Is a Melee like game the way to go?

[Big-Cat]

I get where you're going at, but 10 frames is simply too much of a buffer. Once you're "in the zone" when playing the game, frames last much longer so 10 frames is a lengthy time in a 2D fighter. A better balanced would be a 3 or 5 frame buffer. IIRC, Guilty Gear and BlazBlue respectively have this.

 

[Mr.Jackpot]

imagine if there was no control limitation in smash bros. and you could mentally make your character do anything you wanted, within the limitations/physics of the game itself.

would that game be more competitive?

would you agree that putting in a 10 frame buffer brings that goal closer to reality?

how about a full one second buffer?

do we want smash bros. competitions to test muscle memory, or do we want them to focus more on other skills?

Buffer doesn't bring players closer to theory smash (which is an extremely lame game when you're playing to win BTW, it looks absolutely nothing like TAS videos), it only lets players execute fundamental techniques a bit easier. In a game where you have so many rapidly changing states that you can act instantly out of (wavelands, hitstun, tumble, shield drops, ledge drops, ground/tech rolls, and any state/attack edge canceled especially) registering inputs before the player intends for them to occur causes a lot of accidental actions.

Smash isn't chess, arbitrary execution is dumb but basic execution, speed, and reaction ability are a big part of what make competitive games competitive as well. Taking away wavedashing from Melee and adding a one button dash would make it lot easier to perform, but you'd lose a lot of the essential options and creatively from having a horizontal movement option from a jump. Auto-ledge teching would let beginners survive a few situations they normally wouldn't but the reaction time and situational awareness (and hype) required to perform the ledge tech would go out the window. Universally low landing lag values over L-cancelling is probably the only mechanic in Smash I'd simplify off the top of my head, a game that handholds its players through every technique and scenario ruins speed and hype and is bound for a quickly stagnating metagame.

 

[Ziodyne]

guys, start putting /s after everything you say if you want sarcasm to be heard

 

[Graymatter]

I think the game should have the option to switch between SSB64 style gameplay, Melee and Brawl gameplay... For example go to options choose melee gameplay then select... Falco he plays like he did in melee. If you don't like it go back change gameplay to brawl then select Falco again and he plays like he did in brawl, we can only guess how he would play in SSB64 physics. (it most likely won't happen but it would be nice to have, it appeals to all fans)

 

[FalKoopa]

I think the game should have the option to switch between SSB64 style gameplay, Melee and Brawl gameplay... For example go to options choose melee gameplay then select... Falco he plays like he did in melee. If you don't like it go back change gameplay to brawl then select Falco again and he plays like he did in brawl, we can only guess how he would play in SSB64 physics. (it most likely won't happen but it would be nice to have, it appeals to all fans)

Sounds like too much work. But yeah.

 

[Renji64]

I wish it is clear if you enjoyed melees fast gameplay your stuck with melee only.

 

[Ziodyne]

I somehow feel that having that option to switch would be...wrong in some way.
I dunno, as a Melee player, even I feel the need to say that if you want the physics of Melee, you gotta play Melee (or if you're slightly more open to new stuff, P:M).

One secret wish I have for ssb4 is for its gameplay to mirror ssb64. Never really played it much and there's not a lot of people around who really play it.

 

[rawrimamonster]

It's probably been saida million times but the game doesn't need to be a carbon copy of melee, it just needs to not be a casual slap in the face like brawl was. It just needs to be a good game, fast and some combos. The "slap to the face" as I called it is simple a diss to competitive players everywhere. Long story short I don't want another brawl to happen, the game is horrible. I still play it casually but yea, the game is pretty horrible

 

[Vkrm]

I wish it is clear if you enjoyed melees fast gameplay your stuck with melee only.

Lol, are you implying you wouldn't enjoy melees faster gameplay if it didn't come at the cost of the graphics?

 

[john!]

guys, start putting /s after everything you say if you want sarcasm to be heard

i wasn't being sarcastic, it was a thought experiment.

 

[Kink-Link5]

guys, start putting /s after everything you say if you want sarcasm to be heard

I'm almost positive that completely defeats the point of sarcasm.

 

[Ziodyne]

it does, i just wish people would pick up on it more often

or at least pick up on it when it's obnoxiously obvious

 

[Renji64]

Lol, are you implying you wouldn't enjoy melees faster gameplay if it didn't come at the cost of the graphics?

