Is there really any "bad" or "worse" character in Smash Bros Ultimate?

[Birdygamer]

So far, it seems like a lot of low tier characters have been buffed to be much better and it seems that some characters have been needed but not to unfathomable standards, so does every character in Smash Ultimate have a good chance of reaching brew heights in the competitive community?

 

[Orlando BCN]

According to an online survey, Sakurai showed that the entire cast is well balanced out and that it’s up to the player’s own skill to determine how good they can get. There are, of course, some characters that are just naturally better, but everyone has a chance at having a solid gameplan.

Spoiler

Unless you play Little Mac.

 

[Crystanium]

There will always be a bad character, even if it seems like all characters are balanced.

 

[Thermithral]

Random is a pretty terrible character, almost never see it used in competitive play.

But in all seriousness, I dont think their is inherently a worst character at the moment, though I know there are characters I am especially horrible at playing.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

There are definitely characters on the lower end of the pack.

Nice thing is that these characters aren't so bad that there's no huge gap between the viable characters and the bad characters. Jr. and Little Mac can still be used at a higher level to some degree of success, even if there are blatantly better characters.

 

[Mogisthelioma]

Yes, some fighters naturally have way more advantages than others.

 

[Dr. Corndog]

According to an online survey, Sakurai showed that the entire cast is well balanced out and that it’s up to the player’s own skill to determine how good they can get. There are, of course, some characters that are just naturally better, but everyone has a chance at having a solid gameplan.

Yeah, but that data is from online matches, so you can only take it so far.

 

[Dr. Edgeworth]

Bad or worst is relative. There will always be a worst character. Shout out to bowser jr.

 

[lucasla]

I think that it doesnt have some way to be properly measured - except if there really is a really really bad character. Even a bad character in the hands of a good player can be better than the best character in the hands of a bad player. Even a good character in the hands of a good player may not have the expected results because maybe the player doesnt like the gameplay of the character, and he will play better with another character... It's all relative.

 

[Mogisthelioma]

Bad or worst is relative. There will always be a worst character. Shout out to bowser jr.

Cries in Kirby

 

[MG_3989]

Yeah, Little Mac and Kirby are straight up bad right now

I think that it doesnt have some way to be properly measured - except if there really is a really really bad character. Even a bad character in the hands of a good player can be better than the best character in the hands of a bad player. Even a good character in the hands of a good player may not have the expected results because maybe the player doesnt like the gameplay of the character, and he will play better with another character... It's all relative.

This will always be true but there will always be bad characters

 

[Itachi_]

I would say little Mac is a pretty bottom tier character. His ability to get gimped is just too high. Against someone who knows what they’re doing, and with the current meta swinging towards edge guarding rather than edge trapping, he’s kinda obsolete. Obviously he can still be used to win matches, I’m not saying he’s useless, just overall, I consider him the worst character in the game.

 

[Love Tap]

People seem to have a really liberal usage of the word "balance" Balance is a word that explicitly entails equality, arguing that low tier characters have "a chance" against a top tier character as opposed to complete non viability doesn't mean balance, lmao. Don't get me wrong, it's a leg up from previous smash games, but if you're seriously arguing there aren't improvements that should be made, I think you're being a bit fanboyish.

 

[VodkaHaze]

Yes, there will always be bad characters in Smash. Balance means that you can have characters with different properties and they can still be equal in value. Making a game 100% balanced is impossible unless you're playing rock-paper-scissors (or at least highly improbable) because the developers can't foresee how the metagame will evolve for the game as well as tournament results.

 

[Love Tap]

No one, at least not me, is asking for 100% balance. What I am saying is that the "Well, you can't be perfect" is a really tempting go to, and often lazy, excuse for people to ignore existing issues with balance. Nintendo just released patch notes with various buffs and nerfs, so apparently they know that having good PR and publicly claiming their game is balanced is one thing, but taking steps to make your game actually balanced is another.

Atm, sword mains are pretty dominant and that's probably the way it's going to stay, because they possess everything - strength, speed, range, and little end lag on their moves. Young link in particular is pretty disgusting. The only real weakness are their recoveries, which aren't even *that* bad. I'd say they're average, with the exception of like, Chrom and Cloud.

 

[Deleted member]

I feel like it's definitely a step up from the previous entries in terms of balance. So far at least. Little Mac always comes to mind when I think weak character though. Because he's purposefully made to be useless in the air he's very easy to exploit and its a weakness that everyone who plays the game is well aware of. Like I feel any other character has the potential to be strong in theory, but Little Mac is just crippled by design.

 

[Mogisthelioma]

100% balance means that a character has been fine tuned to a point where in every possible matchup they have equal amounts of advantages and disadvantages to the point where tournaments might as well be decided with a coin toss if someone were to use them. So no, it's really not possible to have 100% balance in the first place, and this game is far from balanced to begin with.

 

[Love Tap]

100% balance means that a character has been fine tuned to a point where in every possible matchup they have equal amounts of advantages and disadvantages to the point where tournaments might as well be decided with a coin toss if someone were to use them. So no, it's really not possible to have 100% balance in the first place, and this game is far from balanced to begin with.

