"Masahiro Sakurai talks all about game balance in the new Smash Bros. games"

[SmashChu]

I saw this video in another post (I think Capps posted this), and I think it fits in this thread quite nicely.

Extra Crtedits is never relevant because everything they say is either obvious or ********. That video has a lot of flaws in it.

In terms of what they are talking about: Sakurai mentioned that a game being a little unbalanced is OK as you sacrifice balance for uniqueness (which is what Extra Credit missed which ruined their entire analysis). In order to be perfectly balanced, you have to have every element be the same, or create a natural rock-paper-scissors. To come closer to perfectly balanced means that the game gets more dull as everyone becomes more similar. Blizzard is obsessed with perfect balance. This is why in WoW that every character has a heal. It makes the game less fun because it reduces what makes the characters unique. In the current interview, Sakurai is talking about the elements of balance. Though perfect balance will make a dull game, it still needs some balance to make sure, as Sakurai put it, that the game isn't unfair. Obviously, Sakurai wants the game to feel fun (or great) and balance is kind of the next step. Important, but a balanced game necessarily isn't a fun one.

 

[Zulyar]

“The game balance of Super Smash Bros. Brawl started six years before its release, and it most likely goes back even further during its time of development, and it’s never been reformed even through the updates afterwards. We’re at a stage where we’d like to release the new title as soon as possible, and offer something more enjoyable than ever.”

why are people saying he's balancing thi game for 1v1 now? as far as i can tell from this line is that he has has 6+ years to try and balance BRAWL now i don't think brawl was that well balanced personaly. i can't get out of this text he's going to try balance smash 4 better. maybe its just me, if not point it out to me a bit clearer, i must be blind.

 

[NintendoKnight]

why are people saying he's balancing thi game for 1v1 now? as far as i can tell from this line is that he has has 6+ years to try and balance BRAWL now i don't think brawl was that well balanced personaly. i can't get out of this text he's going to try balance smash 4 better. maybe its just me, if not point it out to me a bit clearer, i must be blind.

Sakurai also talks about the difficulty in adjusting balances for things such as four player free-for-alls and 1-on-1 fights, as their circumstances are completely different. This can’t be helped at times, he says. For example, some attacks such as Captain Falcon’s “Falcon Punch” might work well when there’s more players, but might not ever hit during a 1-on-1 fight.

It's in the original post. He's balancing things for 1v1 as well, and not just FFA as people feared he would be doing. The quote for 6 years on Brawl has nothing to do with now. He's been working on this game for much less longer than Brawl, yet we're hearing promising things regarding the balance.

 

[Zonderion]

Extra Crtedits is never relevant because everything they say is either obvious or ********. That video has a lot of flaws in it.

In terms of what they are talking about: Sakurai mentioned that a game being a little unbalanced is OK as you sacrifice balance for uniqueness (which is what Extra Credit missed which ruined their entire analysis). In order to be perfectly balanced, you have to have every element be the same, or create a natural rock-paper-scissors. To come closer to perfectly balanced means that the game gets more dull as everyone becomes more similar. Blizzard is obsessed with perfect balance. This is why in WoW that every character has a heal. It makes the game less fun because it reduces what makes the characters unique. In the current interview, Sakurai is talking about the elements of balance. Though perfect balance will make a dull game, it still needs some balance to make sure, as Sakurai put it, that the game isn't unfair. Obviously, Sakurai wants the game to feel fun (or great) and balance is kind of the next step. Important, but a balanced game necessarily isn't a fun one.

You can think what you want to about Extra Credit and the work they do, but that doesn't discount what they said. They may not have strictly mentioned uniqueness, but they did include it in the video. To speak to the uniqueness they did mention, if you look at the part when they are giving the example of Warrior A, Warrior B and Warrior C, they are including uniqueness as part of why it is important to have an imbalance. They just didn't expand to a roster of 40 characters. Instead of using the name Warrior A, we could replace it with Smash characters. So we could say that Fox is OP, and everyone plays Fox. Then someone realizes that Fox has a weakness to Olimar, so everyone picks up Olimar to counter Fox...etc. So no, EC didn't miss "uniqueness" as part of their analysis, they just didn't expand on it.

