Thanks, Ulevo.
This however, leads me to ask, does depth always have to come at an increased difficulty? Hypothetically, if there were a one button wavedash, would that still be as bad as no wavedashing? I mean, take a look at chess. From your defenition, wouldn't chess have quite a bit of depth to it? But the amount of dexterity needed is close to nil. Pick up the piece, move it. Done.
So what's wrong with keeping Smash simple?
I've addressed this concern before as well.
For starters, Smash
is simple. Even Melee is, technically speaking. The problem with technical difficulty in Smash isn't that the inputs are hard, it's that they need to be used in quick succession because of the games pace. It's like Guitar Hero. None of the inputs are difficult, you only have five keys to hit. But when you're having to hit them on Expert difficulty speed, suddenly it is pretty challenging.
You could make it easier for the player by making an automated 'wavedash button' that aids the player, sure. I'm not arguing for or against that. But I don't think it would make the game significantly simpler to the point where it
really helps the players who struggle with these mechanical barriers.
There are only four methods to really decrease the amount of technical difficulty:
1. Decrease the amount of inputs, or actions per second, that are necessary to perform the same given action
2. Increase the time window in which you are able to enter the inputs to perform specific actions
3. Increase the amount of start up and cooldown recovery for actions to allow for a greater window of time between actions to pass
4. Remove mechanics from the game so less actions per second can be performed
With fighting games and especially with Smash, you can't remove mechanics without removing depth. The mechanics create the depth. You can try to to simplify the mechanics in alternative ways that maintain depth while making the user experience easier, but removing them usually results in a deficit of valuable interactivity. And that isn't to say that altering the mechanics instead of removing them is always the solution either, because sometimes that won't work either depending on the mechanic and the situation you're looking to address.
It comes down to design philosophy as well, and what the designer and development team feels is most important and valuable for the direction of their game as it pertains to the audience.
So let's give some examples.
L-Cancelling is a mechanic that, as discussed, gives no perceivable depth to the game. It's design is purely as a mechanical barrier for the player to overcome to reach a new plateau of skill. There are specific reasons for a design like this that have merit, but they're outside the scope of this talk. Removing L-Cancelling in favor of something else can and would improve the player experience from a perspective of making the game more accessible and easier to play, but that's because the mechanic was designed purely as something to increase difficulty.
Now if you wanted to remove something like fast falling, as an example, that has implications. I know players who struggle with being able to fast fall because they will attempt to do so before the apex of the jump or character altitude. From a designers point of view, could this be removed so that all players fall at relatively the same speed barring character differences? Sure it could. It would balance the playing field between those who can fast fall properly, and those who can't. And this is a philosophy Brawl largely went with. Unfortunately there are consequences with this kind of a direction. If you remove fast falling, you remove interesting interactions that create depth, like whether or not to fast fall to catch the ledge sooner while risking being struck by that charged forward Smash the other player is using to edge guard you. Or whether or not to fast fall your aerial for a greater chance at hitting your opponent, at the risk that it might wiff and you'll wind up suffering landing lag because of it, opening you up for a punish. Essentially this makes the choice for you by ensuring the choice isn't there to begin with, and without choice, or the ability to make decisions in gaming, depth doesn't exist.
As far as altering mechanics are concerned, you could do things like play with the frame data. Certain approaches will work well, however some will not. For example, Fox in Melee was very hard to short hop with compared to characters like Bowser, or Link. This was because the amount of time your thumb press had to be held to the jump button in order for you to achieve a short hop versus a full hop was different, and the timing window for Fox was much smaller. This didn't necessarily mean that Fox jumped faster, just that he was arbitrarily more difficult. To make this easier without decreasing the amount of depth per gameplay, you could balance these values across the board so it's just as easy or hard to jump with Fox as with all characters.
You could also do things like tamper with the start up and cooldown of actions and moves, but that has can have an effect on game balance in isolated conditions, and systemically it suffers others effects, such as making the game slower. Now, you can slow down the game for the sake of making it easier, and it wouldn't necessarily remove depth (arguably) provided that it was handled properly, and on a systemic level, but that might not be what your target audience desires. I would say that's pretty evident here considering one of the most common complaints we hear about Smash sequels is that they're slow.
JoeInky : So you're saying aerial that moves should auto-cancel but only do so if they connect? That is an interesting sounding mechanic and, while I cannot honestly judge whether it would work in practice, I do like the potential implications for it.
