everyone. More than that, whether or not Smash has a high skill ceiling has nothing to do with whether or not a newer or lesser skilled player can play this game and enjoy it, because it isn't a traditional fighter.

All removing mechanics and tactics and other such options in the name of making Smash as a series 'more casual' does is hurt the enjoyment of dedicated tournament goers while the casual onlookers are less the wiser, and play the game as they always will.

This is the root reason Brawl was so heavily criticized.

No, I'm pretty sure the root reasons for Brawls criticism was more on the floatiness, lack of hit stun, and tripping.
Advanced Techniques were still present, just not the ones from Melee, and they were more down to different techs per character rather than techs anyone could do with any character.

 

[Ulevo]

This. I mean Melee appealed to casuals too. It was considered the most competitive Smash game too. I mean you do not have to take out hardcore elements like ATs to appeal to casuals. It doesn't work like that. Look at Injustice. It is a hardcore fighting game that attracts casuals simply because of the premise of the game. It was best selling for two months. Smash is the same way. Easy to learn, hard to master.

Yeah. A female friend of mine who for all intents and purposes fits in to that crowd for Injustice. She told me how cool and enjoyable it was, and this was a precedent for her. You don't see normal, every day non-tourney-goers talk about how much they enjoyed playing that random fighting game they tried. I think Injustice is more accessible due to the identity and relationships of the cast of characters than the fundamentals of the mechanics, but I can't actually say that since I'm just guessing. I've never played it, but it appears to be another traditional fighter.

It does pose the emphasis though that competitive games can easily appeal to less brawly crowds of people. Heck, look at Pokemon. Pokemon is a game a 5 year old can pick up, enjoy, explore, beat, and feel satisfied with, while still being exceedingly complicated both in theory and in practice at a competitive level. A seasoned veteran player of the VGC or a regular Smogonite would destroy a 5 year old who just had a blast beating the elite four for the first time, but that doesn't stop these two different mediums of players from enjoying the same game in their own way. And you can't detract from the games quality by removing EV's or physical/special attack split or other functions of the game for the sake of bridging the two players together. It isn't a good approach and it ultimately detracts from the experience for both players.

It'd be like making training wheels on bicycles standard because some people don't know how to ride them properly.

No, I'm pretty sure the root reasons for Brawls criticism was more on the floatiness, lack of hit stun, and tripping.
Advanced Techniques were still present, just not the ones from Melee, and they were more down to different techs per character rather than techs anyone could do with any character.

The principle still applies. The inherent floatiness, the ability to interrupt hitstun (not lack thereof) with any given action, and tripping were implemented because of that philosophy, which in turn became the primary complaints people had.

Also, most advanced techniques in Brawl were just exploitations of irresponsible, likely minimally tested game interactions, and unintended bugs in the system, as opposed to intentionally designed mechanics to improve your play or utilizing the interactions of the games engine to its fullest potential with otherwise acceptable and properly tested interactions.

 

[smashbrolink]

Also, most advanced techniques in Brawl were just exploitations of irresponsible, likely minimally tested game interactions, and unintended bugs in the system, as opposed to intentionally designed mechanics to improve your play or utilizing the interactions of the games engine to its fullest potential with otherwise acceptable and properly tested interactions.

Got dev commentary to prove that those techs were intentional?
Because as far as I know, Wave Dashing in and of itself wasn't intentional either.

And even if such is the case, how does it matter? The fact is, they were AT's, they were useful, and that Brawl didn't suffer more from not having Melee's AT's than it did from not having Melee's speed and hitstun.

Smash 4 could easily do enough for both Melee and Brawl lovers even without Melee's AT's.

 

[Ulevo]

Got dev commentary to prove that those techs were intentional?
Because as far as I know, Wave Dashing in and of itself wasn't intentional either.

And even if such is the case, how does it matter? The fact is, they were AT's, they were useful, and that Brawl didn't suffer more from not having Melee's AT's than it did from not having Melee's speed and hitstun.

Smash 4 could easily do enough for both Melee and Brawl lovers even without Melee's AT's.