Pretty much everything else in your post EC covered (other than picking on Blizzard, but I agree). In the beginning of the video, EC mentioned that games need to have some imbalance, but nothing drastic. So I don't see your counter point to the EC vid... I think it's funny that you believe everything about balance that comes from Sakurai's mouth (who is known to not know how to balance), and immediately discredit EC when they pose some logical view points.

I'm not well versed in the philosophical design of video games, so could you help me see the other flaws, that you say they have in the video?

 

[MasterOfKnees]

why are people saying he's balancing thi game for 1v1 now? as far as i can tell from this line is that he has has 6+ years to try and balance BRAWL now i don't think brawl was that well balanced personaly. i can't get out of this text he's going to try balance smash 4 better. maybe its just me, if not point it out to me a bit clearer, i must be blind.

The process that started 6 years prior to Brawl could be anything from just thinking about what might be best in order to tune each character and what could be done better than in Melee. It's not like he sat down and immediately wrote new numbers for each character 6 years before Brawl, heck, Brawl wasn't even a thing back then, the project only began 3 years before release. The real balancing process as we think of it probably began post-character implementation.

 

[JediLink]

I saw this video in another post (I think Capps posted this), and I think it fits in this thread quite nicely.
(Extra credits perfect imbalance video)

Yeah... no. Extra Credits usually know what they're talking about but this is one example where they don't. David Sirlin, go!
http://www.sirlin.net/blog/2012/7/18/a-discussion-of-balance.html

 

[Zulyar]

alright then, well fingers crossed that this game will be amazing <3

 

[Kamikazek]

@ the whole 1v1 thing, Sakurai has said before that he balances 1v1. In the E3 interviews when asked about how he balances one of the things he mentioned is he pits players of different skill levels against each other 1v1. I don't have proof but I'd bet he's balanced for both FFA and 1v1 at least since Melee. Also keep in mind that if you're playing stock a free for all match is going to eventually become 1v1, so both how a character does in a free for all and how they do 1v1 is relevant in those matches.
As far as I can tell the whole Sakurai only balances FFA idea comes from people seeing attacks and such that are designed for free for all and immediately jumping to the conclusion that they exist because Sakurai only cares about free for all(or worse, they act like free for all doesn't exist and just call the move useless), while ignoring that a lot of things in the game are designed for 1v1. EternalFirePheonix made a great point about Fox being a 1v1 character with some FFA tools. Falcon's punch and kick are best for free for all, but Melee Falcon has a lot of combo possibility that aren't really useful in a free for all because someone will stab you in the back. So he's designed to handle free for all and 1v1. Some characters are even mostly 1v1 centric, which is one of the reasons they do so well in tournaments when FFA viability can't hold them back. Falco, Ice Climbers, ZSS, Diddy-Jesus Christ Olimar- they all have skills that are clearly designed with 1v1 matches in mind. And there are characters that are much more geared towards free for all like Link or, say, Gannondorf, who is pretty much made just for FFA(still not that good in practice though). The best example I can possibly think of is Zelda/Sheik. Zelda's totally designed for free for all, Sheik's all about 1v1. I honestly think that might be the reason for the Zelda Sheik duality, at the very least that's how I play them-Start free for all matches as Zelda, once it's down to you and one other person, switch to Sheik if you can find time to transform(in Brawl anyway, in Melee the gap is big enough that Sheik basically always dominates). Of course if you just look at 1v1 or FFA there's basically no reason to switch between the two characters but if you're doing both in one match there totally is(though I wish they would fix that slow as hell transformation).

I'm not saying the Smash Games are fantastically balanced if you think of them from a 1v1+FFA perspective there's still a lot of problems in practice but most of the design decisions at least make sense on paper if you think about it that way and it certainly comes off as comparatively more balanced.

Anyways huge rant aside what I found most interesting about this is that now he keeps saying things like "people didn't think Bower was strong" or "No one really used shield breaker" which makes me think he pays more attention to the fans than I initially thought.

 

[Zonderion]

Yeah... no. Extra Credits usually know what they're talking about but this is one example where they don't. David Sirlin, go!
http://www.sirlin.net/blog/2012/7/18/a-discussion-of-balance.html

Thanks for this post! It was a very interesting read and it helped a lot.

