• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Big-Cat

Challenge accepted.
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
16,176
Location
Lousiana
NNID
KumaOso
3DS FC
1590-4853-0104
And fighting games are all pretty unbalanced. There's no such thing as a perfectly balanced game.

And SSB is considered a joke? That's rich coming from fans of button masher like Tekken or Street Fighter.
I've said it before a thousand times: I know there's no perfectly balanced game. It's just that the balance in Brawl is really bad. There are characters that get shut down completely because of chain grabs. Then there's Ganondorf against Sheik.

When's the last time you've played Street Fighter or Tekken? I could give it to you to a small degree for Tekken considering the button setup, but I wouldn't call Street Fighter a button masher. I thought it was at first, but after playing the game and understanding the controls, it's just like Super Smash Bros: Mashing will get you no where.
 

Pieman0920

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
3,300
Location
Right behind you with a knife.
I've heard different things in regards to how far they got with him. As for the Chris Redfield thing, I'd like to see the source for that, and that line, if true, can be interpreted in so many ways. He could be talking about projectile characters, realistic characters, violent characters, or something else.
Last I heard, the Objection thing was supposed to come one letter at a time or something, and that's what the major problem was. As for the Redfield thing...

http://kotaku.com/5518024/marvel-vs...ving-comic-with-a-deep-story?skyline=true&s=i

Its there in the middle of the article. I suppose though that its possible that Kotaku may have just thrown that in there.
 

ElPanandero

Smash Lord
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
1,100
NNID
ElPanandero
That's nice.

And fighting games are all pretty unbalanced. There's no such thing as a perfectly balanced game.

And SSB is considered a joke? That's rich coming from fans of button masher like Tekken or Street Fighter.
Kuma covered Street Fighter, so I'll cover Tekken. Tekken is as far from a button masher as possible. You need to uise spacing one-hits or blaze out a 10 hit combo by pressing the right button at the right time in the right place. The entire game consists of varying combo's and believe me, button mashing will not produce these combos. I play as Eddy, and I ccan pull out some decent comboes if I try hard enough, if I button mash, I pull out a few kicks then get ****.

Don't bash a game until you've played it for more than 12 seconds of you life please.

I've said it before a thousand times: I know there's no perfectly balanced game. It's just that the balance in Brawl is really bad. There are characters that get shut down completely because of chain grabs. Then there's Ganondorf against Sheik.

When's the last time you've played Street Fighter or Tekken? I could give it to you to a small degree for Tekken considering the button setup, but I wouldn't call Street Fighter a button masher. I thought it was at first, but after playing the game and understanding the controls, it's just like Super Smash Bros: Mashing will get you no where.
Don't be bashing on muh Tekken :p Tekken is just as Technical as Street Fighter (I'm assuming, I have yet to play IV, but other than buffering, ranged attacks, and ultras (to which Tekken has walls, 3d, and chain/juggle comboes), they seems to be equally as technical.

And @ Twiz
If only melee Ganon was here >.>
 

Big-Cat

Challenge accepted.
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
16,176
Location
Lousiana
NNID
KumaOso
3DS FC
1590-4853-0104
Don't be bashing on muh Tekken :p Tekken is just as Technical as Street Fighter (I'm assuming, I have yet to play IV, but other than buffering, ranged attacks, and ultras (to which Tekken has walls, 3d, and chain/juggle comboes), they seems to be equally as technical.
I have no intention of bashing Tekken. Xiaoyu is a cutie after all. I've thought that since Tekken 3. I'm not saying it lacks depth either. I'm just saying that because of the button setup and such, it's more button masher friendly. Of course, it'll take you only so far as there is spacing, parries, and more. Basically, each asks for similar, and at the same time, different skills. Which is better is strictly preference as they're separate sub-genres.

I just find it hard to get into since I never went far with Tekken. The 100 different moves freaks me out, but I'm sure it's not that bad. Anyway, if you want a transition into SSFIV, try Dudley. I was looking at his target combos and couldn't help but think, "My God, this is Tekken!"
 

SmashChu

Banned via Warnings
Joined
Jul 14, 2003
Messages
5,924
Location
Tampa FL
At least you're not making everything you say as a fact with that last sentence.
Don't you mean I'm not "stating." If I was making facts, everything I said would be facts and you'd have to believe it or be illogical.

