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

[D-idara]

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

Because it was incredibly epic and it was a good way to shut up all of the...***** that didn't support third-parties in Smash?

 

[JediLink]

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.

Of course, you can never predict what's going to happen once the players get their hands on the game, but in Brawl there were more than a couple of things that were just begging for disaster (e.g. chain grabs, everything pertaining to Meta Knight) that really should have been identified and fixed.

 

[Zekersaurus]

Of course, you can never predict what's going to happen once the players get their hands on the game, but in Brawl there were more than a couple of things that were just begging for disaster (e.g. chain grabs, everything pertaining to Meta Knight) that really should have been identified and fixed.

That's true... I think it's 50/50.

 

[Fenrir VII]

Brawl Pikachu had a 0-death cg on Fox that required nothing more than dthrow and no movement.

As much credit as I like to give Sakurai, that's just ridiculous. I seriously hope that kind of thing doesn't exist in ssb4

 

[Accf124]

Sakurai should focus on finishing the game and pretty much getting all the required things first. That way it doesn't wind up adding more time until release. Then Sakurai can take a break and start focuses on possible DLC. Maybe even a adventure mode similar to subspace.

 

[Muster]

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.

Spoiler

While i'm assuming most of your post wasn't directed at me (Except for the first part) i'll reply to this anyway

The cutscenes were great, but not only did they take out a big chunk of development time, they took a big chunk of the disc space too. The 3ds version certainly wouldn't have the space and the wii u exclusively getting hd cutscenes would most likely anger all the people with only a 3ds.
Even then, there are unforgettable moments in melee's adventure mode as well, and they weren't cgi videos telling an entire story.

 

[mygamecube]

Captain Falcon confirmed.

 

[XStarWarriorX]

Captain Falcon confirmed.

Spoiler

Yep, I had to be that guy. Couldn't resist.

 

[Lazurwolf]

Pretty neat. I was thinking Smash 4 would be out on 2015 but it's good to see that 2014 is more likely. Indeed, Bowser looks like a much better fighter this time around and I can't wait to try him out. Hype for smash 4 is returning

 

[mygamecube]

It was great to read this interview. I have a lot of faith in Sakurai, as always. This man creates so many fun games.

Smash 4 won't be as much as a disappointment for competitive Smash Bros. players like Brawl was.

 

[Crap-Zapper]

 

[Big-Cat]

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

Actually, it should be MOSTLY balanced. As it's been mentioned several times, you want some imbalance otherwise the game becomes homogenous.

 

[MasterOfKnees]

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.

The cutscenes were cool, but the actual gameplay of SSE was just a very "meh" Kirby game. No need for the game to be handicapped in order to have something you play through once and then leave it be, it's simply not worth it. I prefer they just make the character trailers then, hopefully we'll get a killer opening movie too.

Smash will always be a multiplayer game. It's a party game first, a fighting game second, even Sakurai has said he doesn't see it as a fighting game. It's not fun to play Mario Kart or Mario Party alone either, and that's because they're not meant as such. I'd rather they focus on what it really is about instead of including a neat bonus thing that takes up half of the disc space. A regular Adventure Mode will be enough to satisfy my crossover needs. As long as the game has good gameplay, a great roster, and a functioning online system with multiple options it'll be enough to tie me over for quite some years, both for when I'm alone and when my friends are around.

 

[SmashChu]

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.

Somebody's upset. Maybe his post struck a nerve.

 

[Big-Cat]

Somebody's upset. Maybe his post struck a nerve.

You're not helping.

 

[lordvaati]

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

Unless your game has the word "Marvel" in the title.

 

[CroonerMike]

Is it so hard to be mature? You guys act like babies. SmashChu specifically.

 

[RomanceDawn]

This article give me a lot of hope! Though I won't lie, I remember during a Brawl interview Sakurai said something like "the focus on this game is balance" and naturally I was disappointed in that regard. Ultimately I loved Brawl but some things should have not gotten through the testing phase.

Still everything he say's about buffing characters and not weakening others does sound great! I mean I didn't want Captain Falcon to get weaker in Brawl, I just wanted Mewtwo and Bowser to get stronger. Some hits in Brawl were fairly unsatisfying and since everyone died at much higher % it just made some of them feel worse.