Spoiler

"I felt like the EC guys really needed to define their terms this time. It was fairly obvious as soon as they started that they weren't using the word "balance" the same way you do. (And I'll argue they weren't even using a consistent definition...)

After more thought, I kind of got the impression that they were using balance almost as a blanket term for symmetric gameplay. Like, reading your description "local imbalances", and how they're good for guns in an FPS seems to match the argument the EC guys made. Which is to say, they're claiming the strategy-space is really boring and small when everyone has the same power level, and much larger and more interesting when a players power level varies over time.

They just generalize that argument to cover everything about all games, all the time. So, you're response article specifically mentions different terms like "metagame", "asymmetry", "random elements", etc. And the EC guys lumped all of those terms into their definition of "Imbalance", and then concluded with same wavy-hand logic that it was a net positive at all times."
--- July 18, 2012 | Claytus

Sirlin responded to Claytus with this: "Claytus: yeah you probably summed it up well."

So, not taking anything away from David Sirlin, but I saw EC's video very similar to how Claytus saw it.

I think I get what David Sirilin is saying, that local imbalances will always exist, as in one player will be in a disadvantageous spot vs another player at some point during the game play. He goes on to say that the global imbalance, the ones that are there before you even turn on the console, should not be. And I agree with this statement 100%. However, I don't feel that it is plausible given the Smash games. Using Chess as an example, there are no global imbalances, but only local ones, which are created by the players. Its easy when Chess only has 6 differing pieces, and all of which only have 1 type of action. Compare that to a roster of 50 all of which have 20+ moves with varying physics. So while it is possible, its just not plausible.

I can see some of the misinformation that EC used, thanks to David Sirlin, but I don't think that his utopia of global balance is attainable for Smash.

 

[D-idara]

So he'll make all chars equally strong instead of equally weak? Good, Sakurai! Good! You're still a terrible director because you removed the SSE, but good!

 

[Zeallyx]

I had to create a whole new hype meter in my mind for this game.

This article is yet another addition to this ongoing process of mental hype space constuction.

 

[Jumpman84]

So he'll make all chars equally strong instead of equally weak? Good, Sakurai! Good! You're still a terrible director because you removed the SSE, but good!

What a horrible thing to say. Especially since he couldn't have removed something that wasn't planned for the game in the first place.

Anyway, I'm glad to hear Sakurai's comments on the game, as always. I like to main Bowser, so sounds like he'll be a heck of a lot of fun this time around.

 

[RODO]

To be fair, he didn't actually say that. He said that balancing for 1v1 fights is tough because the circumstances are so radically different from FFAs (which is true), and that sometimes, they're so different that it makes balancing impossible. So, he'll do what he can, but some / many times, he just has to throw up his hands and say "well, screw it, it won't work in 1v1!"

That is certainly not the same as saying he's going to balance characters for 1v1s. He's balancing them for FFAs, and if he sees a glaring problem in 1v1s, he's going to try to fix it, except when that messes with his FFA balance, in which case, oh well, too bad for 1v1s.

I feel like what he meant was that some characters are going to have moves that work better in ffa (example being smashes that hit on either side or ones that take a bit to get off such as the one he already stated). Obviously some moves work better in ffa/teams than 1v1 and vice versa, but he can't just balance moves for one side of the spectrum. It probably is hard to balance for both.

 

[Dark Phazon]

I knew he wasn't taking a break! Give us those pictures!

Either way, this is all good news, he finally sees balancing in a different and much better light.

Maybe hes taking a brake becauase hes gonna come back with a pic of ridley and its obviously gonna be huge...(-_-)

 

[SmashChu]

You can think what you want to about Extra Credit and the work they do, but that doesn't discount what they said. They may not have strictly mentioned uniqueness, but they did include it in the video. To speak to the uniqueness they did mention, if you look at the part when they are giving the example of Warrior A, Warrior B and Warrior C, they are including uniqueness as part of why it is important to have an imbalance. They just didn't expand to a roster of 40 characters. Instead of using the name Warrior A, we could replace it with Smash characters. So we could say that Fox is OP, and everyone plays Fox. Then someone realizes that Fox has a weakness to Olimar, so everyone picks up Olimar to counter Fox...etc. So no, EC didn't miss "uniqueness" as part of their analysis, they just didn't expand on it.

