Just read the Kotaku interview.....

[Conviction]

Maybe, just maybe, he meant difficult as all the time he spent on making the game. You know, the same thing he was talking about in that article you are quoting like the bible.

I could be wrong, but 40+ hours on a game sounds tough.

 

[mimgrim]

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.

I'm not even talking about fan bases being bipolar and not knowing what they want as that is a whole different discussion. What I'm trying to say/get across, and apparently failing at it, is that there is a difference from taking a player's input and taking a player's vision. Taking input from players of a fan base should ultimately make the game better for the players playing it but still keep your original vision intact while takings a player's vision would, most likely, ultimately lead to you destroying your vision. Listening to a fan base is all well and good but I would imagine you would have to be realistic and smart about and let's face it sometimes fanbases have some unrealistic wants.

As for a lot else you mentioned is highly subjective, for example a high skill gap is wanted by some while others don't want such a high one, even in the competitive community. Unfortunately I don't have access to much shooter games, all I have is Halo, Halo 2, SWBF 1, SWBF 2, and Conduit and haven't been able to even really play multiplayer on them. If I ever get a 360 I would love to try and get into competitive Halo and Gears of War but would only be able to if there is more of a offline community to it, like people meeting up to play it over playing it online. So I can't really comment on the competitive shooter side. Oh and Sakurai has already stated Smash is not PSASBR, so yea.

 

[Jumpman84]

Okay, let's say you're right and that the mass majority of players want Sakurai to make the game more like Melee than Brawl or its own game. (I am inherently against that, but that's neither here nor there.) The problem with that approach is that Nintendo HAS done it several times before... and they always end up getting burned by it.

Let me reuse my example of Wind Waker. After its release, the fans wanted another Ocarina of Time like game, so Nintendo made Twilight Princess. Then the fans hated Twilight Princess because it was too similar to Ocarina, despite it being exactly what they wanted. Okay, so it's too similar... So we next get Skyward Sword, a game that is very different from the others in the Zelda series. And the fans complain because it isn't like any other Zelda games, despite that it is what they wanted in the first place.

There's a pattern at work here. Gamers THINK they know what they want, only to get it and find out it's not what they want at all. And we'll take it one step further with a game developer who actually did compromise his vision for a sequel by catering to what the fanbase wanted. That developer? Shigeru Miyamoto. And the game? Super Mario Bros. 2. At least, that's what it was in Japan. This game is most comparable with what you are asking for: a game that caters to the hardcore fanbase that want advanced techniques. And make no mistake, what we now refer to as the Lost Levels is a very challenging game, one of the hardest in history.

But that's exactly why they got lost in the first place. Nintendo of America knew that the game was too difficult and made the decision to turn Doki Doki Panic into Super Mario Bros. 2. This ended up being the right decision, as it has gone on to become a beloved classic by fans. And Miyamoto himself once stated that it was his favorite game in the series. That's right, he prefers the American version over the original, which was made to appease the fanbase that asked for it. And so do the fans.

In conclusion, it's best to let Sakurai create the game that he wants to create and let the chips fall where they may. He's already removed tripping (which I think everyone wanted out) and made it faster than Brawl (which Melee players would like). It's still too early to turn a blind eye and claim it's inferior. Wait until release and try it out. You may be pleasantly surprised.

 

[the_suicide_fox]

I'm not even talking about fan bases being bipolar and not knowing what they want as that is a whole different discussion. What I'm trying to say/get across, and apparently failing at it, is that there is a difference from taking a player's input and taking a player's vision. Taking input from players of a fan base should ultimately make the game better for the players playing it but still keep your original vision intact while takings a player's vision would, most likely, ultimately lead to you destroying your vision. Listening to a fan base is all well and good but I would imagine you would have to be realistic and smart about and let's face it sometimes fanbases have some unrealistic wants.

As for a lot else you mentioned is highly subjective, for example a high skill gap is wanted by some while others don't want such a high one, even in the competitive community. Unfortunately I don't have access to much shooter games, all I have is Halo, Halo 2, SWBF 1, SWBF 2, and Conduit and haven't been able to even really play multiplayer on them. If I ever get a 360 I would love to try and get into competitive Halo and Gears of War but would only be able to if there is more of a offline community to it, like people meeting up to play it over playing it online. So I can't really comment on the competitive shooter side. Oh and Sakurai has already stated Smash is not PSASBR, so yea.

I don't know of any competitive player that would think skill gaps are bad. Skill gaps are what make the game competitive in the first place and give players something to achieve. It means that the game rewards players that put time into the game. Games with low skill gap (or none at all) usually aren't very great competitively and don't enjoy the longevity that games with skill gaps do. Most of the time players buy the game, play it for a bit, then put it on the shelf to collect dust. Skill gaps are good for gaming, and it doesn't mean that casuals can't enjoy the game too. They just need to realize that they need to practice some to be on the same level as those that have surpassed the skill gaps. I mean, how do you think players and fans would react if the changed the rules of baseball so that anyone can play? Change it from a bat to a flat board, change the ball to a tennis ball, move the bases closer together and give everyone 20 strikes before they are out. A baseball game like that would have virtually no skill gap and fall apart under the weight of its own inadequacies. Catering to casuals is what is destroying gaming right now because everyone wants to be good but no one wants to put effort into being good. They just want it handed to them. Sorry I don't buy into that mentality. If you want casuals to enjoy the game put in stuff that can enjoy, which is where stuff like SSE, items, and crazy stages like Big Blue come in. They are wacky and give casuals something to do. But when it comes down to true player versus player, if you don't reward the better player people will get fed up with the BS and move on.

I know what you're saying and I don't agree. You take input from players when your vision and their vision are on the same path. But the moment your vision contradicts theirs you will end up alienating veteran players, essentially starting over with as if it were a new game. Case and point, Gears of War 2. In Gears 2, Epic tried to FORCE players into their vision of the game, tactical cover to cover fighting, by changing a lot about the game. It was generally met with a very poor response from the core fanbase and a lot of players quit playing. They put out updates to change some things here and there so that the game would be more of a balance of cover to cover tactics and close range gladiator type combat (with the Gnasher shotgun). In Gears 3 Epic finally embraced the player's vision of the game, but still managed to keep part of their vision alive too. The end result was the best game in the franchise. Then Judgement comes out and Epic gave players some of what they wanted (eg. no stopping power), yet AGAIN made unnecessary changes to core mechanics which just ended up destroying the game. Sure there are fans for all 4 games (I personally enjoyed 1, 2 and 3 all the same), but Gears 3 was the best selling, has the most players playing online (current average after 2 years is about 7k for versus, peaked probably saw upwards of 20k, IIRC it has been in the top 20 for XBL since it came out), and it generally considered the best version of the game. That's because it embraced the player's vision of the game. Granted there are some flaws, but most they are minor ones really.

Also IDK about LAN's as much for these games, it really is only online. I mean, why bother bringing your 360 and a TV to a friends when you can just go online and play together? Don't get me wrong, smashfests are great but they would be 1000 times better if you could do it online from the comfort of your own home. This is getting into another issue I have with Nintendo, that being the very poor quality of online play. It is 2013, stuff like voice chat, online lobbies, and party systems should be standard. Apple's iPhone does online play better than Nintendo.

