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

[Kenshinhan]

None of which are fighting games. Isn't that funny? That's the point I was making. Wii Sports and Wii Resort Sports have boxing at best, and that's simply punching/blocking/dodging as far as mechanics go. If Brawl only had that, it surely would've been worse. The mechanics of motion would have to be ported over, as well as first-person-point of view, and no powers, so at that point, do you still have a Fighter or a weak attempt at a Fight Sim?

Edit: The only way you can simplify Brawl would be to regress to a complexity of the original Smash Brothers, with better graphics.

But really, that's not necessary. With the mechanics of how to perform Tilt, Charge, Rapid Tap, Single Tap, and the variant of ground/aerial placement, moves that fit those categories would actually look and feel like how they would be performed when translated to a Wii Remote or Gamecube Controller. People who argue against more B moves because of physical limitations of the human response, are really making it far more complex than it actually is when you take that into account. Any newbie that see that a move is weaker if you tilt the stick rather than slam in a direction, will just naturally remember that, because it makes sense. Any newbie, that sees a move that demonstrates rapid movement, attack, or tap-charging (like Sonic's spin-dash) will naturally rapid tap. I mean, do you see where I'm going with how 1+2 = 3 because of the appearance and mechanics of a move translated to varying B execution?

Hell, as a newbie to the first Super Smash Bros, I remember rapidly tapping B in Samus' up B just because I thought I had to when she did all those hits in it. It took me a while to get over that habit of not rapidly tapping B since it did nothing.

 

[Big-Cat]

There's nothing inherently bad with selling shy of a million units. Sure, you want to aim higher, but sometimes that's all you can get, kind of like maximum profit equations you might've seen in high school. Heck, Capcom was just expecting around a million copies of Super for combined total sales. One can argue that there are simply misconceptions of the genre that are preventing people from wanting to play it.

To be honest, I don't see much purpose in bringing up sales unless its over an extended period of time, so as to include the time when trends decline.

And I like how you compare the sales of Melee and Brawl when there is one key factor you're ignoring: Console Sales.

Melee was popular enough for 1 out of 3 GC owners had it. Now, there's the question of how many people bought the GC-Melee bundle, but I don't know where I can find data on that.

Brawl, on the other hand, is only popular enough to be own by 1/7 of the 70+ million Wii user base.

Depending on what you're looking for, Melee was more successful by being with a higher percentage of owners, but Brawl sold more with a smaller percentage of owners.

 

[Shorts]

There's a certain level of absurdity in suggesting that those two (or any Fire Emblem character) would be more entitled to an appearance in Smash than Dixie or K. Rool, but it'd mostly just be me calling you dumb for thinking that, so I'd rather pass.

I guess it's mostly just personal prefrence over FE characters than DK. I could bring up more arguements but in all honesty, I don't know enough about FE to defend them well. I don't even think black Knight has been in a recent FE game. has he? Does anyone know FE well enough to give me their opinion on Lyn vs. Caeda, in terms of who has a better chance?

 

[Arcadenik]

@ Kuma

Well, then I guess the 6/7 of the Wii owners don't buy Brawl because they are the elderly and the non-gamers and the 1/7 of the Wii owners who buy Brawl are likely the same Gamecube owners who bought Melee.

@ Shortie

I think Caeda has a better shot than Lyn even though Lyn is more popular. My reason for thinking this is because Sakurai had that "Iwata Asks" interview with the developers of Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon. Sakurai himself said that Caeda is the heroine of that game (that, and she is more recent... again, since its a remake).

 

[majora_787]

@ Kuma

Well, then I guess the 6/7 of the Wii owners don't buy Brawl because they are the elderly and the non-gamers and the 1/7 of the Wii owners who buy Brawl are likely the same Gamecube owners who bought Melee.

@ Shortie

I think Caeda has a better shot than Lyn even though Lyn is more popular. My reason for thinking this is because Sakurai had that "Iwata Asks" interview with the developers of Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon. Sakurai himself said that Caeda is the heroine of that game (that, and she is more recent... again, since its a remake).

I see no good reason for Lyn to even be in smash. O_o Roy was in a more recent game(not FE Binding Blade.), PoR and RD could both provide some characters...

Spoiler

Lawl nephenee...

And Shadow Dragon could give us Caeda.

Oh, and! Just thinking about Shadow Dragon. Who anticipates Marth speaking english in SSB4?

 

[BirthNote]

I'd like to be pointed out to a sucessful game that targets adults and kids, that's not a puzzle game (like Bomberman), that pits you against other players (not the CPU) and being hugely successful and somehow simplistic..

I think that LittleBigPlanet 1 and much more accurately LBP 2 can fit that mold. Its not as successful as Smash though, BUT it definitely is for kids and adults. Its a puzzle/racing/platforming/shooting/RPG/anything game, is cooperative AND competetive (either with or without CPU and/or other players) as well as simple and complex.

 

[ToiseOfChoice]

And I like how you compare the sales of Melee and Brawl when there is one key factor you're ignoring: Console Sales.

Sunshine had a better attachment rate than Galaxy. Prime had better total sales than Prime 3.

Please please please please don't bring up sales when you're just fishing for a metric in which Game A beats Game B. It's not as clear cut as you want it to be and I hate it when proving you wrong requires digging up numbers.

None of which are fighting games. Isn't that funny? That's the point I was making. Wii Sports and Wii Resort Sports have boxing at best, and that's simply punching/blocking/dodging as far as mechanics go. If Brawl only had that, it surely would've been worse. The mechanics of motion would have to be ported over, as well as first-person-point of view, and no powers, so at that point, do you still have a Fighter or a weak attempt at a Fight Sim?

