Melee Will Return For CEO 2015, Project M Dropped, Smash 4 Likely

[Crome]

I would agree with this if an actual "we" or "our" existed, but there's this "only one" mentality that floats about at non smash focused tournaments that kills any possible unison between the smash games.

Sharing the limelight doesn't seem to be a possibility. I wouldn't expect a significant amount of players to support the games they don't like or play at a small cost to their own.

If "our" goal is to look good to the FGC, putting Melee in the forefront is the best idea because it looks the best with its speed, tech, etc. The only problem is that for those of us that don't play Melee, our game(s) get kicked to the curb, and we can't expect mutual support when it comes to our case, making it self-detrimental to support a fellow smash game. Not to say Melee is the bad guy, it applies to any smash game that gets promoted over the others.

This only one mentality makes it stupid to support any game that's not your own because it hurts you. Then we end up with all of this bickering because we're competing for spots at big tournaments.

Did you not get the entire point of my post?

After Melee, smashbros was intentionally designed to not be competitive. The only smashbros games that have elements to be competitive are Melee/64/PM. Brawl and 4 were designed specifically with an anti-tournament mindset. Sakurai said this specifically in an interview, stating that smash bros has no future as a competitive game.

Why are these flaws?

It makes the game easier. If you're at the blastbox with no double jump you should die, I don't care if you're 11 or 24.
All of those choices were to lower the skill ceiling and make it harder to excel at the game.

 

[BSP]

Did you not get the entire point of my post?

After Melee, smashbros was intentionally designed to not be competitive. The only smashbros games that are meant to be competitive are Melee/64/PM. Brawl and 4 were designed specifically with an anti-tournament mindset. Sakurai said this specifically in an interview, stating that smash bros has no future as a competitive game.

The point I got from your post is that "we" need to show our best (by which, I'm thinking you mean Melee/PM) and that Brawl/Smash4 were made to be anti-competitive.

The point I'm making is that there's no "we", and this hypothetical "we" consists of Smash 4 players who hurt themselves by supporting Melee/PM in some cases, namely this one of putting forth our best. Unless by "we", you meant just Melee and PM players, in which case I am mistaken.

I'll agree that to an extent Smash 4 has some anti competitive aspects, like the removal of DACUS and glide tossing for whatever reason. Still though, I think competitive players got some attention for reasons I've stated prior. Regardless, plenty of people will be playing Smash 4, and if I'm understanding your "we" correctly, Smash 4 players are going to be hurting themselves if "we" put our best (Melee) forward because the support will not be mutual.

On a side note, I could argue against Melee and 64 being designed for competitive play. Yes, they foster it, but I don't think they were designed for it. Not going to get into that though.

It makes the game easier. If you're at the blastbox with no double jump you should die, I don't care if you're 24 or 11.\

All of those choices were to lower the skill ceiling and make it harder to excel at the game.

I disagree.

The far throws -> it's harder to combo the opponent, meaning you don't get as much off of a success in the neutral game, a read, etc, meaning that you have to keep outplaying the opponent to seal the deal. Against a smart person, this is quite difficult.

Big blastzones -> harder to KO people. Same reasoning as above and it puts more emphasis on jumping to edge guard in order to earn your KOs. As we know, edge guarding is not easy in this game.

Good recoveries -> Unless you, as the aggressor, KO the opponent outright, they're probably coming back, with puts stress on you to finish them off despite good recovery. How is this easy?

Nerf to edge guarding -> like I said, jump out there and earn your KOs. This makes things harder, if anything.

Yes, it's easy to recover (if you don't get edge guarded well). Yes, if you get hit or thrown, you probably won't get combo'd to death.

The thing is that this goes both ways. Everything you "easily" come back from, your opponent does too unless you outplay them and keep them down despite the plethora of defensive options. Overall, this makes it hard to actually win the game. It may be easy to recover, but that doesn't win you the game. Consistently outplaying the opponent does, which is quite difficult.

Smash 4 definitely has a lower technical ceiling, not doubt about it. Outside of that though, it's still pretty difficult to beat good people who know the game well, just as with any Smash game.

Only problem is that people want to see people die in 30 seconds, so Smash 4 is easily perceived as boring.

 

[byebye]

Yea il agree its a much better improvement compared to brawl. I'm just a bit salty that project m might die. It sucks because there is no melee scene but a decent pm scene where i live but some of them are transferring to the smash 4 scene and the smash 4 scene is huge where I live. So yea

yeah, it sucks that PM might die. so PM and it's players should behave a bit these times. if PM was not in CEO, then fine. stay low profile and stay afloat. too much noise like the death threats and public campaigns of boycott could kill PM entirely.

you mean PM players are moving over to smash4 in your area? looks like smash4 is getting a bit of a traction there. some other place where it is the case?

 

[byebye]

Did you not get the entire point of my post?

After Melee, smashbros was intentionally designed to not be competitive. The only smashbros games that are meant to be competitive are Melee/64/PM. Brawl and 4 were designed specifically with an anti-tournament mindset. Sakurai said this specifically in an interview, stating that smash bros has no future as a competitive game.

the very nature of the game is not to be competitive. even 64 and Melee.
you see players strip down these games to use 1/8 of the actual default game using settings and house rules to be something different.
the players, the viewership, and the money makes it competitive. the game itself, in its default and intended nature is a couch multiplayer fighting game

It makes the game easier. If you're at the blastbox with no double jump you should die, I don't care if you're 24 or 11.\

are you a game designer or something? "If you're at the blastbox with no double jump you should die" - why? how about those that fly (or has many aerial jumps?) should they die too? should they automatically die once that condition is met?