It depends on what advanced techniques you want to talk about. If you're talking about things like L-Cancelling, or Z Cancelling, which have been in the manual since day 1, I don't think there's a need to cite that. If you're talking about things like wavedashing, there is developer commentary on that, but I'm not going to dig it up for you. Essentially it was a recognized and normal action programmed in to the game that functioned the way it was supposed to. It's just that the developers didn't envision its technical application, even if they still acknowledged it was there. But is that really hard to imagine, or that much of a stretch when they likely didn't envision Smash becoming competitive enough to become an MLG main event? It doesn't discount the legitimacy of the technique anymore than it would mean that we should stop playing competitive Smash because 'that's not what it was designed for.'

Regardless, that's irrelevant. You cite combos as an importance in the Smash series, and combos were originally an accident that was left unfixed in the early iterations of Street Fighter. This eventually came to become the standard, not because of intention, but because application and the positive effects it has in fighting games. Advanced techniques are no different, so I'd rather not talk about intention because its a childish argument that basically amounts to nothing important.

And although I agree that a lack of a proper combo engine may have hurt Brawls competitive success more than mostly any one given advanced technique you could name, that doesn't mean that removing these aspects from Smash was desirable. They only added to the game, and no one had a reason to complain about their additions or inclusions (minus misunderstood and misdirected notions of intention behind wavedashing and developer intent) until Brawl came along with the message of 'easier is better for the causal player', which was misguided and never the point to start with.

Also, the implementation (intentional or otherwise) and the effects it has on the games health is what was important, which is the main underlying theme I was hinting at while mentioning that most of the techniques discovered and used in competitive Brawl were quite simply mere ****-ups by the game designers. Wavedashing was healthy for Melee because of what it offerred the player and the cast of characters. It did nothing but add options and creativity, without negatively circumventing the way the game functions. Repeatedly grabbing, hitting, letting someone go, and regrabbing them again without fail is not a desirable advanced technique under any context in any fighting game.

I won't say Smash 4 requires everything Melee had. I'm expecting it to not have a significant majority of what Melee offerred, though I still think this will be a good game. That doesn't mean the development team doesn't have anything to learn from what Melee had to offer. It is THE model for the Smash series.

 

[BSP]

The problem with this argument is that it assumes Casual and Competitive players will play each other often. I see no possible scenario where this would happen. Casual Smashers who aren't fond of advanced techniques do not attend tournaments. If we're speaking about online play, Sakurai WILL be implementing some system where players can compete with others on the same still level.

This interview was just released: http://ca.ign.com/articles/2013/07/03/creating-super-smash-bros-for-wii-u-and-3ds?page=2

In it Sakurai says, “We don’t want to have a type of situation where you have a ranking pyramid, and only the people at the very top can enjoy it. I think there are other unique ways to be able to implement a system where people can get satisfaction out of performing at a skill level relative to their peer group.”

You also mentioned that Sakurai says, "a situation where it becomes a game sort of like other competitive fighting games, where it's only apreciated by a very small, passionate group of sort of maniac players." What he was most likely referencing was the advanced nature itself that's appreciated by a very small group of players. The game as a whole will be appreciated by millions worldwide regardless of the inclusion of AT's or not. Although only a small audience can appreciate AT's like Sakurai said, I don't see the harm in including them so that said audience can enjoy them.

Whether or not casual players meet competitive players often is irrelevant. The main point is that the ATs do not improve the casaul's experience with the game, which is plenty of reasoning to leave them out if competitive depth is something not being considered.

Yes, millions will enjoy the game whether or not ATs are in, but that still leaves the above statement. The ATs won't improve the casual experience, so there's still no point.

You don't see the harm in putting them in, but I don't see the gain (and I still see potential harm) in putting them in either if the competitive side doesn't matter.

 

[Ulevo]

Whether or not casual players meet competitive players often is irrelevant. The main point is that the ATs do not improve the casaul's experience with the game, which is plenty of reasoning to leave them out if competitive depth is something not being considered.

Yes, millions will enjoy the game whether or not ATs are in, but that still leaves the above statement. The ATs won't improve the casual experience, so there's still no point.

