Melee and ssb4.

[Robert of Normandy]

Double post?

theres no stopping it ppl

it will consume this thread

it will consume us all

the dumbest debate eveeerr

It always takes over every thread in the GD forums, and it always will. It's an important debate to have, but not in the way it usually is had.

Also, you people really should learn to leave the trolls alone; responding to them does absolutely nothing good for anyone.

 

[MR. K]

heh...i was just waiting to see when someone would tear that traffic troll guys noob post to pieces, didn't take long i see.

 

[Vkrm]

****** my precious melee? Brawl being a floaty, unfun mess of campy has done no harm to melee what so ever.

 

[Pichu4SSB4]

 

[Vkrm]

Casuals will always outnumber hardcore fans....

Appeasing casuals should always take a back seat to pleasing the hardcore.

 

[Robert of Normandy]

Appeasing casuals should always take a back seat to pleasing the hardcore.

That mentality is what caused the early nineties to happen to comic books. A game should never flip its hardcore fans the bird like Brawl did, but what you're suggesting is a tad more extreme.

 

[Pichu4SSB4]

Appeasing casuals should always take a back seat to pleasing the hardcore.

Did you just say that. ¬_¬

 

[Vkrm]

I did say that. Why shouldn't it be. For the sake of sales? They should make a hand-holdy kiddie game because it'll sell better? Thats not how I would conduct business. One more point I want to make for this traffic fellow is that his hate for the hardcore is not something he has in common with sakurai. Nintendo approached him during the development ssbb and told to simplify smash for the wii. That's what the wii was made for, making gamessimple enough for everybody. With wiiu on the horizon and nintendo openly stating they're trying to reclaim the hardcore I look forward to all of the hardcore haters disappearing. After nintendo targeting adults with more complex games, bashing the hardcore will no longer be trendy, and guys like traffic and smashchu will vanish into thin air....hopefully.

 

[Big-Cat]

Can't the game be easy to learn, hard to master? Is that so much to ask?

 

[Vkrm]

Can't the game be easy to learn, hard to master? Is that so much to ask?

That's how all games should be. No one but sakurai (and his meat riders) has ever said melee was too hard. Everytime i see that phrase my background in sf and Marvel get the better of me and forced to make fun of anyone who says that melee had too much and brawl was on the right track by remove features. Don't regress things by flat out removing ****. Simplify and streamline so that everybody can take advantage of the at's.

 

[El Duderino]

I don't know what's more depressing these days, associating yourself with casual gamers, aka the easily amused, short attention span hipster drones spending their dough on social gaming pyramid schemes because they're anti-establishment like that, or hardcore gamers, the dude-bro gaming equivalent to lifting your truck and and pretending you are somehow different than the rest of the douchebags just like you.

Lets drop this battle over the lowest wit and come to terms here. These labels are nothing more than tard pin fodder.

 

[Robert of Normandy]

I did say that. Why shouldn't it be. For the sake of sales? They should make a hand-holdy kiddie game because it'll sell better? Thats not how I would conduct business. One more point I want to make for this traffic fellow is that his hate for the hardcore is not something he has in common with sakurai. Nintendo approached him during the development ssbb and told to simplify smash for the wii. That's what the wii was made for, making gamessimple enough for everybody. With wiiu on the horizon and nintendo openly stating they're trying to reclaim the hardcore I look forward to all of the hardcore haters disappearing. After nintendo targeting adults with more complex games, bashing the hardcore will no longer be trendy, and guys like traffic and smashchu will vanish into thin air....hopefully.

Quite the persecution complex you have there. As I recall, it was always the "hardocre" gamers who were more aggressive towards the "casual" gamers.

For the record, I don't agree with what traffic said. I think Smash should have room for both beginner and expert players, and everybody inbetween. What it shouldn't do is try and force the high-level players to play on a lower level just so that anybody can win. We should aim for an "anybody can play" feel of the game, but not an "anybody can win" feel.

Edit: So basically what Kuma said: "Easy to learn, hard to master."

 

[Vkrm]

I don't think the hardcore berating casuals is the norm, I really can't be sure though. In my experience when I got into ssbm, everybody was very nice and supportive. I could going the opposite though, not all people are nice.

 

[Robert of Normandy]

I was talking about the more general gaming culture and the reaction to the Wii and "casual gaming" in general. In terms of Smash, yeah, the Melee bashers were overly defensive and aggreassive than the "hardcore" fans were.

 

[Nintendo 64]

Why Melee players and Brawl players can´t love each other?

