Just read the Kotaku interview.....

[SmashChu]

I'm saying I want him to acknowledge the competitive community a little more since we are keeping his games alive. Melee was the most viewed fighting game at EVO. Nintendo almost stopped that.

I agree that the EVO thing was stupid. You don't do that to fans of any kind.

I'm not sure how much you want Nintendo to "acknowledge" the community. Can you be more specific.

 

[Snakeyes]

I'm saying I want him to acknowledge the competitive community a little more since we are keeping his games alive. Melee was the most viewed fighting game at EVO. Nintendo almost stopped that.

To be fair, I doubt he needs a community of 200k people keeping Smash "alive" when the latest entry in the series sold over 50 times that amount.

 

[mimgrim]

So you mean to tell me that air dodging out of hitstun was a glitch?

Do you have proof that is other wise? I don't recall it ever being confirmed officially to be put in on purpose, like Lcancel in 64/Melee, or even found by the testers and then left in on purpose, like Wave Dashing in Melee. I'm also pretty sure I read somewhere that, like DACUS, hitstun cancel ws a abuse of the physics of Brawl which makes it a programming error. Do you imply otherwise?

 

[Big-Cat]

Do you have proof that is other wise? I don't recall it ever being confirmed officially to be put in on purpose, like Lcancel in 64/Melee, or even found by the testers and then left in on purpose, like Wave Dashing in Melee. I'm also pretty sure I read somewhere that, like DACUS, hitstun cancel ws a abuse of the physics of Brawl which makes it a programming error. Do you imply otherwise?

No, no. I'm not saying otherwise. I was under the impression that hitstun canceling was a stupidly deliberate mechanic.

When they say Brawl was poorly coded, they weren't kidding.

 

[Viceversa96]

I agree that the EVO thing was stupid. You don't do that to fans of any kind.

I'm not sure how much you want Nintendo to "acknowledge" the community. Can you be more specific.

Being more vocal would be a great start. Acknowledging big tournaments, acknowledging P:M's hard work, maybe a extra mode for competitive gaming. Like a casual filter and a competitive filter. I heard something about Nintendo being interested in MLG. Is that true?

 

[Jumpman84]

Being more vocal would be a great start. Acknowledging big tournaments, acknowledging P:M's hard work, maybe a extra mode for competitive gaming. Like a casual filter and a competitive filter. I heard something about Nintendo being interested in MLG. Is that true?

You want them to acknowledge an illegal mod? That'll be the day...

 

[Viceversa96]

You want them to acknowledge an illegal mod? That'll be the day...

Yes I want them to acknowledge an illegal mod that is doing a better job then them lol

 

[Big-Cat]

Yes I want them to acknowledge an illegal mod that is doing a better job then them lol

The implications behind that would be massive.They could never acknowledge it without setting up a potentially abusable precedent.

And, no, we don't need a casual/competitive filter. It's a stupid that really solves nothing and just wastes times and resources that could've gone into a much more polished game.

 

[Jumpman84]

Yes I want them to acknowledge an illegal mod that is doing a better job then them lol

I would also want Nintendo to acknowledge them... if I hated Project M with a passion and wanted it eradicated off the face of the Earth.

The reality is that Nintendo ignoring Project M in spite of the massive media attention it's been given is the best thing that can happen to it. It's basically Nintendo saying, "So long as you don't try to make a profit off it or it doesn't detract from Smash 4 sales, keep up the good work." The creators of Project M are well aware of this and have stated on their website that they don't intend to come off as competing with Smash 4 for that very reason.

So you see, you can't both love Project M and want Nintendo to acknowledge its existence. If a time ever comes where Project M decides to approach Nintendo for an endorsement and they give their approval, then we'll talk. Until then, it's a blatant contradiction.

 

[Johnknight1]

Yes I want them to acknowledge an illegal mod that is doing a better job then them lol

It's not illegal at all.

 

[the_suicide_fox]

The sad fact is that Nintendo doesn't care about their fanbase, but they do care about their image. Their image has been for the last 2 generations of "fun, casual, and meant for kids". The idea putting effort into making a solid game over something that just looks nice just doesn't fly with Big N. They don't care about building a community, or even keeping up to date (when has Nintendo ever released and actual patch?). No, they just want to make a game and sell a bunch of copies then move on to the next game. They don't like the idea of games being competitive (which is ironic because they take the opposite approach to Pokemon).

Honestly, the only way I see Smash regaining the competitive edge again is if a bunch of community members go work for Nintendo and kick Sakuri out. I think the best bet is to count Smash 4 as a competitive failure and start on Project M2 on launch day.

 

[Luco]

The sad fact is that Nintendo doesn't care about their fanbase, but they do care about their image. Their image has been for the last 2 generations of "fun, casual, and meant for kids". The idea putting effort into making a solid game over something that just looks nice just doesn't fly with Big N. They don't care about building a community, or even keeping up to date (when has Nintendo ever released and actual patch?). No, they just want to make a game and sell a bunch of copies then move on to the next game. They don't like the idea of games being competitive (which is ironic because they take the opposite approach to Pokemon).