You don't see the harm in putting them in, but I don't see the gain (and I still see potential harm) in putting them in either if the competitive side doesn't matter.

Except it does matter.

You're on a competitive Smash Bros. forum talking to competitive tournament players about whether or not competitive Smash matters? This isn't gamefaqs.

 

[StriCNYN3]

Well considering Sakurai is looking for a balance now, it does matter. I mean, why actively remove a part of an audience when it worked so well before?

 

[BSP]

This just isn't true. The stronger player WILL always come out on top, regardless of whether or not there are ATs. Isn't that the definition of the stronger player?

You're missing the point. The point of me posting that segment was to show that Sakurai deliberately puts mechanics in the game to increase the chances that the stronger player won't win every time. This makes the idea of including ATs ludicrous since ATs only improve the chances that the stronger player will come out on top. He's going against his own goals if he includes them.

Keep in mind that his "stronger player" most likely refers to the person who keeps winning in free for alls with items on.

Except it does matter.

You're on a competitive Smash Bros. forum talking to competitive tournament players about whether or not competitive Smash matters? This isn't gamefaqs.

If I'm the head of a game's development and I don't care about how one extremely small portion of my audience plans to play my game, for all intents and purposes, they don't matter. If all competitive players refused to buy Smash 4, it'd still sell millions easily. Sakurai has already told us he doesn't care much for competitive play.

Well considering Sakurai is looking for a balance now, it does matter. I mean, why actively remove a part of an audience when it worked so well before?

He said he's looking for a balance in the speed of the game, which doesn't reveal anything about ATs.

Sakurai won't mind actively removing part of the audience if he doesn't care about that portion to begin with, and the game will do fine regardless. See SSBB. There's also the fact that ATs go against his apparent goals with Smash. See "countering stronger player" portion of my bigger post.

 

[SmashCentralOfficial]

Whether or not casual players meet competitive players often is irrelevant. The main point is that the ATs do not improve the casaul's experience with the game, which is plenty of reasoning to leave them out if competitive depth is something not being considered.
You don't see the harm in putting them in, but I don't see the gain (and I still see potential harm) in putting them in either if the competitive side doesn't matter.

There is no "potential harm". Where is it? The only time AT's could "potentially harm" a casual player is if they have to play together.
WHERE WOULD THEY PLAY TOGETHER?
Tournaments? Nope. Wifi? Not very likely. At your own house? Now that'd be odd.

This discussion makes me feel like Hank Hill trying to argue common sense with a Californian/hippie.

The idea that the competitive spirit of the game should be removed to accommodate people who don't try hard is asinine, I tell you hwat. You have to earn the right to compete through hard work and self reliance.

This. It's not even about "earning the right to compete", its just "Why remove something that doesn't affect you anyways?"

Are you constantly getting destroyed by advanced players using advanced techniques right now? No, you're not. If you say yes, you're either lying, or going to tournaments and refusing to play the game at a competitive level and then johning about people using AT's. OR, there's always that slim chance that one of your friends is using them, and once again, instead of learning the simple techniques, you're just johning about them.

 

[Ulevo]

You're missing the point. The point of me posting that segment was to show that Sakurai deliberately puts mechanics in the game to increase the chances that the stronger player won't win every time. This makes the idea of including ATs ludicrous since ATs only improve the chances that the stronger player will come out on top. He's going against his own goals if he includes them.

Keep in mind that his "stronger player" most likely refers to the person who keeps winning in free for alls with items on.



If I'm the head of a game's development and I don't care about how one extremely small portion of my audience plans to play my game, for all intents and purposes, they don't matter. If all competitive players refused to buy Smash 4, it'd still sell millions easily. Sakurai has already told us he doesn't care much for competitive play.



He said he's looking for a balance in the speed of the game, which doesn't reveal anything about ATs.

Sakurai won't mind actively removing part of the audience if he doesn't care about that portion to begin with, and the game will do fine regardless. See SSBB. There's also the fact that ATs go against his apparent goals with Smash. See "countering stronger player" portion of my bigger post.