Okay, let's say you're right and that the mass majority of players want Sakurai to make the game more like Melee than Brawl or its own game. (I am inherently against that, but that's neither here nor there.) The problem with that approach is that Nintendo HAS done it several times before... and they always end up getting burned by it.

Let me reuse my example of Wind Waker. After its release, the fans wanted another Ocarina of Time like game, so Nintendo made Twilight Princess. Then the fans hated Twilight Princess because it was too similar to Ocarina, despite it being exactly what they wanted. Okay, so it's too similar... So we next get Skyward Sword, a game that is very different from the others in the Zelda series. And the fans complain because it isn't like any other Zelda games, despite that it is what they wanted in the first place.

There's a pattern at work here. Gamers THINK they know what they want, only to get it and find out it's not what they want at all. And we'll take it one step further with a game developer who actually did compromise his vision for a sequel by catering to what the fanbase wanted. That developer? Shigeru Miyamoto. And the game? Super Mario Bros. 2. At least, that's what it was in Japan. This game is most comparable with what you are asking for: a game that caters to the hardcore fanbase that want advanced techniques. And make no mistake, what we now refer to as the Lost Levels is a very challenging game, one of the hardest in history.

But that's exactly why they got lost in the first place. Nintendo of America knew that the game was too difficult and made the decision to turn Doki Doki Panic into Super Mario Bros. 2. This ended up being the right decision, as it has gone on to become a beloved classic by fans. And Miyamoto himself once stated that it was his favorite game in the series. That's right, he prefers the American version over the original, which was made to appease the fanbase that asked for it. And so do the fans.

In conclusion, it's best to let Sakurai create the game that he wants to create and let the chips fall where they may. He's already removed tripping (which I think everyone wanted out) and made it faster than Brawl (which Melee players would like). It's still too early to turn a blind eye and claim it's inferior. Wait until release and try it out. You may be pleasantly surprised.

Actually US SMB2 is not a very beloved game. Nintendo had their head up their own ass when they did that one, because when they went back to the more difficult but more traditional style of Mario in SMB3 everyone loved it. SMB2 is only a classic in the same way that Wind Waker is or any the other games you mention; nostalgia makes the heart grow fonder. There will always be players who enjoy one particular game over another. SMB2 was a great game, but not a great MARIO game. In fact, as a Mario game it is downright horrible. No power ups, very poor platforming mechanics, really bizarre health system, and unrecognizable enemies (for the time). Then when they went back to the old style in 3 and World for SNES they were considered masterpieces of Mario games. They did what Mario games should do, they focused on the core mechanics that made the original so awesome and then improved on that. Then 64 comes out and Nintendo does the unthinkable, putting those mechanics in 3-D. But again, a masterpiece because they followed the formula. But then Sunshine comes out and suddenly people don't like it. Why? Because it moved away from the formula and tried to become a different game. Seeing this, Nintendo went back to formula for Galaxy and it was an excellent game, though a bit gimmicky with the controller, but still my point is that moving away from what made the originals so good is how you make a bad sequel.

Again, SMB2 was a fun game, it just wasn't a MARIO game. You say it was the "right" decision, well you are wrong, because Nintendo went back to Super Mario 1 for pretty much the next 3 games and they were all far more successful than SMB2 ever was.

 

[Jumpman84]

I don't know of any competitive player that would think skill gaps are bad. Skill gaps are what make the game competitive in the first place and give players something to achieve. It means that the game rewards players that put time into the game. Games with low skill gap (or none at all) usually aren't very great competitively and don't enjoy the longevity that games with skill gaps do. Most of the time players buy the game, play it for a bit, then put it on the shelf to collect dust. Skill gaps are good for gaming, and it doesn't mean that casuals can't enjoy the game too. They just need to realize that they need to practice some to be on the same level as those that have surpassed the skill gaps. I mean, how do you think players and fans would react if the changed the rules of baseball so that anyone can play? Change it from a bat to a flat board, change the ball to a tennis ball, move the bases closer together and give everyone 20 strikes before they are out. A baseball game like that would have virtually no skill gap and fall apart under the weight of its own inadequacies. Catering to casuals is what is destroying gaming right now because everyone wants to be good but no one wants to put effort into being good. They just want it handed to them. Sorry I don't buy into that mentality. If you want casuals to enjoy the game put in stuff that can enjoy, which is where stuff like SSE, items, and crazy stages like Big Blue come in. They are wacky and give casuals something to do. But when it comes down to true player versus player, if you don't reward the better player people will get fed up with the BS and move on.

I know what you're saying and I don't agree. You take input from players when your vision and their vision are on the same path. But the moment your vision contradicts theirs you will end up alienating veteran players, essentially starting over with as if it were a new game. Case and point, Gears of War 2. In Gears 2, Epic tried to FORCE players into their vision of the game, tactical cover to cover fighting, by changing a lot about the game. It was generally met with a very poor response from the core fanbase and a lot of players quit playing. They put out updates to change some things here and there so that the game would be more of a balance of cover to cover tactics and close range gladiator type combat (with the Gnasher shotgun). In Gears 3 Epic finally embraced the player's vision of the game, but still managed to keep part of their vision alive too. The end result was the best game in the franchise. Then Judgement comes out and Epic gave players some of what they wanted (eg. no stopping power), yet AGAIN made unnecessary changes to core mechanics which just ended up destroying the game. Sure there are fans for all 4 games (I personally enjoyed 1, 2 and 3 all the same), but Gears 3 was the best selling, has the most players playing online (current average after 2 years is about 7k for versus, peaked probably saw upwards of 20k, IIRC it has been in the top 20 for XBL since it came out), and it generally considered the best version of the game. That's because it embraced the player's vision of the game. Granted there are some flaws, but most they are minor ones really.

Also IDK about LAN's as much for these games, it really is only online. I mean, why bother bringing your 360 and a TV to a friends when you can just go online and play together? Don't get me wrong, smashfests are great but they would be 1000 times better if you could do it online from the comfort of your own home. This is getting into another issue I have with Nintendo, that being the very poor quality of online play. It is 2013, stuff like voice chat, online lobbies, and party systems should be standard. Apple's iPhone does online play better than Nintendo.




Actually US SMB2 is not a very beloved game. Nintendo had their head up their own *** when they did that one, because when they went back to the more difficult but more traditional style of Mario in SMB3 everyone loved it. SMB2 is only a classic in the same way that Wind Waker is or any the other games you mention; nostalgia makes the heart grow fonder. There will always be players who enjoy one particular game over another. SMB2 was a great game, but not a great MARIO game. In fact, as a Mario game it is downright horrible. No power ups, very poor platforming mechanics, really bizarre health system, and unrecognizable enemies (for the time). Then when they went back to the old style in 3 and World for SNES they were considered masterpieces of Mario games. They did what Mario games should do, they focused on the core mechanics that made the original so awesome and then improved on that. Then 64 comes out and Nintendo does the unthinkable, putting those mechanics in 3-D. But again, a masterpiece because they followed the formula. But then Sunshine comes out and suddenly people don't like it. Why? Because it moved away from the formula and tried to become a different game. Seeing this, Nintendo went back to formula for Galaxy and it was an excellent game, though a bit gimmicky with the controller, but still my point is that moving away from what made the originals so good is how you make a bad sequel.

