I want to know. I want to know whether when we watch someone technical play, it is nothing compared to other games, or vice versa, stuff in other games isn't technical at all by melee standards. Maybe technical skill is similar in many fighting games.
So, any Street Fighter/Tekken/Soul Calibur/fighting game pros here that can answer that question? I know Emblem Lord plays Street Fighter, anyone else?
Oh, and I searched, but none of the threads could really answer my question.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "technical" - from it sounds like, you're referring to the small subtleties and nuances behind the gameplay that, when mastered, add a bunch of clout to your skill level. Yes, Smash definitely has its technicalities - and probably the most unfortunate thing about them is that most people have to jump this nasty wall that's called "advanced techniques" before they can admit that and work it into their game. I was one such player; I used to think that Smash was a pathetic piece of imbalanced trash that wasn't worth the time of any hardcore gamer. I see now that, despite the imbalance, it's still an incredibly FUN game and there's definitely enough to sink your teeth into in terms of "technical" play.
Relative to other fighting games, though, I'm assuming that Smash is about the same in terms of technicality. In some ways, Smash has less than other fighting games; in other ways, it has more. I think they pan out to put Smash at a relatively equal level with other fighters, though - and again, remember that ALL games, no matter how simple, have some amount of "underlying" nuances and techniques for players to take advantage of.
Smash loses ground to other traditional 2D fighters in several ways. First off, there are no complex attacks/specials in Smash - all moves in Smash are performed by single taps of a button, usually accompanied with a direction on the control stick. You don't have to worry about timing your button presses and getting the order of buttons right under pressure. Also, characters in Smash have less moves available to them then do the ones in most fighters. Traditional fighting games give characters a weak/strong punch, weak/strong kick, a throw, a dash that can be combined with all weak/strong attacks, a set of weak/strong aerials for all attack types, and finally, an assortment of "special" attacks. Obviously, Smash does not have quite the same setup with their character's abilities; there are no "specials", and characters' movesets really don't have the "weak/strong" setup that they do in traditional fighters. In addition, characters in Smash have only one dash attack as compared to fighting games where characters can have multiple dash attacks.
Secondly, Smash lacks any sort of "power bar" or timing system for making special attacks stronger. Of course, since it lacks special attacks to begin with, the existence of such a feature would be unexpected anyway; still, it's one facet of play that Smash lacks compared to other fighters.
Fortunately, Smash also GAINS a ton of ground where other fighters have none. To begin with, Smash is unique because it no longer confines two players to a flat stretch of "stage" in which to fight. Smash has stages with platforms, pits, "save" clouds/barrels, and changing elements that provide added strategy and opportunities for learning. The game as a whole allows your characters a higher degree of freedom in terms of movement; some might say that this is "too newb-friendly" because it takes the pressure off of fighting in close quarters where you can't run, but others will tell you that it allows for new types of strategies to surface in gameplay and "expands" the area upon which you can fight.
Smash is also different from traditional fighters because HEALTH is no longer the main concern - the "health" in Smash is percentage, and while it does have an indirect relationship with how close you are to death, it doesn't determine the winner of the game. Again, some players could consider this a "sissy" way of playing since thrashing your opponent is no longer the focus of the game; however, I (and hopefully many others) would simply call it different. To win in Smash, you must knock your opponent off the stage, either left, right, up, or down, to such an extent that they hit the "killzone" and lose a stock. Your opponent does not have to be at high percent levels for you to do this; spikes, meteor smashes, and "tip" attacks allow for some incredibly quick kills. True, taking more damage makes you fly further when you're hit and thus puts you that much closer to the "killzone" when you're sent flying, but damage doesn't ultimately determine who wins or loses.
The whole concept of edgeguarding and fighting for the control of an edge/platform adds a completely new layer to the concept of combat; Smash is the ONLY game that has this "edgeguarding phenomenon" for players to experiment with. This is where Smash gains the most ground relative to other fighters - other fighters don't have edges to fight over and thus they lose this whole aspect of gameplay. Smash, of course, does, and thus gains a nice new layer of depth and strategy that adds a nice spice to every game.
If I had to sum it up, I'd say that Smash excels relative to other fighting games in the areas of "unique" and new fighting features that add additional strategy and depth- edgeguarding, the ability to input DI, the concept of "knocking" rather than "hurting", dodging, rolling, etc. Smash suffers relative to other fighting games mostly in terms of attack complexity - no "power meters", no special attacks, no tricky button orders, and no picky timing needed to perform certain attacks.
It'd probably be best to say that Smash, relative to other fighting games, is about equal in terms of "technical" play - the games are different and each have their own different areas of technical play, and it's hard to say which has more.