Honestly, the only way I see Smash regaining the competitive edge again is if a bunch of community members go work for Nintendo and kick Sakuri out. I think the best bet is to count Smash 4 as a competitive failure and start on Project M2 on launch day.

This makes no sense though, if that were the case why would they invest in asking Namco to help them make the game.

I can't see Namco as just being there for show. They must have some kind of influence on the game's development and knowing their reputation they'd be pushing for a game that both communities will love. Observe:

1. Characters we consider to be low tier seem to have been buffed, including Bowser's revamped moveset, Samus' Fsmash buff, etc.

2. The speed has been increased. Why not just make it the same or slower than Brawl?

3. The stages we've seen, whilst being interesting, also appear to be very neutral in quite a few cases. Can't be verified but this is something i've noticed.

4. Tripping has been removed. This can only have been an input from the community, whether casual or competitive, it means someone somewhere is listening to people asking for improvements to the game.

Of course, yes, Nintendo does like the image of 'fun and for casuals' but they even relented in the end to melee being on the evo stream. The players are making a larger and larger racket about the games. Is it all that far-fetched to think that someday they might respond?

tl;dr We don't have full evidence that Namco is actually balancing the game. But all the evidence points towards them having an effect on the game's outcome, and there IS concrete evidence supporting the idea that Namco supports smash's competitive community, as evidenced by the link that was put up on page 2.

EDIT: Oh derp that interview must've been posted on another thread. Does anyone remember where the interview is where Harada speaks on smash? :o

 

[Black Mantis]

Let me just point out that I find top level brawl exciting.quote]

Even though this thread is a typical whiny "We want the game more like Melee or it's automatically bad. We don't want any new ideas at all just more of the same." thread, to see Vkrm of all people say something nice about Brawl is somewhat cool (considering all of the bad stuff he has sad).

 

[Viceversa96]

The implications behind that would be massive.They could never acknowledge it without setting up a potentially abusable precedent.

And, no, we don't need a casual/competitive filter. It's a stupid that really solves nothing and just wastes times and resources that could've gone into a much more polished game.

Project M added turbo mode which is like a MvC mode which raises the skill ceiling more (which did attract some other fighting game players to P:M) but the mod is still polished and impressive for a community project and they're are not getting paid. So no it's not a waste of time to just add a Melee mode to shut us up.

Even though this thread is a typical whiny "We want the game more like Melee or it's automatically bad. We don't want any new ideas at all just more of the same." thread, to see Vkrm of all people say something nice about Brawl is somewhat cool (considering all of the bad stuff he has sad).

It's **** like that that is completely unnecessary. In the OP I stated just add advanced techniques back. Not only the old ones but some new ones as well. So stop calling us whiny. And I love brawl btw. It just appeals way too much to casual crowds (oh and Meta Knight ruins the fun a bit).

 

[Viceversa96]

No, no. I'm not saying otherwise. I was under the impression that hitstun canceling was a stupidly deliberate mechanic.

When they say Brawl was poorly coded, they weren't kidding.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQD1yJinzeQ&list=PLA1lIms2gwaDnOFGXUXtLj8KW5A4qNiKI Look at the hitstun. Does it look better? I think it looks much better then Brawl's so far. I'm seeing characters get stunned longer. True combos return?

 

[SmashChu]

Being more vocal would be a great start. Acknowledging big tournaments, acknowledging P:M's hard work, maybe a extra mode for competitive gaming. Like a casual filter and a competitive filter. I heard something about Nintendo being interested in MLG. Is that true?

Why should they do those things?

First, Nintendo isn't Valve so they, like most big companies, wont care if some people made a mod. Some people like that mod. OK, cool. But Nintendo, or any company, isn't going to recognize the community because their is no reason too. And the community wont derive self worth from Nintendo saying things about them. So it really doesn't matter.

As for MLG, there should be a thread about it somewhere on the main board.

 

[mimgrim]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQD1yJinzeQ&list=PLA1lIms2gwaDnOFGXUXtLj8KW5A4qNiKI Look at the hitstun. Does it look better? I think it looks much better then Brawl's so far. I'm seeing characters get stunned longer. True combos return?

Did you even read anything I typed? The hitstun, to me, looks the same as it has been in the last 2 games.

 

[Snakeyes]

The sad fact is that Nintendo doesn't care about their fanbase, but they do care about their image. Their image has been for the last 2 generations of "fun, casual, and meant for kids". The idea putting effort into making a solid game over something that just looks nice just doesn't fly with Big N. They don't care about building a community, or even keeping up to date (when has Nintendo ever released and actual patch?). No, they just want to make a game and sell a bunch of copies then move on to the next game. They don't like the idea of games being competitive (which is ironic because they take the opposite approach to Pokemon).

Honestly, the only way I see Smash regaining the competitive edge again is if a bunch of community members go work for Nintendo and kick Sakuri out. I think the best bet is to count Smash 4 as a competitive failure and start on Project M2 on launch day.

What is this nonsense? Nintendo is one of the few big development houses that still values gameplay over graphics. If you want to talk competition, well...

The new 2D Marios have plenty of levels designed for speedrunning.
As you mentioned, Gamefreak openly acknowledges and caters to the competitive Pokemon community. The new EV training and IV breeding features in X and Y are further proof of this.
High scores are a huge element of Sin & Punishment 2.
Iwata has gone on record that he would've simply added more stages and characters to Melee if he were directing the sequel.

Don't equate an entire company with one guy's vision. The current state of Smash is all on Sakurai.

 

[Big-Cat]

Project M added turbo mode which is like a MvC mode which raises the skill ceiling more (which did attract some other fighting game players to P:M) but the mod is still polished and impressive for a community project and they're are not getting paid. So no it's not a waste of time to just add a Melee mode to shut us up.

Turbo Mode is simply the ability to cancel anything into just about anything while still having everything else about it. Anyone with common sense can tell you that Turbo Mode will never be balanced.

Again, adding in a "Melee mode" is a waste of time. It's like you're saying we either have Brawl or Melee styled when there's so much that can be done with the series. They should be focusing on making the best new game game they can make without being stuck in the freaking past.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQD1yJinzeQ&list=PLA1lIms2gwaDnOFGXUXtLj8KW5A4qNiKI Look at the hitstun. Does it look better? I think it looks much better then Brawl's so far. I'm seeing characters get stunned longer. True combos return?

As mimgrim was saying, the hitstun in Melee and Brawl were actually the same. The thing was that there was a glitch that allowed you to cancel the hitstun. Assuming that the glitch is removed and hitstun now behaves normally, it has gone back to "normal".

Why should they do those things?

First, Nintendo isn't Valve so they, like most big companies, wont care if some people made a mod. Some people like that mod. OK, cool. But Nintendo, or any company, isn't going to recognize the community because their is no reason too. And the community wont derive self worth from Nintendo saying things about them. So it really doesn't matter.

As for MLG, there should be a thread about it somewhere on the main board.

There's another big reason and it just so happens to relate to Valve. Valve, unlike the big developers, is a privately owned company. There are no shareholders involved so they have way more freedom than a company like Nintendo.

 

[-TAG-]

It should be common knowledge by now that Smash 4 is extremely likely to have hitstun. That Smash Direct has a few instances where the characters looked they couldn't react after they've been launched, like at 1:28 in the video where Samus gets bombed by Link.

 

[Viceversa96]

It should be common knowledge by now that Smash 4 is extremely likely to have hitstun. That Smash Direct has a few instances where the characters looked they couldn't react after they've been launched, like at 1:28 in the video where Samus gets bombed by Link.

Your signature....Kirby will be top tier in Smash 4

 

[the_suicide_fox]

What is this nonsense? Nintendo is one of the few big development houses that still values gameplay over graphics. If you want to talk competition, well...

The new 2D Marios have plenty of levels designed for speedrunning.
As you mentioned, Gamefreak openly acknowledges and caters to the competitive Pokemon community. The new EV training and IV breeding features in X and Y are further proof of this.
High scores are a huge element of Sin & Punishment 2.
Iwata has gone on record that he would've simply added more stages and characters to Melee if he were directing the sequel.

Don't equate an entire company with one guy's vision. The current state of Smash is all on Sakurai.

Sorry, I just have lost all faith in Nintendo after the release of the Wii. They are stubborn and don't want to get with the times. By "looking good" I mean when people see the game they want to play not necessarily the graphics are good. They do put a lot of effort into making a good game BUT not a competitive game. They probably feel like they will somehow lose the appeal of the casuals if they do.

If it really is Sakuri and not Nintendo I wonder why they would keep him on the Smash. Or why not tell him to make the game more competitive. Increasing the speed and removing tripping isn't enough in my book. Brawl was a huge letdown for me, it's probably the most disappointed I've ever been with a game, so Nintendo needs to really step it up for Smash 4 for me to even care.

 

[Medaka444]

It seems that a lot of people on this site take it for granted that anyone who plays Melee and Brawl must prefer the former, when this is not the case. Also, by saying that a game appeals to casuals "too much", you are saying that appealing to tourney players at the same time is impossible, or at least wildly difficult. If that's the case (which I don't think is true), who's a game developer to focus on - a couple thousand guys who play it a decade later, or millions of guys who play it for a while before moving on to another bit of disposable entertainment?

PS: When I first heard the news about the EVO, I was surprised, but not in the usual way. I thought, "You mean people stream games for thousands of attendees without asking permission?". Nintendo's reaction felt justified, but I don't know that much about streams at tournaments.

 

[mimgrim]

Sorry, I just have lost all faith in Nintendo after the release of the Wii. They are stubborn and don't want to get with the times. By "looking good" I mean when people see the game they want to play not necessarily the graphics are good. They do put a lot of effort into making a good game BUT not a competitive game. They probably feel like they will somehow lose the appeal of the casuals if they do.

If it really is Sakuri and not Nintendo I wonder why they would keep him on the Smash. Or why not tell him to make the game more competitive. Increasing the speed and removing tripping isn't enough in my book. Brawl was a huge letdown for me, it's probably the most disappointed I've ever been with a game, so Nintendo needs to really step it up for Smash 4 for me to even care.

For a system "not with the time" it sure as heck sold better then both the PS3 and 360. And the only way it could have sold that well was if it had games people wanted to play. Also you keep on grouping it all up to Nintendo when in truth it depends on the developer of the game to make it competitive or not, and because of that Nintendo can only ask/tell them so much as they need those developers. You use Pokemon in your previous post, it is Gamefreak who develops it and makes it competitive while Nintendo just publishes it. The same goes for Smash Bros, Sakurai is the one who develops it and ameks it what it is and Nintendo publishes it. The reason Nintendo let Sakurai do what he does is because he has yet to actually disappoint them on a funds basis.

 

[Smur]

It should be common knowledge by now that Smash 4 is extremely likely to have hitstun. That Smash Direct has a few instances where the characters looked they couldn't react after they've been launched, like at 1:28 in the video where Samus gets bombed by Link.

I dunno. To me it looks like they just didn't react at all for the dramatic look of combos. Like that Sonic one

@ 0:24, JUST LOOK AT LUIGI. HE'S DEAD MAN

Also @ 0:28, you might think Sonic combo'd Megaman but Megaman looks like he tried to do a hard knuckle but just didn't get it out fast enough.

 

[Orngeblu]

I dunno. To me it looks like they just didn't react at all for the dramatic look of combos.

That's what it is.

 

[Snakeyes]

Sorry, I just have lost all faith in Nintendo after the release of the Wii. They are stubborn and don't want to get with the times. By "looking good" I mean when people see the game they want to play not necessarily the graphics are good. They do put a lot of effort into making a good game BUT not a competitive game. They probably feel like they will somehow lose the appeal of the casuals if they do.

Most multiplayer Nintendo games released after the Wii were competitive and had solid underlying mechanics. 4 player competition is one of the big features of the game Nintendo is banking on to save Wii U this holiday.

Even Brawl, which I didn't touch after getting a feel of its disappointing mechanics, is inherently competitive. You and I may not like the style of competitive play in that game, but there's no denying it was designed for competition from the ground up. Probably not tournament competition, mind you, but still.

If it really is Sakurai and not Nintendo I wonder why they would keep him on the Smash.

Gee, I wonder why they're letting the director of a 11+ million seller do whatever the **** he wants?

Or why not tell him to make the game more competitive.

Again, what does this even mean? No one will tell Sakurai to consider the wishes of a virtually insignificant community when the latter can't even agree upon what it wants within itself.

If the entirety of Smashboards could agree on a set of improvements, a happy medium for the majority of 64, Melee and Brawl players, and made a group effort to forward the suggestions to multiple people within Nintendo while getting the gaming press on board (like we did with EVO this year), then maybe, just maybe, Nintendo would have a reason to listen. Until then, I'm afraid that we'll remain mercy of Sakurai's vision.

 

[Big-Cat]

Sorry, I just have lost all faith in Nintendo after the release of the Wii. They are stubborn and don't want to get with the times. By "looking good" I mean when people see the game they want to play not necessarily the graphics are good. They do put a lot of effort into making a good game BUT not a competitive game. They probably feel like they will somehow lose the appeal of the casuals if they do.

As Snakeyes said, Brawl is very much a competitive game. Depending on who you talk to, it's either not a good competitive game, is a good competitive game, or is simply a different type of competitive game.

You could not get rid of a multiplayer game's competitive aspect unless you had it where everyone wins, but no one really wants that.
All that you need to appeal to casuals to play Smash Bros. are all the Nintendo characters (and then some), flashy graphics, and loads of fanservice. If you're concerned about alienating casuals, then you must address the learning curve of the game more than anything else. Just making the game easier just alienates other parts of the fanbase and the casual players are actually very trendy.

 

[the_suicide_fox]

For a system "not with the time" it sure as heck sold better then both the PS3 and 360. And the only way it could have sold that well was if it had games people wanted to play. Also you keep on grouping it all up to Nintendo when in truth it depends on the developer of the game to make it competitive or not, and because of that Nintendo can only ask/tell them so much as they need those developers. You use Pokemon in your previous post, it is Gamefreak who develops it and makes it competitive while Nintendo just publishes it. The same goes for Smash Bros, Sakurai is the one who develops it and ameks it what it is and Nintendo publishes it. The reason Nintendo let Sakurai do what he does is because he has yet to actually disappoint them on a funds basis.

It sold well because of the gimmicky controller + Wii Sports hype and the fact it was cheaper than 360 and PS3 for a long time. Nintendo has some say in how the games are developed. TBH Sakuri came up with Smash, but he's not the reason it sold well. It sold well because it's Nintendo characters. Don't get me wrong, the gameplay was brilliant, but there comes a time as a developer when you should pass the torch, that time being the moment your vision separates itself from the vision of the players who actually play the game.

Most multiplayer Nintendo games released after the Wii were competitive and had solid underlying mechanics. 4 player competition is one of the big features of the game Nintendo is banking on to save Wii U this holiday.

I don't see it that way. I mean, it's hard to make a game like Mario Kart NOT competitive. But with Brawl they deliberately sabotaged the game to make it less competitive. I mean, it was the exact opposite approach from 64 to Melee. L-canceling was supposedly a glitch in 64, but we put in Melee as an actual mechanic (proof being that it cuts landing time in half rather than defaults it to normal landing). Then in Brawl that mechanic was removed in favor of just increasing landing speeds. It removed a technical aspect of the game that added a skill gap.The skill gap of Melee did not hurt game at all, in fact it helps the game because it rewards players who put the effort into practicing and learning the game. If there is no reward there is little motivation for a player to continue playing.

Then there is the issue with patches and DLC. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have never seen Nintendo release either for any game ever. They make the game, release it, then move on to whatever is next. That's a sign to me that they don't care about the competitive aspects of their games that much. It doesn't mean that don't care about the game itself, just they don't care about the longevity of the game.

Even Brawl, which I didn't touch after getting a feel of its disappointing mechanics, is inherently competitive. You and I may not like the style of competitive play in that game, but there's no denying it was designed for competition from the ground up. Probably not tournament competition, mind you, but still.

Inherently competitive and designed competitive are two different things. A lot of multiplayer games are inherently competitive. Minecraft, for example, can be turned into a competitive game in some way. How that actually plays out is a different story. Brawl's competitive scene only exists because of 64 and (mostly) Melee. Had it not been for those games I doubt anyone would consider Brawl as a competitive game. THE COMMUNITY made it work competitively. It had very little to do with how the game was actually designed. Players in this community that wanted to see Brawl succeed pushed the game as far as they could to get it to a competitive level. Had the game been designed like that from the start then the potential for the game could have been limitless. It's like we had a circular hole and a square block and then forced it to fit. It's not pretty, but it worked (slightly, though that's my opinion on that).

Gee, I wonder why they're letting the director of a 11+ million seller do whatever the **** he wants?

I understand that, my point being it should be time for him to pass the torch considering that his vision differs rather drastically from the vision of the core fanbase. The game can easily be designed for both casual and competitive players yet he chooses to ignore the latter. And it's not like they would make LESS money from doing that, if anything I'd imagine they would make more because it would ensure the game can thrive the lifespan of the Wii U until the next next gen Smash comes out. Plus I doubt majority of the people who will buy the game are buying it because Sakuri is making it. All they need is "Smash Brothers" with a bunch of Nintendo characters to sell millions of copies.

Again, what does this even mean? No one will tell Sakurai to consider the wishes of a virtually insignificant community when the latter can't even agree upon what it wants within itself.

If the entirety of Smashboards could agree on a set of improvements, a happy medium for the majority of 64, Melee and Brawl players, and made a group effort to forward the suggestions to multiple people within Nintendo while getting the gaming press on board (like we did with EVO this year), then maybe, just maybe, Nintendo would have a reason to listen. Until then, I'm afraid that we'll remain mercy of Sakurai's vision.

Okay, so maybe the word "competitive" is a bad word to use. How about building the game for "advanced" play? There were a lot of things changed or outright removed in Brawl that hindered advanced play. It's a matter of proper design methods.

IIRC, Sakuri had said that he personally did all the character balance in Brawl. To me this is a big red flag that the game is designed poorly. You shouldn't have one guy, no matter how great he may be, balancing characters. You should have 10, 20, 100 people, with alphas and betas and thorough playtestings of all the characters to achieve such balance. It's what they do for all fighters, nay, all games that have a versus element. Bungie didn't have Frank O'Connor balancing all the weapons in Halo, the entire team played the game frequently to achieve a good balance. And even then the game won't be perfect. So he doesn't need to take any advice from the smash community, but at the very least let more people give feedback on the game. They don't need to be pros, just good enough to say "Hey maybe giving Metaknight the ability to fly plus 5 other recovery options makes him too good" or "Ganondorf feels too slow/weak to really do anything effective."

I love Nintendo. I grew up with Nintendo. They make GREAT games. I don't think I've ever played a Mario or Zelda I didn't like. But they are very set in their ways. They don't like to do things the way other people do them. They don't cater to advanced players because they don't see a market, when the truth is that they don't really need to do that. They just need to broaden their design methods and take a good look at the people that actually play their games. Smash 4 could be an awesome game for both casuals and advanced players. We could have our cake and eat it too.

 

[mimgrim]

Then there is the issue with patches and DLC. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have never seen Nintendo release either for any game ever.

Nintendo has been dabbling DLC recently actually. FEA had it and IIRC NSMBU also has it, so they have been dabbling into it a bit.

It sold well because of the gimmicky controller + Wii Sports hype and the fact it was cheaper than 360 and PS3 for a long time. Nintendo has some say in how the games are developed. TBH Sakuri came up with Smash, but he's not the reason it sold well. It sold well because it's Nintendo characters. Don't get me wrong, the gameplay was brilliant, but there comes a time as a developer when you should pass the torch, that time being the moment your vision separates itself from the vision of the players who actually play the game.

Let's at least be fair here, the Wii did more then just sold well it dominated the whole console market with like 100 million sales, which is an impressive feet any which way you look at it.

Also I disagree with you about the vision of a game. I ultimately believe a video game developer should follow his/her own vision for their own game and not the players. It is their game they are creating after all and they should be able to create it however they want. But that is just my belief and I understand yours, just disagree with it.

 

[the_suicide_fox]

Also I disagree with you about the vision of a game. I ultimately believe a video game developer should follow his/her own vision for their own game and not the players. It is their game they are creating after all and they should be able to create it however they want. But that is just my belief and I understand yours, just disagree with it.

The thing is that the players interpret the game differently than developers do. I feel like when developers push their version of the game on the players, the players just end up saying "screw it" and stop playing. Like the developer makes the game, but the players are the ones who play it. A lot of the time after the players have had the game for a while, they understand it more than developer ever could. It bothers me that the players enjoy one aspect of the game but the developer says "No, that's not how you play". Well, yea it is because that's what players do and a lot of the time they do it because it's successful. Everytime a developer forces their vision onto the players, the game suffers and you see mass people stop playing. Sure new blood comes in, but that would happen regardless. To me that's like saying "**** you I don't care what you want."

 

[Jumpman84]

Then there is the issue with patches and DLC. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have never seen Nintendo release either for any game ever. They make the game, release it, then move on to whatever is next. That's a sign to me that they don't care about the competitive aspects of their games that much. It doesn't mean that don't care about the game itself, just they don't care about the longevity of the game.

You say that as if patches and DLC has been around since the beginning of time. Back in my day, you had to spend months and hundreds of dollars of playtesting to find all these here bugs, lest your game forever be branded a piece of garbage!

Anyhow, Sakurai actually said that DLC would be impossible for Brawl because of the Wii lacking a hard drive. And he had a few other things he couldn't implement due to the limitations of the hardware, such as voice chat and keyboard chat. As for patches, Nintendo did release one for Skyward Sword because of that save glitch. However, it was in the form of a channel that had to be downloaded from the Wii Shop Channel.

In retrospect, it's easy to fault the Wii for this. The hardware just did not support the functionality that its fellow console brethren went on to pioneer. But you do have to give Nintendo credit: they recognized these shortcomings and we have patches and DLC in both the 3DS and Wii U. In addition, both systems support voice chat and the Wii U recently got an update to support USB keyboards. The future is looking brighter than ever for Smash 4 and I'm sure that the online features will be spectacular.

The thing is that the players interpret the game differently than you do. I feel like when developers push their version of the game on the players, the players just end up saying "screw it" and stop playing. Like the developer makes the game, but the players are the ones who play it. A lot of the time after the players have had the game for a while, they understand it more than developer ever could. It bothers me that the players enjoy one aspect of the game but the developer says "No, that's not how you play". Well, yea it is because that's what players do and a lot of the time they do it because it's successful. Everytime a developer forces their vision onto the players, the game suffers and you see mass people stop playing. Sure new blood comes in, but that would happen regardless. To me that's like saying "**** you I don't care what you want."

So wait... you're saying that mimgrim has never played a single Smash Bros. game? How odd that he's on a forum about a game he's never played.

And if a player doesn't like the developer's vision for a game... why not go play a different game? There are hundreds out there and you'd get much more enjoyment out of a game you like than one you don't. After all, isn't the point of playing a game to have FUN?

 

[the_suicide_fox]

So wait... you're saying that mimgrim has never played a single Smash Bros. game? How odd that he's on a forum about a game he's never played.

And if a player doesn't like the developer's vision for a game... why not go play a different game? There are hundreds out there and you'd get much more enjoyment out of a game you like than one you don't. After all, isn't the point of playing a game to have FUN?

I haven't been on this site in years so if he is on here then bravo. But they made it clear they didn't want a hardcore competitive game. They are reluctant to even give players the small things, and almost shutdown Melee @ EVO. So yes, they made Brawl a piece of ****, I didn't like where it was going, so I left, along with a good chunk of the community. That says something right there.

And what you're saying is basically that it's better developers stick to their guns and lose customers rather than do what they can to keep them. Right, that's good business. Once the game is released it belongs to the players. They are the ones who get the enjoyment out of the game. Developers might play their own game from time to time, but never on the scale of the players.

It's like if McDonald's suddenly decided that you can't pick what you want on your burger. You have to take it as is. Well, you could remove said items yourself but it shouldn't come to that. If they did that you would see a hit to the business. There is a lot more money to be made in giving people what they want vs giving them what YOU want.

 

[Jumpman84]

I haven't been on this site in years so if he is on here then bravo. But they made it clear they didn't want a hardcore competitive game. They are reluctant to even give players the small things, and almost shutdown Melee @ EVO. So yes, they made Brawl a piece of ****, I didn't like where it was going, so I left, along with a good chunk of the community. That says something right there.

And what you're saying is basically that it's better developers stick to their guns and lose customers rather than do what they can to keep them. Right, that's good business. Once the game is released it belongs to the players. They are the ones who get the enjoyment out of the game. Developers might play their own game from time to time, but never on the scale of the players.

It's like if McDonald's suddenly decided that you can't pick what you want on your burger. You have to take it as is. Well, you could remove said items yourself but it shouldn't come to that. If they did that you would see a hit to the business. There is a lot more money to be made in giving people what they want vs giving them what YOU want.

Um, mimgrim is the guy you replied to and implied that he wasn't a player.

And you're comparing apples to oranges with your McDonalds example. Video games are a business, yes. But they're also art. A burger is something that is temporary. You get, you eat it, it's gone. It doesn't matter if you got it "your way" in the end. But who are you to tell Picasso that his work's a piece of **** when the majority disagrees? In fact, that's the one thing I hate about Melee elitists like you. You claim that your opinion is how everyone in the world feels and that is just simply not true. Obviously, if it was, I wouldn't be debating this with you.

But there's one thing your example is right in saying: There IS a lot more money to be made in giving people what they want. And sales numbers indicate that is Brawl. Fortunately, Sakurai doesn't believe in yearly installments like Activision does, so we won't be getting Brawl 2.0. Smash 4 will be its own distinct game and will join the ranks of Smash 64, Melee, and Brawl as one of the greatest games of all time.

And honestly, gamers have a clear history of not knowing what they really want. Ten years ago, they LOATHED The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker for its graphic style. Nowadays, it's celebrated for that same style. With that in mind, perhaps you should wait until you actually play the game before you mark it a failure.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

. It is their game they are creating after all and they should be able to create it however they want. But that is just my belief and I understand yours, just disagree with it.

The problem with that is you are making a commercial product, not the Mona Lisa. Unless Sakurai is going to buy every copy of the game himself, customer input matters.

 

[the_suicide_fox]

Um, mimgrim is the guy you replied to and implied that he wasn't a player.

I must have misread, I thought you meant mimgrim was like Sakuri's tag on the forum. And in any case, I wasn't implying he never played. I'd assume that because he's on the forums he has played at least one of the 3 games. I was just disagreeing with is thought that the developer should follow their vision and not that of the players. By saying "...differently than you do." I meant "you as a developer", not just "you" as in the guy I was talking to. My fault for not making that clear, I corrected it in my post.

And you're comparing apples to oranges with your McDonalds example. Video games are a business, yes. But they're also art. A burger is something that is temporary. You get, you eat it, it's gone. It doesn't matter if you got it "your way" in the end. But who are you to tell Picasso that his work's a piece of **** when the majority disagrees? In fact, that's the one thing I hate about Melee elitists like you. You claim that your opinion is how everyone in the world feels and that is just simply not true. Obviously, if it was, I wouldn't be debating this with you.

But there's one thing your example is right in saying: There IS a lot more money to be made in giving people what they want. And sales numbers indicate that is Brawl. Fortunately, Sakurai doesn't believe in yearly installments like Activision does, so we won't be getting Brawl 2.0. Smash 4 will be its own distinct game and will join the ranks of Smash 64, Melee, and Brawl as one of the greatest games of all time.

And honestly, gamers have a clear history of not knowing what they really want. Ten years ago, they LOATHED The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker for its graphic style. Nowadays, it's celebrated for that same style. With that in mind, perhaps you should wait until you actually play the game before you mark it a failure.

So I'm an elitist because I didn't like the way they handled advanced mechanics (or lack thereof) in Brawl? Clearly the majority has the same feelings I do because it was Melee that made it to EVO and not Brawl. It's the reason that Project M exists, because it's obvious people were happier with Melee's mechanics. I didn't see anyone modifying Melee in any way like they do with Brawl, and yes it could have been done, but the necessity to wasn't there like it was for Brawl.

I'm not claiming my opinion to be that of what everyone wants. By now there are many players who love Brawl and play it competitively. That's fine. My issue was that Sakuri chose to turn face and make a game that the players AT THE TIME didn't want. My problem with Brawl sympathizers like you (see I can generalize too) is that you tend to ignore the foundation that 64 and Melee set forth. You forget that without either of those games, Brawl would be nothing but another Mario Party type game. Melee's advanced mechanics and very crazy high skill gap is what made it last for so long, and without that I doubt Brawl would have had any competitive community. It was the 64/Melee players who really wanted Brawl to succeed that kept it going and made it work.

And the sales figures for Brawl only EXIST because of the following Melee and 64 had. If a large chunk of those players bought Brawl then of course it would have higher sales, but that doesn't indicate it was a better game. It probably just means a lot of people go suckered into buying Brawl only later realizing it wasn't what they wanted. That's also not considering the fact that the Wii sold better than the Gamecube, so again it would make sense Brawl sold more copies. Like I said, Brawl could have been made in the image of Melee and it still would have sold just as well.

You can live in your little fantasy world that Smash 4 will be a perfection of game design, but I'll stick to the reality of "I'll believe it when I see it". Again, Brawl was a huge disappointment for me (and many other players). By the looks of it Smash 4 will be better than Brawl, but probably not as good as Melee. Someday you will play a sequel you don't enjoy and then maybe you would understand why us "Melee elitists" were so upset.

The problem with that is you are making a commercial product, not the Mona Lisa. Unless Sakurai is going to buy every copy of the game himself, customer input matters.

Exactly. Why ignore feedback from the people you are trying to sell a product to? That seems counter intuitive.

 

[mimgrim]

The thing is that the players interpret the game differently than developers do. I feel like when developers push their version of the game on the players, the players just end up saying "screw it" and stop playing. Like the developer makes the game, but the players are the ones who play it. A lot of the time after the players have had the game for a while, they understand it more than developer ever could. It bothers me that the players enjoy one aspect of the game but the developer says "No, that's not how you play". Well, yea it is because that's what players do and a lot of the time they do it because it's successful. Everytime a developer forces their vision onto the players, the game suffers and you see mass people stop playing. Sure new blood comes in, but that would happen regardless. To me that's like saying "**** you I don't care what you want."

Eh there is a clear difference, to me, of taking a player's input and and creating a player's vision. The former you are listening to what the play may dislike about the game or what he or she thinks would make the game better while with the latter you are bascially creating a whole different game from what you yourself envisioned and basically detracting completely from what you wanted. Now then how this applies to Smash games and Sakurai is completely debatable, but still.

The problem with that is you are making a commercial product, not the Mona Lisa. Unless Sakurai is going to buy every copy of the game himself, customer input matters.

I never said it didn't. The only problem I had was going with a player's vision of your own vision. Input can be numerous things that ultimately wouldn't change the core vision you had intended, most of the time anyway, while following a player's vision it could easily end up changing what you initially envisioned. Now for a fighting game the line is a bit thinner then it would be for like say an RPG, but still. I hope you understand what I mean now.

 

[Conviction]

What makes a sound vision?

 

[the_suicide_fox]

Eh there is a clear difference, to me, of taking a player's input and and creating a player's vision. The former you are listening to what the play may dislike about the game or what he or she thinks would make the game better while with the latter you are bascially creating a whole different game from what you yourself envisioned and basically detracting completely from what you wanted. Now then how this applies to Smash games and Sakurai is completely debatable, but still.

I'll give you the fact that the fanbase of gamers tends to be rather bipolar when it comes to what they want. But as a developer you should be in tune with the way the players view the game. They may not know what they want exactly, so developers need to get to the core of "what makes this so fun for the players" and go from there. It's almost like a game of charades where the player is the one making the gestures but is really bad at it. I mean, they did take a few steps in the right direction by increasing the speed (though I don't see why it couldn't have been Melee's speed, it was fine and offered a high skill gap) and making changes to veteran character's movesets like Bowser. But I still have my reservations nowadays when it comes to sequels. I'm finding this increasing trend of developers throwing **** at the wall to see what sticks rather than actively trying to come up with innovative ways to improve the game.

Shooting games have this plague now I call CoD-syndrome, where they all need to have super quick killtimes and let you customize a loadout. It's really annoying especially if you enjoy a game like Halo for this to happen because it destroys the foundations of the game. Halo 3 just came up on Games for Gold (where gold members can d/L said game for free) and I enjoyed playing that more than I did Reach or 4. I know Smash is a unique game, but still there is the chance they might try to do stuff like this. Sony's All Stars is the only similar game, I don't want Smash to copy it but at the least it should jump Sakuri into stepping up his game design.

 

[Viceversa96]

As Snakeyes said, Brawl is very much a competitive game. Depending on who you talk to, it's either not a good competitive game, is a good competitive game, or is simply a different type of competitive game.

You could not get rid of a multiplayer game's competitive aspect unless you had it where everyone wins, but no one really wants that.
All that you need to appeal to casuals to play Smash Bros. are all the Nintendo characters (and then some), flashy graphics, and loads of fanservice. If you're concerned about alienating casuals, then you must address the learning curve of the game more than anything else. Just making the game easier just alienates other parts of the fanbase and the casual players are actually very trendy.

No brawl is a fantastic game but it is the WORST when trying to appeal to both crowds and in my opinion it is the least balanced out of the smash games. Like only 4 viable character and the rest are trash. Sakurai said it himself "the sharpest game in the series... it just felt really good to play." and also "Melee fans who played deep into the game without any problems might have trouble understanding this, but Melee was just too difficult."But Melee is NOT difficult and any casual player can play it with their friends. If I'm correct it took about three years for Melee to be competitive.