 

[Crome]

the very nature of the game is not to be competitive. even 64 and Melee.
you see players strip down these games to use 1/8 of the actual default game using settings and house rules to be something different.
the players, the viewership, and the money makes it competitive. the game itself, in its default and intended nature is a couch multiplayer fighting game

They weren't intended to be competitive, I never said they were. The fact of the matter is they had optional competitive elements that made the games amazing and increase their lifespan by 10+ years.

are you a game designer or something? "If you're at the blastbox with no double jump you should die" - why? how about those that fly (or has many aerial jumps?) should they die too? should they automatically die once that condition is met?

I'm not, but I've been playing games my whole life.

That statement was an exaggeration. A lot of characters have stupidly good recoveries (Villager, ROB, Pit to name a few) they allows them to recover from the blast box, when they were out of all other options. That is not good game design. That, combined with the nerf to edge guarding makes people live absurdly long in this game.

Don't try pulling "You've never made a game so you can't criticize it" on me.

 

[Narpas_sword]

I'm not, but I've been playing games my whole life.

Haha.
Even if you played your "whole life" I've still played longer than you =p


(not demeaning your experience, it was just funny to me)

 

[Crome]

The point I got from your post is that "we" need to show our best (by which, I'm thinking you mean Melee/PM) and that Brawl/Smash4 were made to be anti-competitive.

The point I'm making is that there's no "we", and this hypothetical "we" consists of Smash 4 players who hurt themselves by supporting Melee/PM in some cases, namely this one of putting forth our best. Unless by "we", you meant just Melee and PM players, in which case I am mistaken.

I was legitmately confused reading this. I thought I had already responded to this post, but I couldn't find my response. I thought maybe I forgot to post it. Then it turns out:

Did you not get the entire point of my post?

After Melee, smashbros was intentionally designed to not be competitive. The only smashbros games that are meant to be competitive are Melee/64/PM. Brawl and 4 were designed specifically with an anti-tournament mindset. Sakurai said this specifically in an interview, stating that smash bros has no future as a competitive game.

If this was too subtle, I'm saying that there are 2 "Communities" of smash bros. There is the diehard, purist "elitist" fans, the ones who stick to their guns to stay with the better competitive product, and the more casual side, who prefers newness over refinement and game design. Or they're just straight up casual players who don't dabble in competitive at all.

This divide was caused by the massive shift in game design, which was for the worse for everyone involved.

On a side note, I could argue against Melee and 64 being designed for competitive play. Yes, they foster it, but I don't think they were designed for it. Not going to get into that though.

I don't think I've ever said they were intended for competitive play, but they had competitive elements. If I did ever say that point it out to me and I'll edit it out, because I completely agree with that.

The far throws -> it's harder to combo the opponent, meaning you don't get as much off of a success in the neutral game, a read, etc, meaning that you have to keep outplaying the opponent to seal the deal. Against a smart person, this is quite difficult.

Big blastzones -> harder to KO people. Same reasoning as above and it puts more emphasis on jumping to edge guard in order to earn your KOs. As we know, edge guarding is not easy in this game.

Good recoveries -> Unless you, as the aggressor, KO the opponent outright, they're probably coming back, with puts stress on you to finish them off despite good recovery. How is this easy?

Nerf to edge guarding -> like I said, jump out there and earn your KOs. This makes things harder, if anything.

Throws
It's not like Grab>Throw>Death in melee or anything. Landing a grab should give you an advantage, not 10%. Most of the combos in this game are Grab>Uair rinse and repeat.

Big Blastzones/ Nerf to ledge/ Good Recoveries
That's what I thought when I first played this game. I thought it'd have more of a focus on egde guarding and make the ledge game more interesting. It doesn't. Do you know how ****ing hard it is to edge guard villager? YOu have to pop both of his balloons without hitting him in the process. Or lucario, who the more damaged he gets the better recovery he has. The aura mechanic in general is pretty bad. Almost every single character can recover from the blast box with just their Up B.

Yes, it's easy to recover (if you don't get edge guarded well). Yes, if you get hit or thrown, you probably won't get combo'd to death.

The thing is that this goes both ways. Everything you "easily" come back from, your opponent does too unless you outplay them and keep them down despite the plethora of defensive options. Overall, this makes it hard to actually win the game. It may be easy to recover, but that doesn't win you the game. Consistently outplaying the opponent does, which is quite difficult.

Smash 4 definitely has a lower technical ceiling, not doubt about it. Outside of that though, it's still pretty difficult to beat good people who know the game well, just as with any Smash game.

Only problem is that people want to see people die in 30 seconds, so Smash 4 is easily perceived as boring.

None of those things you said are good. Except for the Bolded/Underlined items, which are untrue/strawmans.

The problem with smash 4 is outplaying your opponent doesn't give enough of an advantage. Yes, you get some, but after 3 hits you're in neutral again. Most of your argument in this section is "Yea its slow but it still takes skill", which I'm not denying. Every smash game takes skill to get good at. Even in Brawl/4 which cater to the casual crowd, the more well versed and intelligent player will always win. Why? That's the nature of games. It's universal. Whether it be Smash, LoL, or even Tag out on the playground. The better one wins.

The thing with 4 though, is the skill ceiling was lowered because of some impossible dream of that everyone can win. Which is bad game design.

Haha.
Even if you played your "whole life" I've still played longer than you =p


(not demeaning your experience, it was just funny to me)

You're not wrong, I'm only a year older than Melee.

 

[byebye]

If this was too subtle, I'm saying that there are 2 "Communities" of smash bros. There is the diehard, purist "elitist" fans, the ones who stick to their guns to stay with the better competitive product, and the more casual side, who prefers newness over refinement and game design. Or they're just straight up casual players who don't dabble in competitive at all.

This divide was caused by the massive shift in game design, which was for the worse for everyone involved.

those who prefer to stick with the better competitive product vs those that prefers newness over refinement in game design?

wow. some gloriousmasterrace move there sir. hahaha.

the divide is this: preference.
those who like 64. those who like melee. those who like pm. those who like brawl. and those who like smash 4.

you see as hype machine said, their area has a bigger PM community than Melee. and it's fine. and he also said that most of the players are moving over to smash 4. bottom line. they like PM, and they like smash 4 too.