I won't say that it's all related to difficulty. How many people that any of us know got into Super Smash Bros. because of the Nintendo characters, and how many got into the game because of the two button (actually four at minimum, eight if you count D-Pad) setup?
A lot of people. I here quite often that they like Smash Brothers because they don't have complex button combination or weird movements. Most of the stuff in traditional fighting games is outdated. You may deny it, but that is a fact.
As for the communities, let me ask you something: Why do you suppose Capcom decided to be mindful of the competitive community and Nintendo doesn't seem to show much support for it? Canceling in Street Fighter II, as I've mentioned in the past, was actually a glitch but Capcom made it an official technique from then on. Compare that to wavedashing, another exploit/glitch, that was tossed aside in Brawl.
My logic was that one is the loser and the other is the winner. Capcom is the loser. Their "great success," is a game that only broke 2million on two systems, where Nintendo breaks 9 million on one. You never understood this but one is doing well while the other is not. Thus, one is doing something right where the other is doing something wrong. This is simple logic. Since success and failure are polar opposites, what the two games are doing right/wrong must also be opposites. It's possible that one factor exist in one that helps/hurts that doesn't in the other, but it reasonable to assume that the success/fail are opposites, as most about these games are opposite.

The problem is this: What is wrong and right? It is very hard to tell, but the best option would be to not just guess. This is your problem. You guess. "Well, Street Fighter isn't doing well, but it can't be because of X. I will use X." The problem is you are trying to look for good in bad. You are trying to find a bunny rabbit in a crocodile swamp. You may find the little bunny rabbit, but you may find a crocodile and ruin everything. It would be better to find bunnies in the nice forest where you could find a badger, but it would not be as likely.

Lets take this to the real world. There was a product that failed called "Acid+All." It was trying to be a trendy antacid. That's nice and all, but antacids are not fashionable items. But, you're Kuma and you want to make an antacid. "Oh," you say "Acid+All failed, but it must have had some good points. Let me use X." Acid+All failed, why would you copy them. You are stealing the playbook of the losing team. Notice how Brawl is the best selling fighting game. The only game that is close to them are older versions of fighting games such as SF and Tekken.

SSB(at least for Brawl) is considered a joke, to me at least, because the game is so poorly unbalanced and suffers from major design flaws that can easily be remedied but weren't so we could have a half-***, confusing story mode for single player.
The market disagrees. The market is never wrong.


Way to contradict yourself buddy. The reasons you present typically stem from the mid-90's decline, not killing the self-esteem of players who think they're the **** until they go online, saying the game was designed specifically for a mode some people don't like, and your opposition to anything remotely complex whatsoever. Of course you're going to be given Hell.
The problem is that you didn't answer the question. You simply leave it open to a "welll, why X." Let me show you.

Your answer
Why is Street Fighter games not doing as well as they use to be
Kuma: "Oh, that's easy. It's because fighting games declined into the mid and late 90s."
Well, why did they decline in the 90s?
Kuma.........................

See how the question is still not resolved. We don't live in fantasy land I'm afriad. There is a reason why things happen. So, you can't say "There was a decline." You have to say why the decline happened in the first place. Becuase I could ask
Why did Tekken come out and sell a lot?
Why is Smash Brothers doing so well?
People still buy WWE games. Why?

You have to create three different answer, meaning you have just as much of a chance to be wrong. Or, use me answer.

There is still demand for fighting games. It's just that games like Street Fighter were not fulfilling the needs of the consumers.

I'd love to see how this new series would carry the values of Street Fighter II. And you know what? Why don't you tell me these "values."
Street Fighter was an arcade game. Arcades had lots of competition from other games, so they had to impress and get in to them quickly. It was also a new form of entertainment, so if it didn't impress, customers could just as easily go see a movie or go out to eat. So, they had to have three things to survive.

1)The had to be easy to play. Since the player could leave to another machine in a minute or two, they had to be playable quickly.
2)They had to be addictive. They had to hook the play in a few minutes or they would leave. It couldn't get fun in the future because there was no hour or two from now. Less the 5 minutes is all you got.
3)The game had to be challenging. If the game was too easy, then the player could beat it quickly. Not only would they go somewhere else, but they would not put in as much money as they should of.