Pretty much everything else in your post EC covered (other than picking on Blizzard, but I agree). In the beginning of the video, EC mentioned that games need to have some imbalance, but nothing drastic. So I don't see your counter point to the EC vid... I think it's funny that you believe everything about balance that comes from Sakurai's mouth (who is known to not know how to balance), and immediately discredit EC when they pose some logical view points.

I'm not well versed in the philosophical design of video games, so could you help me see the other flaws, that you say they have in the video?

I can discount what they said because they are wrong, which is usually the case. The are some of the worst people to get advice from.

The reason the analysis falls apart is because they don't get that there is a link between over balance and a dull game. Their suggestion is to "Make the game unbalanced because unbalance is fun." Listen (or look) at what people say about a game and it's usually balance. Notice how popular balance patches are. What Extra Credit is advocating isn't good because people want fun games that are balanced. Players want both, so Extra Credit is telling you to sacrifice one for the other which is going to make a mess and the game will be less fun as a result. Balance comes second to fun, but you don't purposely try to make a game imbalanced. Again, you make the elements then you try to balance them as best as you can. The "Character A, B, C" is a product of characters being different. Metagames exist in EVERY game. It's not the developer who makes it but the players (another point EC didn't understand). People normally look for counters, so it's nothing unique. But you need your game to be balanced in order for that to happen. Again, EC does not understand the relation between balance and fun. They think unbalance is fun, when the reality is that people like balance but over balance can make a game dull.

You mention how it's funny that I believe Sakurai over EC. Consider that Sakurai has made multiple successful games and the Smash Brothers series has made a ton of money. EC doesn't have any of the same credentials and I believe the game Jame is just a peon at a larger company. So who should I trust more, the successful person who has proven himself multiple times or the guys who have little to no experience and just make Youtube videos. The choice is obvious.

 

[The Real Gamer]

So he'll make all chars equally strong instead of equally weak? Good, Sakurai! Good! You're still a terrible director because you removed the SSE, but good!

The hell?

Sakurai deciding not to bring back SSE is one of the best decisions he's made for Smash 4. It's up there with the removal of tripping.

 

[Vann Accessible]

The hell?

Sakurai deciding not to bring back SSE is one of the best decisions he's made for Smash 4. It's up there with the removal of tripping.

Agreed.

Consider:

The limited play value of a forgettable, although kinda initially cool, lengthy single player mode vs extra time and game data spent refining the limitless replay value of the main fighting engine, with more characters, stages, items, and a more refined stage builder and online play

He made the right choice.

 

[PikaJew]

I loved SEE and still enjoy it.
I am very sad that we won't see anything like that because it was absolutely epic.
Although if it means we'll be getting a more complete game and getting it sooner than I can get over it.

 

[Jumpman84]

Playing Subspace Emissary for the first time is one of the greatest moments in my life. I love SSE and think people who hate it are crazy. Regardless, SSE may have only been intended as a one time thing. Essentially, it was Brawl's version of Adventure Mode, which was first in Melee. Sakurai did confirm that we'd have single player modes in the new game, just that it wasn't SSE2.

 

[PikaJew]

Playing Subspace Emissary for the first time is one of the greatest moments in my life. I love SSE and think people who hate it are crazy. Regardless, SSE may have only been intended as a one time thing. Essentially, it was Brawl's version of Adventure Mode, which was first in Melee. Sakurai did confirm that we'd have single player modes in the new game, just that it wasn't SSE2.

People like to pick it apart like crazy.
It was simplistic side scrolling action mixed with epic cutscenes, I don't know what people expected from a Smash Bros game.
I mean they threw some character development in there with Lucas becoming a man and R.O.B. finally having enough of the mass genocide of his people. There was a story. Evil guy takes over Smash world and sucks it all into Subspace and transforms people to trophies. It was a simple story. People expecting something more were setting themselves up for disappointment.

There are a lot of things that could have been done to improve it (but this is true with everything)
but this was in no capacity a bad experience.

I just don't understand how people can hate it so much and claim it's bland and uninspiring.
I mean it's a fighting game, the fact that they even included this is a plus.


I guess just because it's Brawl people hate it.