 

[Crome]

those who prefer to stick with the better competitive product vs those that prefers newness over refinement in game design?

wow. some gloriousmasterrace move there sir. hahaha.

the divide is this: preference.
those who like 64. those who like melee. those who like pm. those who like brawl. and those who like smash 4.

you see as hype machine said, their area has a bigger PM community than Melee. and it's fine. and he also said that most of the players are moving over to smash 4. bottom line. they like PM, and they like smash 4 too.

From a competitive standpoint if you want the best high level gameplay, Melee is where it is at.

I don't even play Melee, man. I'm just saying that Brawl and 4 were made to have easier, slower gameplay. If you enjoy that more than fast paced entertaining gameplay, you can.

You need to stop taking "Smash 4 is flawed" as "Smash 4 can't be competitive at all & is a bad competitive game".

It is competitive. Anything involving 2 people can be competitive. As long as there are at least 2 people on earth trying to better themselves at something to beat someone else it's a "competition". Smash 4 was made with the competitive audience strictly out of mind.

 

[BSP]

I was legitmately confused reading this. I thought I had already responded to this post, but I couldn't find my response. I thought maybe I forgot to post it. Then it turns out:

If this was too subtle, I'm saying that there are 2 "Communities" of smash bros. There is the diehard, purist "elitist" fans, the ones who stick to their guns to stay with the better competitive product, and the more casual side, who prefers newness over refinement and game design. Or they're just straight up casual players who don't dabble in competitive at all.

This divide was caused by the massive shift in game design, which was for the worse for everyone involved.

OK, but just because a player doesn't stick with Melee/PM doesn't mean they're on the more casual side, nor does it make them more casual than determined Melee/PM players. I would say I'm a competitive smasher all the way (just don't travel to many nationals and such), but I don't play Melee/PM. There are Smash 4 players who are on that first side, the only difference being the game they play.

The bold also implies that if you don't stick with melee/PM, you don't care about game design as much as newness and whatnot. I think that's flawed because it assumes that Melee's design (aggressive, quick, tech barriers, etc.) is the "correct" one, which is not the case. That depends on what you, as a player, want out of the game. A lot of people like Melee's design obviously, but it's not the only one.

I don't think I've ever said they were intended for competitive play, but they had competitive elements. If I did ever say that point it out to me and I'll edit it out, because I completely agree with that.

In post #441, you said, "The only smashbros games that are meant to be competitive are Melee/64/PM."

Let me amend what I said. I would argue against them being meant to be competitive, but they foster it.

Throws
It's not like Grab>Throw>Death in melee or anything. Landing a grab should give you an advantage, not 10%. Most of the combos in this game are Grab>Uair rinse and repeat.

It very well can be in certain situations. Marth CGs on a fastfaller into a ken combo offstage, Falco pillars and reads into spikes or Fsmash/Dsmash, Fox uthrow -> Bair you offstage, and then shine spike you for the stock. Jiggs' U throw -> rest. Wobbling. The list goes on, and grows if you include stray hits.

Does it happen every time? No, and I'm not trying to suggest these are easy or anything because they take control mastery and being able and experienced enough to predict and follow DI. More often than not though, I'm going to say that against any competent player, if you get grabbed in melee and PM and you aren't playing a difficult to combo character (and even then....), you should be taking at least 30%+ and being put into a bad position.

You're right about most Smash 4 combos being monotonous. My question is still "how is this bad?". Yes, they're simple and easy to pull off, they aren't very flashy, and you don't get nearly as much reward as you do in Melee/64/PM, but I'm still failing to see how this is a problem. Who gets to decide what is "too little reward" outside of each individual player?

Big Blastzones/ Nerf to ledge/ Good Recoveries
That's what I thought when I first played this game. I thought it'd have more of a focus on egde guarding and make the ledge game more interesting. It doesn't. Do you know how ****ing hard it is to edge guard villager? YOu have to pop both of his balloons without hitting him in the process. Or lucario, who the more damaged he gets the better recovery he has. The aura mechanic in general is pretty bad. Almost every single character can recover from the blast box with just their Up B.

Villager is a sitting duck when he/she uses his/her balloon trip. Jump off and meteor him/her, or hit him/her and keep repeating the process. It's not like they get their second jump back. Yes, it's difficult, but that's against what you said about the good recoveries making the game easier. Recovery in specific, yes. Overall, no.

As Mario, vs Villager, I can cape him and the balloons and he'll still die because cape won't make him flinch. I can use FLUDD to force him to miss the ledge. If he Loid rockets above the ledge, I crouch under it or cape it, and if I do the former, Villager has to drift to me once he dismounts or else he dies from getting FLUDDed off of the stage. I can also just jump out and Fair him.

As for Lucario, I agree with you. Aura is a bad mechanic and I'm sad it's still in the game. As Mario though, you can still FLUDD Lucario and force him to miss the ledge, meaning you're going to be able to Usmash his extremely laggy landing.

Overall though, yes, it's hard to KO people, but I'm proposing that makes the game harder to succeed in, meaning it that it takes more skill to consistently do it.

None of those things you said are good. Except for the Bolded/Underlined items, which are untrue/strawmans.

Says you.

I know that sounds like a 2 year old's response, but that's the case here. I don't see how they're bad. What is good? Being easy to KO for getting knocked offstage? Potentially getting destroyed for getting grabbed/read? Being able to edgehog?

As for the strawmans, change "to death" to "30%+". Change "30 seconds" (which really isn't a strawman in most cases. Melee is quite quick nowadays) to a "minute and a half".