You're not only misinterpreting Sakurai's previous statements and obvious company obligations in the matter, but you're also ignoring the new press releases quoting Sakurai where he discusses and expresses the contrary. He realizes we exist, and although we are not the #1 priority, he doesn't plan on alienating us.

This is honestly just your perception on the matter.

Also, why does it make sense to alienate one group of consumers and cater to the other when you can (and always have) catered to both successfully with no financial or game quality repercussions? It doesn't.

Also, companies don't voluntarily alienate consumers 'just cause they can', financially speaking. That's a terrible business model and no company thinks like that. lol

There needs to be a tradeoff investment for decisions made that result in loss, no matter how trivial. That's how business operates.

This is all silly though because Sakurai is not a business man. He's a game creator.
He's probably thinking more about what would be new and exciting for the fans who play the series than whether or not he should give the finger to a small group of people.

 

[BSP]

There is no "potential harm". Where is it? The only time AT's could "potentially harm" a casual player is if they have to play together.
WHERE WOULD THEY PLAY TOGETHER?
Tournaments? Nope. Wifi? Not very likely. At your own house? Now that'd be odd.

My own house is an example actually, but I'll stop there because I realize I'm going back on my own point by bringing potential harm. I still say that there's no gain to including the ATs if competitive depth is a non-factor, so they shouldn't be included in the first place.

You're not only misinterpreting Sakurai's previous statements and obvious company obligations in the matter

What did I misinterpret?

but you're also ignoring the new press releases quoting Sakurai where he discusses and expresses the contrary. He realizes we exist, and although we are not the #1 priority, he doesn't plan on alienating us.

Ok, where are they? I may have missed them. I'm referencing this one any time I pull something from Sakurai: http://kotaku.com/an-in-depth-chat-with-the-genius-behind-super-smash-bro-530744390

I'm aware that he doesn't plan on alienating us. He's already done us a huge favor in taking out tripping, and he keeps giving us the option of whether or not to use items and some stages.

Also, why does it make sense to alienate one group of consumers and cater to the other when you can (and always have) catered to both successfully with no financial or game quality repercussions? It doesn't.

It doesn't make sense, but that's the direction he chose with Brawl, and it worked out just fine in every perspective except the competitive one. If he has chosen a different direction that includes ATs being in, I'm all for it then. I haven't seen anything that indicates this though.

Also, companies don't voluntarily alienate consumers 'just cause they can', financially speaking. That's a terrible business model and no company thinks like that. lol

There needs to be a tradeoff investment for decisions made that result in loss, no matter how trivial. That's how business operates.

Well, alienating the competitive side usually means you're aiming towards the casual/average player side, which is a great deal larger. That sounds like a good trade off to me.

 

[VA3TO]

Tell me something; how are you going to feel when someone uses that same exact line of reasoning on you, IF Smash 4 is NOT like Melee?

Think about how others feel before you go off insulting them.

Fixed.

Unfortunately, being from the UK I am not able to acquire these versions as easily as other people. But I find it funny how many, many people were not happy with Brawl and had to fix it themselves in order for it to be playable. Plus, in all fairness they are doing an amazing job with it.

People are going to lose games; with or without items. You won't win every match; casual player or competitive. Why do you want to REMOVE something from the game that in the long run make it appeal to people? I also suppose you are the type of person who doesn't like Speedruns because "they look glitchy" or "thats not how the game is meant to be played".

Why would you want a diminished experience? What does getting beat have anything to do with AT's? AT's are in there to allow the people who are in the higher degree of players play the game at its best. What do you gain by removing this? WHAT DO YOU GAIN? So somebody gets beat by these and stops playing the game? Well too bad that's your decision, you shouldn't be so self entitled and expect everything to go your way.

The mentality of people nowadays makes me ****ing sick.

 

[Kink-Link5]

OP shows great promise as a poster, and put into words what many people, including myself, have had trouble communicating for years.

 

[otter]

It doesn't make sense, but that's the direction he chose with Brawl, and it worked out just fine in every perspective except the competitive one. If he has chosen a different direction that includes ATs being in, I'm all for it then. I haven't seen anything that indicates this though.