 

[volbound1700]

The lack of balance patches mentioned in this interview makes me scared

Agreed. I got a PS3 this Christmas and most games have patches and updates for it you can download online. It also has great online features. Your statement is some of the stupid stuff that is putting Nintendo behind in the console wars. Smash Brothers would be a great game to feature updates, patches, and expansions and yet Nintendo and Sakurai are too stupid to see it. It is also what is scaring third parties away. I have always been a Nintendo first person but I really love PS3 and it is almost making me want to stick with Sony in the future.

 

[volbound1700]

FLUDD is here to stay. Rosalina's trailer confirmed it.

While you are 99% right, you never know. The Smash team could have a last second heart change on it and give him a new move. There were some last minute move changes for Brawl.

 

[D-idara]

Remember, these people don't want to see our favorite characters interacting or fighting TOGETHER, they just want to wavedash with no items.

 

[Richard Nixon]

I wouldn't worry too much about balance patches. Just because he didn't mention them in this interview doesn't mean they're not happening. Based on his previous statements, he's definitely thinking about implementing patches in the future. Right now, though, he's focused on making the initial product as solid and balanced as possible on release. He seems like he's trying to avoid the problem some games nowadays end up with, where the developers put out a sloppy product and reassure players with the promise of later patches.

On the subject of SSE, I'm more than happy to trade 8 hours of sub-par gameplay and flashy cutscenes for better balance in multiplayer. SSE took a huge toll on Brawl's development, yet only mattered as a first impression. Multiplayer is what keeps the game fun for years to come.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

Remember, these people don't want to see our favorite characters interacting or fighting TOGETHER, they just want to wavedash with no items.

How do you know what we want? Sounds like what you want is to start an argument.

 

[Zekersaurus]

Just keep in mind it's very hard for like 50-100 developers to balance a game when millions of players can still break it. You can't put all the blame on Sak for Brawl being unbalanced. After reading this I feel like I can be more optimistic about SSB4 and IMO I think anyone who is a fan of smash should be too.

 

[Kaye Cruiser]

You can't put all the blame on Sak for Brawl being unbalanced..

Considering he did it all on his own, hell yes we can and hell yes we will. XD

That said, I'm actually trying to have more positive thoughts for Smash 4. If it ends up not working out, then there's always P:M for me to play anyway. ¦D

 

[Jumpman84]

Agreed. I got a PS3 this Christmas and most games have patches and updates for it you can download online. It also has great online features. Your statement is some of the stupid stuff that is putting Nintendo behind in the console wars. Smash Brothers would be a great game to feature updates, patches, and expansions and yet Nintendo and Sakurai are too stupid to see it. It is also what is scaring third parties away. I have always been a Nintendo first person but I really love PS3 and it is almost making me want to stick with Sony in the future.

Sakurai never said that they aren't doing patches or DLC for Smash. He said that right now his focus was on getting the game completed with as much content as possible. He has also mentioned that the Wii's hardware made patches and DLC for Brawl impossible. Now, we have the 3DS and Wii U. Both systems are able to handle patches and DLC, with first party titles already taking advantage. Sakurai even mentioned that balance patches for the game was something he was interested in. So I wouldn't be so grim if I were you...

 

[KCCHIEFS27]

So he'll make all chars equally strong instead of equally weak? Good, Sakurai! Good! You're still a terrible director because you removed the SSE, but good!

"Hey everyone, here's my unpopular opinion, give me attention and reply to it!"

Get off of a competitive smash forum

 

[Mr. Mumbles]

Maybe hes taking a brake becauase hes gonna come back with a pic of ridley and its obviously gonna be huge...(-_-)

Sakurai's Break deconfirmed as playable character for smash! It's too big for this game!

 

[Muster]

Remember, these people don't want to see our favorite characters interacting or fighting TOGETHER, they just want to wavedash with no items.

but i like wavedashing with items. A balanced game is more fun than an unbalanced game, really, it's a no brainer.

 

[The Real Gamer]

Remember, these people don't want to see our favorite characters interacting or fighting TOGETHER, they just want to wavedash with no items.

I think you'd fit in a lot more on the Miiverse forums.

Just a suggestion.