Again, SMB2 was a fun game, it just wasn't a MARIO game. You say it was the "right" decision, well you are wrong, because Nintendo went back to Super Mario 1 for pretty much the next 3 games and they were all far more successful than SMB2 ever was.

That is where YOU are wrong. Doki Doki Panic was originally MEANT to be Super Mario Bros. 2. Miyamoto himself confirmed that to be the case. In the end, it didn't work out because people who wanted a sequel that played the same, just like you. Then they salvaged the engine with the Fuji TV deal and then Nintendo of America made the smart decision to not release a game that could have destroyed Mario's popularity in the states and gave us a game that people could enjoy while awaiting the masterpiece that was Mario 3.

And yes, when your reskinned game gets its own Japanese release, when it inspires elements in every future Mario game, AND when the creator of Mario prefers it over the ACTUAL sequel, it's a smart move.

I honestly don't know why I keep responding to you when it's apparent that you're an obvious troll. Either that or a despicable human being, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Masahiro Sakurai is a great man. After all, he created Melee, the game you hold so dear to your heart. Just because he doesn't indulge all your little fantasies doesn't make Brawl or Smash 4 failures. If you want cookie-cutter sequels, look somewhere else. Call of Duty should be right up your alley. Or better yet, go play Melee itself! It's not illegal to play a game just because their sequel is out...

 

[mimgrim]

I don't know of any competitive player that would think skill gaps are bad. Skill gaps are what make the game competitive in the first place and give players something to achieve. It means that the game rewards players that put time into the game. Games with low skill gap (or none at all) usually aren't very great competitively and don't enjoy the longevity that games with skill gaps do. Most of the time players buy the game, play it for a bit, then put it on the shelf to collect dust. Skill gaps are good for gaming, and it doesn't mean that casuals can't enjoy the game too. They just need to realize that they need to practice some to be on the same level as those that have surpassed the skill gaps. I mean, how do you think players and fans would react if the changed the rules of baseball so that anyone can play? Change it from a bat to a flat board, change the ball to a tennis ball, move the bases closer together and give everyone 20 strikes before they are out. A baseball game like that would have virtually no skill gap and fall apart under the weight of its own inadequacies. Catering to casuals is what is destroying gaming right now because everyone wants to be good but no one wants to put effort into being good. They just want it handed to them. Sorry I don't buy into that mentality. If you want casuals to enjoy the game put in stuff that can enjoy, which is where stuff like SSE, items, and crazy stages like Big Blue come in. They are wacky and give casuals something to do. But when it comes down to true player versus player, if you don't reward the better player people will get fed up with the BS and move on.

I know what you're saying and I don't agree. You take input from players when your vision and their vision are on the same path. But the moment your vision contradicts theirs you will end up alienating veteran players, essentially starting over with as if it were a new game. Case and point, Gears of War 2. In Gears 2, Epic tried to FORCE players into their vision of the game, tactical cover to cover fighting, by changing a lot about the game. It was generally met with a very poor response from the core fanbase and a lot of players quit playing. They put out updates to change some things here and there so that the game would be more of a balance of cover to cover tactics and close range gladiator type combat (with the Gnasher shotgun). In Gears 3 Epic finally embraced the player's vision of the game, but still managed to keep part of their vision alive too. The end result was the best game in the franchise. Then Judgement comes out and Epic gave players some of what they wanted (eg. no stopping power), yet AGAIN made unnecessary changes to core mechanics which just ended up destroying the game. Sure there are fans for all 4 games (I personally enjoyed 1, 2 and 3 all the same), but Gears 3 was the best selling, has the most players playing online (current average after 2 years is about 7k for versus, peaked probably saw upwards of 20k, IIRC it has been in the top 20 for XBL since it came out), and it generally considered the best version of the game. That's because it embraced the player's vision of the game. Granted there are some flaws, but most they are minor ones really.

Also IDK about LAN's as much for these games, it really is only online. I mean, why bother bringing your 360 and a TV to a friends when you can just go online and play together? Don't get me wrong, smashfests are great but they would be 1000 times better if you could do it online from the comfort of your own home. This is getting into another issue I have with Nintendo, that being the very poor quality of online play. It is 2013, stuff like voice chat, online lobbies, and party systems should be standard. Apple's iPhone does online play better than Nintendo.

All I did was use skill gap as an example. I've seen it argued on this site and thus used it as an example. I agree with you about skill gap, but that is neither here nor there.

Well I will say this for some game franchises, the line of what input to take does become much thinner then it might for another franchise. I believe Fighters, Shooters, and Racers fall into the former since they have such a big focus on multiplayer which makes player input oh so much more needed, but there is still a line there and even Epic made a lot of changes in Gears of War 3 they still kept the vision they wanted to an extent which is an important aspect, so the line is still there it is just thinner. But let's take something like a RPG or a Virtual Novel like game the developers vision has a greater line to it and isn't deviated from to much aside from adding mechanics that end up making it easier on the play for a sequel or something. But we just seem to have 2 differing philosophies for game devolpment.

Well my problem with that is that I don't has compatible wi-fi with consoles where I live and am in no position to get something compatible which makes my only way of playing with/against others is in person which I was doing for Smash untill the person hosting the fests and tournies stopped/couldn't any more. If I could play online I would as it gets extremely boring practicing when there is like nothing to practice for basically e_e.

 

[Medaka444]

I have respect for a man who very well could have made an installment that was simply the previous game but with extra stages and characters, but decided to do something different. Even if this leads fans who hate change to make a mod turning the sequel into a clone of the previous game. One thing here is that Brawl has plenty of advanced techniques not found in Melee, but some people are more content to complain about what was lost than to try and find new strategies and exploits.

Basing a game's design on fan response is always a risky business. It is so often impossible to distinguish between a majority and a vocal minority. When Paper Mario: Sticker Star came out, anyone you asked would say it sucked for its lack of story compared to previous installments. And yet, during development, Miyamoto sent a poll to young members of a Japanese Nintendo club, asking if they felt the previous games had too much story. 99% said "yes". Asking for fan feedback is always an imprecise method.

Skill gaps are bad if the technique does not offer any deeper strategies. If you played an RPG, would you take a sword of +20 Agility, or a sword of +10 Agility and no additional benefits? There, I just described the difference between using L-canceling and not using it. It gives no additional strategies, being 100% optimal, so the devs should have made landlag half as long.

EDIT: Quoth the_suicide_fox - "Catering to casuals is what is destroying gaming right now because everyone wants to be good but no one wants to put effort into being good. They just want it handed to them."

My elitism alarm just went off. Still, overgeneralizing a huge group of people, and implying that games should only appeal to a small group of hardcores (no entitlement issues here!), can be fun sometimes.

 

[mimgrim]

I have respect for a man who very well could have made an installment that was simply the previous game but with extra stages and characters, but decided to do something different. Even if this leads fans who hate change to make a mod turning the sequel into a clone of the previous game. One thing here is that Brawl has plenty of advanced techniques not found in Melee, but some people are more content to complain about what was lost than to try and find new strategies and exploits.

Well let's be a bit fair here now. A lot of those ATs in Melee have in someway or another have been confirmed to be intentional or left in on purpose while IIRC quite a few of the ATs in Brawls have been proven to be a abuse of the physica/programming error through mods. And it is a completely fair argument in all honesty. So giving Sakurai credit for the ATs in Brawl is a bit of a stretch :/.