It's a little complicated to determine if Brawl is a success or not, except of course when it comes to monies. Melee is going to be on the main evo stream next weekend. Thousands of people are going to see it that are not in a demographic that Nintendo cannot usually reach. Thousands of ignorant haters are going to realize how good Smash can be. Brawl will never have this opportunity. You may think that it's wise to pander to the lowest common denominator to makes sales, which is sometimes true, but even those people will hate on Brawl and never play it again just because they are followers by nature. Nintendo very well knows they power of reselling old games. Melee could do very well if a perfect port is on the Wii U and future consoles for very little investment on their part. Brawl will forever be seen as a stain on the series.

Well, alienating the competitive side usually means you're aiming towards the casual/average player side, which is a great deal larger. That sounds like a good trade off to me.

This is like the third time on this page that this point is being made, but I'll try to help you one more time. They already had both! If you had an apple and an orange, and somebody offered you an apple for both, would you do it?

 

[Kink-Link5]

Also how is it that EVERY THREAD DEVOLVES INTO L-CANCELING DISCUSSION.

 

[VA3TO]

Also how is it that EVERY THREAD DEVOLVES INTO L-CANCELING DISCUSSION.

Because it's so arduous and difficult to do, man. They should just remove it because I can't do it and people beat me when they use it!

And thanks for the positive comment. Means a lot.

 

[BSP]

It's a little complicated to determine if Brawl is a success or not, except of course when it comes to monies. Melee is going to be on the main evo stream next weekend. Thousands of people are going to see it that are not in a demographic that Nintendo cannot usually reach. Thousands of ignorant haters are going to realize how good Smash can be. Brawl will never have this opportunity. You may think that it's wise to pander to the lowest common denominator to makes sales, which is sometimes true, but even those people will hate on Brawl and never play it again just because they are followers by nature. Nintendo very well knows they power of reselling old games. Melee could do very well if a perfect port is on the Wii U and future consoles for very little investment on their part. Brawl will forever be seen as a stain on the series.



This is like the third time on this page that this point is being made, but I'll try to help you one more time. They already had both! If you had an apple and an orange, and somebody offered you an apple for both, would you do it?

@Evo comments: that's why I said Brawl did fine in every aspect except the competitive one. A portion of the competitive community will be the ones that'll see Brawl as a "stain" , and unless I'm mistaken, Sakurai still doesn't care about the high level aspect like that so he won't pay it any mind. Also, the demographic that sees Smash because of Evo is the one Sakurai doesn't care for. He called us maniacs.

@apple, orange : if I don't care about the orange, yeah.

 

[Ulevo]

What did I misinterpret?

I'm aware that he doesn't plan on alienating us. He's already done us a huge favor in taking out tripping, and he keeps giving us the option of whether or not to use items and some stages.

It doesn't make sense, but that's the direction he chose with Brawl, and it worked out just fine in every perspective except the competitive one. If he has chosen a different direction that includes ATs being in, I'm all for it then. I haven't seen anything that indicates this though.

Well, alienating the competitive side usually means you're aiming towards the casual/average player side, which is a great deal larger. That sounds like a good trade off to me.

Sakurai discussing the customization aspects of the game in tandem with the Wii U and 3DS versions:
“We’re planning for a level of customization to some degree and in some form,” Sakurai acknowledged. “It’s not completely decided at this point. But it’s very important to point out that we do this in a careful way that doesn’t affect the strength and balance of the characters. One thing we’d like to do is to be able to customize the direction of attacks. But not give characters a stronger jump or a stronger or weaker attack. You can consider customizations like that possible.”


What this implies is that, while it pertains to customization specifically, he has the overall concept of proper balance amongst the roster on the forefront of his mind during development. Likely through most game modes. While this would be irrelevant and likely inconsequential to the casual newcomer, it will affect us as a whole competitively. This is a good thing.

Sakurai discussing the implementation of an online service for Smash:
“We don’t want to have a type of situation where you have a ranking pyramid, and only the people at the very top can enjoy it. I think there are other unique ways to be able to implement a system where people can get satisfaction out of performing at a skill level relative to their peer group.”


