New Interview with ZeRo discussing Sm4sh META, Difference Between Melee and Sm4sh and how to be good

[immortalblood]

https://esports.yahoo.com/zero-explains-differences-between-smash-160000272.html

 

[Machii]

Eh. I don't like his comparison to Melee. He attempts to make distinctions between the two, and he is in the ballpark, but not on the field. Everything he mentioned about what makes Smash 4 different from Melee, is a huge part of Melee. The real difference is that 4 provides more defensive options than Melee; which leads to more guesswork.

 

[immortalblood]

Eh. I don't like his comparison to Melee. He attempts to make distinctions between the two, and he is in the ballpark, but not on the field.

i dunno, i played both games and i feel the same as ZeRo, he did play melee at top level after all. If your a good melee player you can wreck people without even thinking about it. I remember in the smash bros doc korean DJ beat 3 people at once... it was effortless to him, he just overwhelmed them. You just overwhelm opponents with speed and combos


Two different games completely. Melee is harder to play for sure, but in a different way.

 

[SR-71]

A good Smash 4 player could wreck 3 mediocre players too without even trying.

 

[immortalblood]

A good Smash 4 player could wreck 3 mediocre players too without even trying.

without trying? how?


if you disagree with ZeRo, thats fine. Melee is hard yes. But he IS right about smash 4.. so lets not turn this into a debate about melee. ZeRo knows what he is talking about in smash 4 so lets just keep on that topic

 

[SR-71]

ZeRo knows his stuff but I don't take anything on faith. I was just replying to one point you made. I am not a pro, I am barely Gold on Anther's, but I can destroy 3 of my friends simultaneously at Sm4sh. They all play Sm4sh casually, meaning they go on For Glory sometimes, they are probly Bronze 1 or 2. Obviously this is all opinion but I really think ESAM or NAKAT or someone could do the same thing KDJ did, in Sm4sh against mediocre players, and it wouldn't be difficult. KDJ's opponents probly didn't even know how to L cancel. Just do safe options and use your greater knowledge and punish game, and don't grab all the time unless you have Mario's back throw or something.

 

[immortalblood]

All ill say is that ill take a zeros word for it since he was a top melee player

 

[Crystanium]

Quite honestly, I prefer Sm4sh over Melee. I've owned Smash 64, my brother owned Melee, I owned Brawl, and he owns Wii/3DS versions. Yes, Melee was fast-paced, yes it had combos, yes it required you to play smart by being careful with how you use your air-dodge and how you return to the stage. However, it hasn't aged well in terms of visuals, it's not balanced (more balanced than SSBB for sure), and that aspect of the community will eventually die off as more recent games move onward.

 

[[BROF]]

While I agree with most of your points, the melee community is never going to die until melee gets an actual sequel with similar gameplay, there's just no proper (official) replacement for melee yet. I mean 15 years long community and strong.

 

[Baby_Sneak]

The game will have to be amazingly complex in mechanics and will have to give the players multiples ways to play to make that happen @der Rabe

 

[8383d3 90 90 10 hundred]

i think zero is pretty much right.

with melee, the movement options are so open that you don't have to think quite as hard about how to land a hit, in an explicit or logical way. you can go more on feel. you just sort of intuitively move around them until they expose themselves. which is why top players can wreck amateurs so hard. and then also, the combos are huge and much easier to perform, so its kind of like developing a skill. the skill of making inputs, moving well, comboing well. these are really important in melee.

and it means that you can wreck people without having to make as many reads. you don't as much have to really download the opponent when you can just wreck them with advanced movement and combo tech.

smash 4 has less movement and combo tech. much less open movement.
and way better defense.

this means that way more things become mixup situations, where reads are necessary.

so it's a much more read based game, more cerebral.

you play the player more than in smash 4. energy is more effectively spent trying to download the opponent and counter them,
rather than wrecking them with tech (movement, combo, approach, etc).

 

[RadleyJenkins]

I also agree with ZeRo. I was a melee player and when smash 4 came out of course i had to get it. I didn't play brawl because i just did not like the fact you could trip. But smash 4 was really good.

I got totally tired of spending time practicing tech and movement in melee. I was doing it like an hour a day and it just was not worth it anymore. So instead I took that hour and starting running. Now I am in shape but still have a ton of fun getting to play a competitive game where i only need to focus on learning some knowledge/matchups and learning mind games. Mind games are so much more fun then having to practice tech till your hands hurt everyday.

 

[[BROF]]

Hand problems due to tech are an issue of the Gamecube controller. It's a travesty in terms of ergonomics.
Also it seems like a huge misconception here, but both games use mindgames, melee just has more options and thus mindgames runs several layers deep.
Whereas in one game you play Rock, Paper, Scissors for mindgames; in the other you have to guess and counter 3 times the options.
The misconception that smash 4 is somehow more "cerebral" than melee because of lack of options is quite annoying to be honest, it's almost a meme at this point.

 

[RadleyJenkins]

Smash 4 does require more reads...

 

[RadleyJenkins]

Hand problems due to tech are an issue of the Gamecube controller. It's a travesty in terms of ergonomics.
Also it seems like a huge misconception here, but both games use mindgames, melee just has more options and thus mindgames runs several layers deep.
Whereas in one game you play Rock, Paper, Scissors for mindgames; in the other you have to guess and counter 3 times the options.
The misconception that smash 4 is somehow more "cerebral" than melee because of lack of options is quite annoying to be honest, it's almost a meme at this point.

Idisagree. Smash 4 also has options that melee does not have. Such as air dodges and footstools, ledge trumps.

Even people like mango said things like in melee when shiek down throws you, they can tech chase you just on reaction and its no different than getting caught in a wobble. Leffen said the true combos in melee are kind of like wobbles because there is nothing you can do to escape if your opponent is good. Melee is mostly true combos to death without reading your opponent, all you can do is try to DI and that is just reaction based, if they are good enough no matter your DI your still dead. Leffen even says that. He says mid level melee players are stupid because they dont understand that.

Smash 4 has more escape options. So it forces you to read your opponent.

In melee you can be so good that your opponent can not escape. That is why zero said when he wins in melee it feels like he just played good melee, vs in smash 4 it felt like he understood his opponent. Even leffen agrees that smash 4 is MORE interactive because of the abiltiy to escape and reset to neutral more.

Smash 4 requires reads more.

 

[[BROF]]

Smash 4 doesn't have more escape options, it just has less combos.
Having to know your opponent more makes sense since you have so little options and the game just resets to neutral all the time.
I'll just agree to disagree.

 

[Icarus3DS]

Are there seriously people that still need someone to explain the difference between Smash 4 and Melee?