Melee and ssb4.

[nessokman]

Not sure where this would go...It pertains to ssb4 though.

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.

The thing to remember is that sakurai tries to make each game unique.Melee was really cool!My friend has beaten it numerous times.

Perhaps it's just me, but I think sakurai was going for an all new, less complex game.A game where you didn't need to learn uber advanced techniques.The result was Brawl.Brawl was easy to learn and simple, the drawback was losing a large amount of competitiveness.But it's differences are what make each a smash game, but still unique.

We all should know ssb4 won't be another melee. It won't be another brawl either.Sakurai will make it how he likes it and there isn't much we can do besides speculate.

Realize that alot of gameplay mechanics have changed since 64.They will also differ from brawl.(Maybe remove tripping).....(PLEASE Remove tripping!!!)

Think it through....

This thread is not intended for flame wars.Debates.....no war.

 

[Scar86]

Not sure where this would go...It pertains to ssb4 though.

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.

The thing to remember is that sakurai tries to make each game unique.Melee was really cool!My friend has beaten it numerous times.

Perhaps it's just me, but I think sakurai was going for an all new, less complex game.A game where you didn't need to learn uber advanced techniques.The result was Brawl.Brawl was easy to learn and simple, the drawback was losing a large amount of competitiveness.But it's differences are what make each a smash game, but still unique.

We all should know ssb4 won't be another melee. It won't be another brawl either.Sakurai will make it how he likes it and there isn't much we can do besides speculate.

Realize that alot of gameplay mechanics have changed since 64.They will also differ from brawl.(Maybe remove tripping).....(PLEASE Remove tripping!!!)

Think it through....

This thread is not intended for flame wars.Debates.....no war.

Spoiler

>Melee


>Uber advanced techniques

"]

The Combat in Brawl was maddening to me, but there was more to it than just the "floaty" feel.

IT was changing the mechanics. Like how you don't have to time Marth's Side-B anymore, you can just mash it. Or how you can hold down the A button and your character will just keep punching forever.


I'd like a move into a more skill-based platform, Like Melee but with Some of the things that brawl Did right.


The problem I had with melee was the community, unfortunately the competitive spirit that melee spawned attract the worst part about the Fighting Game community. The No items, Fox only, Final Destination types. The Kind that can't stand any type of change or innovation.


I think the Balance will be struck through the online Feature. There could be Online Tournaments, Online Brawl, Online Team matches. (That doesn't lag)

Better Ai, more interesting event matches, ect. I'm Open to change, I just hope Sakurai Sticks to his word and moves towards what made Melee so great. Easy to Pick up and Play, but giving plenty of replayability by making it have a high skill ceiling. I have high hopes for Smash bros 4.

 

[El Duderino]

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.

Please get some of your own talking points. Continuing to quote this over-generalizing, under thought, internet fan dweller mantra doesn't make it any more accurate. Tons of melee fans were optomistic for Brawl pre-release, even as the changes became apparent. The hope was Brawl's additions to the fighting engine (aka, the bold new changes) could make up for what was altered and met with mixed reception. For those us that were disappointed, Brawl didn't live up to those expectations. It's really that simple. This "Melee 2.0" dumbspeak isn't representative or necessary. When posters use it, they demonstrate a lack of understanding that any smash fan with half a brain can critique Brawl for the game it is. Basically, it's a cop out.

Most Melee fans wanted the same things Brawl fans want now, an expanded game that manages to heighten their fun with the series. Different, yet familiar, but with change for the better. Now both fanbases do have vocal members that put their game up on a pedestal dismissing any notable deviation, but they are not the norm.

 

[Vkrm]

I lol at people who try to pretend sakurai did a good job with brawl. When I went to buy darksiders 2, I was expecting darksiders 2.0, that is what brawl was supposed to be. That IS what sequels are intended for right? To improve an established beloved formula. Sakurai decided to go in a different direction, he doesn't realize that he turned his back on the community that helped him build his reputation as good game designer.

 

[El Duderino]

I do agree that plenty of gamers have a skewed standards when it comes to the Smash franchise sequels. Inject similar changes from Brawl into almost every other big console sequel and you'd see universal extensive backlash and lower review scores, even from gamers that love Brawl. Smash has somehow elevated to a point where every negative, setback, or failed idea in execution is excusable so long as the developers say it's all part of the intended experience. Lucky them, haha.