I love that my mains, Bowser and DK, have been specifically called out on being buffed. It's like Sakurai is talking directly to me, I suppose Ridley will be announced before we know it. Though Brawl's Bowser was much better off than Melee's, the Dojo made it sound like Bowser was going to really make a turn around in the game. Hopefully this time it's true.

As far as lowering a characters mobility or recovery, while we can't be certain I think Pit is the first example of this. During the first trailer he uses his Wings of Icarus and shoots up at 45 degree angle. The animation just looked a little more contained than the "fly where ever the heck you want" animation from Brawl.

 

[Ulti-Bman]

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.

Not necessarily. The reason why Sony incorporates those into their games are either to make extra money off DLC or because their releases tend to be filled with bugs and glitches at first. The difference with Nintendo is that their Wii U games so far don't NEED patches because practically every game released has ran smoothly and weren't rushed. The only games Nintendo gives expansions to are the games that actually need them, like Pikmin 3. Having DLC packs two weeks after release is just greedy, heck having DLC at all implies an incomplete game. I'm glad Sakurai isn't focusing on DLC because that just means he wants us to have the full experience. Maybe later on, but planning DLC before the game is even released is bad news and may lead to a rushed game. That goes against Miyamoto's philosophy, and I'm sure Sakurai respects Miyamoto's philosophy. Besides, we have no idea what Sakurai may add in the future, if anything at all. Besides, the Wii U's online features run smoothly, at least for me.

 

[SmashChu]

Is it so hard to be mature? You guys act like babies. SmashChu specifically.

Umm, what they heck did I do? I figure it's just "OH, it's Smashchu. He must have done something."

Not necessarily. The reason why Sony incorporates those into their games are either to make extra money off DLC or because their releases tend to be filled with bugs and glitches at first. The difference with Nintendo is that their Wii U games so far don't NEED patches because practically every game released has ran smoothly and weren't rushed. The only games Nintendo gives expansions to are the games that actually need them, like Pikmin 3. Having DLC packs two weeks after release is just greedy, heck having DLC at all implies an incomplete game. I'm glad Sakurai isn't focusing on DLC because that just means he wants us to have the full experience. Maybe later on, but planning DLC before the game is even released is bad news and may lead to a rushed game. That goes against Miyamoto's philosophy, and I'm sure Sakurai respects Miyamoto's philosophy. Besides, we have no idea what Sakurai may add in the future, if anything at all. Besides, the Wii U's online features run smoothly, at least for me.

Not necessarily.

Balance patches have been around for PC game for quite some time. Another thing you have to understand about balancing is that you're never going to have a balanced game on release even with betas. The people who are balancing the game are but a few compared to the mass amount of people who are playing the game. Take Starcraft 2. It had a good beta but Terran was still OP when the game was released. People want balance patches to make sure that balance issues are addressed. People do want a well balanced game. DLC is because people want more to the game especially Smash Brothers, a game that has loads of characters and comes out once every six years. People want more content. Yes, DLC is a way to make a quick buck and it has been used to finish a game post release, but people always crave more. That is what DLC was thought to be anyway.

 

[Ulti-Bman]

Umm, what they heck did I do? I figure it's just "OH, it's Smashchu. He must have done something."

Not necessarily.

Balance patches have been around for PC game for quite some time. Another thing you have to understand about balancing is that you're never going to have a balanced game on release even with betas. The people who are balancing the game are but a few compared to the mass amount of people who are playing the game. Take Starcraft 2. It had a good beta but Terran was still OP when the game was released. People want balance patches to make sure that balance issues are addressed. People do want a well balanced game. DLC is because people want more to the game especially Smash Brothers, a game that has loads of characters and comes out once every six years. People want more content. Yes, DLC is a way to make a quick buck and it has been used to finish a game post release, but people always crave more. That is what DLC was thought to be anyway.

Like I said, patches are used when a game has bugs and flaws to demote the experience. Until the game comes out, we can't simply assume the game has to have patches. Besides, I believe Sakurai said he's not against patches, but simply isn't planning them. That's good because that means he's confident in this game, but might resort to fixing it later if it doesn't work as planned. I'm not against DLC, just DLC that is released soon after a game's release.