Now look at Street Fighter 4.
1)Fails. Arcade games didn't have training mode, and Street Fighter 4 requires it. There is also too much to learn in less then 5 minutes. There is simply too much in SF4 and the controls are too complicated (more on that in a minute).
2)Street Fighter 4 may be fun, but since it requires sop much to learn that the player can get emerged in a few minutes. Fails.
3)This one it probably passed.

Now you may say "But SF2 had all these hard motions. What about it?" Special moves were just that, they were special. They were also hard to pull off and did quite a bit of damage, but that was the point. You did not need them to play. You just punch and kick and try to win. If you could do the special moves, you had one more weapon in your arsenal. It was special for a reason. There was no super move (until later in the series), no focus attack, no ultra, no EX moves, no parries. The special in the special moves have been diminished. They are second to much stronger techniques that are also harder. So it loses what SF2 had.

Arcade style games of today are console games, save for they stretch 3 a little. New Super Mario Bros Wii fulfills all three of the requirements.

No, the Super Smash Bros. series has its own basic design formula. Again, this is a series. It's not a standalone fighting game. The formula has already been applied three times. If it were to add lifebars and such, it would simply become something else.
Every other fighting game has lifebars. If Smash has lifebars, that it would be like every other fighting game. Thus, it is formulaic.
 

Big-Cat

Challenge accepted.
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
16,176
Location
Lousiana
NNID
KumaOso
3DS FC
1590-4853-0104
A lot of people. I here quite often that they like Smash Brothers because they don't have complex button combination or weird movements. Most of the stuff in traditional fighting games is outdated. You may deny it, but that is a fact.
That doesn't answer my question. Are people saying this before or after they buy the game. I want to know the reason why they want it before playing it.
My logic was that one is the loser and the other is the winner. Capcom is the loser. Their "great success," is a game that only broke 2million on two systems, where Nintendo breaks 9 million on one. You never understood this but one is doing well while the other is not. Thus, one is doing something right where the other is doing something wrong. This is simple logic. Since success and failure are polar opposites, what the two games are doing right/wrong must also be opposites. It's possible that one factor exist in one that helps/hurts that doesn't in the other, but it reasonable to assume that the success/fail are opposites, as most about these games are opposite.
Once more, you are denying the star power of the Super Smash Bros. series. Think about it, some of the biggest videogame series out there such as Mario, Zelda, and Pokemon have playable characters in this series. Street Fighter has to rely on an completely original cast to carry it and the series' backstory (part of the reason why Sakurai opted for Nintendo characters).

If Nintendo is doing anything right, it's combining several different characters from different series under one roof. Yes, Capcom has had its Vs. games, but I'm sure you'll find more people who know who Link and Mario are over Chun-Li and Guile.

That's the one key factor Smash has over any Capcom fighter.

The problem is this: What is wrong and right? It is very hard to tell, but the best option would be to not just guess. This is your problem. You guess. "Well, Street Fighter isn't doing well, but it can't be because of X. I will use X." The problem is you are trying to look for good in bad. You are trying to find a bunny rabbit in a crocodile swamp. You may find the little bunny rabbit, but you may find a crocodile and ruin everything. It would be better to find bunnies in the nice forest where you could find a badger, but it would not be as likely.
Your problem is that you're seeing this exclusively in black and white. I look for the good in bad because I strongly value the concept of potential. And sometimes, it pays to take risks. The Wii was a huge risk for Nintendo and it paid off. They could've played it safe and went the PS360 route.

Lets take this to the real world. There was a product that failed called "Acid+All." It was trying to be a trendy antacid. That's nice and all, but antacids are not fashionable items. But, you're Kuma and you want to make an antacid. "Oh," you say "Acid+All failed, but it must have had some good points. Let me use X." Acid+All failed, why would you copy them. You are stealing the playbook of the losing team. Notice how Brawl is the best selling fighting game. The only game that is close to them are older versions of fighting games such as SF and Tekken.
Whoever said I would copy them? You've been told this several times by a number people, I'm not wanting SSB to be a Street Fighter clone in any shape or form.

Let's bring this whole, "Don't copy because it fails" towards the Brawl mods. Hell, I could say what I'm about to say to all mods. A number of people were not satisfied with the way Brawl turned out. At the same time, they saw the potential, the diamond in the rough, in the game's design. As a result, Super Smash Bros. Brawl is pretty much the poster boy for console modding. This no different than me wanting to implement mechanics from other games.