He's talking about the online implementations. But what he's really saying here is that he wants there to be a way for players to interact amongst their own peers of relative skill level, as opposed to just setting the bar so low that everyone is pushed to play and cooperate at the same level of play, and he's willing to come up with solutions to make multiple spectrums of players happy. Not just one demographic. This is also good.

Sakurai discussing the differences of Melee and Brawl, and the reasons behind their differing philosophies, as well as their plans for the next Smash Bros. games direction:
“Quite simply Melee was something that was targeted more towards hardcore, advanced players,” Sakurai told me, when I asked him to characterize his new games. “With Wii, on a platform where you were getting experiences like Wii Fit and there was an audience that tilted slightly more towards beginning players, we slowed down the gameplay. This time around, we don’t see a situation where we’ll be encountering as many beginning players, and so as far as the speed and the feel of the game, I think you could say confidently that we’re targeting something right in between those two versions.”

You need to keep in mind that 'advanced techniques' is just a term coined by competitive smashers to describe certain arbitrary game tools, and this conversation can get complicated by semantics alone. It's not this clearly defined set of aspects, and many of these techniques can be character specific along with being globally applicable. I don't believe Sakurai intentions were "we're going to remove advanced techniques from Smash" during Brawls development. Instead he worked to remove layers of the game that a player would have to learn in order for a player to get up to speed to compete with peers who are better than them. Removing what we call advanced techniques from the game was secondary consequence of this overall philosophy.

Sakurai isn't just looking to speed the game up, he's look to refine the feel of the game as well. And you need to keep in mind that it wasn't just the gravity and fast fall values that made players move quickly, it was was also through utilizing what techniques your character could do, be it 'advanced' or not. Brawl was largely slow because along with having a very slow moving engine, there were little options to exploit or abuse. If Sakurai wants to up the ante, then inevitably there are going to be inclusions of things to learn and explore for players like us on these forums that we will likely deem 'AT's.'

 

[SmashCentralOfficial]

My own house is an example actually, but I'll stop there because I realize I'm going back on my own point by bringing potential harm.

LOL so your older brother is owning you with AT's and you refuse to get better? There really isnt any excuse.

Because it's so arduous and difficult to do, man. They should just remove it because I can't do it and people beat me when they use it!

I lol'd.

Sakurai discussing the customization aspects of the game in tandem with the Wii U and 3DS versions:
Sakurai discussing the implementation of an online service for Smash:

Sakurai discussing the differences of Melee and Brawl, and the reasons behind their differing philosophies, as well as their plans for the next Smash Bros. games direction:

---------------

You need to keep in mind that 'advanced techniques' is just a term coined by competitive smashers to describe certain arbitrary game tools, and this conversation can get complicated by semantics alone. It's not this clearly defined set of aspects, and many of these techniques can be character specific along with being globally applicable. I don't believe Sakurai intentions were "we're going to remove advanced techniques from Smash" during Brawls development. Instead he worked to remove layers of the game that a player would have to learn in order for a player to get up to speed to compete with peers who are better than them. Removing what we call advanced techniques from the game was secondary consequence of this overall philosophy.

Sakurai isn't just looking to speed the game up, he's look to refine the feel of the game as well. And you need to keep in mind that it wasn't just the gravity and fast fall values that made players move quickly, it was was also through utilizing what techniques your character could do, be it 'advanced' or not. Brawl was largely slow because along with having a very slow moving engine, there were little options to exploit or abuse. If Sakurai wants to up the ante, then inevitably there are going to be inclusions of things to learn and explore for players like us on these forums that we will likely deem 'AT's.'

QFT.

 

[BSP]

LOL so your older brother is owning you with AT's and you refuse to get better? There really isnt any excuse.

I don't have a brother. I'm a competitive player, and I was referring to when I play with anyone else who isn't competitive.

 

[StriCNYN3]

@Evo comments: that's why I said Brawl did fine in every aspect except the competitive one. A portion of the competitive community will be the ones that'll see Brawl as a "stain" , and unless I'm mistaken, Sakurai still doesn't care about the high level aspect like that so he won't pay it any mind. Also, the demographic that sees Smash because of Evo is the one Sakurai doesn't care for. He called us maniacs.