 

[Substitution]

Is it so hard to be mature? You guys act like babies. SmashChu specifically.

No-one is mature on the Internet.

 

[Snakeyes]

Like I said, patches are used when a game has bugs and flaws to demote the experience. Until the game comes out, we can't simply assume the game has to have patches. Besides, I believe Sakurai said he's not against patches, but simply isn't planning them. That's good because that means he's confident in this game, but might resort to fixing it later if it doesn't work as planned. I'm not against DLC, just DLC that is released soon after a game's release.

Yup. It's pretty sad that people are criticizing Sakurai for simply trying to deliver a game that doesn't need to be patched in the future. As for the other guy's Nintendo/Sony comment, the two companies don't encourage nor shut down patching attempts. It's mostly up to the developer. On the Nintendo front, Pokemon X and Y have gotten patches in the last couple months, and there has been a lot of free DLC distributed for multiple first-party titles.

 

[Muster]

Actually, it should be MOSTLY balanced. As it's been mentioned several times, you want some imbalance otherwise the game becomes homogenous.

In my mind, a perfect balance is a perfect imbalance, no character is more viable than another because they both have an equal (or very close to equal) amount of counters and good match ups. It in a way forces people to be good at more than one character due to that character having counters like every other character. basically the opposite of meta knight who's worst matchup is a meta knight ditto.

 

[SmashChu]

Like I said, patches are used when a game has bugs and flaws to demote the experience. Until the game comes out, we can't simply assume the game has to have patches. Besides, I believe Sakurai said he's not against patches, but simply isn't planning them. That's good because that means he's confident in this game, but might resort to fixing it later if it doesn't work as planned. I'm not against DLC, just DLC that is released soon after a game's release.

You are misunderstanding what a "balance patch" is.

A game is not going to be balanced on release. There will be good characters and bad characters. Melee an Brawl both have character that are considered weak. Balance is not an issue that the developer messed up (most of the time). It usually steams from the fact that the people balancing the game have a limited window in which they can do their work. They can't start working on it until the core game is complete and even still all of the elements may not be complete. Also, there are only a few people doing balance verses the millions of people who will play the game after it is released. It is inevitable that the developers will miss something or not consider something. Consider this. When Bralw first game out, Snake was considered the best character in the game. A few months after, Meta-Knight wwas considered the top where he has stayed ever since. Snake has since fallen to 6th. There has been a lot of movement so check out the tier list here. Point is that your never going to get it right first. It doesn't mean the game is unfinished or even unpolished. It's just there is only so much you can do when making the game. People want balance patches to fix these issues that would on;y be discovered after launch.

 

[Kaye Cruiser]

In my mind, a perfect balance is a perfect imbalance, no character is more viable than another because they both have an equal (or very close to equal) amount of counters and good match ups. It in a way forces people to be good at more than one character due to that character having counters like every other character. basically the opposite of meta knight who's worst matchup is a meta knight ditto.

The entirety of this post is why I love BlazBlue so much. <3

I feel like P:M usually does a good job of this and even Brawl+ to some extent, which is what Smash 4 reminds me of the more I hear about it.

Honestly though, for this game, I don't need everyone to be absolutely fantastic. I just don't want anyone to absolutely suck again. Make it about average.

 

[D-idara]

Not necessarily. The reason why Sony incorporates those into their games are either to make extra money off DLC or because their releases tend to be filled with bugs and glitches at first. The difference with Nintendo is that their Wii U games so far don't NEED patches because practically every game released has ran smoothly and weren't rushed. The only games Nintendo gives expansions to are the games that actually need them, like Pikmin 3. Having DLC packs two weeks after release is just greedy, heck having DLC at all implies an incomplete game. I'm glad Sakurai isn't focusing on DLC because that just means he wants us to have the full experience. Maybe later on, but planning DLC before the game is even released is bad news and may lead to a rushed game. That goes against Miyamoto's philosophy, and I'm sure Sakurai respects Miyamoto's philosophy. Besides, we have no idea what Sakurai may add in the future, if anything at all. Besides, the Wii U's online features run smoothly, at least for me.

