you guys seriously overlook the biggest reason the fighter crowd doesn't respect smash
smash was made to be a party game
to settle the disputes of 10 yr olds on whether link or samus or mario would win in fight
not to mention most people don't know or could care less that smash is competitive
saying you play smash to somebody who doesn't know any better is like saying you're really good in wario ware.
so you got a huge wall of ignorance to get over
and furthermore
who gives a **** what they think
people may think that, but looking over the history of smash development, I tend to think that it's quite the opposite.
I have reason to believe that 64 and melee were actually made to compete with regular fighters, while brawl was quite obviously not and fits (rather wll) the type of game that the 2d fighter community supposes all smash games are.
ssb64 originally wasnt even going to have nintendo characters. the developers just thought it might sell better if they put the mascots in as representatives. A good business move that didnt require stripping down of gameplay complexity.
the transition from 64 to melee is marked by, sure, improvements in music and graphics and a greater selection of levels and char.s etc, but its most remarkable factors (as i observed as a 5th grader) that differed from 64 were in its gameplay mechanics. They were faster, more vastly varied among characters (with respect to individual physics), and involved a plethora of new gameplay mechanics that the game designers (quite obvisoulsy imho) took much effort in balancing. The only evidence that i think u need for this is all of m2k's frame data. I highly doubt the game developers put so much time into verying the numbers for all of those gameplay mechanics/aspects just so they could randomly hope to have a good game. rather, with things such as shield stun, varied character physics (weightclasses, fastfallers, etc.), and numerous other things, its evident that the focus of the game developers was to make something much much more than a party game in the instances of both 64 and melee.
the transition to brawl is marked twice by the stripping down of such mechanics, signifying a drastic shift in focus , which is not at all surprising considering how brawl was designed by a completely new team of game designers and how melee was supposed to be the last smash game. the e for all beta version still had some gameplay mechanics like CCing and i think it had more hitstun, but it still was significantly slower and exhibited a smaller learning curve than melee (not that this could be fully observed in a beta version). But what's most significant for my argument is the transition from the beta version to the home version. Sakurai and his team made a
direct attempt to strip brawl of all of these vestigial techniques that separate pros from noobs in melee. That, to me, was like a backhand to the face. But objectively, it signifies a shift in focus from the drive to create a competitive game to a "party" game as you phrased it.
now, i dont espouse all of this text to bash brawl, but i rather want to highlight my point that
64 and melee were purposely made as competitive fighters that could double as more casual games. i think it was sakurai who, in an interview, said that in drawing up plans for 64, they wanted to create an original
fighting game that deviated from the norm of one health bar and two characters facing eachother (just look at the times; every popular fighting game had this layout and most still do). The original name was even going to have the word "dragon" in it. This, to me, signifies a more serious take than "super smash bros. or great fray smash bros" carries, but that was probably purely for marketing sakes. And it worked! Melee was the top selling game for nintendo, i think, ever! Who could blame them for making a sequel that tries even
harder to appeal to the audience that gave them the most cash.
What I think is beautiful about all 3 games is that they can be played on a casual level and on a competitive level and still be reeaaallly fun. I dont think the same can be said about, say, mario party or Street fighter 3, which brings me to my conclusion that Smash was NOT intended to be a party game, rather, it was designed to be able to double as a party game, but the primary focus of 64 and melee was to have them stand alone as balanced fighters.
Could the developers really have appreciated just how balanced and deep their games were when they were first released? I dont think so, but I doubt capcom foresaw their success with street fighter I or that blizzard foresaw their success with starcraft (a national sport that's lasted how long now?). There is likely luck involved with the greatest of competitive games, but a great game is never made with the sole intent of "party," "shenanigans," and the like.
tl; but read anyway. its my whole thesis on smash