No I love the gameplay. It is clear they won't ever make a melee like smash ever again

 

[Neanderthal]

I was never a competitive Smasher, but even I admit Melee was a much better game than brawl.

Playing against friends was more fun even without wavedashing and L cancelling (which I was only starting to use towards the end). Single player was much more fun. Unlocking characters was really exciting. Even unlocking stages was challenging and rewarding.

This game it's all a little bit slower and less fun. Unlocking characters and stages through the Subspace Emmissary is like a long boring chore. And there's just nothing challenging.

 

[majora_787]

I will never fathom why anyone would want to buy the same game twice. I honestly don't care to stick my arm up to my elbow in the crap pile that is "Melee v Brawl", because it is a battle of opinions and nothing more. But I actually want SSB4 to take a unique and new direction that is hopefully a good one. So no. A melee-like game is not the way to go, because we have melee. But a brawl-like game and a 64-like game wouldn't be good ways to go either. Because we have those games too.

 

[Bowser D.X]

I think they should do a mix between Brawl and Melee. Have a game that's slightly complex but still easier to properly grasp. But I'm pretty sure SSB4 will be even more simple then Brawl since us competitive folks pale in comparison to the people who buy the game just to casually play with their friends items and all, and Nintendo knows this.

 

[Vkrm]

I will never fathom why anyone would want to buy the same game twice. I honestly don't care to stick my arm up to my elbow in the crap pile that is "Melee v Brawl", because it is a battle of opinions and nothing more. But I actually want SSB4 to take a unique and new direction that is hopefully a good one. So no. A melee-like game is not the way to go, because we have melee. But a brawl-like game and a 64-like game wouldn't be good ways to go either. Because we have those games too.

That's not what I want either. What I want is a sequel that takes all the strong points from all smash games and dials them up to ten. More speed, more control, and an ever better blend of game mechanics that seem simple at first, but become more important in higher levels of play. I cite melee only because it has been the closest smash has ever been to perfection, so far. Now look at pM. What the pmbr is trying to do take melee principles and add a bunch of other gameplay tweaks. Do you think what they're trying to do is redundant because they're borrowing from an established formula that we already know works?

 

[Dark Phazon]

I hear what people are saying they dont want a carbon copy of any past smash they want new.

But all im saying is if i had to choose i would want Melee 2.0 over Brawl 2.0 anyday...

 

[finalark]

I hear what people are saying they dont want a carbon copy of any past smash they want new.

Na, most Smash fans actually want Melee 2.0. because it plays better on a higher level and it's easier to play something you've been playing for the past decade than learn something new.

What most people don't seem to get is that we'll never get another Melee because everything that made that game competitively viable was entirely an accident.

 

[Vkrm]

Disagree. Both l cancelling and wavedashing were technically intended by sakurai. As far as I know the only reason they lowered the amount of depth of brawl was to bring it in line with iwata's vision of the wii being a console dedicated to the casual market.

 

[Shadow Huan]

heck L canceling even had its own page in the smash 64 dojo way back when. it was def an intended gameplay feature until they took it out of brawl.

wavedashing was originally found in the game code and kept in on purpose. really wavedashing isn't even overpowered or gamebreaking until you get to the spacies; for every character besides those two it's simply another spacing tool. for the spacies it's free damage, combos, pressure and kills... something that could've been easily fixed by removing the ability to jump out of the reflector.

however, a smash game does not need these features to be good. but IMO there would have to be a trade off for different advanced tricks. the ones that were originally in brawl always interested me

 

[finalark]

From the version of the story that I know wavedashing was discovered late in development and was kept in because it was too late to change anything and the devs figured that since it didn't crash the game then whatever.

I highly doubt that anyone who play tested that game thought to use wavedashing the way it's used on a high level of play.

Don't know about L-Canceling, though. If it was around in Smash 64 then it was probably intentionally left in.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

Brawl gets stale. If you play it for awhile and you will probably reach a technical limit simply because there is not much to practice in this game that is super difficult. I still think that someone who has never played this game before can achieve all the technical know how they will ever need in a matter of months. After all of that, it is merely an application of taking what you learned and applying it and sharpening your decision making.