You asked for any game AND this has nothing to do with why tilt specials are a good idea.

the rest of the post

I'm so very glad that you will never have any responsibility in developing this series. You don't seem to understand what constitutes simplicity and, based off of your actual suggestions for Sonic moves, you really don't seem to have any good ideas on how to implement your suggestion to begin with.

 

[SmashChu]

Are you guys seriously suggesting that technical skill be done with? I know people who tried Smash for the first time and they couldn't do any of the stuff, even Smash attacks. Why not just have a Win button only? But wait, you don't want the losers to feel bad and be turned off by the game so everyone wins! /reductio ad absurdum

Your missing the point. The goal should be to make it easier for those people to be able to play and kick ***. Your attributing "making it easier to get into," with "making it dumber."

In all seriousness, I don't think anyone except for me and maybe Kenshinhan understand the significance of technical skill. While it is true that inputs shouldn't be super crazy, the idea for some things like quarter circles, links, etc. is so that there is freedom on the design of the character. Not only that, but the thing with technical skill is that the better you are with it, the more options you have. Compare the mobility options in Melee to Brawl. Melees ATs required practice, but it lets you do more with the controls than Brawl lets you.

Bold is a contradiction. The motions done in most fighting games are not present in other games (they would use stuff like in Smash Bros). The motions just make it harder for players to get into the game. If you want to be as good as the best players, you have to buy an overpriced control that is hard to store and can't be used for most games today.

Smash Brothers got big by destroying that.

And another thing, nothing is wrong with a skill gap in players. A multiplayer game is inherently competitive, there are gonna be people better than others be it that they're naturals or they put the time into it, just like anything else in life. I'm sorry if you want to just jump in and kick ***, but nothing in life is like that. I bet any one of you sucked at videogames when you first started playing them.

Skill gaps will always exist, but they can be bad as they means someone is WAY better than you.

Of course, more importantly is the learning curve, which is the problem with fighting games. The skill gap is huge and you are having trouble throwing a fire ball. Street Fighter say "You have to LEARN to throw the fireball. If you can't do it, leave. I don't want you anyway." Smash Brothers says "You can throw a fireball. It's easy. And here: these are all the other cool moves you can do! Have fun!"

Heck, the point of the Wii series is to act as a Trojan horse for nongamers. Get them into gaming with something relatively simple, but then they'll either stop there or go look to see what other kinds of games there are. Nintendo knows that the casual market is volatile which is why they need to increase the number of core gamers.

Never have I heard the Wii games called a Trogan horse to traps all those nongamers.

Replace "casual," with "********," and it will read the same.

There's nothing inherently bad with selling shy of a million units. Sure, you want to aim higher, but sometimes that's all you can get, kind of like maximum profit equations you might've seen in high school. Heck, Capcom was just expecting around a million copies of Super for combined total sales. One can argue that there are simply misconceptions of the genre that are preventing people from wanting to play it.

There is everything wrong with it. Investors want a good return on their money. They don't want "shy of a million." They want 2 million. Management also wants high sales, and the employees want their bonus. There is a reason there was a big gap from SF3 to SF4.

Also, no one uses the profit maximization equation. They just sell more. Economics doesn't apply very well in the real world.

To be honest, I don't see much purpose in bringing up sales unless its over an extended period of time, so as to include the time when trends decline.

And I like how you compare the sales of Melee and Brawl when there is one key factor you're ignoring: Console Sales.

Melee was popular enough for 1 out of 3 GC owners had it. Now, there's the question of how many people bought the GC-Melee bundle, but I don't know where I can find data on that.

Brawl, on the other hand, is only popular enough to be own by 1/7 of the 70+ million Wii user base.

Depending on what you're looking for, Melee was more successful by being with a higher percentage of owners, but Brawl sold more with a smaller percentage of owners.

FUN FACT: Melee was the worst selling Smash brothers game in Japan. The series was in a decline there (despite going up everywhere else). Brawl solved that.

 

[Kenshinhan]

You asked for any game AND this has nothing to do with why tilt specials are a good idea.

Please re-read my post. It's very clear in showing that top-sale games are not related to the Fighting Genre and that, the Fighting Genre as a whole doesn't sell as well as other games on the Wii. Secondly your list is scewed since some games list the lifetime of copies sold but say that it happened in 2010. Maybe you meant UP to 2010, in which case I see what you're saying.

But needless to say, Smash Bros is a fighting game and therefore, there's no way to relate it to non-fighting games that outsell it since no fighting game sells that high on the Wii. As a matter of fact, Brawl is the #1 fighting game that's exclusive to the Wii already. Are you trying to suggest we should simplify the next game from Brawl even moreso so it sells more? The point I was making is that you can't possibly do that without regressing to the original(SSB) or keeping it the same as Brawl is now with new graphics/characters/stages, pretty much. I guarantee you Sakurai won't even do that. He knows better.

I'm so very glad that you will never have any responsibility in developing this series. You don't seem to understand what constitutes simplicity and, based off of your actual suggestions for Sonic moves, you really don't seem to have any good ideas on how to implement your suggestion to begin with.

What is this? This is called a logical fallacy. It's called ad hominem with no logical basis. Do not make arguments with fallacies if you wish to be taken seriously. You're attacking me firstly, without even explaining why you think I have no understanding of simplicity. I have a clear understanding of it. I just don't think the next game should be any simpler, or just as simple as Brawl firstly, and that adding a few extra B moves won't even detract from its simplicity, secondly.