 

[Medaka444]

I would point out that the number one most famous Melee technique was a completely unintentional physics exploit that was only left in because they didn't want to go through the trouble of redesigned how air dodging or traction worked. Besides, it's not like players could make much use of something that requires such precise timing, amirite? Yeah, hindsight.

Just a note: According to my personal definitions, "intentional" and "left in on purpose" are too VERY different things (almost the opposite).

 

[mimgrim]

I would point out that the number one most famous Melee technique was a completely unintentional physics exploit that was only left in because they didn't want to go through the trouble of redesigned how air dodging or traction worked. Besides, it's not like players could make much use of something that requires such precise timing, amirite? Yeah, hindsight.

Just a note: According to my personal definitions, "intentional" and "left in on purpose" are too VERY different things (almost the opposite).

I'm pretty sure that was not the reason it was left in. IIRC it was stated in an intview with Sakurai by Sakurai himself that he left it in as surprise or something like that, If I can find the interview again I'll post it. The thing is when something like that is discovered in play-testing and isn't taken out and is even acknowledge by the developer even it is no longer a glitch of any kind, at the very most it is a corner case. And also when it comes to video games intentional and left in on purpose are much closer in definition then your personal definition, just so you know.

EDIT - Hell I'm even sure that he said he took WD out of Brawl because of the gap he thought it created between advance and casual players.

 

[Medaka444]

--Nintendo Power: This is one that a lot of hardcore Smash Bros. fans have long wondered about. Was the ablility to "Wavedash" in Melee intentional or a glitch?
Sakurai: Of course, we noticed that you could do that during the development period. With Super Smash Bros. Brawl, it wasn't a matter of, "OK, do we leave it in or do we take it out?"--

That's all he said. Maybe it's a different interview. I just get confused because when people say "intentiona", they never specify if they mean intentionally left alone, or intentionally created. Wavedashing is the former only.

 

[mimgrim]

--Nintendo Power: This is one that a lot of hardcore Smash Bros. fans have long wondered about. Was the ablility to "Wavedash" in Melee intentional or a glitch?
Sakurai: Of course, we noticed that you could do that during the development period. With Super Smash Bros. Brawl, it wasn't a matter of, "OK, do we leave it in or do we take it out?"--

That's all he said. Maybe it's a different interview. I just get confused because when people say "intentiona", they never specify if they mean intentionally left alone, or intentionally created. Wavedashing is the former only.

Way to not get everything he said. e_e

Nintendo Power: This is one that a lot of hardcore Smash Bros. fans have long wondered about. Was the ablility to "Wavedash" in Melee intentional or a glitch?

Sakurai: Of course, we noticed that you could do that during the development period. With Super Smash Bros. Brawl, it wasn't a matter of, "OK, do we leave it in or do we take it out?"
We really just wanted this game, again, to appeal to and be played by gamers of all different levels. We felt that there was a growing gap between beginners and advanced players, and taking that out helps to level the playing field. It wasn't a big priority or anything, but when we were building the game around the idea of making it fair for everybody, it just made sense to take it out. And it also goes back to wanting to make something different from Melee and giving players the opportunity to find new things to enjoy.

The rest of what he says actually states why he took it out.
Even though Wavedashing is the former it is still no longer a glitch because it was acknowledge by the developer himself and thus makes it a legit mechanic any which way you look at it and is at the very most a corner case.

 

[the_suicide_fox]

That is where YOU are wrong. Doki Doki Panic was originally MEANT to be Super Mario Bros. 2. Miyamoto himself confirmed that to be the case. In the end, it didn't work out because people who wanted a sequel that played the same, just like you. Then they salvaged the engine with the Fuji TV deal and then Nintendo of America made the smart decision to not release a game that could have destroyed Mario's popularity in the states and gave us a game that people could enjoy while awaiting the masterpiece that was Mario 3.

And yes, when your reskinned game gets its own Japanese release, when it inspires elements in every future Mario game, AND when the creator of Mario prefers it over the ACTUAL sequel, it's a smart move.

I honestly don't know why I keep responding to you when it's apparent that you're an obvious troll. Either that or a despicable human being, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Masahiro Sakurai is a great man. After all, he created Melee, the game you hold so dear to your heart. Just because he doesn't indulge all your little fantasies doesn't make Brawl or Smash 4 failures. If you want cookie-cutter sequels, look somewhere else. Call of Duty should be right up your alley. Or better yet, go play Melee itself! It's not illegal to play a game just because their sequel is out...

LOL right, I think that Brawl was a failure thus I'm a troll. Have you seen my post count and join date? I'm OG here bro. I was here in the beginning, before M2K, Azen, OR Ken were even known. I watched it all unfold, though I never had the opportunity to go to any WC tournies just because I didn't have the time/money for it.

The creator of said game can prefer whatever he wants, doesn't mean a damn thing. I'm not asking him to induldge my fantasies, you should stop putting words into my mouth. I'm saying they need to focus on what made 64 and Melee so highly regarded, and stay away from the Brawl mentality that "everyone should win". You're probably one of those players that thinks its good design that everyone wins, thus why you like Brawl so much. CoD follows a similar mentality, because the skill gap is so low. Yet just like Brawl there is a competitive community around the game, but just like Brawl it's a tough sell. The ONLY reason it's on big circuits is just the sheer popularity of the game and that Activision sponsors/supports a lot of it. Nintendo doesn't support competitive Smash, and their antics with EVO shows they are actually against the very thought of it. Brawl barely succeeds in competitive play because of the foundation Melee made first, you are delusional if you think otherwise.

You seriously just have your head so far up your own ass that you can't fathom Nintendo making bad decisions, but they do. So does Sakuri, and yes even Miyamoto. Whether or not he intended for SMB2 to be this way or that way is irrelevant to the fact it wasn't the same game. Again, Mario 3 and World went BACK to the SMB1 mechanics. Lost Worlds would have done fine in the US. If they were really concerned about it being to hard, all they needed to do was tone down a few of the later levels not make an entirely new ****ing game. Nintendo isn't perfect, the sooner you realize that the better. But whatever dude, you get mad because my opinion is different, I didn't even bat an eyelash. I just tried to debate sensibly; skill gaps are good, "everyone wins" is bad, Melee is superior to Brawl in a competitive sense, and Smash 4 can appeal to both crowds easily (I mean Melee did that just as well as Brawl, but without a skill ceiling to hold the game back).

EDIT: Quoth the_suicide_fox - "Catering to casuals is what is destroying gaming right now because everyone wants to be good but no one wants to put effort into being good. They just want it handed to them."

My elitism alarm just went off. Still, overgeneralizing a huge group of people, and implying that games should only appeal to a small group of hardcores (no entitlement issues here!), can be fun sometimes.

It shouldn't cater to anybody is my point, there should be skill gaps so that players that put time into the game are actually rewarded for something. Again, we can have our cake and eat it too. But when you "cater to casuals" that usually means you intentionally lower the skill gap/skill ceiling so then players who play the game more aren't rewarded. There is no need to do such things as it only hurts the game in the long run. The video games that are generally the most fun are also the ones that are the most challenging, the most engaging, and the most rewarding.