That said, I don't think Brawl was ever suppose to be anything more than a new flashier Smash tittle. Melee on the other hand had a much higher target goal of fleshing out their proof of concept and showing the merit/viability of their spin on the genre. I really hope with the Namco team now they are feeling a similar sentiment again.

 

[fogbadge]

The Combat in Brawl was maddening to me, but there was more to it than just the "floaty" feel.

what on earth do you mean by "floaty"?

 

[Shadow Huan]

what on earth do you mean by "floaty"?

play 64 or melee then play brawl. compared to most of the characters in the first two, everyone in brawl feels like they are under a much lighter gravational pull, making them feel "floaty"

whether this is an improvement or not is up to personal taste

 

[poega]

Melee was really cool!My friend has beaten it numerous times.

ook

That said, I agree they should just make a completely new thing and hope for the best. Melee 2.0 would fail because of balance or "feel" or something and brawl is just awful.

 

[Ember Reaper]

2.0 pretty much means expansion pack. Not that they are bad things, but when it's a new game: I'd prefer it be new. There be new things, additions, change the gameplay, so it's not the same thing every single time. For example: Call of Duty.

 

[fogbadge]

play 64 or melee then play brawl. compared to most of the characters in the first two, everyone in brawl feels like they are under a much lighter gravational pull, making them feel "floaty"

whether this is an improvement or not is up to personal taste

ive played all 3 and ive never noticed, i fail to see how it matters though

 

[El Duderino]

2.0 pretty much means expansion pack.

Actually, 2.0 in the real world tends to either mean a far superior improvement or the next new innovation(s) of something so great that you place it in a separate, higher class.

It's been misused horribly by the smash community, taking what is actually a compliment and pretending it's criticism. Kinda shows how brain deprived the people are who ran with it in the first place.

 

[MR. K]

ive played all 3 and ive never noticed, i fail to see how it matters though

play em again one by one and you'll notice. like quite literally go right now play 64, then pop in melee and play it for a bit, then go right around and play brawl immediately after.

The lack of being able to carry momentum from a running jump (aka, a long jump, something melee adn 64 both still had) also contribute to it feeling "floaty" this is the most noticeable when playing as sonic, where if you go directly from his run into a jump it feels like he's hit invisible brakes in the air and he loses all that momentum from his run


the reason things like this matter, is because this, along with the lack of L-canceling and other subtle changes all contribute to the reason brawl has practically no combo game at all.

 

[Ove]

Combos aren't everything. The lack of combos matter, but a fighting game can be good without long combos. Brawl actually has a few neat links at very specific conditions for certain characters, Dedede can for instance do Dthrow -> Ftilt on many characters. Peach has some Bair/Uair strings, Wario has some longer combos including his Nair, Fair and Bite move etc.

The thing is, SSB64 and Melee were so dynamic thanks to intense combos. That means techskills are in a big favour. Brawl is a more defensive game and is heavily based on mindgames, an aspect that's already available in both SSB64 and SSBM.

 

[fogbadge]

play em again one by one and you'll notice. like quite literally go right now play 64, then pop in melee and play it for a bit, then go right around and play brawl immediately after.

The lack of being able to carry momentum from a running jump (aka, a long jump, something melee adn 64 both still had) also contribute to it feeling "floaty" this is the most noticeable when playing as sonic, where if you go directly from his run into a jump it feels like he's hit invisible brakes in the air and he loses all that momentum from his run


the reason things like this matter, is because this, along with the lack of L-canceling and other subtle changes all contribute to the reason brawl has practically no combo game at all.

im not going to play all 3 in a row, i'll take your word for it

 

[Big-Cat]

Combos aren't everything. The lack of combos matter, but a fighting game can be good without long combos.

I agree, combos aren't everything, but combos do play a much larger role than most casuals and even some competitive players realize. Things like keeping momentum beyond a single hit, piling up damage in one sitting, edge carrying, mixup setups, etc. are where combos become a very important aspect. Long combos tend to allow edge carrying or perhaps even ceiling carrying if designed right (i.e. Jigglypuff's Wall of Doom).

This wasn't directed towards you, but more for those that are reading this thread and think combos don't matter.

 

[Vkrm]

Combos aren't everything. The lack of combos matter, but a fighting game can be good without long combos. Brawl actually has a few neat links at very specific conditions for certain characters, Dedede can for instance do Dthrow -> Ftilt on many characters. Peach has some Bair/Uair strings, Wario has some longer combos including his Nair, Fair and Bite move etc.

The thing is, SSB64 and Melee were so dynamic thanks to intense combos. That means techskills are in a big favour. Brawl is a more defensive game and is heavily based on mindgames, an aspect that's already available in both SSB64 and SSBM.

Combos matter alot more than speeding the game up. Melee is all about consequence. Certain mistakes or incorrect reads are punished differently depending on% and stage position, so I think combos are really important..... Seriously though am I the only person who thinks brawl is a braindead game when it comes to mindgames. Brawl people think melee is all buttons with no intelligence, and to them i say ask yourself how reliable muscle memory is in brawl and how little you have to think. Its ******** to believe that because melee requires practice and precision it cant demand problem solving and weighting options against consequences and probability. Just because brawl dropped the ball when it came to designing a comfortable and skill based player 2 game interface doesnt mean it did other things right by default.

 

[Ove]

I agree, combos aren't everything, but combos do play a much larger role than most casuals and even some competitive players realize. Things like keeping momentum beyond a single hit, piling up damage in one sitting, edge carrying, mixup setups, etc. are where combos become a very important aspect. Long combos tend to allow edge carrying or perhaps even ceiling carrying if designed right (i.e. Jigglypuff's Wall of Doom).

This wasn't directed towards you, but more for those that are reading this thread and think combos don't matter.

Yeah, I hear you. A fighting game without combos is poor and not worthy the title "fighting game". The combo system is an important aspect in this genre, and a large set of different combos that can be applied in different situations is something that distinguish the better players, as well as encourage them to continue experimenting with the mechanics. It also enables a deeper gameplay.

Personally, I prefer games with flashy combos. It is entertaining to watch a close game where one single mistake may result in a devestating combo. Also, it is very satisfying to pull off a flashy combo yourself.

@Vkrm: I agree, combos are very important, see above. Though, I'd use SSB64 as a better example of the importance of said importance. One mistake can easily result in a 0 % to death combo. I love SSB64...

 

[Kink-Link5]

ive played all 3 and ive never noticed, i fail to see how it matters though

Those who don't notice the differences between core gameplay mechanics are in the majority. Attempting to make a game appeal through the merit of good gameplay is a part of the old approach to making video games. A new age of players don't have an acquired taste for dissecting a game's fluidity and feel, so the only differences that are apparent are the superficial ones- Character roster, game modes, levels, things that are immediately apparent without the need to analyze them on a deeper level.

It makes me wonder why Nintendo is still trying to appeal to this newer gaming generation by making games more "approachable" in gameplay, when they wouldn't notice the difference between Super Mario World and NSMBWii in terms of gameplay at all.

Like to me, appealing to the established playerbase is a matter of excellent gameplay, because that is the design mentality those players grew up exposed to, while appealing to the more proletariat crowd is a mere matter of a shiny graphics and the appeal of NEW STUFF.

 

[Sixth-Sense]

Not sure where this would go...It pertains to ssb4 though.

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.

The thing to remember is that sakurai tries to make each game unique.Melee was really cool!My friend has beaten it numerous times.

Perhaps it's just me, but I think sakurai was going for an all new, less complex game.A game where you didn't need to learn uber advanced techniques.The result was Brawl.Brawl was easy to learn and simple, the drawback was losing a large amount of competitiveness.But it's differences are what make each a smash game, but still unique.

We all should know ssb4 won't be another melee. It won't be another brawl either.Sakurai will make it how he likes it and there isn't much we can do besides speculate.

Realize that alot of gameplay mechanics have changed since 64.They will also differ from brawl.(Maybe remove tripping).....(PLEASE Remove tripping!!!)

Think it through....

This thread is not intended for flame wars.Debates.....no war.

This is very untrue, there are very few melee players that constantly smash Brawl because of the numerous aspects that were changed and/or not inclueded, the majority just ignore and continue playing there favorite games, also none of the AT's are "uber" advanced or difficult if you simply spend time on praticing them (this of course is character dependent like Fox=practice all day, Jigglpuff=three to four times a week) not only that, it's more about just making the game faster, but also have thousands of choices as how to properly approach, escape, confuse, punish, etc. in any given moment. And as a plus when you actually get better and start doing things and have your own playstyle while knowing that those AT's that you spent months working on are your tools, well.........there's a deep satisfaction

I don't want melee 2.0 but instead a better more competitve smash with unique characters and unique playstyles for each one, now if i want it to have lot's of the things melee had then yes, but still being unique to itself, or basically put, a fighting engine as deep or even more deep and complex than melee, while retaining the casual friendly image that sakurai wants. I'd also go ahead and say brawl, in the unique aspect, actually did it well to a certain point especially when you consider character moves, B attacks etc.

 

[Sixth-Sense]

Yeah, I hear you. A fighting game without combos is poor and not worthy the title "fighting game". The combo system is an important aspect in this genre, and a large set of different combos that can be applied in different situations is something that distinguish the better players, as well as encourage them to continue experimenting with the mechanics. It also enables a deeper gameplay.

Personally, I prefer games with flashy combos. It is entertaining to watch a close game where one single mistake may result in a devestating combo. Also, it is very satisfying to pull off a flashy combo yourself.

@Vkrm: I agree, combos are very important, see above. Though, I'd use SSB64 as a better example of the importance of said importance. One mistake can easily result in a 0 % to death combo. I love SSB64...

I actually woudn't want THAT kind of importance, I mean there's been so many times that i lost a battle because of really minor mistakes, just seems unfair still love it though

 

[Jhonnykiller45]

Can we just close this thread before it becomes a pointless Melee vs. Brawl debate ?

 

[Kink-Link5]

Can we just close this thread before it becomes a pointless Melee vs. Brawl debate ?

The only one who seems to have brought up Melee vs Brawl at all is you, Johnnykiller.

 

[Dingding123]

Well the debate's bound to happen anyway

cuz it's not a maylay vs. BARLW debate at all

it's just a really stupid hardcore ssb fans vs. casuals debate
respectively of course

and there's a mix of both sides everywhere

 

[Vkrm]

Hardcore vs casuals? Can't we all just get along? Gonna point out that none of the "hardcore" fans bear any ill will towards the less serious smashers. Man I swear smash is the only game where the better you get at the game, the less respect you get from the casuals. It's like "OMG ur soooooo gud!!!!! You must be a no-life who practices every day!!!! Lololol!!" I m okay with not being liked, i can tolerated getting crapped on for being good at smash.(not good, but better than anyone who has no tournaments under their
Belt.) But when randoms with no competitive backround post on the boards and purpose that their beliefs on smash in general should have as much pull as mine, now that I can not abide by.
Do you guys realize that there are people who think that because I play ssbm competitively I have an unacurate view on it. Is melee the kind of game where playing constantly makes you understand less about it? I don't think so.

 

[El Duderino]

It makes me wonder why Nintendo is still trying to appeal to this newer gaming generation by making games more "approachable" in gameplay, when they wouldn't notice the difference between Super Mario World and NSMBWii in terms of gameplay at all.

It's all just dreamed up phrasing by their marketing. To make matters worse, if something sells well in hindsight, Nintendo stays on message and credits it all to whatever marketing said made it work, then proceeds to do more of the same and make design decisions based on those claims.

It's a pretty anemic approach to game development as they eventually start drinking their own cool-aid and loose touch with the actual audience and what made former tittles play superbly. IMO, Smash, at least in the wii's generation, fell partially victim to that top down pressure to keep on message above other goals.

 

[Ove]

I think we're having a nice discussion here, I don't see any flame wars. Sometimes, people let their expectations carry away too much.

Is it really that hard do understand the hardcore crowd? Of course they want a hardcore game. They know the potential of Smash being a deep fighter, thanks to Melee. In my opinion, I think the developers can extend on the competitiveness to some degree.

The difficulty lies in satissfying the majority of the smashers: the casual gamers... My friends, who never play videogames, enjoyed Melee, but they prefered to play Brawl. Brawl is a more compelling game for casuals, but I wouldn't choose to play Brawl if I wanted to play a competitive game with my friends.

 

[Vkrm]

Im not sure if your friends who prefer brawl can be used to understand the casual crowd in it's entirety. I've noticed the exact opposite, the casual that I've smashed with hate brawl more than I do. Their gripes with the game aren't childish. It's not like "oh dude, where's mewtwo?" They genuinely dislike the mechanics in brawl. I think when compairing the two melee, is pretty much preferred by everybody.
The only reason this discussion hasn't become a flamewar is because everyone who's posted so far wants melee mechanics in smash 4.

 

[fogbadge]

Those who don't notice the differences between core gameplay mechanics are in the majority. Attempting to make a game appeal through the merit of good gameplay is a part of the old approach to making video games. A new age of players don't have an acquired taste for dissecting a game's fluidity and feel, so the only differences that are apparent are the superficial ones- Character roster, game modes, levels, things that are immediately apparent without the need to analyze them on a deeper level.

It makes me wonder why Nintendo is still trying to appeal to this newer gaming generation by making games more "approachable" in gameplay, when they wouldn't notice the difference between Super Mario World and NSMBWii in terms of gameplay at all.

Like to me, appealing to the established playerbase is a matter of excellent gameplay, because that is the design mentality those players grew up exposed to, while appealing to the more proletariat crowd is a mere matter of a shiny graphics and the appeal of NEW STUFF.

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

 

[Ove]

Im not sure if your friends who prefer brawl can be used to understand the casual crowd in it's entirety. I've noticed the exact opposite, the casual that I've smashed with hate brawl more than I do. Their gripes with the game aren't childish. It's not like "oh dude, where's mewtwo?" They genuinely dislike the mechanics in brawl. I think when compairing the two melee, is pretty much preferred by everybody.
The only reason this discussion hasn't become a flamewar is because everyone who's posted so far wants melee mechanics in smash 4.

That's rather interesting, actually. Glad you shared that experience! My friends think that Melee has worse graphics, less characters, less items and that you die too easily. Brawl, on the other hand, has more features and its floatiness enables them to recover easier.

In my opinion, I think that the Melee scene is rather harsh towards Brawl. The game isn't as bad as they describe it to be... I like people who claim that tripping has ruined the whole game.

 

[traffic.]

It makes me wonder why Nintendo is still trying to appeal to this newer gaming generation by making games more "approachable" in gameplay, when they wouldn't notice the difference between Super Mario World and NSMBWii in terms of gameplay at all.

Like to me, appealing to the established playerbase is a matter of excellent gameplay, because that is the design mentality those players grew up exposed to, while appealing to the more proletariat crowd is a mere matter of a shiny graphics and the appeal of NEW STUFF.

Now, I'm not about to start questioning your age, and I don't mean for this to seem directed at just you (since you share this opinion with many people around here) but have you not seen, oh, every game Nintendo has ever made? Nintendo IS the approachable casual gaming company. They make the same games, over, and over, and over, and over, and over. and people love them for it. Because they're Nintendo, and that's how they make a metric ****load of money. They made a game based around hardcore mechanics and pattern recognition once. It was called the Lost Levels and it came out 25 years ago, and not even in America because it was too hard.

I understand that by "established playerbase" you mean the small percentile that competitive gamers make up. Twenty years ago, video games were not in every household, they were a new technology that was damned expensive. And they were basic. So basic.

So when you say that games were built around stellar gameplay and not just flash, I'm confused as to what you mean. When? Donkey Kong, Super Mario Brothers, these were very basic games with no established predecessors and no real depth. Those WERE amazing graphics, and the marketing budget was bigger than then it ever has been since. Nintendo was producing tv shows, magazines, toys, new ideas for controllers (powerglove anyone?) and consoles, with every cent in their bank going towards making video games accessible and fun, and something people wanted to play together. You curse the people that invented gaming culture for "keeping on" and not innovating their game mechanics?

Oh right, mechanics, those things they arent designing enough of. Where did those come in? The nerdy types in their parents basements and poorly lit arcades dumping in hours and hours and quarters and quarters, trying to beat a simple game, better. Donkey Kong is now heralded for its exact and unforgiving mechanics, to be good at it meant memorization of patterns down to the pixel and minuscule fractions of a second. Mario Brothers, exact jump timings and queues took serious nerds serious hours to refine. These games had absolutely no mechanics in mind other than "jump over or on top of, x/y" and it took the countless hours spent by a pile of nerds to achieve a high score.

[as a quick aside, i'll take this moment to remind people that wavedashing is literally breaking the game mechanics, and took what, 5 years to become commonplace? now its one of the first things "hardcore smashers" teach each other and take for granted as if it was just always part of the game's core mechanics. just appreciate that]

Brawl, Sakurai adds in a number of features to make the game less competitive [read; abusive hardcore nerds] and something that is more accessible and fun for a broader audience. Nintendo's... oh what's the word I'm looking for... Spirit? Essence? Core Values, we'll go with that. What happened? even more people played it than Melee, and the hardcore nerds vomited with rage and kept wavedashing around their parents basement screaming japanese voodoo curses on everyone that had a hand in the ****** of their beloved Melee.

Brawl now too, is starting to see new techs and developing its metagame slowly (not having a rather large portion of the franchise's fanbase is crippling the game's competitive scene as such) and it's not the game designers who build a perfect and intuitive fight engine, its the millions of people putting in hundreds and thousands of millions of hours that make a game evolve from being a juvenile pile of nintendo's extra 3d models to having a competitive scene at all.

If you want a fighting game that is built around seamless mechanics and staying true to its fanbase's ideals, play Street Fighter, play MvC, play KoF, play BlazBlue, play any number of the games that have refined their mechanics for 20 years to be the most fundamentally competitive games. How many casual smash brothers players are there? 99% of them. How many casual street fighter players are there? 7? It is designed to be competitive, and meticulous.

If you want Brawl or Melee to be something other than a casual gamer's romp into the world of fighting games, based on the rules and mechanics of a fighter developed by its most dedicated nerds, I suggest you shake your head because you don't watch Mickey Mouse and wonder why there isnt more gunfire and ****.

 

[Robert of Normandy]

Im not sure if your friends who prefer brawl can be used to understand the casual crowd in it's entirety. I've noticed the exact opposite, the casual that I've smashed with hate brawl more than I do. Their gripes with the game aren't childish. It's not like "oh dude, where's mewtwo?" They genuinely dislike the mechanics in brawl. I think when compairing the two melee, is pretty much preferred by everybody.

Personal experience counts for nothing. For every casual gamer that prefer Melee to Brawl for whatever reason, there are probably just as many who prefer Brawl for whatever reason.

Personally, I think that most of the casuals who prefer Brawl do so because it just has more characters, and they don't pay attention to the mechanics enough to notice a difference. But that's just from my experience.

 

[Pichu4SSB4]

They made a game based around hardcore mechanics and pattern recognition once. It was called the Lost Levels and it came out 25 years ago, and not even in America because it was too hard.

Yeah, no. It was released in America, on Super Mario Allstars. Also the game being too difficult wasn't the main reason it didn't see a North American release on the NES. They thought the game wasn't very innovative, because it was simply the exact same game with with different levels. Nintendo seems to have changed their minds about this concept nowadays, considering all the NSMB games are nearly identical.

So when you say that games were built around stellar gameplay and not just flash, I'm confused as to what you mean. When? Donkey Kong, Super Mario Brothers, these were very basic games with no established predecessors and no real depth. Those WERE amazing graphics, and the marketing budget was bigger than then it ever has been since. Nintendo was producing tv shows, magazines, toys, new ideas for controllers (powerglove anyone?) and consoles, with every cent in their bank going towards making video games accessible and fun, and something people wanted to play together. You curse the people that invented gaming culture for "keeping on" and not innovating their game mechanics?

I see the point you're trying to make, but, the thing is "hardcore" gamers had yet to be a thing back then. So the focus on graphics, mechanics nor innovations for each installments didn't really matter to anyone, it was only a matter of time before a group of people developed to become "hardcore gamers" that use their spare time on on a certain game that has depth. It's the reason why some sequels are even made, i mean, you think Bayonetta 2 happened because of casuals? Casual gamers still exists, but it has dropped. Most of them are interested in iOS smartphone games nowadays such as Angry Birds which has been taken by storm. It's close to even beating Super Mario Bros in the number of how many that has played it. (If it already has, please do inform me.)

[as a quick aside, i'll take this moment to remind people that wavedashing is literally breaking the game mechanics, and took what, 5 years to become commonplace? now its one of the first things "hardcore smashers" teach each other and take for granted as if it was just always part of the game's core mechanics. just appreciate that]

Wavedashing has always been a part of Melee though, it was discovered during the game's fast-paced development schedule. It just wasn't foreseen that it would be a common technique used by scrubs. So implying Wavedashing is ruining the game mechanics is breaking the fourth wall.

Brawl, Sakurai adds in a number of features to make the game less competitive [read; abusive hardcore nerds] and something that is more accessible and fun for a broader audience. Nintendo's... oh what's the word I'm looking for... Spirit? Essence? Core Values, we'll go with that. What happened? even more people played it than Melee, and the hardcore nerds vomited with rage and kept wavedashing around their parents basement screaming japanese voodoo curses on everyone that had a hand in the ****** of their beloved Melee.

Now you're just trying to insult Melee players. "Abusive Hardcore Nerds", really? And of course Sakurai wanted to expand the audience with Brawl by making it easier. Melee becoming a hardcore installment was never intended by him in the first place. People are going to complain about the next installment if it's a take on another direction, and that's exactly what Sakurai did. Also, learn some manners. Implying Melee players live in their parents basements is really uncalled for.

Brawl now too, is starting to see new techs and developing its metagame slowly (not having a rather large portion of the franchise's fanbase is crippling the game's competitive scene as such) and it's not the game designers who build a perfect and intuitive fight engine, its the millions of people putting in hundreds and thousands of millions of hours that make a game evolve from being a juvenile pile of nintendo's extra 3d models to having a competitive scene at all.

Brawl might have a competitive scene, but it's an entirely different concept from the two previous Smash Bros installments. And the biggest argument against it is that Brawl was meant to ditch previous competitive concepts and start something new that a bigger audience could enjoy. So basicly, many see Brawl as a big middle finger from Sakurai.

If you want a fighting game that is built around seamless mechanics and staying true to its fanbase's ideals, play Street Fighter, play MvC, play KoF, play BlazBlue, play any number of the games that have refined their mechanics for 20 years to be the most fundamentally competitive games. How many casual smash brothers players are there? 99% of them. How many casual street fighter players are there? 7? It is designed to be competitive, and meticulous.

There are plenty of hardcore Smash Bros players, enough for to make something like Project M happen. Not 99% are casuals though it is a fact that we are a minor number. By the way, those other fighting franchises you mentioned have several casual players as well. And Street Fighter wasn't intended to be competitive at first, it remained that way for later installments thanks to hardcore players.

If you want Brawl or Melee to be something other than a casual gamer's romp into the world of fighting games, based on the rules and mechanics of a fighter developed by its most dedicated nerds, I suggest you shake your head because you don't watch Mickey Mouse and wonder why there isnt more gunfire and ****.

 

[El Duderino]

Now, I'm not about to start questioning your age, and I don't mean for this to seem directed at just you (since you share this opinion with many people around here) but have you not seen, oh, every game Nintendo has ever made? Nintendo IS the approachable casual gaming company. They make the same games, over, and over, and over, and over, and over. and people love them for it.

There's a pretty big difference between Nintendo of today and Nintendo of say the NES, SNES, and to a much lesser extent 64 and GCN eras. Their games have always been easy to pick up, but not always easy, inherently casual, or hand-holding experiences. That's because back then they were just trying to make tighter controlling overall better games, rather than adhering to these modern day marketing segmented audience buzz words with their games' design.

Something similar clearly happened with Brawl as they were evaluating Melee. At some point in development they must have settled on "how do we do a better job of hand-holding the player and save them from themselves and each other?". That's a modern Nintendo design philosophy and far removed from the Nintendo of the past.

 

[Ove]

I liked the past where you shared ideas with each other regarding new finds and secrets in the games.

This exists to some degree today, but it's usually over the Internet.

In the early days, you earned money by giving the gamers good games with well developed mechanics (like you said, El Duderino). Today, on the other hand, it's all about making games that anyone can pick up and enjoy, since it's not just "hardcore gamers" that play games these days...

 

[Sixth-Sense]

Now, I'm not about to start questioning your age, and I don't mean for this to seem directed at just you (since you share this opinion with many people around here) but have you not seen, oh, every game Nintendo has ever made? Nintendo IS the approachable casual gaming company. They make the same games, over, and over, and over, and over, and over. and people love them for it. Because they're Nintendo, and that's how they make a metric ****load of money. They made a game based around hardcore mechanics and pattern recognition once. It was called the Lost Levels and it came out 25 years ago, and not even in America because it was too hard.

I understand that by "established playerbase" you mean the small percentile that competitive gamers make up. Twenty years ago, video games were not in every household, they were a new technology that was damned expensive. And they were basic. So basic.

So when you say that games were built around stellar gameplay and not just flash, I'm confused as to what you mean. When? Donkey Kong, Super Mario Brothers, these were very basic games with no established predecessors and no real depth. Those WERE amazing graphics, and the marketing budget was bigger than then it ever has been since. Nintendo was producing tv shows, magazines, toys, new ideas for controllers (powerglove anyone?) and consoles, with every cent in their bank going towards making video games accessible and fun, and something people wanted to play together. You curse the people that invented gaming culture for "keeping on" and not innovating their game mechanics?

Oh right, mechanics, those things they arent designing enough of. Where did those come in? The nerdy types in their parents basements and poorly lit arcades dumping in hours and hours and quarters and quarters, trying to beat a simple game, better. Donkey Kong is now heralded for its exact and unforgiving mechanics, to be good at it meant memorization of patterns down to the pixel and minuscule fractions of a second. Mario Brothers, exact jump timings and queues took serious nerds serious hours to refine. These games had absolutely no mechanics in mind other than "jump over or on top of, x/y" and it took the countless hours spent by a pile of nerds to achieve a high score.

[as a quick aside, i'll take this moment to remind people that wavedashing is literally breaking the game mechanics, and took what, 5 years to become commonplace? now its one of the first things "hardcore smashers" teach each other and take for granted as if it was just always part of the game's core mechanics. just appreciate that]

Brawl, Sakurai adds in a number of features to make the game less competitive [read; abusive hardcore nerds] and something that is more accessible and fun for a broader audience. Nintendo's... oh what's the word I'm looking for... Spirit? Essence? Core Values, we'll go with that. What happened? even more people played it than Melee, and the hardcore nerds vomited with rage and kept wavedashing around their parents basement screaming japanese voodoo curses on everyone that had a hand in the ****** of their beloved Melee.

Brawl now too, is starting to see new techs and developing its metagame slowly (not having a rather large portion of the franchise's fanbase is crippling the game's competitive scene as such) and it's not the game designers who build a perfect and intuitive fight engine, its the millions of people putting in hundreds and thousands of millions of hours that make a game evolve from being a juvenile pile of nintendo's extra 3d models to having a competitive scene at all.

If you want a fighting game that is built around seamless mechanics and staying true to its fanbase's ideals, play Street Fighter, play MvC, play KoF, play BlazBlue, play any number of the games that have refined their mechanics for 20 years to be the most fundamentally competitive games. How many casual smash brothers players are there? 99% of them. How many casual street fighter players are there? 7? It is designed to be competitive, and meticulous.

If you want Brawl or Melee to be something other than a casual gamer's romp into the world of fighting games, based on the rules and mechanics of a fighter developed by its most dedicated nerds, I suggest you shake your head because you don't watch Mickey Mouse and wonder why there isnt more gunfire and ****.

"Hardcore Nerds vomited with rage and kept wavedashing around their parents basement screaming japanese voodoo curses on everyone that had a hand in the ****** of their beloved Melee."

See, now your just trying to start a flame war, i mean RELY vomit with rage?
Like i stated in another post, everyone plays the game they like, sure brawl WAS a COMPLETE and utter failure in the eyes of the mayority of 64/melee players, but they forgot about it and continued with thier games, I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but even then i can safely say no one thinks they were ****** melee with brawl, or rageing at every possible moment they see brawl, i mean your really trying to start something by saying this.

Oh and wavedash is the result of an exploit in the physic of the game, thanks to the useful directional airdoge, I could say the same thing about DACUS. And in the end it's not a gamebreaker or anything like that but instead a technical tool you use to your liking, which results in a bunch of different options, makeing the game smoother, faster, intresting, etc.

 

[Dingding123]

theres no stopping it ppl

it will consume this thread

it will consume us all

the dumbest debate eveeerr

 

[SmashShadow]

What about keeping the game in Brawl style as default and adding a Melee style battle setting so we can have the best of both worlds?

 

[Jhonnykiller45]

Nobody will ever be happy.

 

[nessokman]

Casuals will always outnumber hardcore fans....

 

[nessokman]

Casuals will always outnumber hardcore fans....