I like how you conveniently quoted me with "rest of the post" without regards to the BOLD print which is the underlying point/logic behind why the suggest B moves are not complex. That is the point of argument. Because once we establish new B moves aren't complex, we can agree that their addition aren't going to hurt the game. I've presented clear logical thesis in the BOLD print which you ignored, and instead, attacked me directly without basis. Please try harder if you're seriously trying to convince anyone but yourself. Or ask for someone else's help in explaining your reasoning more clearly that proves my logic of physical motions on a controller, wrong.

 

[ToiseOfChoice]

Please re-read my post.

I re-read your last several posts about 10 times, you're not presenting a very good argument. But now you're forcing my hand into a quote jenga. I hope you're happy, I thought I kicked that habit.

It's very clear in showing that top-sale games are not related to the Fighting Genre and that, the Fighting Genre as a whole doesn't sell as well as other games on the Wii.

But needless to say, Smash Bros is a fighting game and therefore, there's no way to relate it to non-fighting games that outsell it since no fighting game sells that high on the Wii. As a matter of fact, Brawl is the #1 fighting game that's exclusive to the Wii already.

I'm lumping these together for coherency.

Brawl is the number 1 fighting game period. Melee is number 2. SSB64 is... well, higher than most but probably below one of the Tekkens or Street Fighters. None of them were on platforms known for fighters, and they came from a company with almost zero history behind the genre.

A lot of the genres for those 20+ million sellers could've been written off as not selling that well prior to their runaway successes. How popular were pet sims? Sports and fitness? Brain Training? Racing? Even Mario Kart never broke 10 million before the DS/Wii versions, and now people are projecting 30 million from MKWii. That's a record regardless of genre.

But I like your attitude. "Even though Smash repeatedly breaks sales records for the fighting genre AND it's made by the company that holds almost every single sales record in any genre, it really shouldn't reach any higher." Hey listen, don't ever have kids.

Secondly your list is scewed since some games list the lifetime of copies sold but say that it happened in 2010. Maybe you meant UP to 2010, in which case I see what you're saying.

The first number is the total sales for fiscal year 2010 (April 2010 to December 2010). The second one conveniently marked "lifetime" just so happens to be the game's total lifetime sales. Both numbers are worldwide figures and I actually left out a few other titles. It's all here.

Are you trying to suggest we should simplify the next game from Brawl even moreso so it sells more? The point I was making is that you can't possibly do that without regressing to the original(SSB) or keeping it the same as Brawl is now with new graphics/characters/stages, pretty much. I guarantee you Sakurai won't even do that. He knows better.

If by "simplify" you mean "make even more accessible," then yes. It can be done, and you most certainly don't need to regress to N64 gameplay (and it shouldn't, that game wasn't as successful as Brawl). To suggest that there's no means for enhanced accessibility between what Brawl and 64 offered is... well I hate simply saying "you are dumb," but it's pretty ****ing dumb.

What is this? This is called a logical fallacy. It's called ad hominem with no logical basis. Do not make arguments with fallacies if you wish to be taken seriously. You're attacking me firstly, without even explaining why you think I have no understanding of simplicity. I have a clear understanding of it.

No, I skipped your argument because it was built off of anecdotes and the same assumptions your average SmashBoards patron makes:

I just don't think the next game should be any simpler, or just as simple as Brawl firstly, and that adding a few extra B moves won't even detract from its simplicity, secondly.

Of course YOU don't. Brawl doesn't meet your technical demands. Too bad you don't get to speak for everyone when you complain about it. Considering it outsold Melee by a cool 2 million, it's pretty obvious that Sakurai had the right idea to do what he did.

I like how you conveniently quoted me with "rest of the post" without regards to the BOLD print which is the underlying point/logic behind why the suggest B moves are not complex. That is the point of argument. Because once we establish new B moves aren't complex, we can agree that their addition aren't going to hurt the game. I've presented clear logical thesis in the BOLD print which you ignored, and instead, attacked me directly without basis. Please try harder if you're seriously trying to convince anyone but yourself. Or ask for someone else's help in explaining your reasoning more clearly that proves my logic of physical motions on a controller, wrong.

I erase the rest of the post if it's garbage, way too long, or less than a screen away. But here I am, oh well.

The statement in BOOOOOLD was meaningless because you didn't provide any examples. How do the moves look and feel like they would on a GC/Wii controller? What specifically would you suggest for so and so? All I saw was Sonic, and that one was terrible.

You have a concept and you're defending it with some fancy but empty rhetoric. Why not explore it instead?

 

[Big-Cat]

Toise, what gives you the idea that making it more simple will increase more sales? As I mentioned, you can only do it so much before people don't want to play it. Remember, people are spending 50$ on these games; they're gonna wanna make sure what they get is worth their money. If it just degrades into just mashing buttons, no one's really gonna wanna play it.

And simplicity and accessibility are not the same thing. Accessibility can just be where you sell it right. If I were to say something like this for SF canceling:

"In order to cancel from a normal attack into a special attack, input the motion for the attack, and upon the active frames of the first attack where its hitbox collides with the opponent's hurtbox, press the appropriate attack button and your normal attack's recovery will be canceled and you'll immediately go into the special attack."

Active Frames? Hitbox? Hurtbox? Recovery? You and I can agree that this is just not appealing to people who've never played fighting games. Heck, I find this description rather dry and boring. Let's spice it up by taking out the all the techno babble:

"2-in-1 Combos"
"With certain attacks for each character, you can immediately go from one normal attack into a special move, all without the wait in between. To do this, first, do the normal attack, and then before the attack hits, do the motion for the attack and hit the appropriate attack button as soon as the normal attack hits.

BAM! You've just done a 2-in-1 Combo! It takes a little getting used to if you're new to fighting games, but it's worth adding in that extra damage. Spend some time playing the game to find out what you can do 2-in-1s with."