Well I will say this for some game franchises, the line of what input to take does become much thinner then it might for another franchise. I believe Fighters, Shooters, and Racers fall into the former since they have such a big focus on multiplayer which makes player input oh so much more needed, but there is still a line there and even Epic made a lot of changes in Gears of War 3 they still kept the vision they wanted to an extent which is an important aspect, so the line is still there it is just thinner. But let's take something like a RPG or a Virtual Novel like game the developers vision has a greater line to it and isn't deviated from to much aside from adding mechanics that end up making it easier on the play for a sequel or something. But we just seem to have 2 differing philosophies for game devolpment.

Yes, but we are talking about versus here. Single player games tend to have a lot more flexibility in what is and isn't appropriate to change/add/remove. But when it comes to versus games; fighters, racers, shooters, etc; you need to keep to core mechanics. For what it's worth, Epic's vision was in Gears 1 too, but the players developed the new vision. You had cover to cover tactical shootouts. Gears 3 was in more or less the same vain as Gears 1, just overall better. Point being, when you have a versus game where one player squares off against another (or team vs team) then you need to stick to what made the game work so well the first time. Not doing that just pushes people away. So if you make a successful multiplayer game but no one likes X, find a way to make X better or remove it. But if everyone likes Y it should either be left the same or improved if it can be improved on.

 

[Conviction]

Is there a problem for there to be a gap between beginner and advanced players?

Isn't that why we call advanced players better than beginners?

 

[the_suicide_fox]

The rest of what he says actually states why he took it out.
Even though Wavedashing is the former it is still no longer a glitch because it was acknowledge by the developer himself and thus makes it a legit mechanic any which way you look at it and is at the very most a corner case.

If you consider that L-cancel in 64 was a glitch, it was turned into a legit mechanic in Melee because it only cut landing time in half rather than remove it entirely. I think Sakuri should have taken the same route with wavedash, maybe make it like a special landing roll that doesn't have invincibility but benefits from being cancel-able or something.

Is there a problem for there to be a gap between beginner and advanced players?

Isn't that why we call advanced players better than beginners?

There is no problem, you have the right idea. But some people think it's okay to not have that gap and that it somehow makes the game better. That's just flat out wrong. Might make it better at first, but then it kills any hope for the game's longevity.

 

[Vkrm]

I have respect for a man who very well could have made an installment that was simply the previous game but with extra stages and characters, but decided to do something different.

Brawl isn't very different from melee, it's mostly just worse. By my count there are only two new features added to braw, footstool and tripping. Both worthless. The features carried over from previous smash titles are made worse. There's nothing about brawl that really sets it apart from the previous games.

Even if this leads fans who hate change to make a mod turning the sequel into a clone of the previous game. One thing here is that Brawl has plenty of advanced techniques not found in Melee, but some people are more content to complain about what was lost than to try and find new strategies and exploits.

Medaka, I believe you are smart but what you said here is profoundly stupid. Melee is alive today because we've seen a constant supply of new discoveries. What you're essentially saying is melee players were forced back to melee when in reality it was a choice. Smash veterans dominated early brawl, the switch happened because of how bored they were. The advanced tactics in brawl are very difficult, don't really do much, and more often than not were discovered very early on by melee players.

Basing a game's design on fan response is always a risky business. It is so often impossible to distinguish between a majority and a vocal minority.

At this point, does anyone really doubt that melee was universally more loved? I've only seen sakurai himself cling to the idea that brawl was a better casual game, and he only does this when talking about why high level players prefer melee. Japanese game devs are really about pride. It doesn't surprise me to see him claim that he alone has a direct channel to the "true" majority, so he has no reason to acknowledge the criticism for brawl.

Skill gaps are bad if the technique does not offer any deeper strategies. If you played an RPG, would you take a sword of +20 Agility, or a sword of +10 Agility and no additional benefits? There, I just described the difference between using L-canceling and not using it. It gives no additional strategies, being 100% optimal, so the devs should have made landlag half as long.

Thats a bad analogy. Execution isn't a factor in most role playing games. Theres a lot you can do to alter hitlag and make an L cancel more difficult, which I think sets up for more decision making. We'd lose that if they lowered all landing lag.

 

[Medaka444]

Even though Wavedashing is the former it is still no longer a glitch because it was acknowledge by the developer himself and thus makes it a legit mechanic any which way you look at it and is at the very most a corner case.

I never called it a glitch. I called it an exploit.

EDIT:

@Vkrm: You forgot how Brawl let you grab ledges from behind, added Final Smashes, was a bit slower in general, had much better recoveries, the physics were greatly different overall, and probably other things. Oh! Best of all, you could use the C-stick! Very important.

It's good to note that Brawl got higher scores from professionals, some of whom felt it solved Melee's main flaw: being way to fast to strategize well without months of practice. Regardless, it sold three million more than Melee. There could have been any number of reasons for that, but don't you think a developer would be confused as to who to listen to? Especially when Brawl still gets outstanding scores from average gamers, if GameFAQs or Metacritic are any indication.

 

[Jumpman84]

LOL right, I think that Brawl was a failure thus I'm a troll. Have you seen my post count and join date? I'm OG here bro. I was here in the beginning, before M2K, Azen, OR Ken were even known. I watched it all unfold, though I never had the opportunity to go to any WC tournies just because I didn't have the time/money for it.

The creator of said game can prefer whatever he wants, doesn't mean a damn thing. I'm not asking him to induldge my fantasies, you should stop putting words into my mouth. I'm saying they need to focus on what made 64 and Melee so highly regarded, and stay away from the Brawl mentality that "everyone should win". You're probably one of those players that thinks its good design that everyone wins, thus why you like Brawl so much. CoD follows a similar mentality, because the skill gap is so low. Yet just like Brawl there is a competitive community around the game, but just like Brawl it's a tough sell. The ONLY reason it's on big circuits is just the sheer popularity of the game and that Activision sponsors/supports a lot of it. Nintendo doesn't support competitive Smash, and their antics with EVO shows they are actually against the very thought of it. Brawl barely succeeds in competitive play because of Melee, you are delusional if you think otherwise.

You seriously just have your head so far up your own *** that you can't fathom Nintendo making bad decisions, but they do. So does Sakuri, and yes even Miyamoto. Whether or not he intended for SMB2 to be this way or that way is irrelevant to the fact it wasn't the same game. Again, Mario 3 and World went BACK to the SMB1 mechanics. Lost Worlds would have done fine in the US. If they were really concerned about it being to hard, all they needed to do was tone down a few of the later levels not make an entirely new ****ing game. Nintendo isn't perfect, the sooner you realize that the better. But whatever dude, you get mad because my opinion is different, I didn't even bat an eyelash. I just tried to debate sensibly; skill gaps are good, "everyone wins" is bad, Melee is superior to Brawl in a competitive sense, and Smash 4 can appeal to both crowds easily (I mean Melee did that just as well as Brawl, but without a skill ceiling to hold the game back).

Wow. I honestly thought that no one could possibly be as stupid as you carry yourself to be. I'm sad to discover I was wrong...