This DLC = Incomplete Games mentality's wrong >

 

[Ulti-Bman]

You are misunderstanding what a "balance patch" is.

A game is not going to be balanced on release. There will be good characters and bad characters. Melee an Brawl both have character that are considered weak. Balance is not an issue that the developer messed up (most of the time). It usually steams from the fact that the people balancing the game have a limited window in which they can do their work. They can't start working on it until the core game is complete and even still all of the elements may not be complete. Also, there are only a few people doing balance verses the millions of people who will play the game after it is released. It is inevitable that the developers will miss something or not consider something. Consider this. When Bralw first game out, Snake was considered the best character in the game. A few months after, Meta-Knight wwas considered the top where he has stayed ever since. Snake has since fallen to 6th. There has been a lot of movement so check out the tier list here. Point is that your never going to get it right first. It doesn't mean the game is unfinished or even unpolished. It's just there is only so much you can do when making the game. People want balance patches to fix these issues that would on;y be discovered after launch.

Okay, I see where you're coming from now. Still, Sakurai hasn't exactly deconfirmed patches. Also, we have yet to release how extreme the tiers will differ from each other. Even if patches could help, the game could very well not have such a wide range of character performance a la Jiggs to Meta Knight. Therefore, I still stand by my argument of patches might not actually be necessary, just a reassurance. We'll have to see, because it is a certain fact that not all games need to be patched. Who knows? Maybe Smash 4 will be one of those said games. However, Sakurai should be more clear on that particular subject.

 

[Ulti-Bman]

This DLC = Incomplete Games mentality's wrong >

Well, I take back what I said about DLC implying an incomplete game. Rather, DLC released not long after release implies an incomplete game. That's just my opinion. I feel that DLC is released soon after launch either means the devs ran out of time, or they are looking for a way to make a quick buck. Either way, it doesn't look good in my eyes. I say the game should be out for at least, three months or have free DLC at first for it to be acceptable to me.

 

[JediLink]

In my mind, a perfect balance is a perfect imbalance, no character is more viable than another because they both have an equal (or very close to equal) amount of counters and good match ups. It in a way forces people to be good at more than one character due to that character having counters like every other character. basically the opposite of meta knight who's worst matchup is a meta knight ditto.

Isn't that just going to end up with each player waiting for the other player to pick their character, then counterpicking that? That's silly to me. A perfect balance should be where every character is 5-5 against every other character. You can play any character you feel comfortable with and not feel like you're disadvantaged from the start.

 

[Muster]

Isn't that just going to end up with each player waiting for the other player to pick their character, then counterpicking that? That's silly to me. A perfect balance should be where every character is 5-5 against every other character. You can play any character you feel comfortable with and not feel like you're disadvantaged from the start.

A balance like that is boring, and counterpicks can be prevented in multiple ways, ie not showing who chooses what character online, or a player registering a certain character as a starting player in tournaments or local matches etc etc. you simply can't make a 50-50 matchup with a diverse and large cast like smash bros, it's not possible.

 

[JediLink]

A balance like that is boring, and counterpicks can be prevented in multiple ways, ie not showing who chooses what character online, or a player registering a certain character as a starting player in tournaments or local matches etc etc. you simply can't make a 50-50 matchup with a diverse and large cast like smash bros, it's not possible.

Obviously it's not possible in real life, but we're talking hypothetically here. That's the "ideal". And please, explain what would make it boring. David Sirlin, again:

"A "rich metagame" means there are lots of decks that counter other decks, and you get to sit around thinking about which deck will be common at a tournament and which you should choose in response. For example, if you discovered an unusual deck that could win 9-1 against the most of the field and lose 1-9 against part of the field, that could be a very, very strong deck. This is metagaming at its finest, yet it also leads to 100% of your games having terrible gameplay."

http://www.sirlin.net/blog/2012/7/18/a-discussion-of-balance.html

 

[CroonerMike]

Umm, what they heck did I do? I figure it's just "OH, it's Smashchu. He must have done something."

I just like you.

 

[Muster]

Obviously it's not possible in real life, but we're talking hypothetically here. That's the "ideal". And please, explain what would make it boring.