The problem with smash 4 is outplaying your opponent doesn't give enough of an advantage. Yes, you get some, but after 3 hits you're in neutral again. Most of your argument in this section is "Yea its slow but it still takes skill", which I'm not denying. Every smash game takes skill to get good at. Even in Brawl/4 which cater to the casual crowd, the more well versed and intelligent player will always win. Why? That's the nature of games. It's universal. Whether it be Smash, LoL, or even Tag out on the playground. The better one wins.

I disagree with the you describe getting back into neutral. Whenever I play Mario, any time I get a grab or hit that can lead into the combo, I keep the pressure on because I know how difficult it is to pierce defenses in this game. Smart people won't let you "fall back" to neutral after 3 hits. You have to get back to it.

As for the not enough advantage, I touched on that above.

The thing with 4 though, is the skill ceiling was lowered because of some impossible dream of that everyone can win. Which is bad game design.

The technical skill ceiling was lowered. Beating good people is still not easy.

 

[Alex Night]

I do agree about the Rage Mechanic. As much as I like that it rewards the player who's in the lead, it's a comeback mechanic that rewards the players losing, and personally, it's not a good mechanic in general. USF4 and other fighters have comeback mechanics, but compared to Rage, they're aren't very bad. I've adapted to the rage mechanic, but it's still a huge problem to me!

It's even bigger when Lucario is in play. Seriously, I just hate Aura Lucario with a passion and I could care less who plays or defends his design. It's stupid, unbalanced, and not in anyway canon with his lore or Pokemon in general. That may as well be Charizard with that system because Blaze works similar to that.

 

[Crome]

OK, but just because a player doesn't stick with Melee/PM doesn't mean they're on the more casual side, nor does it make them more casual than determined Melee/PM players. I would say I'm a competitive smasher all the way (just don't travel to many nationals and such), but I don't play Melee/PM. There are Smash 4 players who are on that first side, the only difference being the game they play.

The bold also implies that if you don't stick with melee/PM, you don't care about game design as much as newness and whatnot. I think that's flawed because it assumes that Melee's design (aggressive, quick, tech barriers, etc.) is the "correct" one, which is not the case. That depends on what you, as a player, want out of the game. A lot of people like Melee's design obviously, but it's not the only one.

If you play competitive, and you want to play to you absolute very best, you would play Melee. Brawl/4 have a serious degrade in gameplay quality.

In post #441, you said, "The only smashbros games that are meant to be competitive are Melee/64/PM."

Fixed.

It very well can be in certain situations. Marth CGs on a fastfaller into a ken combo offstage, Falco pillars and reads into spikes or Fsmash/Dsmash, Fox uthrow -> Bair you offstage, and then shine spike you for the stock. Jiggs' U throw -> rest. Wobbling. The list goes on, and grows if you include stray hits.

Does it happen every time? No, and I'm not trying to suggest these are easy or anything because they take control mastery and being able and experienced enough to predict and follow DI. More often than not though, I'm going to say that against any competent player, if you get grabbed in melee and PM and you aren't playing a difficult to combo character (and even then....), you should be taking at least 30%+ and being put into a bad position.

You're implying all of those actions are simple. You don't just get a grab as marth on FD and go "Oh hey, I can chain grab now.". You don't land a shine with falco, read their DI, follow up with a dair, read their DI, shine, read their DI, follow up with a dair on day 1 of play. It takes skill to master these things, and they're really hard to pull off against good players. If you're M2K and you an consistently chain grab Mang0's fox you deserve the stock.

You will be put into a bad position after a grab, yeah. Because if you mess up, you get the disadvantage. You have to work extra hard to get back control and possibly take their stock. This is an example of the heightened skill ceiling.

You're right about most Smash 4 combos being monotonous. My question is still "how is this bad?". Yes, they're simple and easy to pull off, they aren't very flashy, and you don't get nearly as much reward as you do in Melee/64/PM, but I'm still failing to see how this is a problem. Who gets to decide what is "too little reward" outside of each individual player?

You may be in denial. "Who cares if the combos are boring?" "Who cares if the combos barely help advance the game?". More on this in a bit.

Villager is a sitting duck when he/she uses his/her balloon trip. Jump off and meteor him/her, or hit him/her and keep repeating the process. It's not like they get their second jump back. Yes, it's difficult, but that's against what you said about the good recoveries making the game easier. Recovery in specific, yes. Overall, no.

As Mario, vs Villager, I can cape him and the balloons and he'll still die because cape won't make him flinch. I can use FLUDD to force him to miss the ledge. If he Loid rockets above the ledge, I crouch under it or cape it, and if I do the former, Villager has to drift to me once he dismounts or else he dies from getting FLUDDed off of the stage. I can also just jump out and Fair him.

No, he isn't actually. In fact it's the opposite. He has too many options while recovering. Now this is cherry picking, but Villager's recovery is absolutely terrible game design.

• There are almost no limits to where it can go if you mash B fast enough.
• You have to hit 2 tiny hitboxes above the villager to get him to fall.
• If you barely miss and hit him he gets another one.

It's really ****ty. And then you have gyro, which is ok for recovering, but can when used against a character without a projectile, you can recover from the blast box with just a single side b. How are you supposed to edge guard that?

While it's not impossible to edge guard villager, I think you're over simplifying it a bit. Couldn't you just say that about every recovery? "Just use FLUDD" which of course doesn't work nearly as well in practice. I didn't actually know you could use the cape like that, next time I face a villager I'll switch to Dr.Mario and try it out.

As for Lucario, I agree with you. Aura is a bad mechanic and I'm sad it's still in the game. As Mario though, you can still FLUDD Lucario and force him to miss the ledge, meaning you're going to be able to Usmash his extremely laggy landing.

Overall though, yes, it's hard to KO people, but I'm proposing that makes the game harder to succeed in, meaning it that it takes more skill to consistently do it.

Again, I think you're oversimplifying edge guarding.

If you're better at the game, you're going to win. The problem with 4 is you could be totally outclassing the opponent, but as long as they know how to recover well the matches will last forever.