Or you know, their skill with that character and ability to read their opponent? I mean, I did clarify that I'm not saying 100% balance is possible, but that is the illusory ideal one should strive toward, i.e "the just city" may not exist, but you can definitely move closer or further away from it. The kind of game imbalance I'm alright with would be characters that have great win ratios but they require a great amount of skill to play properly, like say, the nurse in dead by daylight. She's ridiculously unfair, but you can't even really be mad when you all die in the first minute because most people don't have the fortitude to endure the countless hours of humiliation it takes to become good with her, haha.

To summarize: Yes, I am happy this game is an improvement in terms of balance from previous installments, but the praise it is getting in that regard often comes off like the game doesn't have issues that should be fixed, when it plainly does. No, 100% balance may not be possible but that's kind of splitting hairs since we could technically say that about melee.

 

[Sean²]

Listen, there’s bad, and then there’s Brawl Ganondorf bad. No one in this game is at that level.

I’d say every character is viable in some way. Though there has to be a worst at some point, mid-tier is probably the floor right now. Lots of people trash on Kirby, Little Mac, Bowser Jr, etc. (I’m probably guilty of it myself) but most of those people probably have not played a legitimately good player of those characters. They can actually put up a decent fight and win some games, unlike some of the bottom tiers of past entries. The mountain those guys had to climb to be successful is more of a mild slope now.

 

[Mogisthelioma]

Or you know, their skill with that character and ability to read their opponent? I mean, I did clarify that I'm not saying 100% balance is possible, but that is the illusory ideal one should strive toward, i.e "the just city" may not exist, but you can definitely move closer or further away from it. The kind of game imbalance I'm alright with would be characters that have great win ratios but they require a great amount of skill to play properly, like say, the nurse in dead by daylight. She's ridiculously unfair, but you can't even really be mad when you all die in the first minute because most people don't have the fortitude to endure the countless hours of humiliation it takes to become good with her, haha.

To summarize: Yes, I am happy this game is an improvement in terms of balance from previous installments, but the praise it is getting in that regard often comes off like the game doesn't have issues that should be fixed, when it plainly does. No, 100% balance may not be possible but that's kind of splitting hairs since we could technically say that about melee.

Listen, there’s bad, and then there’s Brawl Ganondorf bad. No one in this game is at that level.

I’d say every character is viable in some way. Though there has to be a worst at some point, mid-tier is probably the floor right now. Lots of people trash on Kirby, Little Mac, Bowser Jr, etc. (I’m probably guilty of it myself) but most of those people probably have not played a legitimately good player of those characters. They can actually put up a decent fight and win some games, unlike some of the bottom tiers of past entries. The mountain those guys had to climb to be successful is more of a mild slope now.

You're both right. What we have is certainly a leg up from every previous game and we're finally getting our foot in the door toward decent character balancing. It's not like we have a meta shaped with tier differences like Melee and Brawl had. Even Smash 4 had huge gaps that we don't have today. Whilst Kirby and Little Mac certainly have debilitating issues it's not like they're unplayable.

 

[DarthEnderX]

People seem to have a really liberal usage of the word "balance" Balance is a word that explicitly entails equality, arguing that low tier characters have "a chance" against a top tier character as opposed to complete non viability doesn't mean balance, lmao.

It may not be "balance" but it is "more balanced". Since complete non viability is common for characters in many other fighting games, including previous Smash games.

 

[Necro'lic]

Love Tap Balance isn't a binary thing when talking about games. You can be more balanced but not perfectly. This is why anyone who rebuts someone wanting better balance with something along the lines of "well just remove every character but one for your perfectly balanced game" is sidestepping the issue with hyperbole. People aren't asking for a perfectly balanced game absolutely, but they are asking for the game to reach for the ideal as best as they can, because it is ideal.

To compare this to another concept, and because I'm feeling patriotic today, take the concept of human rights for the individual. Here in America, we strive for that ideal we can never fully reach, but that doesn't mean we stop trying. And also in America, in the past, with our slavery and taking land from the Natives and our lack of women's rights, we have faltered in that goal. But notice that even through these faults, for every step we take closer to the idea that every individual has inalienable, immutable rights, our country has gotten better, not worse.

That's when you know an ideal is worth striving towards.

The same is said for this. The more balanced a game is, the better it is in the long run.

(I didn't mean to get quasi-political, it was just an example lol)

EDIT: And only now did I realize that was what you were saying lol. I really need to read through comments first, but balance is important to me and I wanted to make the quick comment.

 

[VodkaHaze]

To elaborate on my point, I don't think a 100% perfectly balanced Smash game would be worth watching, simply because it's entertaining to watch many low tier upsets. However, that doesn't mean that I'm OK with things like Brawl Meta Knight. A more realistic outlook on balance would be turning a match-up from an extreme advantage to a minor advantage.

 

[Gryphon827]

 

[FirestormNeos]

I can somewhat understand Wii Fit Trainer, but what gives you the impression that Robin is bad?

 

[Necro'lic]

Why?

 

[Luigifan18]

Why?

Probably because of their shaky frame data.

 

[Necro'lic]

Probably because of their shaky frame data.

I mean, it's not super good, but they have plenty of fast attacks to work with in neutral.

 

[MarioMeteor]

I’m thinking Samus, but that might just be my inexperience talking.

Not a chance in hell. Doc is so much better than he used to be it’s not even funny. Some people have actually called him better than his counterpart.