 

[Hoots]

People like to pick it apart like crazy.
It was simplistic side scrolling action mixed with epic cutscenes, I don't know what people expected from a Smash Bros game.
I mean they threw some character development in there with Lucas becoming a man and R.O.B. finally having enough of the mass genocide of his people. There was a story. Evil guy takes over Smash world and sucks it all into Subspace and transforms people to trophies. It was a simple story. People expecting something more were setting themselves up for disappointment.

There are a lot of things that could have been done to improve it (but this is true with everything)
but this was in no capacity a bad experience.

I just don't understand how people can hate it so much and claim it's bland and uninspiring.
I mean it's a fighting game, the fact that they even included this is a plus.


I guess just because it's Brawl people hate it.

I loved Brawl (to an extent) and I absolutely loathed SSE. The only redeeming part were the cutscenes, and it seems like Sakurai took the hint since the only elements he's carrying over from SSE are the cutscenes. I actually just recently played SSE again (Brawl is always on demo at my local Microcenter). The platformer gameplay is so mediocre and uninspired. It really plays like a complete afterthought. The worst part about it is that SSE took up such a massive portion of Brawl's development. They could have had a much larger and more balanced roster, with many more stages, assist trophies, etc. had they not wasted their time on a feature that no one wanted.

 

[SmashChu]

"Hey everyone, here's my unpopular opinion, give me attention and reply to it!"

Get off of a competitive smash forum

You can't strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

I'm not sure what your problem with the post was. Generally, it's better practice to buff characters than nerf others. Though you have to weaken characters sometimes, it should not be a normal practice. What Sakurai said with attacking feeling good reflects this mentality.

On the SSE: I liked it too. I found it fun; however, a lot of people didn't care for it and it was a lot of work. It would be better to trim the fat and work on what people will enjoy more. Sakurai wants to make very meaty games, but in this case, it may be better to just focus on the multiplayer aspect.

Remember, these people don't want to see our favorite characters interacting or fighting TOGETHER, they just want to wavedash with no items.

It's funny how upset people got over this post.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

It's funny how upset people got over this post.

Because it's completely fine to provoke an argument if it lines up with your beliefs.

That's like me saying "All smash scrubs suck, they need items and can't L cancel".That's not an appropriate way to discuss a sensitive subject and it's rude.

I guess you find confrontation hilarious. To each their own.

 

[Ussi]

Balance for FFA also means balance for doubles.

 

[Zekersaurus]

Considering he did it all on his own, hell yes we can and hell yes we will. XD

That's exactly the point. He's one man. No doubt him and the people he worked with play tested the game hundreds of times with each character one different stages but more or less it's still "one man". That's one brain trying to balance the game vs Millions of other brains can find ways to intentionally or unintentionally imbalance it ...

Anyway, that's just how I see it.

 

[Renji64]

The question is for me will this game be enjoyable and fun for someone who did not like brawl.

 

[D-idara]

but i like wavedashing with items. A balanced game is more fun than an unbalanced game, really, it's a no brainer.

I prefer a slightly unbalanced (On release) but flashier game than a borefest with no show or flashyness. And since when was Smashboards a competitive Smash forum? It's a Smash Bros. forum...if it was a competitive forum, we wouldn't have discussions about music, stages or actual content, we would just be talking about wireframes and hitboxes.

And no, the multiplayer's not the only thing the game needs and this is where a lot of fighting games fail...there are developers who actually think the multiplayer's an excuse for a sucky single-player experience. Not all of us have friends avaiable all the time to play Smash... and in Smash, fanserivce & content > everything else. I would prefer to have the game being balanced through post-release patches and have an upgraded, bigger, better version of SSE with beautiful cutscenes and actual locations from the source games...but it was too good to be true :I

I mean, how someone can NOT want cutscenes such as Kirby assaulting the Subspace Cannon, Ridley Vs. Samus & Pikachu, Captain Falcon & Captain Olimar, Diddy and Donkey Kong fighting for their bananas, Sonic saving everyone...so many memorable, UNFORGETTABLE moments.

 

[Captain Rage Quit 69]

I mean, how someone can NOT want cutscenes such as Kirby assaulting the Subspace Cannon, Ridley Vs. Samus & Pikachu, Captain Falcon & Captain Olimar, Diddy and Donkey Kong fighting for their bananas, Sonic saving everyone...so many memorable, UNFORGETTABLE moments.

I feel like that one was unforgettable for different reasons than the others.