Says you.

I know that sounds like a 2 year old's response, but that's the case here. I don't see how they're bad. What is good? Being easy to KO for getting knocked offstage? Potentially getting destroyed for getting grabbed/read? Being able to edgehog?

If you get grabbed, you messed up. If you're off the stage, at some point, you messed up. Mistake > Bad situation. That is universally how games work. Even in smash 4. Except the difference is the game says "**** dude you're off the ledge? No dude it's okay, you'll make it back don't worry". THis "Everyone can win" mentality is ruining the game for everyone. It isn't working, the better player will always win in the end. But being better gives you less results.

As for the strawmans, change "to death" to "30%+". Change "30 seconds" (which really isn't a strawman in most cases. Melee is quite quick nowadays) to a "minute and a half".

Above statement on game design.

Also are you implying that all Melee matches take under 2 minutes?

I disagree with the you describe getting back into neutral. Whenever I play Mario, any time I get a grab or hit that can lead into the combo, I keep the pressure on because I know how difficult it is to pierce defenses in this game. Smart people won't let you "fall back" to neutral after 3 hits. You have to get back to it.

As for the not enough advantage, I touched on that above.

Bit of a blanket statement. May or may not be true for you (Maybe you play bad people or FG?) the observation is fairly obvious from watching any competitive matches. Go to ClashTournaments, they have a lot.

The technical skill ceiling was lowered. Beating good people is still not easy.

WOOP WOOP WOOP WOOP WOOP

Oh sorry, you activated my "Never said that" alarm.

My point in that quote was the "everyone can win" mentality is ruining the game. It doesn't work and never will work.

 

[-LzR-]

Stuff

Amazing post. I have nothing to add.

 

[BSP]

If you play competitive, and you want to play to you absolute very best, you would play Melee. Brawl/4 have a serious degrade in gameplay quality.

If you're a huge fan of tech and speed, sure. Otherwise, I don't think so.

You're implying all of those actions are simple. You don't just get a grab as marth on FD and go "Oh hey, I can chain grab now.". You don't land a shine with falco, read their DI, follow up with a dair, read their DI, shine, read their DI, follow up with a dair on day 1 of play. It takes skill to master these things, and they're really hard to pull off against good players. If you're M2K and you an consistently chain grab Mang0's fox you deserve the stock.

That's why right after I said those things, I said, "No, I'm not trying to suggest these are easy or anything." I said they take control mastery and experience.

You may be in denial. "Who cares if the combos are boring?" "Who cares if the combos barely help advance the game?". More on this in a bit.

I've missed the memo that says massive combos are required for an advanced game.

No, he isn't actually. In fact it's the opposite. He has too many options while recovering. Now this is cherry picking, but Villager's recovery is absolutely terrible game design.

• There are almost no limits to where it can go if you mash B fast enough.
• You have to hit 2 tiny hitboxes above the villager to get him to fall.
• If you barely miss and hit him he gets another one.

It's really ****ty. And then you have gyro, which is ok for recovering, but can when used against a character without a projectile, you can recover from the blast box with just a single side b. How are you supposed to edge guard that?

While it's not impossible to edge guard villager, I think you're over simplifying it a bit. Couldn't you just say that about every recovery? "Just use FLUDD" which of course doesn't work nearly as well in practice. I didn't actually know you could use the cape like that, next time I face a villager I'll switch to Dr.Mario and try it out.

Villager is most definitely a sitting duck when he is balloon tripping, and I can't say "just use FLUDD for everyone" because Villager's case is specific.

Spoiler

If Villager does Balloon trip and you're Mario, here's what you should do.

1) jump down there and cape the balloons. This will pop villager upwards, so you have to go deep to do it.
2)Meteor him because he can't attack you at all
3)hit him again, and if it doesn't KO, just do it again
4) FLUDD him above the ledge and start charging FLUDD again. If Villager ends balloon trip and drifts away from you, FLUDD him off for the stock. If he doesn't, Fsmash him and repeat if he doesn't die.

Loid Rocket:
1) if Villager begins Loid rocket above ledge height, but too high to hit Mario if he crouches, crouch and see what he does. If he doesn't dismount and drift to center stage, FLUDD him off.

2) jump out and hit him, rinse and repeat

3)cape Loid

I think the recovery is only terrible design if you're under the premise that getting hit offstage should mean death 9 times out of 10, which is a judgment call that the designer/players can make for themselves.

If you're better at the game, you're going to win. The problem with 4 is you could be totally outclassing the opponent, but as long as they know how to recover well the matches will last forever.

Unless this causes some physical problems, ie time constraints or something, I don't see how this is a problem. The better player still wins.

If you get grabbed, you messed up. If you're off the stage, at some point, you messed up. Mistake > Bad situation. That is universally how games work. Even in smash 4. Except the difference is the game says "**** dude you're off the ledge? No dude it's okay, you'll make it back don't worry". THis "Everyone can win" mentality is ruining the game for everyone. It isn't working, the better player will always win in the end. But being better gives you less results.

The better player is still going to win the game, aren't they?

Yes, the "Everyone can win" philosophy robs us of ATs and such. I agree, but I don't think the skill ceiling is lowered much from that loss. That may be because I don't value the tech skill that much.

Also are you implying that all Melee matches take under 2 minutes?

No, but most are fast, and people losing their first stock in under a minute really isn't a strawman at all. My point in saying that is that generally when I see complaints about Smash 4, speed is one of them.

Bit of a blanket statement. May or may not be true for you (Maybe you play bad people or FG?) the observation is fairly obvious from watching any competitive matches. Go to ClashTournaments, they have a lot.

About a month ago, I took on Lee Martin in GFs at a local. Back in the brawl days, I believe he won doubles at an Apex. Trust, he didn't let me "fall back to neutral" anytime he got a hit he could follow up on. Smart people don't do that because they realize how powerful defensive options are in smash 4, unless they're playing a charge character like Pac Man or someone.

WOOP WOOP WOOP WOOP WOOP

Oh sorry, you activated my "Never said that" alarm.

My point in that quote was the "everyone can win" mentality is ruining the game. It doesn't work and never will work.

Ok, let me try to streamline my point. Yes, Smash 4 lowers the skill ceiling, but I think it does so only from a technical standpoint. Which is still lowering the skill ceiling, so I guess I agree with you on that point, but I disagree on how much, and on how much quality is lost. I think that depends on how much you value tech skill.

 

[Crome]

If you're a huge fan of tech and speed, sure. Otherwise, I don't think so.



That's why right after I said those things, I said, "No, I'm not trying to suggest these are easy or anything." I said they take control mastery and experience.



I've missed the memo that says massive combos are required for an advanced game.



Villager is most definitely a sitting duck when he is balloon tripping, and I can't say "just use FLUDD for everyone" because Villager's case is specific.

Spoiler

If Villager does Balloon trip and you're Mario, here's what you should do.

1) jump down there and cape the balloons. This will pop villager upwards, so you have to go deep to do it.
2)Meteor him because he can't attack you at all
3)hit him again, and if it doesn't KO, just do it again
4) FLUDD him above the ledge and start charging FLUDD again. If Villager ends balloon trip and drifts away from you, FLUDD him off for the stock. If he doesn't, Fsmash him and repeat if he doesn't die.

Loid Rocket:
1) if Villager begins Loid rocket above ledge height, but too high to hit Mario if he crouches, crouch and see what he does. If he doesn't dismount and drift to center stage, FLUDD him off.

2) jump out and hit him, rinse and repeat

3)cape Loid

I think the recovery is only terrible design if you're under the premise that getting hit offstage should mean death 9 times out of 10, which is a judgment call that the designer/players can make for themselves.



Unless this causes some physical problems, ie time constraints or something, I don't see how this is a problem. The better player still wins.



The better player is still going to win the game, aren't they?

Yes, the "Everyone can win" philosophy robs us of ATs and such. I agree, but I don't think the skill ceiling is lowered much from that loss. That may be because I don't value the tech skill that much.




No, but most are fast, and people losing their first stock in under a minute really isn't a strawman at all. My point in saying that is that generally when I see complaints about Smash 4, speed is one of them.



About a month ago, I took on Lee Martin in GFs at a local. Back in the brawl days, I believe he won doubles at an Apex. Trust, he didn't let me "fall back to neutral" anytime he got a hit he could follow up on. Smart people don't do that because they realize how powerful defensive options are in smash 4, unless they're playing a charge character like Pac Man or someone.



Ok, let me try to streamline my point. Yes, Smash 4 lowers the skill ceiling, but I think it does so only from a technical standpoint. Which is still lowering the skill ceiling, so I guess I agree with you on that point, but I disagree on how much, and on how much quality is lost. I think that depends on how much you value tech skill.

Since your argument devolved to "Who cares if it's good or fast or reward skill?" I'm just gonna give you this and be done here.

http://youtu.be/xnODOlTsbH4

 

[Deleted member]

I'm scared that PM will become unpopular and die. PM is my priamary Smash Bros. game and I can only play at my best there.

 

[byebye]

I'm scared that PM will become unpopular and die. PM is my priamary Smash Bros. game and I can only play at my best there.

Even SF4 players - the Daigos, Sakos, Xians, Luffys who are very good in SF4, has the same feeling. They are good in SF4 and it's their primary SF game, and maybe it's where they play their best, but SF5 will most probably make SF4 unpopular and die. The players just have to adapt and learn again if they want to stay in the scene.

What you're feeling is really normal. And goodluck!

 

[Crome]

Even SF4 players - the Daigos, Sakos, Xians, Luffys who are very good in SF4, has the same feeling. They are good in SF4 and it's their primary SF game, and maybe it's where they play their best, but SF5 will most probably make SF4 unpopular and die. The players just have to adapt and learn again if they want to stay in the scene.

What you're feeling is really normal. And goodluck!

It's like you ignored everything that has been said in this entire thread.

You cannot compare the switch from PM>4 to SFX>SFY. The street fighter games at least stay in the same genre with the same game design goals.

I'm scared that PM will become unpopular and die. PM is my priamary Smash Bros. game and I can only play at my best there.

I wouldn't start worrying until the 4 hype dies down.

 

[byebye]

It's like you ignored everything that has been said in this entire thread.

You cannot compare the switch from PM>4 to SFX>SFY. The street fighter games at least stay in the same genre with the same game design goals.

It's like you ignore everything that has been said in the entire thread too.

we all know video games aren't like basketball where in you play in high school, then play in Uni, then play in the pros. you'll just improve your skills over time, but you need not re-learn the game.
And then your kid will play the game too. and his kids. the game almost never change.

We're in competitive videogames. new versions on games arrive in a few years. Players will just have to re-learn the new game. One just cannot master the art of parrying in SF3 then expect SF4 and SF5 to have parrying too. One has to learn how to FA in SF4. And one has to learn to be good in SF5. Even the framedata in every game changes, and one should relearn all of those too. The feel is different. The mechanics are different.

then there's the technology. CRTs will not be easy to find in 20years. heck, HD TVs might be phased out by that time. same with Gamecubes and GC controllers. there'll be around 3 new consoles released by then.

If one is the field of competitive gaming, one should also expect that sooner or later, one will have to adapt to a different game to stay relevant.

It doesn't matter if PM and Smash4 are worlds apart in terms on differences compared to SFs, it's just how it works. There'll be a time where a game will stop being competitive. Thinking otherwise will just stress you out.

 

[Crome]

It's like you ignore everything that has been said in the entire thread too.

we all know video games aren't like basketball where in you play in high school, then play in Uni, then play in the pros. you'll just improve your skills over time, but you need not re-learn the game.
And then your kid will play the game too. and his kids. the game almost never change.

We're in competitive videogames. new versions on games arrive in a few years. Players will just have to re-learn the new game. One just cannot master the art of parrying in SF3 then expect SF4 and SF5 to have parrying too. One has to learn how to FA in SF4. And one has to learn to be good in SF5. Even the framedata in every game changes, and one should relearn all of those too. The feel is different. The mechanics are different.

then there's the technology. CRTs will not be easy to find in 20years. heck, HD TVs might be phased out by that time. same with Gamecubes and GC controllers. there'll be around 3 new consoles released by then.

If one is the field of competitive gaming, one should also expect that sooner or later, one will have to adapt to a different game to stay relevant.

It doesn't matter if PM and Smash4 are worlds apart in terms on differences compared to SFs, it's just how it works. There'll be a time where a game will stop being competitive. Thinking otherwise will just stress you out.

Again you're not actually paying attention. Smashbros can't be compared to SF or Basketball.

If you REALLY want to make comparisons, we can.

Switching from Melee to Brawl is just as easy as SF3>SF4 right?

The comparison only works if capcom said "We don't like how people are playing SF3, lets completely change the game and exclude the competitive fan base." So then they put a cap on the number of damage a combo can do until you can escape. Oh and also Ken is now the uncontested best character, sorry competitive fans. Then it would be like the Melee to brawl transition.

You're right over simplifying this or you'rejust being very ignorant. Don't expect a reply unless you come up with a real argument.

 

[byebye]

The comparison only works if capcom said "We don't like how people are playing SF3, lets completely change the game and exclude the competitive fan base." So then they put a cap on the number of damage a combo can do until you can escape. Oh and also Ken is now the uncontested best character, sorry competitive fans. Then it would be like the Melee to brawl transition.

Yeah I think what you're saying about competitive stuff isn't relevant at all.

I'm just being realistic to Fawful. He is good in PM, and apparently, PM got cut in 2 big tourneys and is fearful of the fact that PM could die soon.
It's normal. And that's life in competitive games. It happens all the time to other people. He can opt to adapt to a new or different game to keep on competing, or quit altogether. But I am encouraging him to adapt instead. Play Smash 4 or Melee or something else.

Not sure why you stepped in our conversation. But meh.

 

[oorr23]

I don’t know if others aren’t asking this, but I just have to get this out in the open..why isn’t Brawl being dropped INSTEAD of P:M?
Yes, it’s a mod, but when a sequal comes out, isn’t the old game ditched for the new one in most cases? Yes, this is the Smash community, so previous games haven’t been dropped before, but previous Smash games have all played differently, 64->Melee was a fast change,Melee->Brawl was a slow change, and now, Smash 4 has mostly kept that slow feel. Since Brawl and Smash 4 play similarly, shouldn’t the old version be dropped? Examples of this occuring b4:
-EVO 2013-’14: Mortal Kombat (2011)-->Injustice
-Street Fighter IV-->SSFIV-->etc.
-Marvel vs. Capcom 2-->Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3
-Tekken 6-->Tekken Tag Tournament 2

Yeah, maybe some people will argue that if this is my arguement, then why isn’t Melee replaced by P:M. To those people, I argue these 4 points:

-While that solves P:M not being included, it would still be unfair for Brawl to remain in the competitive roster of games, which results in an unfair dropping of Melee.
-P:M and Melee, while visually similar, can be entirely different. While similar game mechanics, many characters (specifically Ganandorf, Roy,Samus, Ness, Kirby) have almost been completely changed between the two games as a result of their changed moveset or buffs, as well as game mechanics that aren’t even in Melee.
-P:M has almost surpassed Brawl’s popularity (Apex 2014)
-Assuming my mentality is correct, P:M deserves priority over Brawl because like Smash 4, it’s an update (obviously a radical update) to Brawl, since it keeps Brawl’s introduced characters, stages, and techniques, and even runs off Brawl itself!

 

[-LzR-]

I don’t know if others aren’t asking this, but I just have to get this out in the open..why isn’t Brawl being dropped INSTEAD of P:M?
Yes, it’s a mod, but when a sequal comes out, isn’t the old game ditched for the new one in most cases?

I guess this means you support Melee SD Remix for ceo?

 

[MegaMissingno]

If there was enough demand for it, sure, but as far as I can tell it doesn't look like SDR hasn't even managed to beat Brawl in terms of popularity. There just aren't enough people interested in playing it.

 

[oorr23]

I guess this means you support Melee SD Remix for ceo?

lol, I get your point, which is why I put in my arguement “if my mentality is correct”, and while I might be in the future, for now I don’t have any evidence to say that SD Remix is tournament viable (i.e. if they succeeded in rebalancing)
Furthermore, Melee SD Remix isn’t a sequal to Melee, unlike
Brawl-->Smash4, so that would make my logic not apply to that case.
On a slightly off topic note, your profile pic matches your comment XD

 

[G Rank Zinogre]

It ****ing sucks to see Project M dropped, while I'm not so hot at Project M, I know a lot of players were looking forward to it. I hope this is the last time Project M gets the shaft, seriously, 3.5 came out not to long ago, and it's been booted out of a two major tournaments already. There's not much we can really do about it, and blaming Smash 4 for Project M getting cut is simply wrong. Project M has already been seen at other tournaments alongside Smash 4, so I don't see why Project M can't stay either. Either way, I wish this game the best of luck in the future.

(Note: Tryhards, don't be asses to Project M players, it's quite obnoxious.)

 

[T0RN]

Why do you think it is that they dropped PM? I really think that if they made a perfect update that It could be better than melee, and last longer because of more character choices.

 

[Fight for Piece]

The point I got from your post is that "we" need to show our best (by which, I'm thinking you mean Melee/PM) and that Brawl/Smash4 were made to be anti-competitive.