The market disagrees. The market is never wrong.
BS. The customers don't always know what's right. Heck, what they want could actually be something bad for them. Why do you think your parents never let you do X thing despite how much you wanted to? Aside from because they love you, their intentions are for you to have/do what is best for you.
The problem is that you didn't answer the question. You simply leave it open to a "welll, why X." Let me show you.

Your answer
Why is Street Fighter games not doing as well as they use to be
Kuma: "Oh, that's easy. It's because fighting games declined into the mid and late 90s."
Well, why did they decline in the 90s?
Kuma.........................
Haven't I answered this question in the past. The major problem was that they were become complex to the point that they were alienating their casual audience and newcomers to fighting games (hence the common misconceptions regarding this genre).

Street Fighter was an arcade game. Arcades had lots of competition from other games, so they had to impress and get in to them quickly. It was also a new form of entertainment, so if it didn't impress, customers could just as easily go see a movie or go out to eat. So, they had to have three things to survive.

1)The had to be easy to play. Since the player could leave to another machine in a minute or two, they had to be playable quickly.
2)They had to be addictive. They had to hook the play in a few minutes or they would leave. It couldn't get fun in the future because there was no hour or two from now. Less the 5 minutes is all you got.
3)The game had to be challenging. If the game was too easy, then the player could beat it quickly. Not only would they go somewhere else, but they would not put in as much money as they should of.

Now look at Street Fighter 4.
1)Fails. Arcade games didn't have training mode, and Street Fighter 4 requires it. There is also too much to learn in less then 5 minutes. There is simply too much in SF4 and the controls are too complicated (more on that in a minute).
2)Street Fighter 4 may be fun, but since it requires sop much to learn that the player can get emerged in a few minutes. Fails.
3)This one it probably passed.
1. Arcade games didn't have a training mode because it was impossible to put in. You might as well be playing for free if that was implemented in an arcade game. Training mode is not required either, only to polish your skills if you wish to do so. I went all the way through normal mode with C. Viper, albeit with getting my *** kicked by Seth for like 14 times, without using any specials, just normals, and this was the first thing I did in that game.
2. What are we talking about here? At the bare minimum, just know there are three punch and three kick buttons, a Focus attack that can be dashed out of, how to do the motions, EX moves, and Ultra combos. There, just five concepts overall.

Now you may say "But SF2 had all these hard motions. What about it?" Special moves were just that, they were special. They were also hard to pull off and did quite a bit of damage, but that was the point. You did not need them to play. You just punch and kick and try to win. If you could do the special moves, you had one more weapon in your arsenal. It was special for a reason. There was no super move (until later in the series), no focus attack, no ultra, no EX moves, no parries. The special in the special moves have been diminished. They are second to much stronger techniques that are also harder. So it loses what SF2 had.
If you can't do fireball motion than you just suck. It's not like original Street Fighter where the moves were actually kept secret from the players, only to be learned by word of mouth.
This reminds me of this IGN article quote:
As much as that random pattering of button mashing may resemble symphonic victory to your stupid, cluttered earlobes, you're finessing that Street Fighter arcade cabinet like a bag of cats falling down an M.C. Escher painting. It's a simple joystick and a set of buttons, not a beer cooler in the parking lot of a Metallica concert. Take it down a notch. We've spent years memorizing and perfecting the simplicity of pulling off a Hadouken with finesse and not recklessly discovering it after months at sea like Columbus did America before he blew it up. Down, down-forward, forward + punch. It's no da Vinci Code you serendipitous dolt. Pass your quarters to somebody more responsible.
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/108/1082227p1.html

Every other fighting game has lifebars. If Smash has lifebars, that it would be like every other fighting game. Thus, it is formulaic.
You completely missed the point. The point is the the Super Smash Bros. series has its own formula. Don't try to come up with some excuse saying it doesn't.
 

DekuBoy

Smash Lord
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
1,532
Location
Very scary ruins
Pardon me ElPandero but my '12 seconds' of Tekken was actually around 6 years before I realised how superior the SSB series was. I never looked back.
 

BBQTV

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Messages
4,000
smash chu you already have the option of life bars in smash so stop being a *****
 

SmashChu

Banned via Warnings
Joined
Jul 14, 2003
Messages
5,924
Location
Tampa FL
That doesn't answer my question. Are people saying this before or after they buy the game. I want to know the reason why they want it before playing it.
I answered it. Here is the abridged version.