With Melee some common character movements are so difficult that it takes a very long time to ever be able to even do it in the first place. After that comes the long road of consistency which can take forever. So, with melee you can be expected to find a challenge is the person you are playing, but also challenging yourself to improve and not make so many technical errors that are your own fault. This to me is the real selling point of melee. It is a game that is fun, challenging, and achieves a sense of accomplishment for the time you invested in it. Something that achieves that longevity and skill building over a couple years or movemuch like doing a sport or playing an instrument is probably only possible with a fighting game by pushing the physical limit of what is possible for a player.

So to me, going a more melee-like route is preferred for the next smash game as it gives me a goal to work with. I am completely fine with other mechanics that are not necessarily wavedash, l-cancel, or ridiculous pivoting windows, so long as it is constructive to a challenging experience on my part. But still cool and fun at the same time.

 

[Kixzynz]

How bout they make it, oh, what's the word, AHA! ORIGINAL!!!!! What have the previous 3 Smash games been? I'd prefer a game that appeals to everyone. Personally, It's a F*cking game, just play it for fun.

 

[Big-Cat]

With Melee some common character movements are so difficult that it takes a very long time to ever be able to even do it in the first place. After that comes the long road of consistency which can take forever. So, with melee you can be expected to find a challenge is the person you are playing, but also challenging yourself to improve and not make so many technical errors that are your own fault. This to me is the real selling point of melee. It is a game that is fun, challenging, and achieves a sense of accomplishment for the time you invested in it. Something that achieves that longevity and skill building over a couple years or movemuch like doing a sport or playing an instrument is probably only possible with a fighting game by pushing the physical limit of what is possible for a player.

I see where you're coming from, but having the basics difficult to do is not an appealing design. The learning curve should not be in the time it takes to pull something off, but finding the uses for a technique.

 

[Vkrm]

@ Kixzynz How original is brawl really? It's not like brawl was particularly original. It's just a streamlined smash with some side content and some shockingly bad design choices. Really the only thing that separates brawl from the previous titles is how boring the game is when you play it effectively.

 

[423]

@ Kixzynz How original is brawl really? It's not like brawl was particularly original.

I know! It's like that entire Subspace Emisary was like, a rip off some other game! And all those new characters added like no new gameplay style!

It's just a streamlined smash with some side content

Melee was like a streamline Smash 64 game. And if we made a melee 2.0 for smash 4, it would be a streamline of a streamline

Either way, I'm definitely up to new gameplay. What's been done is done, and if we didn't have formula change, we wouldn't have Melee anyways. I say Smash 4 should feel like it's own game. It'll be fresh, original, and we all may like it even more then Melee.

Also, Sakurai said he wont be focus on adding new characters as much. This game may be the most balanced.

Also, don't forget there's going to be a 3DS version too. I have a feeling that the 3DS may feel different from the Wii U version. What do you guys think?

 

[Big-Cat]

I know! It's like that entire Subspace Emisary was like, a rip off some other game! And all those new characters added like no new gameplay style!

Kirby without the power-ups.

 

[MasterOfKnees]

Count me out of the "Everyone wants the next game to be like Melee", especially in online modes people would constantly get cloppered by random people who knows the sick techniques. I prefer Brawl's style, but I'd mostly want them to go for something new, so that when SSB5 will hopefully be announced we can discuss whether we want it to be like Melee, Brawl or SSB4, another game to set a standard of its own would be nice.

 

[Shadic]

Count me out of the "Everyone wants the next game to be like Melee", especially in online modes people would constantly get cloppered by random people who knows the sick techniques.

...So you think somebody who plays the game more often and practices shouldn't be better than somebody who just picked up a controller?

There's a game like that already, it's called Mario Party.

 

[FerrishTheFish]

I somehow feel that having that option to switch would be...wrong in some way.
I dunno, as a Melee player, even I feel the need to say that if you want the physics of Melee, you gotta play Melee (or if you're slightly more open to new stuff, P:M).

One secret wish I have for ssb4 is for its gameplay to mirror ssb64. Never really played it much and there's not a lot of people around who really play it.

Disregarding the absolute nightmare it would be to try to balance such a game in all three modes, having the option to totally switch physics engines is wrong because that would essentially be three new games on one disk, and fitting three new games into a space designed for one new game is wrong. If you have the kind of space and processing power, you should be optimizing it to make something original and BETTER.

 

[Ryu Myuutsu]

Both Brawl and Melee are fun as hell, but the new game needs to be something new. Even Sakurai said so.

 

[Illuvial]

I personally prefer Brawl to the other Smash games, but I can honestly say that Melee - though I don't like Melee - was the better game in terms of competition. It was just an overall tougher and more complex game overall, and I would like to see the Brawl physics and general Brawl pacing and metagame with Melee level depth and complexity.

Something about Brawl just feels right in terms of the pacing and mind games needed to succeed. Besides, if Smash 4 ends up being like Melee I will still have Smash 64 and Brawl to play.

 

[Ben Holt]

I think Smash 4 would benefit from making a game more like Melee. Not exactly, but closer to it.
If you think about it, Melee sold about 7 million units out of 21 million GameCubes. That's 1 in 3 GameCubes having Melee. It was the best selling game on the GameCube, which makes it the textbook definition of "system seller". Brawl, on the other hand, sold about 10 million units. This is a higher number numerically, but one must consider that the Wii sold 100 million units to the GameCube's 21 million. This means that 1 in 10 Wii owners owned Brawl, while 1 in 3 GameCube owners owned Melee.
That's my argument from a business standpoint, which is what Nintendo is looking for.

 

[Tesh]

Alot of wiis sold to the non-gamer wii fit/sports crowd though. A demographic that wasn't going to pick up a cube thats for sure.

I think casuals are going to like whatever Nintendo gives us. On the surface, to someone who will play FFA, items on, all stages etc. all the games are just great in every way and the 4th wont disappoint in that area I'm sure. The rest of us don't care about what will sell systems the best.

 

[finalark]

I think Smash 4 would benefit from making a game more like Melee. Not exactly, but closer to it.
If you think about it, Melee sold about 7 million units out of 21 million GameCubes. That's 1 in 3 GameCubes having Melee. It was the best selling game on the GameCube, which makes it the textbook definition of "system seller". Brawl, on the other hand, sold about 10 million units. This is a higher number numerically, but one must consider that the Wii sold 100 million units to the GameCube's 21 million. This means that 1 in 10 Wii owners owned Brawl, while 1 in 3 GameCube owners owned Melee.
That's my argument from a business standpoint, which is what Nintendo is looking for.

Hold up, there. You're making the assumption that because Melee was more competitive this somehow meant that it sold more copies. But here's a few things you should consider:

1: Out of the 7 million people who bought Melee how many people bought it to play competitively or ended up playing it competitively?
2: Out of the 7 million units sold how many people played it as a party game?
3: Out of the 21 million Gamecubes sold how many were bought by a "core" audience?
4: Out of the 10 million units Brawl sold how many were bought to be played competitively?
5: Out of the 100 million Wiis sold how many were bought by a "core" audience?

I'm not mathematician, frankly I got Cs in the subject all throughout High School, but I get the impression that the proportionately lower sales of Brawl had more to do with the kinds of people who purchased a Wii instead of any sort of "competitive VS. casual" nonsense.

I'll be honest, I was about eight years old when Melee came out. At the time, I didn't give a damn about any sort of meta game or advanced techniques. I was more excited for the fact that I could make Mario and Link fight each other. You also have to consider the kinds of kids like that who bought each game.

 

[Ben Holt]

Hold up, there. You're making the assumption that because Melee was more competitive this somehow meant that it sold more copies. But here's a few things you should consider:

1: Out of the 7 million people who bought Melee how many people bought it to play competitively or ended up playing it competitively?
2: Out of the 7 million units sold how many people played it as a party game?
3: Out of the 21 million Gamecubes sold how many were bought by a "core" audience?
4: Out of the 10 million units Brawl sold how many were bought to be played competitively?
5: Out of the 100 million Wiis sold how many were bought by a "core" audience?

I'm not mathematician, frankly I got Cs in the subject all throughout High School, but I get the impression that the proportionately lower sales of Brawl had more to do with the kinds of people who purchased a Wii instead of any sort of "competitive VS. casual" nonsense.

I'll be honest, I was about eight years old when Melee came out. At the time, I didn't give a damn about any sort of meta game or advanced techniques. I was more excited for the fact that I could make Mario and Link fight each other. You also have to consider the kinds of kids like that who bought each game.

I said in another thread that the "casual" audience doesn't really give a damn about the competitive scene. But if you compare the two games, Melee definitely had a more lasting appeal due to the faster, more exciting gameplay. Personally, I played Melee through the entire GameCube lifespan, and it was my most played game on the Wii until Mario Galaxy. I played Brawl for about a year before growing tired of it. I'll still pick it up from time to time, but not very often. If you read my previous post, you'll notice that I never used the word "competitive". Competitive players are a relatively small, but noticeable demographic (and no, I'm not a competitive player). Nintendo could easily ignore them to make a better party game. But the reason I think Melee was better is because it was more fast paced and on edge than Brawl. I think many would agree with me on this, competitive or not. If you don't agree with me, look at the success of Project M, which is still just a demo, and not a retail game.
And keep in mind, I'm not a "Melee Elitist". I just think it's faster play style was better than Brawl's.

 

[finalark]

But the reason I think Melee was better is because it was more fast paced and on edge than Brawl. I think many would agree with me on this, competitive or not.

I will agree that Melee was faster, but I'm not arguing about which game is better, I'm talking about a business standpoint, as you said. And from a business standpoint most people who play aren't going to care about which game is faster or "on edge." I know many people who prefer Brawl to Melee because Brawl has more characters, less clones, more stages, more fan service, more everything. And while yes, the game is slower and many of the physics exploits that lead to advanced techniques were removed but a majority of the people who play Smash get it just to see Nintendo (and in Brawl, Konami and SEGA) characters fight.

When you get down to it, Smash has always been a party game at heart.

If you don't agree with me, look at the success of Project M, which is still just a demo, and not a retail game.

You forget the Project M is made borderline exclusively for competitive players.

And keep in mind, I'm not a "Melee Elitist". I just think it's faster play style was better than Brawl's.

Again, I'm not trying to argue which game is better. I'm just saying that Melee's game play had nothing to do with the proportionately lower sales.

 

[Ben Holt]

Project M was made for competitive players that like Melee's physics. And it is quite a success, which is in Melee's favor.
Yes, Smash has always been a party game at heart, and Melee's gameplay is still faster, and better for on-edge, fun party play.
As for people preferring Brawl for more characters, that's the natural progression of the franchise and has nothing to do with comparing which playstyle will sell the game better.
Melee's gameplay had everything to do with it's proportionately *higher (1 in 3 GameCubes) sales. People, including the casual audience, tend to prefer faster paced fighting games.

 

[finalark]

Project M was made for competitive players that like Melee's physics. And it is quite a success, which is in Melee's favor.

For competitive players. For casuals they couldn't really care less, which is my main point.

Yes, Smash has always been a party game at heart, and Melee's gameplay is still faster, and better for on-edge, fun party play.

Brawl is fun party play too IMO.

As for people preferring Brawl for more characters, that's the natural progression of the franchise and has nothing to do with comparing which playstyle will sell the game better.

Again, Melee's playstyle had nothing to do with the proportional sales. You're forgetting that many people who bought a Gamecube bought it specifically for Melee, hell, later in its life span the console came bundled with a copy of Smash. Why? Most people were convinced it was the only good game on the Gamecube at the time.

But the Wii. The Wii was not bought primarily by people who wanted it specifically for Smash. It was bought primarily by an older audience who really weren't interested in games outside of motion-controlled novelties. The number of people who bought it for the bundled Wii sports is probably much higher than those who bought it for smash.

Melee's gameplay had everything to do with it's proportionately *higher (1 in 3 GameCubes) sales. People, including the casual audience, tend to prefer faster paced fighting games.

Again, I disagree. The casual audience doesn't give a rat's ass about which game is faster or edgier. Most "casual" players, especially kids (Nintendo's target audience regardless of what people want to believe) are just interested in the game because you can make your favorite characters fight each other. The thing that made me beg my parents for a Gamecube as an eight year old was seeing an article in a gaming magazine that listed all of Melee's characters. All I gave a damn about was "PIKACHU, LINK AND MARIO ALL IN THE SAME GAME!"

Why do you think so many kids love licenced games regardless of the quality? If it has their favorite characters in it a kid will eat anything up.