The point I'm making is that there's no "we", and this hypothetical "we" consists of Smash 4 players who hurt themselves by supporting Melee/PM in some cases, namely this one of putting forth our best. Unless by "we", you meant just Melee and PM players, in which case I am mistaken.

I'll agree that to an extent Smash 4 has some anti competitive aspects, like the removal of DACUS and glide tossing for whatever reason. Still though, I think competitive players got some attention for reasons I've stated prior. Regardless, plenty of people will be playing Smash 4, and if I'm understanding your "we" correctly, Smash 4 players are going to be hurting themselves if "we" put our best (Melee) forward because the support will not be mutual.

On a side note, I could argue against Melee and 64 being designed for competitive play. Yes, they foster it, but I don't think they were designed for it. Not going to get into that though.

I disagree.

The far throws -> it's harder to combo the opponent, meaning you don't get as much off of a success in the neutral game, a read, etc, meaning that you have to keep outplaying the opponent to seal the deal. Against a smart person, this is quite difficult.

Big blastzones -> harder to KO people. Same reasoning as above and it puts more emphasis on jumping to edge guard in order to earn your KOs. As we know, edge guarding is not easy in this game.

Good recoveries -> Unless you, as the aggressor, KO the opponent outright, they're probably coming back, with puts stress on you to finish them off despite good recovery. How is this easy?

Nerf to edge guarding -> like I said, jump out there and earn your KOs. This makes things harder, if anything.

Yes, it's easy to recover (if you don't get edge guarded well). Yes, if you get hit or thrown, you probably won't get combo'd to death.

The thing is that this goes both ways. Everything you "easily" come back from, your opponent does too unless you outplay them and keep them down despite the plethora of defensive options. Overall, this makes it hard to actually win the game. It may be easy to recover, but that doesn't win you the game. Consistently outplaying the opponent does, which is quite difficult.

Smash 4 definitely has a lower technical ceiling, not doubt about it. Outside of that though, it's still pretty difficult to beat good people who know the game well, just as with any Smash game.

Only problem is that people want to see people die in 30 seconds, so Smash 4 is easily perceived as boring.

A few things.

1. "I think competitive players got some attention for reasons I've stated prior." Well competitive players don't. Really... No. They didn't meet Melee/PM players halfway. It's like they met us 1/7th of the way.

2. Your part about recovery is wrong. Just because it's harder to K-O into a blast zone does not make it harder kill. Since every character (or 95% of the roster) has good recoveries, there is no reason not to to jump off the ledge and chase your opponent down. Why? Because there is MUCH less risk and your character's recovery is amazing. It's like giving all Melee characters the ability to fly. Of course if you would zone your opponent off the ledge.

3. That last sentece though. I find it quite insulting that you think PM/Melee players are just doing instakill 'combos' in 30 seconds. The game is fast. Maybe you don't realize it but there is a lot going on - and i'm not talking about button clicks. A lot of PM/Melee good plays are based off good reads, mind games in a fraction of a second. It's not a thing of seeing people die in 30 seconds. It's a thing of seeing GOOD play. It's not that we want to see a combo that instakills people. We want to see smart, properly rewarded plays that MIGHT lead to a kill. And every now and then it is cool to see risks. For example, when someone puts his life on the line to kill someone else by gimping them. But in Sm4sh I literally play some characters jump all the way next to the blast zone and back to the stage for trolls.

This is a random paragraph that I just wanna put out here. Lots of people are saying who cares about a fast gameplay? You should. I don't think I need to explain why. I mean... Sm4sh/Brawl players would you play Sm4sh at 1/2 the speed? Even 4/5 the speed? Of course not. A fast gameplay is more exciting for spectators and more fun for the players. Like... we shouldn't have to explain. I'm not saying that a slower paced game is necessarily worse. It's just less exciting and probably less skilful. This is why speed is a problem for the higher level players..

I don't want to say that Sm4sh is a horrible game, but It is what Sakurai wanted it to be - "A party game" that "doesn't have a competitive future." I'll play it for funzies but it should not even be argued that it lacks depth and the limits of the game have been or are going to be reached soon.

 

[RanserSSF4]

This is a random sentence that I just wanna put out here. Lots of people are saying who cares about a fast gameplay? You should. I don't think I need to explain why. I mean... Sm4sh/Brawl players would you play Sm4sh at 1/2 the speed? Even 4/5 the speed? Of course not. A fast gameplay is more exciting for spectators and more fun for the players. Like... we shouldn't have to explain. I'm not saying that a slower paced game is necessarily worse. It's just less exciting and probably less skilful. This is why speed is a problem for the higher level players..

I don't want to say that Sm4sh is a horrible game, but It is what Sakurai wanted it to be - "A party game" that "doesn't have a competitive future." I'll play it for funzies but it should not even be argued that it lacks depth and the limits of the game have been or are going to be reached soon.

If you want Smash 4's speed to be faster, you can always try Smooth Lander Heavy Gravity in Sm4sh. Granted, you still don't have a lot of the Melee movement options and it won't appeal to everyone, but it's a nice alternative option to play Sm4sh!

 

[TheMisterManGuy]

I don't want to say that Sm4sh is a horrible game, but It is what Sakurai wanted it to be - "A party game" that "doesn't have a competitive future." I'll play it for funzies but it should not even be argued that it lacks depth and the limits of the game have been or are going to be reached soon.

Actually, Sakurai said it has no future ONLY as a competitive game. He actually has no problems with the game being at tournenments, but he doesn't think that's the only way the game should be played. The reason Brawl was designed the way it was, was so that it can appeal more to the Wii's majority audience, casual gamers. It's no Melee, but Smash 4 at least has a competitive style of play in mind, as evidenced by Nintendo continuing to patch the game and sponsoring tournaments. If people can just stop going by headlines and actually read the articles, they would know this.