  • The game is 4 players. People demand a game that allows them to play with their frinds
  • The game is easy to get into. People don't want to learn a game. They paid money for it and they demand it entertains them. They want the gradification.
  • It has a lot to do. The player rarely gets bored with Smash. They like this as it means they can always pull out Smash bros when everyone wants to play a game.
  • And, yes, to some extend, they want a game with lots of Nintendo characters. This is last as it's very minor. If it doesn't have another hook, then consumers will see it as average and wish to get it back.

This is very different then Street Fighter. The game is only two players, requires toy to train a lot and isn't very assessable.

Once more, you are denying the star power of the Super Smash Bros. series. Think about it, some of the biggest videogame series out there such as Mario, Zelda, and Pokemon have playable characters in this series. Street Fighter has to rely on an completely original cast to carry it and the series' backstory (part of the reason why Sakurai opted for Nintendo characters).
If Nintendo is doing anything right, it's combining several different characters from different series under one roof. Yes, Capcom has had its Vs. games, but I'm sure you'll find more people who know who Link and Mario are over Chun-Li and Guile.
Street Fighter 2 is an iconic game. People know those characters.

But look at sales of other series over time and you'll see what you say isn't a major component. Look at Mario. Let's say people buy Mario for Mario. If that is true, what do the 2D games sell much better than the 3D games? They both have Mario. Maybe demand for Mario is going down. But NSMBWii sold 10 million units in 2 months. That means there is defiantly demand for Mario. But why do the 3D games do worse then the 2D ones. None of the 3D ones have beaten Mario 64. But the 2D ones do. Or, what about the RPGs. If demand for Mario is so high, why can't these games compete with Final Fantasy?

And what about Zelda? The Cel chaded games didn't preform that well. Spirit Tracks on the DS didn't preform as well as it's predecessor despite the DS has a much larger install base. But people still bought Twilight Princess. It's one of the best selling Zelda game.

And what about Street Fighter. Street Fighter 2 was a huge success, but the rest have all been flops. Even Street Fighter 4 can't get close to 2 despite having all the old characters. What gives?

And then there is this: If people demand Mario and Link, then shouldn't Smash Brothers do better then those other games. The sum of the whole is larger then any one of it's parts. How do you explain that.

The answer: You can't. Your answer is wrong. But my answer explains it.

Your problem is that you're seeing this exclusively in black and white. I look for the good in bad because I strongly value the concept of potential. And sometimes, it pays to take risks. The Wii was a huge risk for Nintendo and it paid off. They could've played it safe and went the PS360 route.
Nintendo was smart. The PS3/360 route was death due to gamer drift. Nintendo took the route of disruption.

It wasn't as if Nintendo was taking bad elements and hoping they were good. Nintendo was using the winner's strategy. Innovator's Dilemma explains disruption and gives examples of how other have successfully done it. So, Nintendo takes their ideas and makes it work for them. They did what I said: Look for rabbits in the forest, not a swamp. Street Fighter is just bad after bad and you keep wanting to dive it. Nintendo took a winning strategy. You are taking a losing one.

Let's bring this whole, "Don't copy because it fails" towards the Brawl mods. Hell, I could say what I'm about to say to all mods. A number of people were not satisfied with the way Brawl turned out. At the same time, they saw the potential, the diamond in the rough, in the game's design. As a result, Super Smash Bros. Brawl is pretty much the poster boy for console modding. This no different than me wanting to implement mechanics from other games.
Mods aren't trying to make money, so they are irrelevant to this discussion. Mods can never fail in this sense because they are not trying to turn a profit. You would have a point if Brawl+ was released to retail and was successful.

BS. The customers don't always know what's right. Heck, what they want could actually be something bad for them. Why do you think your parents never let you do X thing despite how much you wanted to? Aside from because they love you, their intentions are for you to have/do what is best for you.
The premise you are putting out is that customers are stupid and will unknowingly buy things that will lead to their destruction. This idea was best illustrated with Prohibition that was actually put into the United States Constitution almost a hundred years ago. After all, drinking leads to many social problems. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to just get rid of it? That led to so much crime. There is a part of Human nature that some people do wish to drink away their life or whatever.