As you can see, this something more appealing and gives the person the feeling that it is easy to do with just a little bit of practice. It's a little wordy, and I wish I had some pictures and a brief video to do this Dojo style.

The objective shouldn't be to simplify the game as a whole. Again, simplicity and accessibility are mutually exclusive concepts. The objective should be to create a deep game that appeals to everyone and has a low initial learning curve, aka, easy to learn, hard to master.

 

[Jaklub]

The objective shouldn't be to simplify the game as a whole. Again, simplicity and accessibility are mutually exclusive concepts. The objective should be to create a deep game that appeals to everyone and has a low initial learning curve, aka, easy to learn, hard to master.

Like Smash wasn't already like that.

 

[Big-Cat]

Exactly. There's nothing wrong with adding new mechanics, more appropriate depth, refinement, etc., so long as it's still easy to get into the basics of the game.

 

[ToiseOfChoice]

Toise, what gives you the idea that making it more simple will increase more sales?

If by "simplify" you mean "make even more accessible,"

Or was there something else?


edit: you know mutually exclusive means they can't coexist, right? should fix that

 

[Kenshinhan]

But I like your attitude. "Even though Smash repeatedly breaks sales records for the fighting genre AND it's made by the company that holds almost every single sales record in any genre, it really shouldn't reach any higher." Hey listen, don't ever have kids.

Don't ever have kids? Is that even necessary to write? That's another ad hominem statement that looks like you're desperately trying to make me look weaker by insulting me. Please learn not to make these fallacies, as they don't help your logic.
You missed my point if that's what you think I'm saying. I'm saying the complexity of B moves isn't complex enough to even hurt the sales. I'm not even chiming in on sales, you all are. It's irrelevant as long as you cannot prove my suggestion as too complex and, too harmful for sales. I want to increase sales, too.
Secondly, the point I was making initially about sales in the first place, was don't compare fighting games with other simplistic genres, because fighting games will almost always be more complex, anyway. You can see that fighting games are the least popular genre on The Nintendo Wii because of how competitive and depthy they are intrinsically. You cannot get around that without over-simplifying a fighting game to the point of being like a Mario Party Mini Game. Brawl in its current carnation is still too complex for people? I doubt that's the way unto selling more copies.

Thirdly, my suggestions of B moves has nothing to do with sales until you can prove that adding more B moves for some characters is going to be too complex to the point that it hurts sales of the next game. You still have to prove that though with example and citation of how Samus' Tilt B smash, or Marth's/Diddy's Side B - Side B attacks, or Pikachu's Up B+Up B execution are so hard that 5-13 yr olds don't want to play them. Or how about Sonic's homing attack? The mechanics of these variant B moves that already exist aren't complained about and are exactly what I'm talking about making more widespread.

If by "simplify" you mean "make even more accessible," then yes. It can be done, and you most certainly don't need to regress to N64 gameplay (and it shouldn't, that game wasn't as successful as Brawl). To suggest that there's no means for enhanced accessibility between what Brawl and 64 offered is... well I hate simply saying "you are dumb," but it's pretty ****ing dumb.

At least you avoided attacking someone's intelligence. You can say their idea is dumb, but you must understand their point before you can call it dumb. Simplification of the game would be disallowing the addition of more depth as compared to Brawl. Simplification means that whatever we have in Brawl , technically speaking, is either a) Sufficient sophistication and depth of mechanics or b) Still too much, so we must make the execution moves easier for kids. This is what I meant by regression.

Accessibility? What exactly are you saying by more accessible? Can you give me an example of what we should do that would show how your example improves accessibility?

No, I skipped your argument because it was built off of anecdotes and the same assumptions your average SmashBoards patron makes:

Why? When you try to point out why someone is wrong on a point, (such as the one that I made in bold) you need to understand it fully. Once again, the point of contention/argument is whether or not B moves would be too complex to add.

The statement in BOOOOOLD was meaningless because you didn't provide any examples. How do the moves look and feel like they would on a GC/Wii controller? What specifically would you suggest for so and so? All I saw was Sonic, and that one was terrible.

You have a concept and you're defending it with some fancy but empty rhetoric. Why not explore it instead?

I didn't know I needed any examples when the simple fact of the matter is that a move is easier to execute for a kid if the button presses simulates how that move looks on the game. The closer you can correlate execution to actual physics in the game that make sense to a kid, the easier it is for him to execute said move on demand.

I mean, Mario Party's controls are widely variant and pretty simple. The mechanics of executing certain moves in Mario Party are rather easy because the way you input the moves on the Wii remote is a translated, correlating human response to making your character move similarly. If I tap quickly A to keep Mario flying with his wings, then well damn it, his arms beat faster for each A button press. Isn't that wierd how that works? Isn't that easy enough and accessible enough for kids to learn? It's pretty simple.

If Samus' Side Tilt B is a homing missile that's weak, and her Smash Side B is a power non-homing missile, I think that makes it easy enough for a kid to learn.

New Examples, and I'll use Sonic again:
If Sonic's Down B Rapid Tap is him curling into a ball and spin-dashing in place until you stop rapid tapping, well, guess what, his maneuver is -exactly- the same it was back in the day in Sonic The Hedgehog 2. Conversely, instead if I hit Down B in the air, Sonic does a bubble bounce-jump with the Water Shield from Sonic The Hedgehog 3+4. Oh, wow, that's preeeettty hard for a kid to correlate? Please prove me wrong on that point if you think so.

If Sonic's Ground Forward B Tap-Hold-Charge is his Fast Shoes wind-up (This is like Ike's Side B now, btw) all I have to do is Tap Forward B with charge, and let go whenever I want? The more I hold it, the farther and faster he runs to the side? Wow, that makes sense.
Oh, what if I do this in the air? In the air he doesn't do the Fast Shoes run anymore, because he's in the air. Oh, instead, he does a Fire Shield Side B Rush attack, because wow, it looks like what he would do in the Air instead of Running Fast in a direction! Wow, that's easy to remember. I can do that all day.

The above are the examples you wanted of how adding Side B's that look and feel like the move are simple for a kid to grasp. Moves, whose mechanics exist even now in Brawl, and also in Mario Party and the New Super Mario for the Wii.

 

[Abel1994]

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=12176178#post12176178

 

[Big-Cat]

edit: you know mutually exclusive means they can't coexist, right? should fix that

I never said they can't co-exist, but I focused on the point that they are completely different concepts. The big difference between accessibility and simplicity is that accessibility is about selling something that already exists. I can take a complex concept and break it down into different parts so it can be better understood thereby making the concept more accessible.

Simplicity, in the sense you're talking about, involves gutting the concept, removing the depth of information behind it.

In a way, accessibility is about taking a steak and cutting it up into smaller pieces to eat. The smaller pieces are parts of the whole thing. Simplicity would be just having a single piece to eat and nothing else.

 

[n88]

@Kenshinhan

Do you realize that your whole argument could be summed up as "Despite all evidence to the contrary, making the game more complex and difficult to learn would be a good thing that would not affect Smash's popularity at all. This should be done so Sonic can be as cool as Mario." ? I'm legitimately wondering whether you're reading your own posts.

 

[ryuu seika]

That and the fact that he doesn't listen makes it not really worth arguing with. Just leave him to his own warped opinions and he'll go away.

Complexity is a good thing so long as it's not complexity for complexity's sake. Accessibility is also a good thing. Accessibility stems from making the basic concepts as simple to do as possible. The problem with Brawl is that they simplified the game as a whole and thus lost the complexity and depth that made the series work.

 

[Kenshinhan]

@Kenshinhan

Do you realize that your whole argument could be summed up as "Despite all evidence to the contrary, making the game more complex and difficult to learn would be a good thing that would not affect Smash's popularity at all. This should be done so Sonic can be as cool as Mario." ? I'm legitimately wondering whether you're reading your own posts.

This sounds like you're assuming that my suggestion of more B moves is complex. Once again, you have to prove this. I have shown physical evidence of how the application of varying B moves A) already exists in Brawl B) The physical execution of varying B moves exists in Top seller games that aren't fighters, to prove that its not as complex as you make it sound
C) Fighting games are intrinsically more complex. Hell, comparing the first SSB to any of those top sellers and you already have more variables in SSB vs those other games, and SSB was pretty simplistic.

This also sounds like you're assuming I only care about Sonic, which, if you re-read my posts, I use him as an example. Some people when they try to 'sum' up miss the details and take from it what they want. This is a false way of presenting an opposing argument's weakness. You really have to UNDERLINE THEIR ARGUMENT AND POINTS, not misconstrue their motives over their argument based off what they've given as examples. "Oh, he wants this because he only cares about Sonic, even though he said awhile back that Sonic is only example. He's a liar, he just cares about Sonic. " There's so many logical fallacies embedded in that train of thought, I really wonder if I have time to hand-hold every one that makes one on this forum against my arguments.

I wish everyone here that doesn't know what logical fallacies are would take the time to improve their strategies for arguments so we can have a civil and adult debate, rather than me telling you how to argue properly.

Furthermore, it seems people on these forums have forgotten the difference between Constructive Criticism and Destructive Criticism. Constructive criticism is stating your opinion, reasons, and then allowing room for change in the original idea if there's some merit to it. Destructive criticism is the opposite, where there's little opposing evidence provided, and it seeks to kill ideas at the source and not leave room for amendment or modification.

Seeing that we're not the programmers of this game, it is presumptuous to think that we have all the answers to the point that we can simply say NO with little to no evidence, AND not provide modification or amendment. Furthermore, Sakurai's motives and mission to make a game fun for the casual gamer has seemingly been zealously misconstrued into the idea that the next game somehow needs to be simpler than Brawl, when Brawl is agreed upon as being either fine(bu casuals) or too simplistic(by tourney/online crowd). Add to that, Brawl has varying B moves already. So I wonder, how can anyone say adding a few more or even quite a bit more would harm the next Smash game when Brawl has this and no one complains about it in Brawl?

 

[flyinfilipino]

I wish everyone here that doesn't know what logical fallacies are would take the time to improve their strategies for arguments so we can have a civil and adult debate, rather than me telling you how to argue properly.

If only you knew what's been going on here for the last 2,000 pages. : /

Welcome to Smashboards.

 

[n88]

com·plex
adj.
1.

a. Consisting of interconnected or interwoven parts; composite.
​

b. Composed of two or more units:
​

2. Involved or intricate, as in structure; complicated.


If you still don't acknowledge your idea as making the game more complex, then you are impervious to common sense. If that was your argument strategy, then superb, I congratulate you on perfecting it.

Spoiler

Maybe I didn't realize Sonic was only supposed to be an example because your posts drag on forever and are worded in the most lengthy and confusing manner possible.

In other news (despite the fact that I'm sure this has come up already), what do you guys think of the MvC3 roster? It's clearly selected from a very different set of criteria than Smash's, and I'm wondering whether you guys like that better.

 

[Shorts]

@Kenshinhan, I'm sorry but I have to say, a major part of creating a debate case is to make each and every contention of your arguement clear. I've been following your posts for a while and the only thing I got out of what you were saying is that we need something added to the B button, and you like Sonic?

Does that need to be repeated for like twenty posts?



Adventure mode vs Sub-Space Emmisary

Melee's adventure mode and Brawl's SSE are generally disliked. On one side of the spectrum we have a simple adventure mode that leaves a lot to be desired, while on the right side we have this massively disgusting adventure mode that does too much.

Melee's adventure mode was too repetitive, but I liked how it wasn't the only mode that would unlock characters. You had two choices for unlocking characters: Brawling forever, or doing a specific thing. AND THAT IS IT. I personally liked the challenge of not knowing how to get every character, so I was forced to try everything. This made me ultimately love the game, and a better smasher. Not only that but forcing me to play 900 rounds meant my mom, dad, friends, brothers, sisters, cousins ALL played with me, which could have brought in more customers.

SSE on the other hand was far too long for my liking. There is a point at the end where you have to go through like every single level again. Talk about boring. At first I was super excited when I heard about it.I expected tons of bosses from every game, and lots of minor characters that weren't original characters. Overall the storyline was mildly amusing and really, all it did was unlock the majority of ther characters without forcing me to put in tons of effort. Like a child, believe it or not I like to be challenged in the things I like doing. SSE brought no challenge when it comes to unlocking characters, and took up I think 80% of developing time. Not sure, though.

The solution can be found at a medium between the two. I would like to see an adventure mode styled mode, that takes a minimal approuch to cut scenes, and makes each characters story 20-40 percent original. Maybe there is a point where you are forced to go route A. or route B. a few times, which changes the characters story. Maybe a cut scene at the begining, at the end, and when they battle a boss. Bringing in bosses should be fan service. Pure fan service. Sakurai should take pleasure in me squealing like a little girl when I'm forced to scream"OMG! I'M BATTLING BLACK NIGHT!!! AHHHH!". In essence, a compramise can be made to make all of us scream like school girls. Which is what Smash bros is all about, right?

Edit@ N88

I think smash should keep it's criteria, but pick maybe...four characters that may not be as deserving as others, and bring them in with this awesomely unique moveset. For example, let's say for some reason Bowser Jr. Made it in over toad. When the developers are choosing these final four characters, Daisy might get in over toad if they believe they can make her unique and unforgettable. (Maybe then everyone would stop hating her -_-)
If someone says logical Fallacy again I'm gonna cut a *****.

 

[Kenshinhan]

@Kenshinhan, I'm sorry but I have to say, a major part of creating a debate case is to make each and every contention of your arguement clear. I've been following your posts for a while and the only thing I got out of what you were saying is that we need something added to the B button, and you like Sonic?

Does that need to be repeated for like twenty posts?

Uhh, I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself if people actually read my posts. Is it really that no one here likes to read paragraphs? The best arguments are essays with a thesis statement and supporting evidence. I've even bolded my thesis statement several times, and I've even said several times that Sonic is merely an example. Do I really have to keep repeating that? Do I have to show more examples and think up of every possible B variance for the next game?

Furthermore, about complexity, I'll give an example of how Sakurai thinks of complexity based on the change from Melee to Brawl, and regarding B-moves:

You have several characters new to Brawl or reintroduced to Brawl (Diddy Kong, Marth, Samus, Ike, Sonic) who collectively ADD MORE B MOVE VARIANCE IN BRAWL THAN IN MELEE. We can tell Sakurai wanted to take some sophistication out in Melee-> Brawl. So he did that by taking away L-cancelling, wavedashing, some hitstun, and even added in tripping, backward ledge grab, auto-sweet spotting. Once again, he still added more B move variances in Brawl, than in Melee. So how is that a problem in the next game? No one even has told me that The B moves variances are too complex in Brawl. In fact, they're celebrated.

Everyone keeps talking about what they think I'm saying but they're not actually taking the time to read my posts and quote my points and argument, and prove why it's wrong. It really does make me think people are too lazy to show why someone's wrong when they present their arguments in an essay format, because "It's too long. It's too hard to read. Even though you make paragraphs and start each paragraph with the main point, it's still too hard."

Please, I'm not going to lower my reading level or writing level or shorten my posts to get my points across as long as people continue to misconstrue and not quote me with their own counter-evidence that outweighs mine.

Edit: I will tell you what. If you want me to, I will make a very neatly organized summary and point-by-point, one sentence-each outline of my thesis statement and supporting evidence, versus the opposing arguments that have been presented to show the complexity in adding my proposed idea, is too much to the point that more B move variances shouldn't be considered in the next game.

Just give me the word and I'll do it. Although if you still disagree with me, make sure to provide your points so I can include them.

 

[ryuu seika]

Uhh, I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself if people actually read my posts. Is it really that no one here likes to read paragraphs?

I will admit I didn't read past this point. Why? Is it because I don't like reading paragraphs? No, it's because your arguments are long winded, repetitive, dull and uninteresting. All your posts have said pretty much the same thing and in pretty much the same overly drawn out fashion. If you had something new to bring to the topic and you worded it well then maybe I'd actually take note but, like everyone else here, I'm sick and tired of your repetitive arguments and failure to listen.

Notice how everyone else's long posts get read...

EDIT: Ok, I read the rest. More B moves is not a problem. More B moves per character is. There's a difference and that difference should be obvious to anyone with half a brain. I get that you don't like reading these sorts of post. That you think that insulting your intelligence somehow invalidates my argument. To be frank though, I don't care. You've had the counter arguments explained time and again and you just don't listen. Either you're unable to take comments from others or you really are that dumb. Whatever the case, your involvement in this discussion is clearly pointless.

 

[Kenshinhan]

I will admit I didn't read past this point. Why? Is it because I don't like reading paragraphs? No, it's because your arguments are long winded, repetitive, dull and uninteresting. All your posts have said pretty much the same thing and in pretty much the same overly drawn out fashion. If you had something new to bring to the topic and you worded it well then maybe I'd actually take note but, like everyone else here, I'm sick and tired of your repetitive arguments and failure to listen.

Notice how everyone else's long posts get read...

EDIT: Ok, I read the rest. More B moves is not a problem. More B moves per character is. There's a difference and that difference should be obvious to anyone with half a brain. I get that you don't like reading these sorts of post. That you think that insulting your intelligence somehow invalidates my argument. To be frank though, I don't care. You've had the counter arguments explained time and again and you just don't listen. Either you're unable to take comments from others or you really are that dumb. Whatever the case, your involvement in this discussion is clearly pointless.

You need to get over the fact that just because someone says something about insults, that it's not their opinion, and that it's a factual concept of arguments called logical fallacies, and to make your argument look good and to make yourself look like you're not uneducated, you avoid making illogical comments. Doing so makes your opinion more clearly seen and more respected.

Arguments aren't about entertainment but they're about proving what's the best course of action.

I've listened countlessly and so far, the provided evidence in contrary to my argument isn't as much as I've presented. Like I said, I will write out an outline of both arguments to see the logic of one side versus the logic of the other. Whichever side has more, qualitative reasoning usually has the stronger opinion on the matter.

 

[ryuu seika]

I give up. You can discuss what you like as much as you like but I'm having nothing more to do with it.
Sooner or later you're going to run out of people who'll even pretend to listen.

 

[Kenshinhan]

Thesis: Adding more varying B moves will be beneficial to SSB4

a) It will help flesh out more of some characters' abilities from their origin
b) It will provide simplistic depth for some characters (not all)
c) It will further allow a more realistic kinesthetic application of moves
d) It will add more of an option for character balancing in movesets

Supporting Points:

- Complexity isn't an issue if some (not all) characters gain B variance
* Moderation of an emerging concept is always good to prevent complexity

- It further isn't complex based on Sakurai's track record from Melee-Brawl
* There are more characters in Brawl with B variance than Melee
* It is unanimous that Brawl is simplified from Melee, even with B variance

- Complexity of execution isn't an issue
* The proposed variance executions would translate the move kinesthetically
* That means that B moves will execute as they feel/appear in the game

- Tap B, Charge B, Rapid Tap B, Tilt B, Aerial/Ground State alteration
* The aforementioned variances already exist in Brawl
* Moves that execute like they appear/act/feel are easy for kids to grasp

- Some character movesets need no drastic changes, only additions
* Further B variances will provide this lee way for select few characters

- Best-Seller games also have this kind of complexity (not Fighting)
* Mario Party, New Super Mario, have moves similar to how B variance would work

Opposing Arguments made:

- Best-Seller games are notoriously simplistic (not Fighting Genre)
* SSB4 should be simpler to raise its sales and acessibility

- Quantity of B-moves added should be few to none
* The more you add, the more complex the game becomes
* How much is too much? (Not specified)

Rebuttal: Only game developers would know how much is too much
* Only game developers are in charge of balance based off testing

 

[DekuBoy]

The MVC3 roster is awful. Just throwing that out there.

 

[Big-Cat]

What's so bad about it? I'm fine with it really. A lot of the characters I won't play, but there is definitely a team out there for everyone.

 

[SmashChu]

In other news (despite the fact that I'm sure this has come up already), what do you guys think of the MvC3 roster? It's clearly selected from a very different set of criteria than Smash's, and I'm wondering whether you guys like that better.

It's not that good. Loved it up until after NYC Comic Con. The problem is they went with a lot of characters who shouldn't be in there and neglect a lot of old ones.

 

[Arcadenik]

@ Kuma

Besides the lack of a Mega Man (classic, X, Volnutt, or even EXE), the rest of the Capcom side is pretty solid for the most part. It got the characters I really wanted the most - Amaterasu, Arthur, and Mike Haggar (though a Breath of Fire character would be awesome). I am tired of seeing Ryu, Chun-Li, and Morrigan in every "vs. Capcom" games but whatever. The Marvel side is pretty good, even I don't read comics that much. I recognize most of them except for Taskmaster, Shuma-Gorath, Dormammu, and X-23. In short, I think the MvC3 roster is pretty good.

@ Smashchu

Okay, so which characters shouldn't be in MvC3? Which old characters (who is not Mega Man) are neglected? And why?

 

[Big-Cat]

I still don't quite get what you were wanting, SmashChu. Going off of the time you were pissed with the roster, the roster added from that time on is:

Spencer
Arthur
Magneto
MODOK - They trolled EVERYONE with him.
Akuma
Taskmaster
Crimson Viper
Hsien-Ko
Jill Valentine
Haggar
Zero
Phoenix
Sentinel
She-Hulk
Shuma-Gorath
Storm
Taskmaster

The way some of the way you guys are acting are as if your criteria is the best choice for choosing characters.

@Arc
I knew all the characters except for Taskmaster, Shuma, and MODOK via different TV series. The sole exceptions were She-Hulk and Sentinel. I knew of Sentinel via MvC2 and She-Hulk via a Family Guy reference of all things.

I actually didn't know anything about Spencer or Arthur even though I've heard of their games.

 

[flyinfilipino]

The way some of the way you guys are acting are as if your criteria is the best choice for choosing characters.

You know how it is; everyone thinks they can do better. Especially when it comes to choosing characters for crossover games.

So you don't have any problems with the roster at all?

EDIT: And did you never watch the X-Men cartoon?

