Is the skill gap in Smash 4 too small?

[N.T.A.O ChangeOfHeart 死の剣]

Decade+ of Melee, Brawl for 4 years, Smash 4 since release. You can call me a Smash Brothers Player.

Na. Wait. I also played BB (Lambda, Bang), am in love with GG (Chipp you glorious *******), advocated Skullgirls (made some of double's BnB known), played Akuma exclusively in any game he's in, or Sagat for Turbo (old Sagat, don't be hating), TvC because Zero/Alex traps are fun, SvC Chaos because I played that one in the arcade (and Akuma, yay!), and MvC exclusively because I think foot dive is hilarious. Oh, and Persona 4 Arena because Shadow Labrys has a giant mother ****ing axe. Guess you can call me a fighting game player.

I just play Smash because I have a love for it that's greater than GG or Akuma. I'm making S4 my focus for Evo this year.

Point being, I have a lot of experience in fighters, something that you can use to make your next response... Well... Useful. Because, in spite of what games I've played, I'm playing Smash Brothers and posting here to participate in discussion about the games. I'm asking for a return of discussion from you.

You see, for all the complexities and flaming and *****ing that goes on between the Melee, P:M, and Smash 4 communities, it's all the same game with just slightly different systems.

You really need to stop making me chuckle or almost did. Smash-4 is nowhere the rest. Get use to it and I'm not "trolling" your perceptive view towards me trolling as many think that is quite pitiful and pathethic. I'm not going to participate towards a game that has no skill involved but instead popularity wise. Hopefully this futile arguement dies towards Smash-4 becoming relevant as a skill game at all. Thanks.

 

[platologic]

I'm not going to participate towards a game that has no skill involved but instead popularity wise.

And yet, here you are talking about it.

 

[Jellydino]

The skill gap seems to be very evident in the game unless im missing something. I just got into playing smash "competitively" in Project M, 3 months before Sm4sh came out and Sm4sh's skill gap isn't as wide as in Project M, but it's still there.

And getting better can come from many different things, even playing FG a lot can help someone get better at the game. It's like ZeRo said in a video that he uploaded:

Playing FG every day is a good way to help even the best players get better. It helps with muscle memory and allows you to get accustomed to different players and playstyles. When there's innate things that can show skill E.G: Wavedashing and L-Canceling being a factor on high skill gameplay in a game, that's when it can really have a huge skillgap. But Brawl and Sm4sh was made to remove the things like that to make it so newer players can get into the game easier instead of struggling to keep up with vets. This made it appeasing to me as a casual looking to get better instead of starting and staying on Melee like my brother did.

Honestly, if there is a skillgap in the game, it's going to be obvious from people who move exclusively by rolling, the rush down little macs, the ganondorfs and falcons who try to come back to the ledge infront of you, or the people who spam air dodge if you go near them and it can be a very huge gap or a small, hardly noticeable gap. Even though im a smash casual and this is purely anecdotal evidence but, I've witnessed bad players, good players and those in between and it's very, very evident between the groups.

 

[Baby_Sneak]

Ignore plz thnx

There aren't any. The problem I have in this thread isn't the fact Smash 4 has the lowest skillgap, it's that people are pretending Smash 4 is something that it totally isn't. Smash 4's skill gap is the smallest it's ever been in SSB history, period. You miiiight be able to argue this against Brawl, but it's absolutely no contest against Melee or 64.

As for the tournament scene...what's going to happen if the skill gap is too small, is that there wont be a tournament scene. Usually, thats what happens in fighters of course -- Smash 4 will likely always have tournaments because of how hilariously easy it is to play, for the reasons outlined in this topic.

That's a good thing. A game being hard to play at the beginning is bad design by not being intuitive, but that's another topic.

You really need to stop making me chuckle or almost did. Smash-4 is nowhere the rest. Get use to it and I'm not "trolling" your perceptive view towards me trolling as many think that is quite pitiful and pathethic. I'm not going to participate towards a game that has no skill involved but instead popularity wise. Hopefully this futile arguement dies towards Smash-4 becoming relevant as a skill game at all. Thanks.