People know what cigarettes do to the body. Even kids know. But people smoke because they enjoy it. Professional golfers are, to this day, allowed to smoke cigarettes when playing (where everyone else cannot of course) because it soothes their nerves. (Cigarettes are a bad example since the state propaganda about them was more about interested in taxing them. If they as bad as politicians have declared them to be, they would have been banned.)

As I said earlier, customers are the determination of quality. Customers are the determination of ethics as well. When baseball had all the problems with steroids, did baseball attendance fall? No. So while some people had problems with it, the customers did not.

Customers only buy what they want. Doesn't matter if they should or not, they just want it. There is a lot of things we shouldn't do. But to survive in business you need to make a profit. The only way to do that is to make the customer spend money and keep them doing it.

Haven't I answered this question in the past. The major problem was that they were become complex to the point that they were alienating their casual audience and newcomers to fighting games (hence the common misconceptions regarding this genre).
You know that's what I've been saying right. My point was that Street Fighter has been getting to hard so people just left to other games.


1. Arcade games didn't have a training mode because it was impossible to put in. You might as well be playing for free if that was implemented in an arcade game. Training mode is not required either, only to polish your skills if you wish to do so. I went all the way through normal mode with C. Viper, albeit with getting my *** kicked by Seth for like 14 times, without using any specials, just normals, and this was the first thing I did in that game.
You missed the point Kuma. Training mode can't be put in because the player does not pay to be trained, only to have fun. Relying on a training mode, like Street Fighter has, will make players choose other games.
2. What are we talking about here? At the bare minimum, just know there are three punch and three kick buttons, a Focus attack that can be dashed out of, how to do the motions, EX moves, and Ultra combos. There, just five concepts overall.
Mario Brother is run and Jump and occasionally shoot fireballs. I think what you mentioned is a mouth full.

Also, Mario Bros fills all three criteria.

Seeing as things keep getting piled up and sales don't improve over a game with very little, it's clear that it is not helping and may be the source of the problem.

You completely missed the point. The point is the the Super Smash Bros. series has its own formula. Don't try to come up with some excuse saying it doesn't.
No, you just don't know what "formulaic," means.

Fighting games have health bars
Smash Brothers does not.
Smash Brothers does not use the formula.

You don't define a formula based on one thing. What you are saying is literally this: "Smash brothers is different. If it takes a feature that all other games in it's genre have, it wont be so much like all the other games."

So since you like to dodge questions, I'm throwing them right at you. Here we go.
-Explain why Street Fighter game sales have gone down since Street Fighter 2 without using the idea "The decline of fighting games in the 90s."
-You are making a new product. Would you copy (assuming you'll copy someone) a successful product or an unsuccessful one (only one word answer)
-If "Star Power," is a major reason why people buy games, explain the following:
What do some Mario games preform better/worse than others?
Why does Smash Bros sell less than Mario games?
Why did people not buy Street Fighter 4 as much as they bought 2?
-Why don't sales equal quality?
-Follow-up:If so, why do people buy inferior products. NOTE: You can not call the customer stupid or any other word of the nature.
-Using the three values of arcades, how is Street Fighter 4 like an arcade game? NOTE: You can not say in is Japanese arcades.

You can not use more then three sentences to answer any of the questions.

Good luck.

smash chu you already have the option of life bars in smash so stop being a *****
Well, you are the one calling me names. Maybe you're more of the....***** is it?
 

DekuBoy

Smash Lord
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
1,532
Location
Very scary ruins
BBQTV you have been very negative lately. Chillaxe.

I beleive that the Smash Bros games don't need to have complex gameplay as it is not a normal fighting game.

If I am right, the Smash Bros games are the most successful fighting games? Correct me if I'm wrong. But why would Nintendo want to alter a tried and tested formula?
 

Big-Cat

Challenge accepted.
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
16,176
Location
Lousiana
NNID
KumaOso
3DS FC
1590-4853-0104
**** it, I'm not dealing with you anymore, SmashChu. The moment you pulled out a Sean Malstrom article, I could not take you seriously anymore. Unless you're some marketing major, then just shut up. But I will leave you with this website:

http://sethhearthstone.wordpress.com/

If I am right, the Smash Bros games are the most successful fighting games? Correct me if I'm wrong. But why would Nintendo want to alter a tried and tested formula?
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitlezx89c5u5txaj
 

woopyfrood

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 23, 2008
Messages
1,062


Zoroark in SSB4. I'm calling it.