A hypothetical like that is pointless, it will never come to fruition, and it only will if all characters fight the same. You can't keep each character's individuality and flavor and have it be constant 50/50 matchups. even if that happened, then it'd just be game of rock em sock em robots with nintendo skins. If you want a live representation of my idea of balance, just try Project M.

also that 100% terrible gameplay thing is nothing but an opinion. if it was truly terrible gameplay games like pokemon and BlazBlue wouldn't have thriving competitive communities

 

[JediLink]

A hypothetical like that is pointless, it will never come to fruition, and it only will if all characters fight the same. You can't keep each character's individuality and flavor and have it be constant 50/50 matchups. even if that happened, then it'd just be game of rock em sock em robots with nintendo skins. If you want a live representation of my idea of balance, just try Project M.

I never said every character should be the same. That's silly. However, intentionally giving characters bad matchups against other characters is equally silly.

If you have a character that's 0-10 against half the cast and 10-0 against the other half, then that's a boring game. Every match is either you roflstomp them, or they roflstomp you. That would get old really quickly in both instances. If you have a character that's 3-7 against half the cast but 7-3 against the other half, then that's a little better, but it's still going to lead to you always either having a noticeable advantage or a noticeable disadvantage. You're never going to have a fair match unless it's a ditto.

Of course you can't have every single character with a perfect 50/50 against every single other character, but you can try, and you can get close. Getting to at least 4-6 is very much an achievable goal. If each character is balanced such that the ratio of their strengths to their weaknesses is similar to that of every other character, then unfair matchups are easy enough to avoid. As far as I'm aware, that was the goal of Project M. Perhaps I'm missing something.

Also, I know nothing about BlazBlue so I can't really comment on that. I just believe that for fighting games in general, good balance should mean that you're never at a disadvantage because of what character you picked.

 

[Muster]

Also, I know nothing about BlazBlue so I can't really comment on that. I just believe that for fighting games in general, good balance should mean that you're never at a disadvantage because of what character you picked.

I never meant it would be 10-0 or even 9-1/8-2 matchups, 6-4 and 4-6 matchups ar what i imagined in this situation. every character gets advantages and disadvantages, but not glaring ones like that. maybe each character gets a few 6-4 matchups in either direction and maybe even (very few) 7-3/3-7 matchups, but an equal amount in each direction as well. Of course these estimates aren't accurate to what a perfectly balanced game would be, but i think you get the gist of it, a player might have a disadvantage but if he or she is good enough then it won't matter much.
I can't imagine a 5-5 matchup for every chracter truly existing, so getting it close and with an equal amount of slightly good and bad matchups, i feel the same effect can be achieved.

tl;dr: no character should have a counter, but have slight advantages and disadvantages over others

 

[RomanceDawn]

Despite what balancing means to the final build of the game, the great thing is that because it's being balanced as we debate, the game has entered it's final stages of development. Hopefully this means a summer release to end all the pointless debates and start up some brand new ones!

 

[JediLink]

Despite what balancing means to the final build of the game, the great thing is that because it's being balanced as we debate, the game has entered it's final stages of development.

I wouldn't say that we know that for sure. It's not like you can't tweak things as you go.

 

[Morbi]

Bowser buff confirmed! This is delightful.

 

[RomanceDawn]

I wouldn't say that we know that for sure. It's not like you can't tweak things as you go.

We do know for sure. Aside from Sakurai stating in the latest interview that they are at a point where they want to release the game as quickly as possible, during an interview at E3 this was said…

In fact, on the topic of balancing and roster alterations, Sakurai stressed that he wasn’t even at that point in development.

“We’re not at a stage in development where we’re going through those fine sorts of adjustments,” Sakurai said, when I asked about balancing the roster and the possibility of software patches. “When we get towards the end of development, we will have what we call monitor playtests, where we watch people play the games. We perform thorough analysis based on those observations. There have been cases in the past, admittedly, where we didn’t gather sufficient data for certain characters, and that resulted in certain game imbalances. Patches are something we’d definitely like to be able to do, if possible.”

We could be as little as 6 months away from actually playing this game.

Please be excited.