I guess techskill = skill now guys >___>

 

[PCHU]

Honestly, if there is a skillgap in the game, it's going to be obvious from people who move exclusively by rolling, the rush down little macs, the ganondorfs and falcons who try to come back to the ledge infront of you, or the people who spam air dodge if you go near them and it can be a very huge gap or a small, hardly noticeable gap. Even though im a smash casual and this is purely anecdotal evidence but, I've witnessed bad players, good players and those in between and it's very, very evident between the groups.

I think the difference is how much skill is needed to execute a strategy that works well enough, but that statement alone could be argued much further than I'd care to discuss, so I'll say this.
A lot of times, in Smash 4, especially depending on your character, it can seem near impossible to punish a rollspammer if they do nothing but run away and camp with projectiles just because of the "improved cushions".
Many characters simply lack the mobility to keep up with other characters in this game, and it especially affects these slower characters in an environment where a lot of damage is dealt with ranged attacks.
The opponents themselves might not be able to make the reads, but being able to set up enough of a wall that your opponent is not able to reach you and/or using superior horizontal and vertical mobility to just stay away from your opponent is huge, not to mention the leeway some characters are naturally given (Yoshi, Captain Falcon, Sonic).

But that isn't necessarily what I think of when I think skill gap, since that applies more to the execution of a general gameplan rather than referring to the neutral itself and the various decisions it entails at the base.
I don't even know that I'm able to really explain my stance here because it's hard for me to clearly differentiate the two in speech, so I guess I'll say that as far as I can see, Smash 4 overall has less decisions to make, and the more options you can cover with less buttons, the better chance you'll have of winning.
In simplest terms, of course, since there's just way too much of that to talk about in one post.

 

[LightLV]

That's a good thing. A game being hard to play at the beginning is bad design by not being intuitive, but that's another topic.

dark souls, bloodborne, i win

also Melee / 64 were absolutely positively not hard to play. I remember my siblings thoroughly enjoying both of those games, one of which being as casual a gamer as they come, and the other 2 with no interest in games at all. In fact aside from Fox/Falco mains having to adjust to self-destructing every 2nd stock they play, I doubt the most casual Smash4 players would notice a massive difference either.

This convo isn't really going anywhere productive. On the whole skill ceiling topic though, I will say that, while i completely understand it, i 100% disagree with Sakurai's decision to make Smash into a feelings-friendly game that's built to accommodate the most scrubbish of instincts into its basic design, with no real room in the mechanics to grow past it. The difference between smash and any other fighter that we reference in these discussions is that, despite the fact people clearly care about smash competitively, the lead designer of the game wants nothing to do with a well-respected fighter.

Which COMPLETELY grinds me, seeing as Harada from tekken was involved in this game's development...and Tekken is commonly both the most balanced AND complex fighter out at any given time. Complete waste of talent imo.

You see, for all the complexities and flaming and *****ing that goes on between the Melee, P:M, and Smash 4 communities, it's all the same game with just slightly different systems.

ahahaha, I think the only "slight" system changes that happened in smash were from Brawl to Smash 4.

64 > Melee was a good example of how emergent seemingly small mechanics can be in the grand scheme of things.

Melee > Brawl just showed the same effect, except in a different direction, where you add nothing, but drastically alter all the constants in the game until it's not even the same game anymore.

The reason Melee, Brawl and now Smash 4 lovers keep butting heads so much is because, no, they are nowhere close to the same game. They just look the same.

 

[ぱみゅ]

dark souls, bloodborne, i win.

Nitpicknitpick
Those games have easy mechanics, they're for the most part intuitive, just difficult to beat.
Watch this video from second 20 to understand what "hard to play" means (language warning and stuff, but it's Egoraptor, so whatever) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FpigqfcvlM

 

[allshort17]

The reason Melee, Brawl and now Smash 4 lovers keep butting heads so much is because, no, they are nowhere close to the same game. They just look the same.