If things go like they did in Brawl, then you can pretty much kiss Lucario goodbye.
 

Big-Cat

Challenge accepted.
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
16,176
Location
Lousiana
NNID
KumaOso
3DS FC
1590-4853-0104
Oh, I know that all too well. I'm just saying that you need to change things up a bit, for better or worse, in order to avoid the It's the Same, Now It Sucks. Come to think of it, Twilight Princess got a bit of flak for this didn't it?

All in all, a change for better or worse leads to the evolution of the game's design. That's why air blocks and parries don't exist in the SF series anymore.
 

BBQTV

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Messages
4,000


Zoroark in SSB4. I'm calling it.

If things go like they did in Brawl, then you can pretty much kiss Lucario goodbye.
it would be cool if it had all 3. but i doubt it
Oh, I know that all too well. I'm just saying that you need to change things up a bit, for better or worse, in order to avoid the It's the Same, Now It Sucks. Come to think of it, Twilight Princess got a bit of flak for this didn't it?

All in all, a change for better or worse leads to the evolution of the game's design. That's why air blocks and parries don't exist in the SF series anymore.
how would you change smash?
 

Big-Cat

Challenge accepted.
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
16,176
Location
Lousiana
NNID
KumaOso
3DS FC
1590-4853-0104
how would you change smash?
I've mentioned these ideas a lot in the past so I don't feel like posting them right now. If you want, I'll PM them, but I'm sure you've seen them in the Gameplay Discussion Group.
 

BBQTV

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Messages
4,000
yeah your right. what do you guys think of tekken? my friend says the game is bad and the chick with the blond hair is broken cause i keep beating him
 

Big-Cat

Challenge accepted.
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
16,176
Location
Lousiana
NNID
KumaOso
3DS FC
1590-4853-0104
...See this is what I mean by you two going nuts. You guys are sometimes great to chat with alone but Kuma + Chu = Headache.

Gah. Thread running around in cycles again.
Which is why I'm quitting my addiction.

At least we had the MvC3 discussion to spice things up.
 

Starphoenix

How Long Have I Been Asleep?
Joined
Oct 10, 2007
Messages
8,993
Location
Cyberspace
NNID
GalaxyPhoenix
3DS FC
2122-6914-9465
...See this is what I mean by you two going nuts. You guys are sometimes great to chat with alone but Kuma + Chu = Headache.

Gah. Thread running around in cycles again.
Instead of complaining about it why not break it and begin a new topic?
 

D1337

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Mar 13, 2010
Messages
130
Location
Brooklyn, NewYork
I know this is irrelevant but everyone else brang it up and the current argument of Smash4 does not intrests me ATM. The fact that MvC3 is in 3-D (which in retrospect I should not be surprised) I died a little inside.
 

Serph

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
209
Location
England
What the hell is that!!!?!?
Zoroark. The first Pokemon (along with its pre-evolution) to be revealed for the new generation of RPGs.

I don't necessarily think Lucario will be cut for SSB4. Remember that Mewtwo was originally going to be in Brawl, so it wasn't a simple case of "one in, one out".

I suppose it depends on how much development time they have. With any luck we'll have Mewtwo, Lucario and Zoroark.
 

augustoflores

Smash Hero
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
5,718
Location
Rialto, CA
NNID
augustoflores
3DS FC
4828-5782-2252
Switch FC
SW-2867-0942-2202
i hope it is as speedy as mvc2, for some reason, i feel that all of the 3d fighting games are slow or that the motions are slow. (i am not counting melee, melee was cool fast 3d) one good example is street fighter 4 compared to MvC2 or tekken 6 and MvC2, the speedy movements of 2d is faster than 3d since 3d, they really want to make it more realistic. i just hope that MvC3 is the first 3d (besides melee) to move as fast as a 2d fighter. (if you have something to combat what i said like examples of, then i don't want to care)

anyways, lets talk Fawful! if he gets in should he get his own victory song like meta-knight? should one of his taunts make him say "I have FURY!" and on occasions he'll swich it up by saying "I have CHORTLES!" using the same taunt button?
 

BBQTV

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Messages
4,000
Zoroark. The first Pokemon (along with its pre-evolution) to be revealed for the new generation of RPGs.