Here, let me show you what I mean. Now, I love Super Mario Bros. and it's a great game, oh yeah! Hope I don't run into Bob-ombs- oh, what's that? There aren't Bob-ombs in this game? But aren't they in Super Mario Bros. 3? Oh, so they were created for that game? Oh, they weren't. Then where are they from? Oh, Super Mario Bros. 2? That explains it as I don't live in Japan- huh? They were in the AMERICAN Super Mario Bros. 2 and not the original? Oh, must have slipped through by mistake.

Whoops, missed that 1-Up mushroom! Better head back... wait, I can't go back? I could have sworn that you could In Super Mario Bros. 3... What's that? That feature is from the AMERICAN Super Mario Bros. 2 as well? What an odd coincidence!

Ah, it's so satisfying to stomp on a Koopa shell. Now to pick it up... hey! I automatically kicked it away! But I was holding down B... what's that? Grabbing objects debuted in the AMERICAN Super Mario Bros. 2? I see... well, at least Super Mario Bros. had boss fights first, right? Oh, just Bowser over and over? Unique bosses didn't come into the series until the AMERICAN Super Mario Bros. 2? Well, gee I'm SO glad that this uber garbage game has had no mechanics that influence other Mario titles! Oh, wait...

Next time you make an argument, at least have the decency to know what you're talking about.

 

[Medaka444]

On Super Mario Bros. USA: Another big reason for not coming here was because it was nearly exactly the same as SMB1. Compare it to the very different SMB2 and pretty big improvements in SMB3. Also, Miyamoto reportedly disliked the Lost Levels, as he didn't have much to do with it, while he did play a big part in creating Doki Doki Panic.

 

[the_suicide_fox]

Wow. I honestly thought that no one could possibly be as stupid as you carry yourself to be. I'm sad to discover I was wrong...

Here, let me show you what I mean. Now, I love Super Mario Bros. and it's a great game, oh yeah! Hope I don't run into Bob-ombs- oh, what's that? There aren't Bob-ombs in this game? But aren't they in Super Mario Bros. 3? Oh, so they were created for that game? Oh, they weren't. Then where are they from? Oh, Super Mario Bros. 2? That explains it as I don't live in Japan- huh? They were in the AMERICAN Super Mario Bros. 2 and not the original? Oh, must have slipped through by mistake.

Whoops, missed that 1-Up mushroom! Better head back... wait, I can't go back? I could have sworn that you could In Super Mario Bros. 3... What's that? That feature is from the AMERICAN Super Mario Bros. 2 as well? What an odd coincidence!

Ah, it's so satisfying to stomp on a Koopa shell. Now to pick it up... hey! I automatically kicked it away! But I was holding down B... what's that? Grabbing objects debuted in the AMERICAN Super Mario Bros. 2? I see... well, at least Super Mario Bros. had boss fights first, right? Oh, just Bowser over and over? Unique bosses didn't come into the series until the AMERICAN Super Mario Bros. 2? Well, gee I'm SO glad that this uber garbage game has had no mechanics that influence other Mario titles! Oh, wait...

Next time you make an argument, at least have the decency to know what you're talking about.

LMAO dude, chill out. Of course they would keep some of the stuff that worked in SMB2, but it is still a completely different game. Mario 3 has more in common with 1 than it does 2. Unique boss fights would have come along regardless, Mario 1 was among the first games on the NES so it's understandable it wouldn't have a lot of variety like that. Plus, wait, you're forgetting that a ton of other games came out between each of the original Marios. Who's to say the idea for more bosses wasn't from another game, hm?? Oh and where was the 3 heart health system in Mario 3? Where was pulling turnips out of the ground? Where was magic potions? Where was the choice of 4 characters? Yea that one didn't show up in a Mario game again. Again I never said Mario 2 was a bad game, I said it was a bad MARIO game. Do you read before you post or are you always raging at people who can debate better than you? Or do you just hate people who have different opinions and don't worship Nintendo?

On Super Mario Bros. USA: Another big reason for not coming here was because it was nearly exactly the same as SMB1. Compare it to the very different SMB2 and pretty big improvements in SMB3. Also, Miyamoto reportedly disliked the Lost Levels, as he didn't have much to do with it, while he did play a big part in creating Doki Doki Panic.

Right, going back to that Japanese pride thing. It would make sense he liked his sequel better than the sequel someone else made. If he made Lost Levels and someone else made DDP it would be a different story I guarantee.

Thats a bad analogy. Execution isn't a factor in most role playing games. Theres a lot you can do to alter hitlag and make an L cancel more difficult, which I think
sets up for more decision making. We'd lose that if they lowered all landing lag.

Very true. It's obvious you should ALWAYS L-cancel, but the fact you need to continuously execute it perfectly is why it's good to keep. It's like a sniping in any shooter; yes headshots are the best hands down, but can you hit them consistently? If you can then you are very skilled and therefore rewarded for your skill with a kill. Same concept applies to L-cancel, wavedash, and pretty much every other advanced tech you have in Smash, or any game really.

 

[Jumpman84]

Where was the choice of 4 characters? Yea that one didn't show up in a Mario game again

Ahem. Super Mario 3D World begs to differ.

Again I never said Mario 2 was a bad game, I said it was a bad MARIO game. Do you read before you post or are you always raging at people who can debate better than you? Or do you just hate people who have different opinions and don't worship Nintendo?

And several people have already pointed out that your assumption was wrong. It is in fact YOU who hate people who don't share your opinion and don't cuss out Nintendo every chance they get.

And as for your other incorrect statements, as there are so many... I don't worship Nintendo. I respect the company that created the games that got me into gaming and still creates the games I want to play. And I actually lose more often than I win in Brawl, so your assumption that "everyone wins" is invalid as well as you thinking that's why I like Brawl.

Unlike you, I love all three games, soon to be five. Melee was my first Smash game and it drew me into its fantastic world. Then I got Brawl, a fantastic game which everyone but a certain few people acknowledge as such. Then I got the original on Virtual Console and it is a great one as well. That's what you don't seem to understand. As a true gamer, I enjoy each game based on its own merits, not on some preconceived notion on what a game should be. Where as you hate any game that's not Melee. By that logic, you should hate the original, which makes no sense because Melee wouldn't exist without it, and Project M, because it isn't exactly like Melee due to it having new characters and stages. Which is ironic if you think about it. Why put them in if Melee is perfect as it is?

Oh, and you should read this article and enlighten yourself.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/09/02/nintendo-vs-modernism

 

[Vkrm]

@Vkrm: You forgot how Brawl let you grab ledges from behind, added Final Smashes, was a bit slower in general, had much better recoveries, the physics were greatly different overall, and probably other things. Oh! Best of all, you could use the C-stick!

C stick and final smash. All the other things you mentioned were what I was referring to when I brought up returning mechanics that were made worse. Honestly you can use the cstick in the modes that matter, and Final Smashes suck horse penis. You have to disable all items entirely to turn off pity final smashes ,and I don't like how everyone has to stop fighting to chase the ball around.

It's good to note that Brawl got higher scores from professionals, some of whom felt it solved Melee's main flaw: being way to fast to strategize well without months of practice. Regardless, it sold three million more than Melee. There could have been any number of reasons for that, but don't you think a developer would be confused as to who to listen to? Especially when Brawl still gets outstanding scores from average gamers, if GameFAQs or Metacritic are any indication.

