[Official SSB4 Discussion] --- Nintendo announces 2 new Smash games!

[ShinoandtheBallonFighter]

Hmm, Peculiar, I suppose if this does happen, then it should be fixed haha. Though wouldn't the helpless state situation be influenced by fall speed and hitboxes?

 

[Big-Cat]

It can be influenced by them, but it looks like it could be resolved if their grab release animation was shortened.

 

[ShinoandtheBallonFighter]

Ok, Then yea they should shorten the grab range. I also thing that there should be a minimal knockback distance on all grabs to prevent chaingrabs of any sort (Take that DDD)

 

[BBQTV]

chain grabs should disappear.

 

[Big-Cat]

Ok, Then yea they should shorten the grab range. I also thing that there should be a minimal knockback distance on all grabs to prevent chaingrabs of any sort (Take that DDD)

Yes, especially for down grabs.

 

[ShinoandtheBallonFighter]

Hmm any other topics worth exploring?

Because I've got a flame sheild ready for a post I've got ready, but want to make sure there's nothing else to discuss regarding gameply (Although this is way better than character discussion, so if you have moe, I'm intrested)

 

[BBQTV]

true most people got pissed when they weren't in but unless they change its nothing really new and if they have a roster size limit or something i dont want it wasted on them when it could be used for someone else someone like TINGLE!


yeah they should cause personaly he prefers the air

this maybe if you want or 3rdkoopas post

 

[ShinoandtheBallonFighter]

Well I meant regarding the gameplay discussion, as I have no knowledge or opinion of Mother, and I think everyone agress that Falco should have an Arwing.

 

[Big-Cat]

Hmm any other topics worth exploring?

Because I've got a flame sheild ready for a post I've got ready, but want to make sure there's nothing else to discuss regarding gameply (Although this is way better than character discussion, so if you have moe, I'm intrested)

There are a some topics I'd love to discuss:

1. Adapting a super meter to Smash mechanics.
2. The introduction of EX Moves.
3. How should the developers test for balance?

However, I enjoy a good debate and discussion so FLAME ON!, Shino. We'll go into what I want to later.

 

[BBQTV]

problem with smash meter is well bowser sonic fox, falco,wolf,peach,snake would rise up the tier list


EDIT:snake is already 2nd so lol

 

[SmashChu]

How is this going to be too hard for players? If it's explained on the website and/or the manual, I doubt people would have a hard time understanding a concept as simple as canceling. It's manner of wording things right. If I say that you have a small window of frames to cancel a move into something else, no one will bother with it. If I say that you have to do it at the right moment, it's a lot easier for people to understand.

Do I need to slap you!?

First, any time it works out well for competitive players, it's a bad idea. Basically, canceling increases the gap between good and weak players, making it harder for weak players to get into the game. This is 101 stuff here.

So what happens? First, weak players have to learn more stuff in order to be able to compete with better players. Players who can use canceling will instantly be better then those who can't do it or can't do it well. Wavedashing had the same effect, and everyone (save for competitive players) screamed for it to be removed. They didn't like that someone who had invested way more time then them could easily beat them due to one trick. With online play, it worsens this as most players will be beaten by a few and will eventually leave the online scene with a worsen play experience. The online will then be dominated by players who have mastered this one trick. It happened to Mario Kart DS. It will happen if they add in this feature. It's only going to make people frustrated and stop playing. Want to kill the series? Do this (don't beleive me? Look at Street Fighter).

Remember how I always tell you to stop using Street Fighter as a basis because it's the same as stealing the play book of the losing team (when your winning)? Also remember how it goes in one ear and out the other? Street Fighter has been in decline since Street Fighter Alpha and the only game to get it's head above water long enough was Street Fighter 4 because it reused old content and was one three systems. Smash has been growing. So, in order to increase sales, Smash has to do everything other fighting games didn't do.

Games should not be designed for the lowest level of play. Eventually, people are going to get tired of the games being so easy and/or not enough in it to keep them playing. This leads to poor sales in sequels. However, the too much competitive stuff can kill sales as well. Games should be designed somewhere in between. People can either go competitive, or they can play casually.

That's not true. There is no evidence that this is true.

Pong is very simple and it was what started games
Wii Sports is a very simple game, and it is the best selling videogame ever.
Mario Kart Wii was made simpler and it is the best selling Mario Kart game.
Brawl is easier then Melee and guess which one sold better?

NO.
NO.
JUST NO.

Go play any old Mario/Zelda and compare them to their DS counterparts (NSMB and Phantom Hourglass). If you still think that video games should be designed for scrubs, let me know, and I'll talk to you then.

The minute you say "scrub," your point is lost and you look like an idiot. Smart people don't say scrub. It's obvious you don't care about the so called "scrubs" so I doubt you'd design a videogame for people who aren't "uber1337" like yourself.

Let's be make it REALLY simple for you.
Game is made simple. In this way, the game can reach as many people as it can.
The game is also fun (pong would be an example of this)
Because the game is a good game and removes nmany barriers, it allows weaker plays to enter.

Now, your idea. Since you claim games should not be made for scrubs.........
A game is made with lots of depth. It is perfect for competitive play
Quality wise, it is still good (Street Fighter and other 2D fighting games would be this)
Lower end players get frustrated as they can not

1. Compete with other much better players at their level (basically, they get beat down)
2. They have to invest too much time

These players stop playing and move onto another game

Basically, the people who can play it varies inversely with the difficulty. When the game is too hard, less people play it. When a game is easy, more people play it. The only exception to this rule is if a game gets too easy when there isn't much variation on the inputs and it basically becomes monotonous. However, very few games have hit this. Wii Sports, Wii Play, Pong, Space Invaders, Pac-Man, Brawl, and Mario Kart are NOT examples of this. A game that is may just be a game where you move a cursor to hit ballons. Of course, games like Duck Hunt are like this and sold amazingly.

@Smashchu

Adding in more playable (Competetive, as you say) features does not make a game harder to play nessicarily, just different. These features will allow some players to go beyond the lower levels, while the lower levels can continue playing where they want to. Wavedashing did not kill the game for lower level players, it just made it better for competetive players.

Doesn't work like that The world isn't a bunch of pods where everyone is isolated. Now that Smash has online, a system like this would only create trouble. Notice has Wavedashing because a topic of concern when Brawl was coming out.

 

[ShinoandtheBallonFighter]

EDIT: Mine can wait til after Smashchu's topic.

You claim that the online scene is what will cause this deterioration? Why not create a more-user friendly online system, in which you play other people who rank and play as well as you do, instead of just limiting the game for everyone.

You say we shouldn't focus on competetive play, but why should we focus on casual instead?

If people can play and reach a certain point, then stop, they have no reason to keep going, but if there is a goal in mind they will continue playing in hopes of reaching that point ( as long as they can learn and grow without being overwhelmed by better players, see online comment). The reason I kept playing melee was to elarn to wavedash and L-cancel. The reason I still play Brawl, Is I have nothing else to play at them moment, It got stale, there was nothing to move towardas acheiving.

(And Kuma, I await the future discussions)

 

[Big-Cat]

Do I need to slap you!?

I could ask you the very same thing.

First, any time it works out well for competitive players, it's a bad idea. Basically, canceling increases the gap between good and weak players, making it harder for weak players to get into the game. This is 101 stuff here.

It's not the hard to learn. Canceling isn't something that can only be found by seeking the devout followers at SRK or any other competitive forum. In some cases, it's a manner of reading the manual.

So what happens? First, weak players have to learn more stuff in order to be able to compete with better players. Players who can use canceling will instantly be better then those who can't do it or can't do it well. Wavedashing had the same effect, and everyone (save for competitive players) screamed for it to be removed. They didn't like that someone who had invested way more time then them could easily beat them due to one trick. With online play, it worsens this as most players will be beaten by a few and will eventually leave the online scene with a worsen play experience. The online will then be dominated by players who have mastered this one trick. It happened to Mario Kart DS. It will happen if they add in this feature. It's only going to make people frustrated and stop playing. Want to kill the series? Do this (don't beleive me? Look at Street Fighter).

You know what the weaker players should do if they're getting creamed? Ask the better players what to do. The thing with fighting games, or any competitive game, is that there is a large social aspect of the game outside of the gameplay. This is how we get better. Isolating yourself isn't going to do you any good, if not much.

As for wavedashing, earlier I mentioned that I was iffy on this. The reason is that I believe that there should be two learning curves to Smash, or any other fighting game as well: The initial learning curve for the controls, and then there's the learning curve of the character people choose to main which will vary per individual and character. Wavedashing can be seen by some to be fairly difficult and it's not part of the second learning curve, but rather the first which shouldn't be too big.

Remember how I always tell you to stop using Street Fighter as a basis because it's the same as stealing the play book of the losing team (when your winning)? Also remember how it goes in one ear and out the other? Street Fighter has been in decline since Street Fighter Alpha and the only game to get it's head above water long enough was Street Fighter 4 because it reused old content and was one three systems. Smash has been growing. So, in order to increase sales, Smash has to do everything other fighting games didn't do.

Really? To me, that shows the developers are too arrogant to try learning from other people if what you say is true. I also mentioned earlier that sales do not equal satisfied customers. We may very well have thousands of people who bought Brawl only to be disappointed in the content.

That's not true. There is no evidence that this is true.

Pong is very simple and it was what started games
Wii Sports is a very simple game, and it is the best selling videogame ever.
Mario Kart Wii was made simpler and it is the best selling Mario Kart game.
Brawl is easier then Melee and guess which one sold better?

Think of it this way. Pong was like an appetizer. People loved Pong, but they were still hungry, then came competitive gaming. However, for some, it was too much of a meal to eat. The next time people come to eat, they want less food on their plate, but the next time they come, they're not full enough. You have to find that balance in the meal that let's you fill up on the meal with desert as an option.

You can relate this to the difficulty of games. Back then, they were rather hard, but now they're easier to the point that it's sickening for some.

 

[Snakeyes]

Canceling is easy as pie... Even flowchart Kens online do it all the time. But I don't feel like it belongs in Smash for a few reasons (at least for now).

1. The existing combo system (in 64/Melee) that is heavily based on linking aerials together with l-canceling is (somewhat) easy to learn, hard to master and has worked really well until now. It also gives high-level Smashing a pretty unique aspect compared to traditional fighters.

2. For now, we've got a bunch of specials that are either used for zoning/lockdown or recovery. Then there's a couple of overpowered specials that could be used as a finisher. The huge majority of specials also put you at a disadvantage even if you land a clean hit, as they have little stun and are pretty **** laggy.

What I'm getting at is that the current movesets would need a huge revamp to make classic canceling (let's call it that) worthwhile for players. The above mentioned combo system does things very well already.


Well it could work only if Nintendo suddenly decides to invest more time and money in order to make the game a bit more complex. This is a much larger expense for them than just adding more hitstun for all moves, greatly reduce lag on all aerials and speed up the gameplay. That's just a couple of lines to add into the game's code.

 

[SmashChu]

I could ask you the very same thing.

Today is a sad day indeed.

It's not the hard to learn. Canceling isn't something that can only be found by seeking the devout followers at SRK or any other competitive forum. In some cases, it's a manner of reading the manual.

Just because it's in the manual doesn't mean it's hard to learn. Baroque in Tatsunoko vs Capcom is easy to do, but it makes the game harder in essence. Players have to be really good at comboing.

You know what the weaker players should do if they're getting creamed? Ask the better players what to do. The thing with fighting games, or any competitive game, is that there is a large social aspect of the game outside of the gameplay. This is how we get better. Isolating yourself isn't going to do you any good, if not much.

As for wavedashing, earlier I mentioned that I was iffy on this. The reason is that I believe that there should be two learning curves to Smash, or any other fighting game as well: The initial learning curve for the controls, and then there's the learning curve of the character people choose to main which will vary per individual and character. Wavedashing can be seen by some to be fairly difficult and it's not part of the second learning curve, but rather the first which shouldn't be too big.

The first learning curve is what is going to get people to stay or not. All your doing is making the entry point harder to get to, meaning less sales.

Really? To me, that shows the developers are too arrogant to try learning from other people if what you say is true. I also mentioned earlier that sales do not equal satisfied customers. We may very well have thousands of people who bought Brawl only to be disappointed in the content.

In one ear, out the other.

So, what your saying is that I, a coach who's team has won many games, including a Super Bowl here and there, should steal strategies from a losing coach because I'm arrogant? Sakurai does not need to learn from other people. He has made a series that has sold over 20million games, and the best selling fighting game of all time. It has sold about 21 in total. Compare this to Tekken, which has sold 28 million between 7 games. No, the Street Fighter guys need to learn from Sakurai. Your logic is backwards.

The fact that Brawl stayed in the Worldwide top fifty for almost a year and usually isn't sold back and STILL has people playing it means people are satisfied.

Think of it this way. Pong was like an appetizer. People loved Pong, but they were still hungry, then came competitive gaming. However, for some, it was too much of a meal to eat. The next time people come to eat, they want less food on their plate, but the next time they come, they're not full enough. You have to find that balance in the meal that let's you fill up on the meal with desert as an option.

WHAT!? Ok, where is that reaction image. No, I think I need two.

The only competitive game is Starcraft in Korea. Stadiums are packed. But, guess what, Starcraft was actually a simple game.

When Starcraft came out, the game was praised for its own merits but when compared to other RTS games at the time (RTS was then at its peak in popularity), Starcraft was panned for being Warcraft in Space, for not being in 3d (as Total Annihilation was), for lacking many of the unit AI and doing little with elevation (as Dark Reign had), and not as complex (as Age of Empires). In the expansion, Blizzard would mock these reviewers such as having one hero say, “This isn’t Warcraft in space! It is much more sophisticated!”

Unlike the other RTS games, Starcraft wasn’t trying to compete against them. The game was following its own tune. A decade later, Starcraft is still played while those other RTS games are not. More amazingly, Starcraft became a huge phenomenon in Korea. Only a blue-ocean title could do that.

One person said to me, “Blizzard does not innovate. They simply take an existing game, extract the good parts from it, take away the bad parts, and turn it into a streamlined product that is easy to play but hard to master,” to which I responded, “Good sir! You have described the Blue Ocean Strategy.”

World of Warcraft follows in its vein

World of Warcraft was designed to ‘fix’ the MMORPG by removing annoying elements and focusing on the more fun elements by being inclusionary with players rather than exclusionary. World of Warcraft aimed at not just the hardcore MMORPG gamer but the casual gamer and anyone else who had disinterest in MMORPG. Quests would give good directions. Rewards were a plenty in the early parts of the game. One could rest at an Inn and get experience bonus so people who didn’t have as much time wouldn’t fall behind so fast. In the end, the game’s success stunned even Blizzard.

Even Starcraft 2 is a blue-ocean title. A Blizzard rep mentioned that they wanted the game to find new markets and audiences as well as keep Starcraft interesting to current players (that whole focus on ‘combating indifference’ thing you hear Iwata mention). While all of Blizzard games are guided by the developers’ passion, passion is the key for any product to transcend competition and create new markets.

Fighting games have lost the easy to play part. Most are designed for the highest level of play. Naturally, most players end up leaving for games they can play. Look at the best multiplayer games, and you'll see that most all of them aren't that hard to play. Your idea is to add an element that would increase the learning curve. Canceling makes it harder for players as now they have to have much greater reflex and keep track of everything on screen (which actually may be a flaw of Smash). They now have to keep track of much more then that.

Canceling has been something that has been added into fighting games, and it has killed them. It is something all fighting games do. Smash doesn't. Guess which one is doing well.

You can relate this to the difficulty of games. Back then, they were rather hard, but now they're easier to the point that it's sickening for some.

Games have been doing it wrong. The games were becoming more and more complex and requiring more time investment to understand the game and get good, but the actual difficulty in a game was decreased. Basically, anyone could wrap their heads around Super Mario Bros. Run and jump. The game was designed that the challange would get more difficult as you played the game and reached later levels. What your doing is making the controlling part harder, not the level part. The player is having a harder time controlling the character. Super Mario Bros is a simple game. Smash is fairly simple for gamers. What you want is to take out the simplicity.

Remember, Multiplayer games thrive on simplicity. These games need to be easier to get into so more people can play them, as the point is to play with other people. Let's look at history.

• Pong was successful and it only had you moving paddles
• Most old platforming games had multiplayer. These games were also easy
• Street Fighter 2 was a fairly easy game. The franchise went into decline with Alpha and EXs
• Mario Kart Wii and DS are the two best selling Mario Kart games as they went back to the SNES's easy way of playing
• Halo is easier compared to other FPSs. It is also slower, making it easier to play
• Rock Band is easier in comparison to Guitar Hero
• Smash Bros has been defined by easy to learn
• Starcraft is a simple RTS and is still being played today. Despite having less depth than other RTSs (and even most games trying to be competitive) it is still played at a competitive level, more so then any other game
• World of Warcraft was successful as it removed a lot of barriers Everquest had
• Tetris is pretty easy to play. No wonder it's a big multiplayer game today
• Wii Sports is very easy to play. It is also the best selling game to date. It has also been played competitively (in bars)

As you can see, the best multiplayer games are simple. Street Fighter needs to be taking pages from Smash is they hope to have Street Fighter 5 be a success like in the glory days.

 

[Big-Cat]

Canceling is easy as pie... Even flowchart Kens online do it all the time. But I don't feel like it belongs in Smash for a few reasons (at least for now).

1. The existing combo system (in 64/Melee) that is heavily based on linking aerials together with l-canceling is (somewhat) easy to learn, hard to master and has worked really well until now. It also gives high-level Smashing a pretty unique aspect compared to traditional fighters.

2. For now, we've got a bunch of specials that are either used for zoning/lockdown or recovery. Then there's a couple of overpowered specials that could be used as a finisher. The huge majority of specials also put you at a disadvantage even if you land a clean hit, as they have little stun and are pretty **** laggy.

What I'm getting at is that the current movesets would need a huge revamp to make classic canceling (let's call it that) worthwhile for players. The above mentioned combo system does things very well already.


Well it could work only if Nintendo suddenly decides to invest more time and money in order to make the game a bit more complex. This is a much larger expense for them than just adding more hitstun for all moves, greatly reduce lag on all aerials and speed up the gameplay. That's just a couple of lines to add into the game's code.

With this discussion, I feel like we're a roundtable of a a game development team, discussing ideas; what can work, what won't, etc.

It's worked well, but I'm not big on L-Canceling for the reasons you mentioned earlier. I would like to see the combos in Smash to have more of the specials and tilts involved. I feel like I don't ever really use the tilts in gameplay and mostly the specials as recovery if it's not a projectile. Other than those additions, nothing needs to be changed much.

 

[Snakeyes]

Whenever I mention "L-canceling" it means that it would be "automatic" for all aerials. The lag on every landed aerial would be minimal enough to continue a combo. The only thing a player has to do is land an aerial at the right time and continue the juggle with something else, just like we all did back in 64/Melee but without having to press "shield" every time he touches the ground (since all aerials have very little lag from the start).

Can you give me an example of a hypothetical combo with classic canceling involved?

 

[Big-Cat]

Just because it's in the manual doesn't mean it's hard to learn. Baroque in Tatsunoko vs Capcom is easy to do, but it makes the game harder in essence. Players have to be really good at comboing.

I can't say for certain how difficult this is since I've yet to play TvC, but from what I've read, this is really more of manner of using your red life and your arsenal of moves wisely.

The first learning curve is what is going to get people to stay or not. All your doing is making the entry point harder to get to, meaning less sales.

Let me ask you this: How much harder are we talking about. Would it be like adding parrying in?

In one ear, out the other.

So, what your saying is that I, a coach who's team has won many games, including a Super Bowl here and there, should steal strategies from a losing coach because I'm arrogant? Sakurai does not need to learn from other people. He has made a series that has sold over 20million games, and the best selling fighting game of all time. It has sold about 21 in total. Compare this to Tekken, which has sold 28 million between 7 games. No, the Street Fighter guys need to learn from Sakurai. Your logic is backwards.

The fact that Brawl stayed in the Worldwide top fifty for almost a year and usually isn't sold back and STILL has people playing it means people are satisfied.

I wouldn't call that a good analogy. Smash garnered a lot of sales, but can we say for certain that it will continue to have a lot sales? May I also remind you that Smash has star power, nothing that the other fighters have save Marvel vs. Capcom. A good game can sell as much as a crappy game after all. Look at all those licensed games.

WHAT!? Ok, where is that reaction image. No, I think I need two.

The only competitive game is Starcraft in Korea. Stadiums are packed. But, guess what, Starcraft was actually a simple game.

*Blizzard Stuff*

Fighting games have lost the easy to play part. Most are designed for the highest level of play. Naturally, most players end up leaving for games they can play. Look at the best multiplayer games, and you'll see that most all of them aren't that hard to play. Your idea is to add an element that would increase the learning curve. Canceling makes it harder for players as now they have to have much greater reflex and keep track of everything on screen (which actually may be a flaw of Smash). They now have to keep track of much more then that.

Canceling has been something that has been added into fighting games, and it has killed them. It is something all fighting games do. Smash doesn't. Guess which one is doing well.

Since you seem to be in the mood for reaction images, I'll post one.

Have you considered that maybe, just maybe Starcraft found the balance I've mentioned several times. Blizzard may have found a way to keep both sides happy.

@ Snakeyes
Okay, I feel better about what you were saying. Otherwise, it'd seemed contradictory to what you were saying before. As for an example of classic canceling:

For Lucas, we'd have FTiltAxxPK Fire

 

[ToiseOfChoice]

The thing a lot of you guys have to understand is that when Chu's talking about "weak players," he's talking about people like this:

You know who these are, the people who don't play games as much as we do. The people who Nintendo has been focusing on. Turns out we need their support because there's not enough existing fans to sustain the entire medium as it is. We NEED them (if you disagree on this, you've got a lot of reading to do on the state of video games today).

These people do not have the patience that we do when it comes to learning complex games. If a game is too hard for them or too demanding, they stop playing and do something else. They don't put up with it, they've got better things to do. Accessibility is key here and the stuff you guys are talking about would diminish that.


Last thing I'll mention is that Sakurai (like most of the top brass at Nintendo) already understands the stuff that Chu and I are talking about, he and Iwata talk a good deal about it in the Smash Bros. Iwata Asks dealie:

Iwata: ...in fact, development of the original Smash Bros. began with the idea of making a game that people unfamiliar to gaming could come to enjoy it just as much as everyone else within the first ten minutes of play.
Sakurai: Right. That is the main concept behind the Smash Bros. series, and the feature is more well-defined in Smash Bros. Brawl.

Lucky for all those people that none of the stuff discussed here affects the final product.


edit: thank god for blocking images, you guys need to quit it with the ******** reaction shots

 

[Snakeyes]

Who gives a crap about what casual gamers think? They'll buy next Smash regardless of it being deep or not, just like they'll buy the next WiiSports, Guitar Hero or shovelware trash like Carnival Games. Why not have a hidden layer of depth just like 64/Melee so both sides can be satisfied?

And again, this can be achieved by adding a few lines into the game's code (as I mentioned earlier) and a better online system. Nintendo, the WFC in its present state sucks ***. Might as well seize the opportunity to step your game up. Here are four easy steps to make SSB4 fun for both communities:

1. Take Melee's engine as a base and tweak the speed a bit so the casuals are not overwhelmed (even though they seem to have no problem at all with Guitar Hero's faster solos).

2. Greatly reduce lag on all aerials so L-canceling is no longer necessary. That way a casual can potentially combo as well as a pro just by learning to time his attacks well enough, and doesn't have to waste time on an advanced technique.

3. Wavedashing is not horribly game breaking unless you're Fox or Falco. It's mainly used for movement, spacing and mindgames. Why not add an official movement technique with an easy input that has the same benefits?

4. Finally, an online filtering system. Set your match preference to "Casual" if you can't bear getting crushed by a serious player and you're good. As time passes, some casuals may want a more rewarding Smash experience and start exploring the "Pro" servers. I feel that the competitive Smash community is very welcoming to newbies that are trying to get better at the game. There could even be a few tutorials in the game to ease that transition. Don't like what you see? Go back to the "Casual" zone. You'll have no problem finding players that share your preference since a big majority of people that buy Smash games are casuals anyway.

 

[Starphoenix]

This is true, if the Smash game was any more "complex" than it already is I doubt many people would in fact play it. I have seen friends and family struggle just to figure out how to jump and attack at the same time. Knowing Sakurai he would not want to add any unnecessary hindrances (which means drastically changing the current mechanics) to the game that would repel new gamers (though I would like to see Sakurai take a few existing systems and utilize them differently). Not to belittle new gamers and say they are absolutely incapable of overcoming a learning curve, but how big is that learning curve? This is the issue.

I know I jumped into the middle of the discussion. Just my two cents for whatever it is worth...

 

[Arcadenik]

The thing a lot of you guys have to understand is that when Chu's talking about "weak players," he's talking about people like this:

You know who these are, the people who don't play games as much as we do. The people who Nintendo has been focusing on. Turns out we need their support because there's not enough existing fans to sustain the entire medium as it is. We NEED them (if you disagree on this, you've got a lot of reading to do on the state of video games today).

These people do not have the patience that we do when it comes to learning complex games. If a game is too hard for them or too demanding, they stop playing and do something else. They don't put up with it, they've got better things to do. Accessibility is key here and the stuff you guys are talking about would diminish that.


Last thing I'll mention is that Sakurai (like most of the top brass at Nintendo) already understands the stuff that Chu and I are talking about, he and Iwata talk a good deal about it in the Smash Bros. Iwata Asks dealie:

Iwata: ...in fact, development of the original Smash Bros. began with the idea of making a game that people unfamiliar to gaming could come to enjoy it just as much as everyone else within the first ten minutes of play.
Sakurai: Right. That is the main concept behind the Smash Bros. series, and the feature is more well-defined in Smash Bros. Brawl.

Lucky for all those people that none of the stuff discussed here affects the final product.


edit: thank god for blocking images, you guys need to quit it with the ******** reaction shots

A casual gamer sounds like someone who actually has a life outside video games but likes to play video games occasionally. A competitve gamer sounds like someone who doesn't have a life outside video games so he or she becomes too preoccupied with video games to the point they turn video games into serious business. LOL

 

[Big-Cat]

This is true, if the Smash game was any more "complex" than it already is I doubt many people would in fact play it. I have seen friends and family struggle just to figure out how to jump and attack at the same time. Knowing Sakurai he would not want to add any unnecessary hindrances (which means drastically changing the current mechanics) to the game that would repel new gamers (though I would like to see Sakurai take a few existing systems and utilize them differently). Not to belittle new gamers and say they are absolutely incapable of overcoming a learning curve, but how big is that learning curve? This is the issue.

I know I jumped into the middle of the discussion. Just my two cents for whatever it is worth...

I think there are a couple of reasons to this.

1. They simply don't know what they're getting into to.
2. If they are aware it's a fighting game, they may just button mash like they do for other fighting games.
3. A game like Smash may not be for someone who has little experience in gaming. You would want to break them in with something simpler like Tetris.

@Arcedeniik
You could not be anymore wrong. A casual gamer typically will not have gaming as a hobby, but competitive gamers do. It's just a matter of what people's hobbies are.

 

[Starphoenix]

I think there are a couple of reasons to this.

1. They simply don't know what they're getting into to.
2. If they are aware it's a fighting game, they may just button mash like they do for other fighting games.
3. A game like Smash may not be for someone who has little experience in gaming. You would want to break them in with something simpler like Tetris.

I'd say it is more along the lines of 3. Mario Kart Wii is easier for one of my afforementioned relatives due to it being more "friendlier". Granted he can play Brawl, usually it requires him being Kirby due to his multiple jumps.

 

[Snakeyes]

Arcedenik is doing it wrong!!!

 

[SmashChu]

I can't say for certain how difficult this is since I've yet to play TvC, but from what I've read, this is really more of manner of using your red life and your arsenal of moves wisely.

It requires you to be able to link combos together, meaning you have to be good at quarantining your attacks. I just see it as one thing that doesn't need to be there.

Let me ask you this: How much harder are we talking about. Would it be like adding parrying in?

That doesn't matter. It should be how far you can push it. It should always be "How does this make it easier for more people to get 'in to.'" Mario Kart Wii is successful for making the game easier, not harder. Your using backwards logic.

I wouldn't call that a good analogy. Smash garnered a lot of sales, but can we say for certain that it will continue to have a lot sales? May I also remind you that Smash has star power, nothing that the other fighters have save Marvel vs. Capcom. A good game can sell as much as a crappy game after all. Look at all those licensed games.

We do know why Smash sold because we can also look at other examples. The trend in other multiplayer games is to be easier and more accessible. This is why the remain successful. Hard games tend to be niche titles.

Also, as others have mentioned, Smash would not be as big as itn is today if it sold on "star power." People would have just as easily ignored the series if the first game had too many barriers or wasn't a good quality game (or wasn't fun).

Have you considered that maybe, just maybe Starcraft found the balance I've mentioned several times. Blizzard may have found a way to keep both sides happy.

Blizzard's goal has always been to go the easy route, not find a balance. The balance is created because so many people had fun and multiplayer games are normally about competition. WoW is an easy MMO. Starcraft is an easy RTS. Smash is an easy fighting game.

Also, I like what Toise said, but weak players don't have to be those people. They could be more dedicated gamers who aren't good at Smash or are unfamiliar with it. Making the game harder will only give them a reason to play other games.

 

[Arcadenik]

Why do you guys want to turn Super Smash Bros. into Street Fighter? I don't play Street Fighter anymore because the controls are too complicated nowadays. I never played Marvel vs. Capcom because the controls are too complicated so why would I bother with it if I am just going to struggle for a long time learning how to do these fancy moves?

In Street Fighter, you have to press down, then diagonal forward-down, then forward and press the punch button just to make Ryu shoot a fireball. In Super Smash Bros, you simply press the special button to make Mario shoot a fireball. Also, not all the fighters in Street Fighter have the same control sequences for their specials... meaning I, a casual gamer, would have to memorize all the different control sequences if I want to be able to play well with any character. I don't have time for that as I do have a life outside video games so I play Super Smash Bros. where the control sequences are the same for all the fighters that I can just pick up and play well with any character. With such simple controls, I can quickly learn how to do these fancy moves.

 

[Snakeyes]

Just in case my edit was lost in the fray... What do you think about these changes Chu? Do you think it would make SSB4 too hard for casuals?

Here are four easy steps to make SSB4 fun for both communities:

1. Take Melee's engine as a base and tweak the speed a bit so the casuals are not overwhelmed (even though they seem to have no problem at all with Guitar Hero's faster solos).

2. Greatly reduce lag on all aerials so L-canceling is no longer necessary. That way a casual can potentially combo as well as a pro just by learning to time his attacks well enough, and doesn't have to waste time on an advanced technique.

3. Wavedashing is not horribly game breaking unless you're Fox or Falco. It's mainly used for movement, spacing and mindgames. Why not add an official movement technique with an easy input that has the same benefits?

4. Finally, an online filtering system. Set your match preference to "Casual" if you can't bear getting crushed by a serious player and you're good. As time passes, some casuals may want a more rewarding Smash experience and start exploring the "Pro" servers. I feel that the competitive Smash community is very welcoming to newbies that are trying to get better at the game. There could even be a few tutorials in the game to ease that transition. Don't like what you see? Go back to the "Casual" zone. You'll have no problem finding players that share your preference since a big majority of people that buy Smash games are casuals anyway.

 

[Thrillhouse-vh.]

Why do you guys want to turn Super Smash Bros. into Street Fighter? I don't play Street Fighter anymore because the controls are too complicated nowadays. I never played Marvel vs. Capcom because the controls are too complicated so why would I bother with it if I am just going to struggle for a long time learning how to do these fancy moves?

Just like to say that Capcom went out of their way to make Marvel vs Capcom 2 an easier game to pick up from the earlier MvC and SF games

In Street Fighter, you have to press down, then diagonal forward-down, then forward and press the punch button just to make Ryu shoot a fireball. In Super Smash Bros, you simply press the special button to make Mario shoot a fireball. Also, not all the fighters in Street Fighter have the same control sequences for their specials... meaning I, a casual gamer, would have to memorize all the different control sequences if I want to be able to play well with any character. I don't have time for that as I do have a life outside video games so I play Super Smash Bros. where the control sequences are the same for all the fighters that I can just pick up and play well with any character. With such simple controls, I can quickly learn how to do these fancy moves.

Look on the bright side, it's not an SNK game. I still can't do Geese's Deadly Rave.

 

[Starphoenix]

If anything Capcom is simplifying the controls in their fighting games, case and point Tatsunoko Vs. Capcom. From what I hear the controls are much easier than say Street Fighter IV.

 

[ScoobyCafe]

@Chu:

Just because it's in the manual doesn't mean it's hard to learn. Baroque in Tatsunoko vs Capcom is easy to do, but it makes the game harder in essence. Players have to be really good at comboing.

Canceling isn't as mind-numbingly difficult as you're making it sound. I've played many people in SFIV, some barely in their teens, and practically all are able to cancel consistently; note that these as merely casual players and not competitive level players.

And comboing also doesn't require any significant amount of skill.

The first learning curve is what is going to get people to stay or not. All your doing is making the entry point harder to get to, meaning less sales.

There's a learning curve for many games, including many Mario games. That said, if the learning curves are relatively simple, then there won't be any problems.

No, the Street Fighter guys need to learn from Sakurai. Your logic is backwards.

Sales aside, you do know that Street Fighter is often considered to be the definitive fighting game by many, right? That is, not just by competitive players, which I'm sure you're itching to spout out. Smash is considered to be a fighting game, so if anything, Sakurai ought to take some notes from the Street Fighter guys.

But yeah, Smash sold well, but I hope you're not naive enough to believe that it's solely because it's easier to learn than Street Fighter. Ask anybody, even those who don't play fighting games, what is so fascinating about Smash Bros., and they'll unequivocally say the single most appealing thing about Smash Bros is the Nintendo fan service; it's practically the king of fan service.

The fact that Brawl stayed in the Worldwide top fifty for almost a year and usually isn't sold back and STILL has people playing it means people are satisfied.

Yes, but you're ignoring the fact that many also stopped playing Brawl because they weren't satisfied. I just want you to acknowledge that.

Fighting games have lost the easy to play part. Most are designed for the highest level of play. Naturally, most players end up leaving for games they can play. Look at the best multiplayer games, and you'll see that most all of them aren't that hard to play. Your idea is to add an element that would increase the learning curve. Canceling makes it harder for players as now they have to have much greater reflex and keep track of everything on screen (which actually may be a flaw of Smash). They now have to keep track of much more then that.

Seriously, how difficult do you think canceling is? You're making it seem as if the "weak" gamers are incapable of understanding something so simple.

Canceling has been something that has been added into fighting games, and it has killed them. It is something all fighting games do. Smash doesn't. Guess which one is doing well.

Bold: You honestly have no clue what you're talking about there.

And yes, Smash had canceling before--lag canceling, deliberately in both SSB64 and Melee. They didn't drop dead when people discovered you could cancel the lag on some moves. So yeah, that's pretty much false.

These people do not have the patience that we do when it comes to learning complex games. If a game is too hard for them or too demanding, they stop playing and do something else. They don't put up with it, they've got better things to do. Accessibility is key here and the stuff you guys are talking about would diminish that.

You can make the game accessible to players of any skill and also offer a good amount of depth to the game for those who wish to become better. It's not like you can't have both. For example, look at Tetris.

Why do you guys want to turn Super Smash Bros. into Street Fighter?

I don't want that, nor am I suggesting that. What I'm looking for is a game which cultures familiarity and constructs a habitual experience. By finding receptors for familiar mechanics and tuning them slightly differently, so as to make those receptors resonate in a new way, and then coupling those new resonances with meaningful ideas, practices, or experiences.

I want to see Smash continue it's unconventional approach to fighting games, be it in the form of a smash meter, super smashes, etc. That's what Smash Bros. is, the unorthodox fighter, and I'd hate to see it remain in one place due to others' conservatism.

EDIT:

@Starphoenix: Very much so. Quite the accessible game.

 

[ToiseOfChoice]

Sales aside, you do know that Street Fighter is often considered to be the definitive fighting game by many, right? That is, not just by competitive players, which I'm sure you're itching to spout out. Smash is considered to be a fighting game, so if anything, Sakurai ought to take some notes from the Street Fighter guys.

You mean just Street Fighter II, right? Because no cares about 1 or 3, and 4 will be forgotten eventually. Considering the amount of young people who missed SF2 and the entire SNES era, even that's starting to fade.

Anyway, Smash has already displaced Street Fighter as the standard for fighting games (except in the tournament scene, but that's a very niche community). Why would Sakurai want to emulate the old, less successful ways of Street Fighter?

But yeah, Smash sold well, but I hope you're not naive enough to believe that it's solely because it's easier to learn than Street Fighter. Ask anybody, even those who don't play fighting games, what is so fascinating about Smash Bros., and they'll unequivocally say the single most appealing thing about Smash Bros is the Nintendo fan service; it's practically the king of fan service.

The Nintendo stuff is the hook, this is known. The gameplay is what keeps people coming back.

Look at all the other mascot fighters out there, a lot of them are just as rich in popular characters/series and full of fanservice. Are they as successful? Of course not, they all have weaker gameplay.

Alternatively, compare Mario Kart to any other Mario spinoff. Same exact cast, right? Then why does Mario Kart outsell all the rest a dozen times over? Oh yeah, gameplay. Turns out games need something both accessible and satisfying to sell well. Big names aren't enough.

Yes, but you're ignoring the fact that many also stopped playing Brawl because they weren't satisfied. I just want you to acknowledge that.

And many, many, MANY more keep on playing. The people who stop are usually either competitive Melee nuts (the previously mentioned niche community) or people who weren't that into the series to begin with.

Seriously, how difficult do you think canceling is? You're making it seem as if the "weak" gamers are incapable of understanding something so simple.

The average fan never used L-canceling (or crouch canceling, or jab canceling, or any of that). They understand it fine, they just don't have the dedication to practice it. This is true of pretty much any technique that requires building habitual reflexes (wavedashing, button combinations in other fighters, and my personal favorite, the momentum turbo slide).

You can make the game accessible to players of any skill and also offer a good amount of depth to the game for those who wish to become better. It's not like you can't have both. For example, look at Tetris.

Brawl has this already, that's why it has the most playtime out of any Wii game worldwide. Whether it has the level of complexity you personally desire or not is your own problem.

I don't want that, nor am I suggesting that. What I'm looking for is a game which cultures familiarity and constructs a habitual experience. By finding receptors for familiar mechanics and tuning them slightly differently, so as to make those receptors resonate in a new way, and then coupling those new resonances with meaningful ideas, practices, or experiences.

I want to see Smash continue it's unconventional approach to fighting games, be it in the form of a smash meter, super smashes, etc. That's what Smash Bros. is, the unorthodox fighter, and I'd hate to see it remain in one place due to others' conservatism.

The first paragraph is some funny gibberish.

The second one sounds like you want Smash to echo the old ways of the established genre rather than go off in whatever direction is more appealing to most people. It doesn't need to "approach" conventional fighting games, it needs to get the hell away because people have decided they're not as fun.

Sakurai knows this already. Hey look at that, the given genre listed on the DOJO is "Action." Doh ho ho.

 

[ShinoandtheBallonFighter]

My biggest issue with this entire debate is the fact that tou seem adamant that because something exists in a game, it has to be used. If this new topic is introduced, why can't the casuals just not use it. Most of the pople, as was stated earlier by Star Phenoix (I think) Get the game and are really bad. If they went online (even without any ot the more competetive features,) would still get destroyed. There are very few who get to the point where they are goof at Brawl, but would be bad as learning more advanced things. I think you guys are giving casuals too much credit.

 

[ToiseOfChoice]

It's the fact that certain techniques exaggerate the differences in skill. It's one thing if you just picked up the game and you don't know how to use your Up B. It's another if you play regularly but you're completely outmatched because your opponent flies around the screen doing stuff you didn't know was physically possible. Usually ends up killing a lot of people's interest in the game.


Think of it like... say you're at a bowling alley, or playing basketball with your friends, or whatever your favorite sport is. You and your friends play it now and then, just something to pass the time. Everything's good.

Then a bunch of guys come out of nowhere, pick up your ball, and start destroying you. It's not even close, these guys completely dominate all of your friends. Apparently they're Regional Champions or something, they play like 6 hours a day. They start the trash-talk and point out all the mistakes you make, then start talking about all this technical crap you've never heard of. You think "whatever, I saw Mighty Ducks, I can beat these jerks if I focus." Then you spend the next half hour getting a beatdown.

Chances are your friends will be like "man, **** this game, they ruined it for me." You'll probably play again eventually, but maybe not for a while. If those guys keep showing up, you might lose interest completely. Not really all that fun when you have no chance.

Here's another example, this time about Pokemon (check the 2nd and 4th posts on this page).


With online play and the overall popularity of Smash, it's harder to simply ignore advanced players than it was back when Melee came out. Rather than ineffectually trying to segregate everyone, all Sakurai has to do is reduce the amount of crazy advantages the more dedicated players have. That just means you have to beat people by outwitting them rather than spending hours practicing dash-winkling and whatever-canceling. Is that really a problem?

 

[Big-Cat]

You mean just Street Fighter II, right? Because no cares about 1 or 3, and 4 will be forgotten eventually. Considering the amount of young people who missed SF2 and the entire SNES era, even that's starting to fade.

Anyway, Smash has already displaced Street Fighter as the standard for fighting games (except in the tournament scene, but that's a very niche community). Why would Sakurai want to emulate the old, less successful ways of Street Fighter?

Aren't we being a little presumptuous? Street Fighter IV is credited to bringing the genre back into the spotlight. Unless people think of SSB whenever they think of a fighting game instead of Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, or Tekken, I wouldn't make such extreme statements.

The Nintendo stuff is the hook, this is known. The gameplay is what keeps people coming back.

Look at all the other mascot fighters out there, a lot of them are just as rich in popular characters/series and full of fanservice. Are they as successful? Of course not, they all have weaker gameplay.

Alternatively, compare Mario Kart to any other Mario spinoff. Same exact cast, right? Then why does Mario Kart outsell all the rest a dozen times over? Oh yeah, gameplay. Turns out games need something both accessible and satisfying to sell well. Big names aren't enough.

Are we talking sucessful as in more sales? At least Smash has characters from several different fanbases. you could like Metroid but not Zelda and still buy Smash. Other games like Dissidia and the Naruto games require you to be a fan of the series.

As for Mario Kart, I really can't say much here other than that chances are the other spinoffs minus the RPGs are just accessible.

And many, many, MANY more keep on playing. The people who stop are usually either competitive Melee nuts (the previously mentioned niche community) or people who weren't that into the series to begin with.

Again with the extreme statements. I stopped playing Brawl simply because I got bored with it.

The average fan never used L-canceling (or crouch canceling, or jab canceling, or any of that). They understand it fine, they just don't have the dedication to practice it. This is true of pretty much any technique that requires building habitual reflexes (wavedashing, button combinations in other fighters, and my personal favorite, the momentum turbo slide).

Probably because they have never heard of it. I only heard about wavedashing and L-Canceling about four years ago. I never heard of Ukemi until Brawl came out.

The first paragraph is some funny gibberish.

The second one sounds like you want Smash to echo the old ways of the established genre rather than go off in whatever direction is more appealing to most people. It doesn't need to "approach" conventional fighting games, it needs to get the hell away because people have decided they're not as fun.

Sakurai knows this already. Hey look at that, the given genre listed on the DOJO is "Action." Doh ho ho.

The first paragraph made sense to me. He's saying that Smash should evolve in its gameplay with new ideas and evolve with the stuff that has worked and refining it unless you still consider a good evolution of the series to be extending the multiplayer to 6-8 players.

I thought people turned away from fighting games because they seemed so intimidating to new players.

As for Brawl's genre, check out every other gaming website, including Nintendo: They consider it to be a fighting game.

 

[ToiseOfChoice]

Aren't we being a little presumptuous? Street Fighter IV is credited to bringing the genre back into the spotlight. Unless people think of SSB whenever they think of a fighting game instead of Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, or Tekken, I wouldn't make such extreme statements.

SF4 hasn't done anything special so far. If it brought the genre back to the spotlight, it didn't hold it there very long.

And yes, people think of SSB when they think of fighting games because it's currently more popular than all three of those series. That's how popularity works.

Are we talking sucessful as in more sales? At least Smash has characters from several different fanbases. you could like Metroid but not Zelda and still buy Smash. Other games like Dissidia and the Naruto games require you to be a fan of the series.

As for Mario Kart, I really can't say much here other than that chances are the other spinoffs minus the RPGs are just accessible.

Marvel? DC? Capcom? Konami? Shonen Jump? Those don't count all of a sudden?

Face it, mediocre gameplay can override big names. You're kidding yourself if you think people are stupid enough to put up with crappy games because of a few familiar faces.

Again with the extreme statements. I stopped playing Brawl simply because I got bored with it.

If it's extreme, it's an extreme truth. The majority of fans stop playing Brawl for those two reasons. Your story doesn't affect anyone else's situation.

Probably because they have never heard of it. I only heard about wavedashing and L-Canceling about four years ago. I never heard of Ukemi until Brawl came out.

I actually had a friend discover L-canceling pretty early on in Smash 64. He was like "yeah, you know how sometimes you do Link's stabby move, you can get the little yellow circle and he doesn't stick his sword in the ground? I figured out you press R right before you land." We never ended up learning how to do it.

There's my crappy anecdote. Anyway, the fact is most people don't want to spend a few hours getting in the habit of stuff like that. Only those that have a very strong desire to win.

The first paragraph made sense to me. He's saying that Smash should evolve in its gameplay with new ideas and evolve with the stuff that has worked and refining it unless you still consider a good evolution of the series to be extending the multiplayer to 6-8 players.

I thought people turned away from fighting games because they seemed so intimidating to new players.

As for Brawl's genre, check out every other gaming website, including Nintendo: They consider it to be a fighting game.

So making it more like Street Fighter is evolving, but expanding on its defining trait is not? What a world.

And I know Smash is a fighter. I'm saying Sakurai is wise to distance himself from the SF2 model that the entire genre had built itself off of. The fact that he says it's an action game on the DOJO is a testament to this. In his own words:

Sakurai: Well, I wanted to offer an alternative to the two-dimensional fighting games that were crowding out the market. I also wanted to see if it was possible to make an interesting 4-player game that offered a new experience every time you play. Simply put, I was aiming to design a 4-player battle royal.

 

[Big-Cat]

SF4 hasn't done anything special so far. If it brought the genre back to the spotlight, it didn't hold it there very long.

And yes, people think of SSB when they think of fighting games because it's currently more popular than all three of those series. That's how popularity works.

You're telling me that it didn't bring it back into the spotlight? How were you able to determine this?

As for SSB, again, I want proof.

Marvel? DC? Capcom? Konami? Shonen Jump? Those don't count all of a sudden?

Face it, mediocre gameplay can override big names. You're kidding yourself if you think people are stupid enough to put up with crappy games because of a few familiar faces.

I had just woken up so those didn't cross my mind at the time. Gameplay does play a part, but at the same time, you're under estimating star power.

If it's extreme, it's an extreme truth. The majority of fans stop playing Brawl for those two reasons. Your story doesn't affect anyone else's situation.

Wait, so you're saying that the majority of fans have STOPPED playing Brawl? What?

I actually had a friend discover L-canceling pretty early on in Smash 64. He was like "yeah, you know how sometimes you do Link's stabby move, you can get the little yellow circle and he doesn't stick his sword in the ground? I figured out you press R right before you land." We never ended up learning how to do it.

There's my crappy anecdote. Anyway, the fact is most people don't want to spend a few hours getting in the habit of stuff like that. Only those that have a very strong desire to win.

That's what separate those who want to be good, and those who don't care. You have to have that drive that makes you want to get better. Of course, that's not to say you can't have fun while playing to win, and I do both all the time.

So making it more like Street Fighter is evolving, but expanding on its defining trait is not? What a world.

I told you this before, I can't see how increasing the number of players is going to make people want to play the game. Four is enough as it is. I can't see many other games wanting to expand the amount of offline players up to more than 4 so I wouldn't expect it to appear on any future console.

And I know Smash is a fighter. I'm saying Sakurai is wise to distance himself from the SF2 model that the entire genre had built itself off of. The fact that he says it's an action game on the DOJO is a testament to this. In his own words:

Sakurai: Well, I wanted to offer an alternative to the two-dimensional fighting games that were crowding out the market. I also wanted to see if it was possible to make an interesting 4-player game that offered a new experience every time you play. Simply put, I was aiming to design a 4-player battle royal.

Remember that this was pertaining to the 90's which was indeed full of fighting games, most of which had ridiculous (please don't tell me QCF+P is too much) inputs and had numerous updates with a high learning curve. Nowadays, that learning curve has been lessened and there are fewer updates.

Another thing to be noted is that 2D fighters were simply one on one, but Smash gives you the option to go up to 4.

I end my post with this: How far do you deviate from the traditional model before it's not even a fighting game?

 

[ToiseOfChoice]

You're telling me that it didn't bring it back into the spotlight? How were you able to determine this?

As for SSB, again, I want proof.

First, look at sales. SF4 managed to pull in about 2.66 million on 360 and PS3 so far. Brawl has 8.67 million.

Second, look around. And I mean really look around, don't just look at SF forums and Wikipedia. Don't even limit yourself to the internet or gaming stuff, ask real people. See how much people care for SF4, and by proxy, the classic fighting genre. While you're at it, ask them about Smash Bros.

I can't do this part for you.

I had just woken up so those didn't cross my mind at the time. Gameplay does play a part, but at the same time, you're under estimating star power.

No, I'm not. Star power is the greatest hook in the universe. Sakurai knew this which is why he went through all the trouble to use Nintendo characters to begin with.

Bad gameplay diminishes that. I'd be playing Castlevania Judgment if it weren't the case. All licensed games would sell as well as GoldenEye did. Things would be VERY different if the hook was the only thing that mattered to people.

Wait, so you're saying that the majority of fans have STOPPED playing Brawl? What?

I think this is good reason for me to stop the quote train after this post. Looks like you need more time to wake up.

The majority of the fans who stopped playing Brawl did so because they loved Melee's physics more (which is almost always because they're a competitive player) or because they weren't really Smash fans to begin with. Trust me, people are still playing Brawl.

That's what separate those who want to be good, and those who don't care. You have to have that drive that makes you want to get better. Of course, that's not to say you can't have fun while playing to win, and I do both all the time.

I'm not saying competitive players aren't having fun, I'm saying an overly competitive attitude kills the fun for the people around them who AREN'T competitive.

I hate linking to TV Tropes, but I know you actually read links so I can get away with it right now. See also the Pokemon example from a previous post.

I told you this before, I can't see how increasing the number of players is going to make people want to play the game. Four is enough as it is. I can't see many other games wanting to expand the amount of offline players up to more than 4 so I wouldn't expect it to appear on any future console.

That's fine, you don't have to see it. I'd have to change your entire perspective before you'd begin to understand why this is a good idea. I doubt you have time for that, I know I don't.

Remember that this was pertaining to the 90's which was indeed full of fighting games, most of which had ridiculous (please don't tell me QCF+P is too much) inputs and had numerous updates with a high learning curve. Nowadays, that learning curve has been lessened and there are fewer updates.

Another thing to be noted is that 2D fighters were simply one on one, but Smash gives you the option to go up to 4.

Great, thanks for the history lesson. Now tell me again why Smash should be like these games?

I'm skipping your last question until later since I want you to elaborate on it, preferably when awake.

 

[ShinoandtheBallonFighter]

Again, not so good at huge posts, but I'll throw my pebbles at your massive sheild

Your saying competetive people ruin the game for casuals, but why are we to assume everyone who plays smash bros competetively is going to be a massive douche. Because of two pokemon examples, the entire community of older pokemon players are complete A-holes?

Yes, there can be annoying tools who play a game, they exist in Brawl already, adding a new feature will nto remove these guys from existence.

And for the chart of most played games, how exactly is that information attained?

 

[Big-Cat]

First, look at sales. SF4 managed to pull in about 2.66 million on 360 and PS3 so far. Brawl has 8.67 million.

Sales don't indicate whether or not a game is still being played or not. All it means is that people are buying it.

Second, look around. And I mean really look around, don't just look at SF forums and Wikipedia. Don't even limit yourself to the internet or gaming stuff, ask real people. See how much people care for SF4, and by proxy, the classic fighting genre. While you're at it, ask them about Smash Bros.

I can't do this part for you.

You could ask how much people care for videogames that aren't filled with realistic graphics and FPS games at the same time.

To be honest, I don't think we'd get much of answer out of this in either of our favors.

No, I'm not. Star power is the greatest hook in the universe. Sakurai knew this which is why he went through all the trouble to use Nintendo characters to begin with.

Bad gameplay diminishes that. I'd be playing Castlevania Judgment if it weren't the case. All licensed games would sell as well as GoldenEye did. Things would be VERY different if the hook was the only thing that mattered to people.

For most buyers, it probably is. Think of how many parents will buy X Licensed Game because it has a familiar character on it.

I think this is good reason for me to stop the quote train after this post. Looks like you need more time to wake up.

The majority of the fans who stopped playing Brawl did so because they loved Melee's physics more (which is almost always because they're a competitive player) or because they weren't really Smash fans to begin with. Trust me, people are still playing Brawl.

Or maybe, people stopped playing Brawl because they didn't like the game. It could be as simple as that.

I'm not saying competitive players aren't having fun, I'm saying an overly competitive attitude kills the fun for the people around them who AREN'T competitive.

I hate linking to TV Tropes, but I know you actually read links so I can get away with it right now. See also the Pokemon example from a previous post.

Being That One Guy is really something that good players shouldn't strive to be. It's a manner of being disciplined enough to hold back on your opponent if you know they can't counter it. Making a game competitive has nothing to do with it.

That's fine, you don't have to see it. I'd have to change your entire perspective before you'd begin to understand why this is a good idea. I doubt you have time for that, I know I don't.

Sorry, Shino you may have to wait to post your flame bait post. Toise, considering that this isn't a chatroom, go ahead and try to convince me that it's a good idea. I can easily find some time to respond your posts.

Great, thanks for the history lesson. Now tell me again why Smash should be like these games?

I'm skipping your last question until later since I want you to elaborate on it, preferably when awake.

You're missing the point. Smash got rid of the execution learning curve which I'm glad was gone, at least for Smash. I'm not saying or suggesting that Smash should be like other fighting games. If I was, I'd be asking for 2 players only, motion inputs, and a life meter.

I'm merely saying that stuff like classic canceling, EX specials, and a super meter (Smashified) would be nice additions that would be derived from traditional fighters that's NOT too hard to learn. It'd also be nice if we got updates for the games at least once or twice considering that we only get one Smash per generation.