I don't know why Smash players think each game is so distinct when there are so many basic mechanics people forget are the same. Every game in the series features percent based damage that correlates to the knockback of moves. The goal of the game is to knock your opponent off the stage and if you get knocked off, you must use jumps to get back. Things like l-canceling, wavedashing, ledge mechanics, and hitstun are just nitpicking at the little difference that the game have, but in reality they're pretty much the same.

So ignoring these minor details, here's why smash has a huge skill gap compared to many other games. The skill floor is low since the game is so intuitive. Knocking people off the stage is a simple goal made easier by the controls. You only need to know how to move, attack, and jump and you can compete.

On the other hand, the skill ceiling is amazingly high due to the highly dynamic and nuanced gameplay. Have a game based around knocking players off instead of getting damage means players can live indefinitely, yet die at any time, meaning player skill completely dictates how long you live. Knockback rising with damage means players have to consider how each move will effect the next and judge how the percent correlates with the knockback in order to properly follow up, meaning moves constantly change in purpose and reward. Speaking of following up, DI gives the defensive player some amount of control at any time and makes the offensive player always adjust their attacks to account for DI. The high amount and control over movement options (5 levels of walking, dashing, running, multiple jumps, and high aerial mobility) allows players to micro-manage actions to maximize rewards and the high amount of defensive options (shielding, rolling, airdodging, and spotdodging) means pressured players always have something to combat the situation. Even in highly disadvantagous situations like on the ledge and on the ground, players are given various options and free control over when they perform the action. Official tech like l/z-canceling, shield tilting, teching, and pivots attacks couple with glitches and exploits like DACUSing, wavedashing, and other ATs just add to the skill ceiling.

It's sad that instead of answering the question OP presenting, we just devolved into a Melee vs Brawl/Smash 4 debate just like EVERY OTHER CONVERSATION about Smash games. Please, we're better than this. The OP asked a genuinely interesting question. Let's respect that by keeping the "which game is better debate" out of it.

 

[outfoxd]

A little off topic, but Tekken is one of the most balanced? That used to be my home game and I remember constant anger about Steve Fox, Bob, so on and so forth at the top har. I dunno, I been out for a bit.

I think Virtua Fighter is the real balanced one. Then again, no one plays VF.

 

[otter]

we just devolved into a Melee vs Brawl/Smash 4 debate just like EVERY OTHER CONVERSATION about Smash games. Please, we're better than this. The OP asked a genuinely interesting question. Let's respect that by keeping the "which game is better debate" out of it.

I think many people are torn between emulating the scene of older games, and admitting they prefer a smaller skill gap, so they enter into arguments they they are just comedicilly unequipped to handle. If someone says that less reliable results, less exciting matches, and less incentive for average skilled people to play is worth bringing in new blood, I respectfully disagree, and that's cool!

If someone says that sm4sh can compete with any respected fighting game via objective means, I dont really feel bad about taking the free win, although it does get tiring that every thread becomes that.

 

[Baby_Sneak]

Why hasn't anybody said that it's probably the character you're playing with that makes you feel that smash 4 has a low skill ceiling/gap?

 

[TheAnomaly]

I don't know why Smash players think each game is so distinct when there are so many basic mechanics people forget are the same. Every game in the series features percent based damage that correlates to the knockback of moves. The goal of the game is to knock your opponent off the stage and if you get knocked off, you must use jumps to get back. Things like l-canceling, wavedashing, ledge mechanics, and hitstun are just nitpicking at the little difference that the game have, but in reality they're pretty much the same.

So ignoring these minor details, here's why smash has a huge skill gap compared to many other games. The skill floor is low since the game is so intuitive. Knocking people off the stage is a simple goal made easier by the controls. You only need to know how to move, attack, and jump and you can compete.

On the other hand, the skill ceiling is amazingly high due to the highly dynamic and nuanced gameplay. Have a game based around knocking players off instead of getting damage means players can live indefinitely, yet die at any time, meaning player skill completely dictates how long you live. Knockback rising with damage means players have to consider how each move will effect the next and judge how the percent correlates with the knockback in order to properly follow up, meaning moves constantly change in purpose and reward. Speaking of following up, DI gives the defensive player some amount of control at any time and makes the offensive player always adjust their attacks to account for DI. The high amount and control over movement options (5 levels of walking, dashing, running, multiple jumps, and high aerial mobility) allows players to micro-manage actions to maximize rewards and the high amount of defensive options (shielding, rolling, airdodging, and spotdodging) means pressured players always have something to combat the situation. Even in highly disadvantagous situations like on the ledge and on the ground, players are given various options and free control over when they perform the action. Official tech like l/z-canceling, shield tilting, teching, and pivots attacks couple with glitches and exploits like DACUSing, wavedashing, and other ATs just add to the skill ceiling.

It's sad that instead of answering the question OP presenting, we just devolved into a Melee vs Brawl/Smash 4 debate just like EVERY OTHER CONVERSATION about Smash games. Please, we're better than this. The OP asked a genuinely interesting question. Let's respect that by keeping the "which game is better debate" out of it.

You are my hero. This sums up why i love smash more than any other fighter so well. Now for all other people arguing this useless debate, @ N.T.A.O ChangeOfHeart 死の剣 in particular, I once again refer you to my earlier post
here --> http://smashboards.com/threads/is-the-skill-gap-in-smash-4-too-small.400051/page-6#post-19095950
Read that first, think about it then comment. I'm sorry if it seems like I'm saying my opinion on this matter is better than all others by constantly bringing this up but this debate is devolving into madness from the simple fact that people are misunderstanding the core elements and definitions in it.
Melee has a high skill gap between beginners and the competitive minimum. Smash 4 does not. The skill gap between the competitive minimum and the actual top players in both games is probably about the same because of the core aspects that allshort17 pointed out. The game is simply about hitting the opponent off the stage the required amount of times to win and the formula for doing this remains constant in all smash games: rack up damage through low % combos and strings, steadily increase damage through footsies etc and finally land a killing blow or killing edgeguard.

 

[Ulevo]

Why is this thread a thing?

 

[outfoxd]

Why is this thread a thing?

Arguing is cathartic.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

@Shaya I think this thread is done.

 

[otter]

Arguing is cathartic.

No it's not!

 

[Runic_SSB]

Why is this thread a thing?

I seriously have no idea why stuff like this isn't killed on sight. Nothing good can possibly come from "X game is bad" or "Y game is better." All it ever does is give fuel to the worst part of the community.

 

[N.T.A.O ChangeOfHeart 死の剣]

That's a good thing. A game being hard to play at the beginning is bad design by not being intuitive, but that's another topic.


I guess techskill = skill now guys >___>

Right,

You are my hero. This sums up why i love smash more than any other fighter so well. Now for all other people arguing this useless debate, @ N.T.A.O ChangeOfHeart 死の剣 in particular, I once again refer you to my earlier post
here --> http://smashboards.com/threads/is-the-skill-gap-in-smash-4-too-small.400051/page-6#post-19095950
Read that first, think about it then comment. I'm sorry if it seems like I'm saying my opinion on this matter is better than all others by constantly bringing this up but this debate is devolving into madness from the simple fact that people are misunderstanding the core elements and definitions in it.
Melee has a high skill gap between beginners and the competitive minimum. Smash 4 does not. The skill gap between the competitive minimum and the actual top players in both games is probably about the same because of the core aspects that allshort17 pointed out. The game is simply about hitting the opponent off the stage the required amount of times to win and the formula for doing this remains constant in all smash games: rack up damage through low % combos and strings, steadily increase damage through footsies etc and finally land a killing blow or killing edgeguard.

And you continue, once more, Smash-4 isn't even skill Brawl material you're way over your head by even mentioning Melee with Smash-4 together in a sentence. Thanks.