Ok, you're blatantly cherry picking Sakurai's words just for the sake of your argument.

In that same interview he also said how he appreciates competitive smash and even sympathises with us by mentioning his SF2 days. Nowhere does he say he doesn't care about that aspect so I don't know how you came up with that.

Why would he even say he's looking for a balance between Melee and Brawl's speed AND game feel if he didn't care? Why even bring it up? Who do you think he's even directing that statement towards? Not the casuals because it makes no difference to them, obviously. It's for the competitive community to give them hope Sakurai does listen to feedback.

 

[smashbrolink]

Fixed.

Unfortunately, being from the UK I am not able to acquire these versions as easily as other people. But I find it funny how many, many people were not happy with Brawl and had to fix it themselves in order for it to be playable. Plus, in all fairness they are doing an amazing job with it.

People are going to lose games; with or without items. You won't win every match; casual player or competitive. Why do you want to REMOVE something from the game that in the long run make it appeal to people? I also suppose you are the type of person who doesn't like Speedruns because "they look glitchy" or "thats not how the game is meant to be played".

Why would you want a diminished experience? What does getting beat have anything to do with AT's? AT's are in there to allow the people who are in the higher degree of players play the game at its best. What do you gain by removing this? WHAT DO YOU GAIN? So somebody gets beat by these and stops playing the game? Well too bad that's your decision, you shouldn't be so self entitled and expect everything to go your way.

The mentality of people nowadays makes me ****ing sick.

Here's what you're not getting: YOU CAN STILL PLAY THE GAME AT ITS BEST WITHOUT AT'S.

We gain a larger amount of people that can play at the higher tiers when the higher tiers don't have any further barriers to getting into them, resulting in more rivals, more matches, and MORE FUN.

You don't actually NEED all of Melee's AT's, and if they took the most complicated ones from the past and added them in once again, they'd only serve as a higher entry barrier for people that DO want to get better.

If you want L-cancel?
Fine.
If you want Wave-Dashing?
Dandy.
But if you literally want Melee 2.0 with every single feature present?
Stop talking and go play Melee, because Smash 4 isn't going to be either Melee 2.0 or Brawl 2.0.
Sakurai himself has already stated that he doesn't really see that many new players like in Brawl joining in, so he's adjusting the speed of the game to be between the two versions.
By virtue of that statement, it's fair to say that he's aiming to create most of the game around that design philosophy.
So, no, Smash 4 won't be another case of Melee. Nor Brawl. It will be a good balance of both, by all indications, and that will likely result in the loss of a lot of AT's.

Also, there's a difference between being stomped and just being defeated, something you've yet to acknowledge.

And again, you REALLY need to quit using your viewpoint as an excuse to insult people who don't play the way you play.

 

[Jack Kieser]

I still find it funny that people are categorizing Sakurai's decision as whether or not to take out ATs... instead of what his REAL decision is, which is whether or not to put in ATs.

Remember, DACUS / GT / etc. are all bugs, oversights, programming errors, etc. Sakurai didn't design those things. If he's going to add in ATs to the game, I think we all agree that the best course of action, for as much as we ***** about it sometimes, is something more like how he added L-cancelling: a conscious decision that was designed for and taken into account in balance. I don't honestly think there are many people here who think that ATs are better when they aren't designed around.

But, think about it. Sakurai, though he played competitive games and is an amazing designer in his own right, doesn't work at Capcom or Namco. Yes, he has the Namco team helping him, but I think it's fairly obvious that they're mainly doing grunt work programming, while him and his team does main design. Sure, they'll probably ask for balance advice when the time comes in beta, but if Sakurai wants to put ATs into the game properly, he'd need to study up on them. Learn what makes a good AT and what doesn't. Learn how WD'ing worked and how it didn't, why Snake uses DACUS so well, etc., in addition to how other devs, like Capcom and Namco, handle and use ATs.

This is a big thing. WE don't think it is, but that's because we've already learned most of this stuff, but even high level players only really understand ATs from a usage perspective in the majority of cases, not from a design perspective. They know when to DACUS, but not how or why it's good or bad. Look at this very thread: many players know when to L-cancel and yet have no idea what an arbitrary skill gate is as a design concept.

So, what you're asking of Sakurai isn't really "don't take these things out". What you're asking of him is "learn high-level competitive design as pioneered by other companies, design (probably from scratch) high-level techs that the majority of players will never use, properly code and insert these correctly designed and accounted for techs into the game, then re-balance all of the characters, possibly re-designing their movesets in the process, to account for these new design elements, none of which you've ever done in a game before, period, much less a Smash game".

That seems a bit ridiculous for him to go through all that trouble and use all those resources for features only we will use which can then be used against other players who not only don't care but will never care.

 

[Ulevo]

Here's what you're not getting: YOU CAN STILL PLAY THE GAME AT ITS BEST WITHOUT AT'S.

We gain a larger amount of people that can play at the higher tiers when the higher tiers don't have any further barriers to getting into them, resulting in more rivals, more matches, and MORE FUN.

You don't actually NEED all of Melee's AT's, and if they took the most complicated ones from the past and added them in once again, they'd only serve as a higher entry barrier for people that DO want to get better.

If you want L-cancel?
Fine.
If you want Wave-Dashing?
Dandy.
But if you literally want Melee 2.0 with every single feature present?
Stop talking and go play Melee, because Smash 4 isn't going to be either Melee 2.0 or Brawl 2.0.

Also, there's a difference between being stomped and just being defeated, something you've yet to acknowledge.

And again, you REALLY need to quit using your viewpoint as an excuse to insult people who don't play the way you play.

I'm sorry to have to use you as an example, but people really need to drop this whole Melee 2.0 thing.

Players who were dedicated and passionate about Smash Bros. (64 AND Melee) were heavily disappointed when they were handed a purposely diluted, stripped down product. It doesn't really matter how much you or anyone else may love Brawl, they still had a right to feel as such.

People were, and still are, upset because we got a bad Smash game. Not because we didn't get Melee + a DLC pack on a new disc. And we will continue to want a good Smash game for each iteration to come. If that means that we have hopes for some of the brilliant aspects Melee had to offer, then you need to deal with that. The irony of all of this is that if Brawl had become Melee 2.0, this forum and the overall community consensus would be far less about debate and more about being a good place to be around.

This mindless resentment of Melee because it had a following that disliked a bad successor needs to be dropped.

 

[Jack Kieser]

We didn't get a bad Smash game, we got a Smash game that wasn't purposefully designed around hardcore players the way Melee was. Those two things are not the same. Stop treating them like they are. Brawl wasn't a bad game.

This mindset of thinking that Brawl was a bad game objectively just because they didn't like the style or because they weren't the intended audience needs to be dropped.

 

[smashbrolink]

I'm sorry to have to use you as an example, but people really need to drop this whole Melee 2.0 thing.

Players who were dedicated and passionate about Smash Bros. (64 AND Melee) were heavily disappointed when they were handed a purposely diluted, stripped down product. It doesn't really matter how much you or anyone else may love Brawl, they still had a right to feel as such.

People were, and still are, upset because we got a bad Smash game. Not because we didn't get Melee + a DLC pack on a new disc. And we will continue to want a good Smash game for each iteration to come. If that means that we have hopes for some of the brilliant aspects Melee had to offer, then you need to deal with that. The irony of all of this is that if Brawl had become Melee 2.0, this forum and the overall community consensus would be far less about debate and more about being a good place to be around.

This mindless resentment of Melee because it had a following that disliked a bad successor needs to be dropped.

Have I once said that I resented Melee?
No.
Only specific elements of it, the same way that I disliked specific elements of Brawl.

Also, saying that those who loved Brawl for what it was do not matter is equally as biased as someone saying those who loved Melee don't matter and have no right to feel as they do. There are still quite a large number of players that were dedicated and passionate about Smash who still play Brawl.[not its hacked versions]

Brawl had negative elements just like every version before it, but it was not a bad game in and of itself simply because it didn't cater to the competitive base.