 

[Vkrm]

Why Melee players and Brawl players can´t love each other?

I like nearly all the brawl players I've ever met save for the fat cosplaying weeaboos and melee bashers. Out of the dozens of brawlers I've met only like two guys were like that. Most of them are cool, but I can't get around how lousy their game is. I really can't.

 

[Jhonnykiller45]

Why Melee players and Brawl players can´t love each other?

Because Melee scrubs think that Brawl is bad and Brawl scrubs think that Melee is bad.

 

[Vkrm]

Brawl is bad. Brawl scrubs dont think melee is bad. They think melee is hard.

 

[grizby2]

Can't the game be easy to learn, hard to master? Is that so much to ask?

see, what i think sm4sh needs is a good training video, or at least something more extensive than the cruddy training demo that appears after the main title screen goes away in melee and brawl (because old gamers think "ya, ive SEEN that already.." and new gamers think "wait..so.. what? :[," after watching its brief existence), so that new players grow a competitive side as well as casual.

maybe sm4sh WILL be less casual. after i heard that they'd be starting off with Brawl as the base for sm4sh's developement, i thought this to be good. now they can quell anything that wasn't purposley put into the game (such as Snake-sliding, L-canceling, wave dashing ect.) while still adding new content.
i now see brawl as a MASSIVE beta test after so many years of playing it.

ya, maybe they'll call this type of testing... "GAMMA testing"

:EDIT: perhaps sm4sh will be a brawl/melee hybrid?

 

[Big-Cat]

Thing is, as I've mentioned several times, this Smash is going into a different direction. To say it'll be a Melee-Brawl hybrid or something like that is probably less likely than something very different.

For all we know, playing Smash 4 might be so different that you can't go back to the older games so easily without some adjustment. It might be like going back from Skyward Sword to Ocarina of Time in terms of gameplay.

 

[traffic.]

heh...i was just waiting to see when someone would tear that traffic troll guys noob post to pieces, didn't take long i see.

Actually I started to write a response, and it just turned into my writing an article about the history of gaming and the rise of fighting games (and modern competitive games) so when it's done i'll throw a link up. I don't really care who took that personally, and the guy that thinks i hate hardcore gaming is a ******, i'm absolutely a hardcore gamer. My point was that 20 years ago, there number of casual gamers was significantly lower, and it's specifically because of nintendo's desire to make less competitive, easier games that has help drive this rise in casual gamers (ie; their customers). I was mostly responding to any resentment or anger towards nintendo for keeping this mentality. It's always been third parties that have made the games directed to hardcore and competitive play, and it's always been those games that have the most established competitive scenes. Because that's why they were made.

Logical fallacy in hating something for the qualities it doesn't have.

I did say that. Why shouldn't it be. For the sake of sales? They should make a hand-holdy kiddie game because it'll sell better? Thats not how I would conduct business. One more point I want to make for this traffic fellow is that his hate for the hardcore is not something he has in common with sakurai. Nintendo approached him during the development ssbb and told to simplify smash for the wii. That's what the wii was made for, making gamessimple enough for everybody. With wiiu on the horizon and nintendo openly stating they're trying to reclaim the hardcore I look forward to all of the hardcore haters disappearing. After nintendo targeting adults with more complex games, bashing the hardcore will no longer be trendy, and guys like traffic and smashchu will vanish into thin air....hopefully.

Dude guy I am actually impressed at the next level troll. As much as I appreciate your blind moral stand against business and ethics, I'm confused as to when hardcore gamers ever played Nintendo systems, and how making less games for children will make insulting people less trendy.

 

[Big-Cat]

My point was that 20 years ago, there number of casual gamers was significantly lower, and it's specifically because of nintendo's desire to make less competitive, easier games that has help drive this rise in casual gamers (ie; their customers). I was mostly responding to any resentment or anger towards nintendo for keeping this mentality. It's always been third parties that have made the games directed to hardcore and competitive play, and it's always been those games that have the most established competitive scenes. Because that's why they were made.

Logical fallacy in hating something for the qualities it doesn't have.

Thing is, it's more like the definition of casual gaming has changed greatly than one from the 80's and 90's might visualize. What might've been a hardcore gamer back then was someone who was competitive with videogames, be it to be the best Street Fighter player in the arcade or to just have the highest score on Ms. Pacman. Otherwise, the vast majority of people who played videogames then would be considered casual gamers.

However, the definition has changed to where a casual gamer is someone who normally doesn't play videogames as a hobby, competitively or not. This is usually the Nintendogs, Wii Sports, minigame collection, crowd. Hardcore games are now considered to be the "traditional" games and are criticized if the game is made easier to accommodate newer players without any options to ignore hand holding or reduced difficulty.

And last I recall, a lot of the big names in competitive gaming circles did not start off as being made for competitive gamers in mind. Street Fighter II was, by today's standards, a casual game of sorts, but because of the resounding popularity of the game and people holding tournaments for it, Capcom went with it, and there are likely several similar stories for other big games. The only series that I can recall being made specifically for competitive players is Guilty Gear.

The problem Nintendo has had for a long time, and especially recently, is that they have rarely made games to accommodate all player types. This is way more important than just going for the lowest common denominator. The problem with the new casual players is that they're very trendy, going on to the next big thing. It's the new hardcore players that keeps a series going. It's like choosing to eat something that won't fill you up and something that will hold you over for a long time.

Some things that were incredible in the older games was the invisible moving hand. This hand made experiences a lot more intuitive when it came to finding out what you gotta do next instead of spelling it out for you. Some great examples of this are Megaman X and Super Metroid. In fact, here's an article on Super Metroid's invisible hand.
http://gamasutra.com/blogs/HugoBille/20120114/9236/The_Invisible_Hand_of_Super_Metroid.php

 

[Dingding123]

For all we know, playing Smash 4 might be so different that you can't go back to the older games so easily without some adjustment. It might be like going back from Skyward Sword to Ocarina of Time in terms of gameplay.

Whil ths culd aplpy to a legen zeldas sequel, das not how smash sequl works

Suer you can make zelda gaems controls an mechanics abajillion times differenter than the last but at end of day
zelda's about the adventure
you got the kid collectin tha things shootin tha pews throwin the bombs swngin th sord findin the tresr savn the princess

sure you turn it from 2d to 3d but so wat. Still that same dumb green tunic we all know and love doin the same stuff with

but u taek dat out
and replace it with
oh idk
some kid with straw hat
wants to become Pirat Kgn

BAM dfiferent gaem

Smash
aint no adventure
is about smashin stuffs
no Legend, no Princess, 100% fights.

Change teh roster, change the stages, still the same game

but
oh idk
lets say
every tiem u get knokd off it stars a new round
an every1 has hp bars instead of % damage

BAM difrent game

Sakrai and friends kno wat works. moreovr they know wat casuals (aka teh majorities) liek. Nothing huge is gonna change about the game that hasnt happend alrdy. No new important mechanics will be brought to the table cuz it would be overcomplicating things (worst examples: footstooling, tripping) .

Everythings in the game cuz das wat works best. Sure some things should be tweaked for the better but overall the mechanics are exactly what every1 wants except both BARLW and maylay hadcores want melee airdodges bak.
Yes, even teh brawl hardcores
Because those guise hate the game by now cuz is obnoxiously stale in teh competitive seen.
an just play 4 frnds n monies.

At end of dai tho
all coems dwn 2 ths:

Catering casuals and not hardcore isnt apathetic
is LAZY.
idk wat Saksuri sez
gaems w/o depth
dies
jus liek wii console itslf

 

[Kink-Link5]

i make one comment about failing to see why differences in gravity matter and you think im a casual gamer? thats just plain rude, dont assume you know what kind of gamer i am based on on that, im certainly not the kind of gamer who cares more about graphics than game play

I don't recall mentioning the term casual at all. You must have read someone else's post that says stuff about the quality of players based on how they play games, because I never made any such claim.

 

[Jonas]

I've noticed alot of melee fans hated brawl because it was changed drastically.It feels like melee fans didn't want a new game as much as they wanted a melee 2.0.

That's not the point. Most complaints you'll ever hear about Brawl has nothing to do with it bering merely different. People complain because they think that it is worse than Melee, and to be honest you can make a very solid case that it is.
In the end though, it's in the realm of personal opinion. Some people like Melee better, others like Brawl better.

 

[traffic.]

Thing is, it's more like the definition of casual gaming has changed greatly than one from the 80's and 90's might visualize. What might've been a hardcore gamer back then was someone who was competitive with videogames, be it to be the best Street Fighter player in the arcade or to just have the highest score on Ms. Pacman. Otherwise, the vast majority of people who played videogames then would be considered casual gamers.

Being competitive now is what defines the hardcore too. I agree with this statement entirely, so I might be misunderstanding but I simply meant that there was less people playing video games, even if the ratio of casual/core is the same, there's just more now.

However, the definition has changed to where a casual gamer is someone who normally doesn't play videogames as a hobby, competitively or not.

Maybe that's my problem, then. I dont consider those people gamers.

And last I recall, a lot of the big names in competitive gaming circles did not start off as being made for competitive gamers in mind.

The problem is that fighting games as a concept was designed to be competitive. The original idea was to "beat your opponent" and was the first games that werent based on doing a same task better than the other person. Some franchises are more hardcore than others, but to be constantly evolving, testing and searching for the best mechanics is to trying to make a game that people will be the most competitive at, and those games strike a more natural balance of casual/competitive simply because the most people will play it. RTS are good examples of this evolution as well, some genres exist on the basis of competition, and the best games in those genres have the biggest competitive scenes.

The problem with the new casual players is that they're very trendy, going on to the next big thing. It's the new hardcore players that keeps a series going. It's like choosing to eat something that won't fill you up and something that will hold you over for a long time.

This attitude has always bothered me, as a gamer, I've grown up thinking "man I wish more people liked video games" and now that everybody likes video games, why would i start deciding who shouldn't like video games? I'm happy that everyone likes video games, even if they want to play angrybirds, it's a person playing a video game! I just think its an unfair irony that now I can't have a snack because someone else thinks I should eat a meal.

 

[Kink-Link5]

traffic, you are interpreting everything being said backwards. The point isn't to rip on players for being one way or the other, it's to examine the game from the other side, the supply. It does not matter who or how many people buy something because it isn't a measure of the quality or especially the longevity of a game.

The only thing sales and target audience measures is the ability to appeal, which matters not whether the game is good or not. The only thing sales care about is the amount sold; whether it is good or can be played for 15 years isn't an issue for developers or people who don't care about gameplay.

 

[Big-Cat]

The problem is that fighting games as a concept was designed to be competitive. The original idea was to "beat your opponent" and was the first games that werent based on doing a same task better than the other person. Some franchises are more hardcore than others, but to be constantly evolving, testing and searching for the best mechanics is to trying to make a game that people will be the most competitive at, and those games strike a more natural balance of casual/competitive simply because the most people will play it. RTS are good examples of this evolution as well, some genres exist on the basis of competition, and the best games in those genres have the biggest competitive scenes.

Fighting games have the same thing where you had to do something better than the other person - winning. It's just that this kind of thing is more meta than something like a high score.

Every game worth its dignity strives to make their games that are constantly evolving and everything else you said. The problem is that some people don't like that someone else put more time into a game and can't beat them. Thing is, that's how life is and is incredibly selfish to think otherwise. Every game should strive for this whether or not they intend to "breed" a competitive community or not. The amount of effort to make a really good Zelda game should be the equivalent effort in making a really good multiplayer game.

This attitude has always bothered me, as a gamer, I've grown up thinking "man I wish more people liked video games" and now that everybody likes video games, why would i start deciding who shouldn't like video games? I'm happy that everyone likes video games, even if they want to play angrybirds, it's a person playing a video game! I just think its an unfair irony that now I can't like something because now people i don't like, like what i like.

I'm fine with everyone playing videogames. My problem is as mentioned above, when the developers design their games to be flat out easier instead of teaching the player in some way how to play the game well without dumbing it down.

 

[traffic.]

All of the things people keep saying Nintendo should do, are things that other people are already doing. The butthurt can't stop when people are upset over their apple tree not growing oranges. Why won't this apple tree listen to me? I want oranges. I want this apple tree to want to grow me oranges. I want an apple tree that listens to me. And oranges. I really want an orange. But only from this tree.

edit- sorry Kuma, I didn't mean to point that towards you, your posts have been great and I do appreciate your contributions. I was just crudely mocking the majority of Nintendo fans.

Fighting games have the same thing where you had to do something better than the other person - winning. It's just that this kind of thing is more meta than something like a high score.

It's most importantly more meta than a high score. The very reason it's more meta is because now it is predicated on knowing what your opponent is going to do, before he knows it. That's a lot different than "I need to solve this puzzle faster" which has no correlation to a second player's actions. #essenceofcompetition

 

[Kink-Link5]

Stop that. It isn't helping your case to intentionally skew and misinterpret the discussion going on around how you want them to sound. Using vague and inaccurate analogies in place of actually discussing something is the mark of a person who doesn't have any counterpoints left, and has to resort to fighting scarecrows/using purple prose.

 

[traffic.]

That's ironic, given that you're going to be angry and disagree with me regardless of what I'm saying because of how you're interpreting me saying it. You think I'm a troll who hates smash brothers and the people that play it, especially those who post in this community. I'm really not, but now that I've mentioned it, you'll probably think this post is a troll post...

 

[Kink-Link5]

I didn't call you a troll, I said you're intentionally misrepresenting the arguments against you.

 

[traffic.]

If I dont include something in a quote, it's not something i disagree with or need to include in the context of my statement. Otherwise, Kuma and I are having an otherwise excellent conversation about the correlation of gamer demographics and the amount of competitive games being produced. I agree with many of his statements and he's been quite cordial throughout the discussion.

edit- **** it.

The point isn't to rip on players for being one way or the other, it's to examine the game from the other side, the supply. It does not matter who or how many people buy something because it isn't a measure of the quality or especially the longevity of a game.

Well, sure it does. You're talking about the supply, and they do everything based on how many people buy something because it's a measure of how many people buy their products, which don't need longevity, because of the revenue generated by their impressive sales figures. I'm talking about Nintendo specifically here, not to make it seem like I'm vaguely describing business. The other factor here is that, by all rights, the best product on the market sells the most units. That's really the whole point of being the best at something, and if you look at any group of competing products (ie, im not comparing mario party sales to call of duty for who makes the best single player game) you will see these numbers reflect this as well.

 

[nessokman]

Nintendo has stopped caring about hardcore gamers.They only care about money.They realized that if they sell to the casuals, they get more money.

I resent people who think nintendo went to sakurai and said "Hey, let's shoot hard core ssb fans a middle finger.Dumb brawl down because we're going to casuals."

Sakurai gets what he wants with smash.He listened to the large number of fans complaining about melee's difficulty and decided to dumb brawl down.

 

[traffic.]

My entire point all along is that Nintendo has never cared about hardcore gamers, and have always catered to making fun easy games for everyone to enjoy starting at childhood. The fact that Melee held hardcore players at all is a happy accident, since they have otherwise never designed their games to be skill based.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Nintendo has plenty of hard games under its belt, most of which are due to the long history the company has with games. It's around the N64 age that they start "always making fun easy games." Plenty of older games are known for frustrating levels or an entire difficult game (Kid Icarus), and a handful of newer games touch back on the aspects that made certain (mostly optional) components of older games difficult.The difficulty is not the problem, it's the stagnation and homogenized mess of gameplay that's irksome.

Nintendo tried doing new stuff before, and the games were initially critically rocky, with mid-line sales, but with a respect held looking at the games in retrospect. Many Zelda fans were displeased with Wind Waker for its kiddy appearance, but the game has aged very well in many fans' eyes compared to games like OoT. MM explored very different territory than OoT, but critics were apprehensive for the same graphics and physics engine used without respect to the subtleties and refinements made to the gameplay.

It isn't an issue of Hardcore Casual whatever the **** at all, it has everything to do with Nintendo not reckonising the best-of-both-worlds approach that can come from exploring shaky territory because of the fear associated with bad initial reception there of. First and foremost, video games are a media and an art form, not a business model. That is the inherit issue that comes about when you stop making things to enjoy and start making them to sell.

 

[Ember Reaper]

People gonna complain.. ugh.
They seem to make the game initially easy, but then have challenge for people who want challenge. Liek collecting everything in New Super Mario Bros. Hero Mode in Skyward Sword, the Superbosses of Xenoblade. More challenge for people who want it

 

[Kink-Link5]

Nintendo developed Xenosaga/blade?

 

[Inawordyes]

Nintendo bought the studio that made Xenosaga, and that company went on to make Xenoblade. I'm not sure if that makes Xenoblade 1st- or 2nd-party, but I believe that Xenosaga and Xenogears are probably 2nd-party.

 

[Vkrm]

My entire point all along is that Nintendo has never cared about hardcore gamers, and have always catered to making fun easy games for everyone to enjoy starting at childhood. The fact that Melee held hardcore players at all is a happy accident, since they have otherwise never designed their games to be skill based.

Yep. Nintendo removed all the techs in brawl so that everyone could win. The problem with that is the more skilled players still win, now it's just not as fun. I'll be honest, I grew up playstation kid and therefore, I only really care about how they handle smash bros and zelda because those are the only nintendo titles I buy consistantly. The fact that they don't care about the hardcore only matters in smash because it is a competitive game. Melee is what it is, a skillful game that's rich in technicality and diversity. Claiming that melee's competitive came about by chance really casts some doubt on you're credibility. In short, I'm not mad at the apple tree for giving me oranges. The fact that the apples taste like **** is what's got me bent out of shape.