 

[Big-Cat]

I didn't say I have any problems with the roster. Megaman, Phoenix Wright, Venom, and Squirrel Girl would be nice, but I'm fine with it as it is.

And I watched both 90's cartoon and Evolution (which is how I knew of X-23), but I only watched the former on Toon Disney and I never saw Sentinel for some reason.

EDIT: Just remember that I never heard of Trish and Super Skrull before the game.

 

[SmashChu]

I still don't quite get what you were wanting, SmashChu. Going off of the time you were pissed with the roster, the roster added from that time on is:

Spencer
Arthur
Magneto
MODOK - They trolled EVERYONE with him.
Akuma
Taskmaster
Crimson Viper
Hsien-Ko
Jill Valentine
Haggar
Zero
Phoenix
Sentinel
She-Hulk
Shuma-Gorath
Storm
Taskmaster

The way some of the way you guys are acting are as if your criteria is the best choice for choosing characters.

@Arc
I knew all the characters except for Taskmaster, Shuma, and MODOK via different TV series. The sole exceptions were She-Hulk and Sentinel. I knew of Sentinel via MvC2 and She-Hulk via a Family Guy reference of all things.

I actually didn't know anything about Spencer or Arthur even though I've heard of their games.

The ones in italics are ones I liked, but they came from Comic Con. The other characters aren't that good. They are in for the wrong reasons. To think, we could have gotten charcacters like Gabit, Cyclops or Venom instead, ones people are very familiar with.

 

[flyinfilipino]

Weird; from what I remember, Sentinels were in every other episode of the 90s cartoon as the generic, easily-destroyed bad guy goons.

But to sort of steer the conversation back toward Smash Bros., if the same criteria (whatever they might be) used to choose characters for MvC3 were used to pick characters for SSB4, what characters could we possibly see? (This could be for better or for worse.) I guess it'd be kind of useful to speculate on those criteria first.

 

[Arcadenik]

What criteria should we go by?

 

[Big-Cat]

@SmashChu
What are these wrong reasons?

@flyingfilipino
We don't even know their real criteria, but if I had to take a guess:
Little Mac
Tom Nook (my personal bias)
Midna
Ridley (the Sentinel of Smash)
Krystal
Bowser Jr.
Anthony Higgs
Palutena
Isaac/Matthew
Saki/Isa
Sukapon
Bring back Mewtwo and Roy due to being fan favorites.

 

[ToiseOfChoice]

Sorry guys, I had to. There was nothing when I left this afternoon, I swear.

I never said they can't co-exist, but I focused on the point that they are completely different concepts.

Again, simplicity and accessibility are mutually exclusive concepts.

"Mutually exclusive" refers to two things that cannot co-exist. I was telling you to edit, son! It's like this kid I knew way back when, he'd mix up "on accident" and "on purpose." Got in a lot of unnecessary trouble, that kid.


Anyway, I'm fully aware that simplicity and accessibility are different things AND I should mention that there are probably a few times where I accidentally use the two interchangeably. If you were confused by that, sorry.

Note that I'm not arguing against complexity in itself, since quite a few of those popular games could be defined as such (maybe not by your own definition, but I certainly feel Pokemon and Mario Kart have a good amount of depth to them). I'm arguing against anything that could discourage new players from enjoying the game. Adding several new moves per character for a player to learn -- moves that are being described as particularly context-sensitive AND completely different, mind you -- is a no-no.

In a way, accessibility is about taking a steak and cutting it up into smaller pieces to eat. The smaller pieces are parts of the whole thing. Simplicity would be just having a single piece to eat and nothing else.

At this time, I'd like to mention that vanilla is by far the most popular flavor of ice cream.

Not to say that there's no purpose for the rocky roads and coffees of the world, but it IS selfish to demand that vanilla be more like them. And yes, Nintendo is the only company that regularly provides quality vanilla. Bless 'em.

.

I was going to give you a nickname but you're annoying, so no dice.

First off, this is the internet. No one has to play nice, no one has to bold/underline their main points because you can't find them, and no one wants to read long-winded posts like yours.

Second, I'm asking you to provide examples for your ideas. Not the same crappy Sonic idea (and I'll explain why it's crappy in a second), new ones. For like eight or so characters. You do this and people can actually point out what's wrong with your concept, possibly leading to a non-sucky solution.

Third, the problem with your Sonic suggestion is that there's a lack of consistency. When you do Falcon Kick on the ground and in the air, it's still Falcon Kick. The direction changes, but it's still the same move. Same with Samus' missiles and Dancing Blade, though those have more variance to them.

Sonic's Spin Dash and the bubble shield from Sonic 3 are completely different in terms of effect and aesthetics; one is a charge-then-launch, one rockets you downward in a water bubble. There's no connection and it's disorienting.

There's a post a few pages back from a guy named BirthNote. He suggests DK be able to do his Jungle Beat shockwave in the air with his Down+B and I mentioned that it's a good idea. If you can figure out why, you can probably figure out some practical ideas for your concept. Get back to me then.

Rebuttal: Only game developers would know how much is too much
* Only game developers are in charge of balance based off testing

False. Anyone can replicate the basic philosophy behind Random Employee Kidnapping and understanding what people like is basic business.

Developers just happen to be the only ones who can implement gameplay changes based off of that knowledge. Well, hacking aside, anyway. Lucky SmashBoards.



@MvC discussion folks: As a guy who doesn't know crap about Marvel but a good deal of Capcom stuff, it really doesn't get me excited. I see two Wolverines, two Hulks, no Mega Man, and no Gambit. Props for Haggar though.

What's with the starfish eyeball guy? What's his deal?