3 million more copies when there were 80 million more active wiis than GCN's. It's not really that special.... What would say about someone like me who owns two copies of brawl and still sees how melee is vastly superior? Do you also agree with reviewers who named skyward sword as the best Zelda game ever made? Bad games can sell and reviewers can be wrong.

 

[Jumpman84]

3 million more copies when there were 80 million more active wiis than GCN's. It's not really that special.... What would say about someone like me who owns two copies of brawl and still sees how melee is vastly superior? Do you also agree with reviewers who named skyward sword as the best Zelda game ever made? Bad games can sell and reviewers can be wrong.

So just because you hate the game, everyone who loves it is automatically wrong? What kind of messed up logic is that?

 

[the_suicide_fox]

And several people have already pointed out that your assumption was wrong. It is in fact YOU who hate people who don't share your opinion and don't cuss out Nintendo every chance they get.

Right and you base that on what? That I disagree with you and don't like Brawl? You can throw rhetoric at me until you are blue in the face it doesn't change the fact that Mario 2 is the most different game in the franchise and that Nintnedo went back to the Mario 1 style for every game thereafter.

I don't hate any game that's not Melee, I hate Brawl. 64 is awesome, Melee is awesome. Smash 4 hasn't come out yet, but I'm not getting my hopes up about it after Brawl. And I highly doubt we will see a Project B if Smash 4 fails. Project M2 definitely (if it fails). That should tell you something.

Really, you are an idiot if you think I only want Melee. I haven't played Project M because I don't own a Wii anymore but I totally support the game and really want to play it. I'm sure I would enjoy it too. That's not Melee, but it follows Melee's design methods. That's where your logic keep failing, I do take the game for its merits and Brawl, just Brawl, has none for me.

So just because you hate the game, everyone who loves it is automatically wrong? What kind of messed up logic is that?

LOL dude you clearly just rage at people that disagree with you. You assume WAY too much, and have no concept of how to debate. Everyone you have disagreed with thus far, including me, have valid points and all you do is rage and put words into people's mouths. It's pretty entertaining. Just because you love a game doesn't make you automatically right. See what I did there?

 

[Medaka444]

@Vkrm: I never said that Brawl was universally preferred over Melee - just that Melee fans exaggerate how hated Brawl is, mostly because they hang out around people with the same opinion. Personally, I'm still debating with myself over which game is better. Brawl is certainly a lot more comfortable to play, feels like I'm in control, I'll give it that.

 

[Jumpman84]

I never said that my opinion was the only valid one. And I don't rage at people at all. You go around and insult people who like Brawl, but can't handle it when someone calls you out? Like I already said, I love all three games. I just can't stand people who act like Brawl is universally loathed when that is far from the truth. And the sad part is that if Brawl really was as bad as you say, then Smash 4 would not exist and there'd be nothing to debate about.

But fine. If being right about everything and me being wrong and a moron is all you care about, then you win. Congrats. We both just wasted a portion of our lives arguing over something completely meaningless.

 

[Vkrm]

So just because you hate the game, everyone who loves it is automatically wrong? What kind of messed up logic is that?

What? I was just pointing out that brawls sales weren't impressive, and that it makes no sense to accept everything professional reviewers say.

@Vkrm: I never said that Brawl was universally preferred over Melee - just that Melee fans exaggerate how hated Brawl is, mostly because they hang out around people with the same opinion. Personally, I'm still debating with myself over which game is better. Brawl is certainly a lot more comfortable to play, feels like I'm in control, I'll give it that.

That's objectively false. Brawl lags by 0-2 frames at all times, even in menus. Melee is more responsive.

 

[God Robert's Cousin]

That's objectively false. Brawl lags by 0-2 frames at all times, even in menus. Melee is more responsive.

Objectively means nothing when the reality is that Brawl is a lot more comfortable to play. Brawl isn't the one with buffering and movements that feel completely stiff to someone who hasn't touched the game in years. Melee is. Brawl, like Medaka said, makes you feel like you're in control to an easier degree than Melee does. Moving a character around where you want them to be should be not be a form of difficulty, period. It's a skill curve, no doubt, but that isn't necessarily a positive.

 

[Vkrm]

Objectively means nothing when the reality is that Brawl is a lot more comfortable to play. Brawl isn't the one with buffering and movements that feel completely stiff to someone who hasn't touched the game in years. Melee is. Brawl, like Medaka said, makes you feel like you're in control to an easier degree than Melee does. Moving a character around where you want them to be should be not be a form of difficulty, period. It's a skill curve, no doubt, but that isn't necessarily a positive.

Which game lags by two frames and which one doesn't? Brawl is the game with ten frames of buffer which causes more problems then helps. Brawl is the game where you occasionally lose control of your character. You can't down air in brawl without fast falling if you're past the apex of your jump. Did you know that no matter what controller you use, brawl emulates the wiimote on its side? No analog control. Brawl is objectively less responsive. It does not control any better. Let me ask you, melee has unique mobility options that although might be difficult, grant more control isn't that right? Every movement choice you have in brawl is present melee, so I don't see how you can claim brawl controls better.

 

[God Robert's Cousin]

Which game lags by two frames and which one doesn't? Brawl is the game with ten frames of buffer which causes more problems then helps. Brawl is the game where you occasionally lose control of your character. You can't down air in brawl without fast falling if you're past the apex of your jump. Did you know that no matter what controller you use, brawl emulates the wiimote on its side? No analog control. Brawl is objectively less responsive. It does not control any better. Let me ask you, melee has unique mobility options that although might be difficult, grant more control isn't that right? Every movement choice you have in brawl is present melee, so I don't see how you can claim brawl controls better.

Because they just do. I really don't know how to justify how Melee doesn't control when it has all this technicalities to boast, it just does. I never have issues controlling my characters in Brawl. I input a given direction, I go that direction. I add an arch to my jump, my jump arches. I don't know what you expect me to say to counter that when, from first-hand experience and from almost everyone I've played a match with in Brawl, Brawl feels easier to control.

Just as well, I couldn't care less for all the "objectively superior" mechanics you claim Melee has to offer when it still feels inferior to me in the end. I hold no bias and I see each Smash Bros. game with their own merits. Easy controls is not one of those merits for Melee, at least not to someone who hasn't been able to master wave-dashing or crouch-cancelling to the same level the professionals do.

 

[Medaka444]

Ah, yes. The common fan fallacy of thinking that your own opinions are somehow objective. Like that fanboy who wrote to Yahtzee of Zero Punctuation, complaining that he criticized an "objectively" great game like Brawl.

 

[mimgrim]

If you consider that L-cancel in 64 was a glitch, it was turned into a legit mechanic in Melee because it only cut landing time in half rather than remove it entirely. I think Sakuri should have taken the same route with wavedash, maybe make it like a special landing roll that doesn't have invincibility but benefits from being cancel-able or something.

Actually L-cancel was not a glitch in 64. It had it's own page on the original Smash 64 website. It was a completely intentional mechanic put into 64 he just ended up changing how it worked a tiny bit in Melee. Just so you know .

Yes, but we are talking about versus here. Single player games tend to have a lot more flexibility in what is and isn't appropriate to change/add/remove. But when it comes to versus games; fighters, racers, shooters, etc; you need to keep to core mechanics. For what it's worth, Epic's vision was in Gears 1 too, but the players developed the new vision. You had cover to cover tactical shootouts. Gears 3 was in more or less the same vain as Gears 1, just overall better. Point being, when you have a versus game where one player squares off against another (or team vs team) then you need to stick to what made the game work so well the first time. Not doing that just pushes people away. So if you make a successful multiplayer game but no one likes X, find a way to make X better or remove it. But if everyone likes Y it should either be left the same or improved if it can be improved on.

as long as the original vision can be kept I have no qualms with that and it is especially more important in a versus game. I think we finally met a understanding .

Objectively means nothing when the reality is that Brawl is a lot more comfortable to play. Brawl isn't the one with buffering and movements that feel completely stiff to someone who hasn't touched the game in years. Melee is. Brawl, like Medaka said, makes you feel like you're in control to an easier degree than Melee does. Moving a character around where you want them to be should be not be a form of difficulty, period. It's a skill curve, no doubt, but that isn't necessarily a positive.

Sorry, but that is a completely subjective matter any which way you try to put it. Undeniably so. For some Brawl feels more comfortable and for others Melee feels more comfortable and even for others 64 feels better and, going even further, some people feel comfortable with all 3.

 

[the_suicide_fox]

I never said that my opinion was the only valid one. And I don't rage at people at all. You go around and insult people who like Brawl, but can't handle it when someone calls you out? Like I already said, I love all three games. I just can't stand people who act like Brawl is universally loathed when that is far from the truth. And the sad part is that if Brawl really was as bad as you say, then Smash 4 would not exist and there'd be nothing to debate about.

But fine. If being right about everything and me being wrong and a moron is all you care about, then you win. Congrats. We both just wasted a portion of our lives arguing over something completely meaningless.

LOL dude you called me a Melee elitist because I don't like Brawl. You're the one that started throwing insults, so don't be mad if you can't take as much as you dish it out. You even attacked someone else that disagreed the same way. Prior to you calling me elitist I never ONCE insulted you. I only debated my points for my side of the argument and pointed out flaws in your argument. Again, you got mad at me, and I'm not one to sit back and get bullied.

You can't stand that people act like Brawl is Univerally loathed or that it is universally loathed? See there's a difference, and I think you just don't like the idea that other people don't like the game the way you do. Just look how defensive you got when people said anything negative about Brawl. Face it, there are a lot of players that don't like Brawl. If you like it so be it, but don't get mad when other people don't like it.

Because they just do. I really don't know how to justify how Melee doesn't control when it has all this technicalities to boast, it just does. I never have issues controlling my characters in Brawl. I input a given direction, I go that direction. I add an arch to my jump, my jump arches. I don't know what you expect me to say to counter that when, from first-hand experience and from almost everyone I've played a match with in Brawl, Brawl feels easier to control.

Just as well, I couldn't care less for all the "objectively superior" mechanics you claim Melee has to offer when it still feels inferior to me in the end. I hold no bias and I see each Smash Bros. game with their own merits. Easy controls is not one of those merits for Melee, at least not to someone who hasn't been able to master wave-dashing or crouch-cancelling to the same level the professionals do.

Besides this being a complete fallacy, you only feel that way because the game is slowed down so you have more time to input commands. But then by slowing down the game you are, in fact, make it feel "stiff" because your characters take longer to react. Melee is just as easy to control as Brawl, just at a faster pace. It's harder only because you need to act faster, and even then it's not hard. Dash dancing and short hops are probably the easiest tech in Melee, you can learn them both in a few minutes. Knowing WHEN to use them is what takes practice. Crouch cancelling too is easy to learn, so IDK where you get off that someone can't master it. All you do is hold down when you get hit while on the ground. What's so difficult about that? At least Melee doesn't hinder your movement with tripping and laggy inputs.

And you don't need to master high level tech like wavedash to appreciate Melee's controls. Again, what's so difficult about it? The speed? Pffft. Then play a character like Samus or Peach that aren't very fast. Or Jigs, since she's floaty like Brawl characters.

Actually L-cancel was not a glitch in 64. It had it's own page on the original Smash 64 website. It was a completely intentional mechanic put into 64 he just ended up changing how it worked a tiny bit in Melee. Just so you know .

I didn't know that I thought it was a glitch. But regardless, my point was that they could have implemented wavedashing as a legit tech in the game. All that needed to be done was create a special animation/action for air dodging into the ground. Like I know that in Mario 1 (or 3 I forget which) you could walljump and that was a glitch. But then walljump became a legit thing in 64. Again this goes back to the developer embracing the visions of the player rather than exclusively forcing their own vision.

 

[Maricalistaro]

These discussions change nothing and nobody changes their minds. It's like an religion vs atheism thread.

While it's likely that Smash 4 is going to be less like Melee than it is like Brawl it's probably going to be quite different from both. If people choose to be pessimistic about an upcoming game you are excited about, let them be. Let them wallow in their own despair and enjoy the excitement on your own because the finished product is likely to be a great deal different than anybody in this thread is discussing. Never-mind misinterpreted quotes from websites, misinformation, cherry-picking , sensationalism and good ole fashioned translation errors, we just know close to jack all about the actual game-play.

 

[Medaka444]

For some reason, I am completely unable to short hop with anyone in Melee, other than characters like Bowser or Samus. Actually, I can do it, but not anywhere near consistently (just like wavedashing). And yet, short hopping is very easy to perform in Brawl. I wonder why.

 

[Big-Cat]

Probably either a change in the leniency or Brawl's ten frame buffer.

 

[mimgrim]

For some reason, I am completely unable to short hop with anyone in Melee, other than characters like Bowser or Samus. Actually, I can do it, but not anywhere near consistently (just like wavedashing). And yet, short hopping is very easy to perform in Brawl. I wonder why.

Even so, it in no way proves that Brawl is objectively more comfortable. As it is a you problem and not a everyone problem. remember when you said;

Ah, yes. The common fan fallacy of thinking that your own opinions are somehow objective. Like that fanboy who wrote to Yahtzee of Zero Punctuation, complaining that he criticized an "objectively" great game like Brawl.

on this same page on this same day? Well that is what you are attempting to do now it seems like.

 

[Morbi]

Even so, it in no way proves that Brawl is objectively more comfortable. As it is a you problem and not a everyone problem. remember when you said;



on this same page on this same day? Well that is what you are attempting to do now it seems like.

Precisely, the "comfort" of any Smash game is subjective. Obviously Melee is considerably more comfortable to the majority of people on the Smashboards (dat hasty generalization fallacy). I am not too fond or keen on floating in the air for 20 seconds before I finally drop. I am surprised that there are no moon levels in Brawl based on the premise that there is no gravity in the game!

 

[mimgrim]

Precisely, the "comfort" of any Smash game is subjective. Obviously Melee is considerably more comfortable to the majority of people on the Smashboards (dat hasty generalization fallacy). I am not too fond or keen on floating in the air for 20 seconds before I finally drop. I am surprised that there are no moon levels in Brawl based on the premise that there is no gravity in the game!

well since you seem to have the Puffster listed as your main for all 3 games and have it as your sig, you should be happy with the physics of Brawl since Puff is inherently floaty and already had the premise of being on the moon, even in Meele .

 

[Medaka444]

If I implied I was saying my own experiences were objective, I apologize.