I don't necessarily think Lucario will be cut for SSB4. Remember that Mewtwo was originally going to be in Brawl, so it wasn't a simple case of "one in, one out".

I suppose it depends on how much development time they have. With any luck we'll have Mewtwo, Lucario and Zoroark.
that kinda reminds me of fox falco and wolf. you think it'll be like that?
 

PF9

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 13, 2010
Messages
1,068
Location
America
Another idea I have expands on the aspect of alternate costumes. In addition to alternates that are merely palette swaps, certain characters that only have exactly those can have additional, actual, costumes to unlock - yes, I'm even for unlockable alternate costumes.

For example, Mario can wear his cowboy outfit from Mario Party 2, Fox can wear his outfits from earlier games in his series, and more.

Also, the six Yoshi colors currently playable could be supplemented by four unlockable colors: the purple and orange Yoshis from Yoshi's Island (AKA SMW 2), and the black and white Yoshis from Yoshi's Story.

And if SSB4 is released on the next Nintendo console, that console should be designed to easily adapt a multitap - allowing for up to 8 players at once.

Another possibility is a Swim Race minigame - an expansion on the ability to swim in certain Brawl stages. You can either compete against up to three others, or do a solo time trial.
 

D1337

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Mar 13, 2010
Messages
130
Location
Brooklyn, NewYork
Zoroark. The first Pokemon (along with its pre-evolution) to be revealed for the new generation of RPGs.

I don't necessarily think Lucario will be cut for SSB4. Remember that Mewtwo was originally going to be in Brawl, so it wasn't a simple case of "one in, one out".

I suppose it depends on how much development time they have. With any luck we'll have Mewtwo, Lucario and Zoroark.
**** dont we have ENOUGH PKMN!??! My younger cousins are so full of this new gen crap they have no idea what a Ho-oh was 6 months ago!
 

Kaffei

Smash Hero
Joined
Feb 8, 2008
Messages
7,048
I hope that MK will be nerfed, but still good enough to be a viable tourney character.
 

Big-Cat

Challenge accepted.
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
16,176
Location
Lousiana
NNID
KumaOso
3DS FC
1590-4853-0104
WTH is 2.5D?
2.5D means the game is played as if it's a 2D game, but has 3D graphics. Street Fighter IV, despite its 3D graphics, plays similar to its predecessor so a veteran doesn't have to experience a massive transition. The Super Smash Bros. series is like this as well. Outside of fighting games, there's the NSMB games and the Viewtiful Joe series.

I hope that MK will be nerfed, but still good enough to be a viable tourney character.
They all better be viable next game.
 

Serph

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
209
Location
England
**** dont we have ENOUGH PKMN!??!
They currently only occupy four positions, and two more (Mewtwo and Zoroark) would bring that up to six. Hardly overkill when you consider the fact that something like Mario or Zelda is bound to increase their number of representatives to five in the next game (I think most of us consider Bowser Jr. a front runner). Pokemon is certainly big enough to justify having that number of characters.

And as someone else said a few pages back: whatever happened to just having characters that are cool or popular? They should obviously avoid completely flooding the lineup, but if Mewtwo, Lucario and Zoroark are all wanted come SSB4, then why should one or more of them be left out simply because "the series already has enough reps"? That's just daft.
 

DekuBoy

Smash Lord
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
1,532
Location
Very scary ruins
Another idea I have expands on the aspect of alternate costumes. In addition to alternates that are merely palette swaps, certain characters that only have exactly those can have additional, actual, costumes to unlock - yes, I'm even for unlockable alternate costumes.

For example, Mario can wear his cowboy outfit from Mario Party 2, Fox can wear his outfits from earlier games in his series, and more.

Also, the six Yoshi colors currently playable could be supplemented by four unlockable colors: the purple and orange Yoshis from Yoshi's Island (AKA SMW 2), and the black and white Yoshis from Yoshi's Story.

And if SSB4 is released on the next Nintendo console, that console should be designed to easily adapt a multitap - allowing for up to 8 players at once.

Another possibility is a Swim Race minigame - an expansion on the ability to swim in certain Brawl stages. You can either compete against up to three others, or do a solo time trial.

Cowboy Mario costume is the best idea I have ever heard on this thread. Kudos.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom