Opinion: Smash 4 is an empty experience.

[Playerhater]

Smash 4 has a lot of soul, but the problem is that I never see it, because I only play For Glory. So I'm stuck on a flat stage fighting mostly the same characters over and over again who use the same (defensive) strategies over and over again. Rule #1 is: never approach!

I guess they had to use the flat stage in For Glory because players would otherwise just run until the game times out.

 

[Bob]

This game is subpar on both a casual and competitive scale. They weren't even original enough to create a new Pokémon Stadium; It's still Pokémon Stadium 2.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

There's only two Pokemon Stadiums games anyway. It's also, frankly, silly to repeat the same course over and over again. We have yet to get a new Metroid stage that isn't a remake of Melee's two versions in some way. It's either a rotating stage or a stage with acid/lava. Pyrosphere was the closest to a new stage we ever got, and it was not all that good. The new stages for Pokemon were far more interesting than remaking the same type of stage again. It'd likely to have been called Pokemon Coliseum anyway, to fit in with the named games.

I don't see how it's subpar on either of those levels either. It has significantly more balance, creating a very good competitive environment, and has a lot of fun characters and mechanics for casual play. It isn't full of bull in the same way the previous 3 games were either.

 

[MercuryPenny]

It isn't full of bull in the same way the previous 3 games were either.

actually, it's just more characters have freaking weird nonsense than the other 3. at least 5 characters have weird fixed knockback multihits that can kill at 0% if only one hit connects, witch time exists, there's a 25% chance of being unable to tech over 100%, corrin's counter exists, shieldstun is high enough that some characters' smash attacks are 100% safe on shield, ding dong and bowser's equivalent exist, rosalina's up air exists, luigi's down b exists, among other things

i feel like the asinine design decisions are what makes smash as a series fun, though

 

[Reila]

Smash 4 is the sequel to Brawl.

Precisely why I like it.

 

[DonkaFjord]

The characters are problematic too; look at Mario, for example, before, in Brawl, he used to be a serious character with a cool and creative design, but now in Smash 4 he just looks like a glossy joke; not only does he look like his molecules have been plasticized, but now for some reason he now opens his mouth in a cheesy ovular shape in every animation, these traits are also consistent in characters like Pac-Man and Megaman. When you look at the animations, all of them look "cute", or "interesting", but none of them are meaningful or impactful anymore.

The artstyle for Smash 4 lines up with more characters on the roster when compared to their home series- I personally really like how fresh the characters look and how expressive they look in general with a lot of the detail being more than fuzzy textures. I also liked Brawl's artstyle, but I think Smash 4 will age more gracefully. I think the 3DS also made the artstyle more attractive because the characters will stand out better on the small screens and against the backgrounds of stages. I think a lot of characters show a wider range of character and emotions than "pissed off" or "blank" or "hurt" that Brawl focused on- it's subjective, but I do think the increased emotions are more impactful. I don't think Smash has to be gritty or edgy (some think otherwise- these people usually shoot down some Pokemon or other series characters in Smash Bros for being 'too cute'/'not badass.' Who knows what style they will continue with. I personally would like a continuation of Smash 4's art style with a little bit more influence from Brawl. The series has had more cartoony aspects then grit (64's shocking animation, 64's boxart, comedic items like the fan, comedic character moves, Smash 4's Screen KOs, etc.)

I agree there is something definitely wrong with some of the characters in smash 4. They got sloppy with the characters in Smash 4. Some will disagree because some people are blind fanboys.

They took out just charizard from pokemon trainer, which is lazy and boring. They duplicated pit and made dark pit, literally a cheap tactic.

They seperated zelda from shiek which to me is blasphemy. Lets not mention wii fit. Even the makers were skeptical about how people would react to wii fit.

The Mii, to me which is ********.

They took out a classic character like ice climbers. I dont care if there was a programming problem or something, they couldve started from stratch. Ice climbers is classic.

They definitely couldve done better picking out the characters. I feel they felt too rushed by the fans, and made some sloppy crap.

Hopefully they get rid of Wii **** for the next game.

A lot of these were issues because the 3DS version- the characters that transformed between each other being split up, ice climbers being axed, etc. A part of me wishes the 3DS version wasn't made and instead there was a bigger focus on the Wii U game. I imagine the dev team wouldn't have been spread thin if that had been the case. Maybe even if they had just focused on a single platform for the game, but who knows what would have happened if that had been the case.
Some of the issues you may have about the character selection is that Nintendo has most of their big characters in the game already. There aren't many big mainstream characters left to add (I personally like them furthering the amount of series that have playable characters- especially the quirkier Nintendo titles.)
The Wii series (Which spawned Miis and Wii Fit) is one of the best selling game series of all time. It is up there with series that are 20-30 years old, which is quite an accomplishment and definitely a noteworthy part of Nintendo's history. If you can enjoy additions like R.O.B., G&W, and Duck Hunt, then Wii Fit really isn't that far out there.
Remember Miis have been an idea that Miyamoto had since the Famicom era. I am not a fan of how they were implemented, but I really think Miis and WFT both "earned" their spot in a game that celebrates Nintendo history. People say Nintendo's last IP was Pikmin, but things like Rhythm Heaven, Wii Sports/Fit/Play, Miis/Tomadachi Life, Steel Diver, Endless Ocean, Style Savvy, Brain Age, Cooking Navi, etc. do exist. Yeah, some of them might not be things 'hardcore' gamers care about (Cooking Navi isn't really a game, but it sold. Well. Enough to get several sequels.) Nintendo pioneered the casual gaming market and it is a decent part of their history (boasting several mega successes such as the Wii, DS, and some of the previously mentioned titles.) In terms of recognition and sales, they seem much more fitting in a game that focuses on 'Nintendo All-Stars' (minus some guest characters) than some fan favorites in the smash community.

As for dark pit- he is a clone. According to Sakurai, the clones are last minute additions when the team has extra time, but not enough to make a new character from smash. They are like a free side dish to a great meal- yeah alone it is pretty lame but it is a nice bonus all together. I am not a big fan of clones, but I know that those characters do have fans. Would you rather turn down the extra content even if it meant getting nothing in their place (For example, if Dark Pit was never made it doesn't mean a different character would take his place.) I personally would rather let some fans enjoy their favorite character then getting rid of content with no added benefit. *Shrugs* it's a bit subjective but I don't think anyone outright likes clones- some fans just might like the playstyle or character that barely got added in.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

DonkaFjord flamer180 is permabanned. You won't get an answer from the user at any time.

actually, it's just more characters have freaking weird nonsense than the other 3. at least 5 characters have weird fixed knockback multihits that can kill at 0% if only one hit connects, witch time exists, there's a 25% chance of being unable to tech over 100%, corrin's counter exists, shieldstun is high enough that some characters' smash attacks are 100% safe on shield, ding dong and bowser's equivalent exist, rosalina's up air exists, luigi's down b exists, among other things

i feel like the asinine design decisions are what makes smash as a series fun, though

I'm more talking about game-breaking glitches. Albeit, I was way too vague and that's my bad. Nonetheless, Smash 4 had balance patches that fixed it in general.

 

[Bob]

The artstyle for Smash 4 lines up with more characters on the roster when compared to their home series- I personally really like how fresh the characters look and how expressive they look in general with a lot of the detail being more than fuzzy textures. I also liked Brawl's artstyle, but I think Smash 4 will age more gracefully. I think the 3DS also made the artstyle more attractive because the characters will stand out better on the small screens and against the backgrounds of stages. I think a lot of characters show a wider range of character and emotions than "pissed off" or "blank" or "hurt" that Brawl focused on- it's subjective, but I do think the increased emotions are more impactful. I don't think Smash has to be gritty or edgy (some think otherwise- these people usually shoot down some Pokemon or other series characters in Smash Bros for being 'too cute'/'not badass.' Who knows what style they will continue with. I personally would like a continuation of Smash 4's art style with a little bit more influence from Brawl. The series has had more cartoony aspects then grit (64's shocking animation, 64's boxart, comedic items like the fan, comedic character moves, Smash 4's Screen KOs, etc.)

This is an odd response, as I don't believe a single individual in the opposition of Smash 4 has ever brought up accuracy or longevity. This argument is about the emotional impact that these characters have on people, and in Smash 4, that impact is far lesser than it's predecessor(s) due to everybody looking like they came from an episode of Caillou.

True, they are more accurate than they were before, but you don't see (m)any people emotionally touched by Mario's (and the others') older design(s) either, do you? Accurate does not mean optimal; those "angry", "blank", and "hurt" expressions conveyed a sense of seriousness and realism that human beings could relate to. Nobody can relate to Mario being mirrored on the screen while making silly faces, in fact, It's a redundant addition that only serves to aggravate the people playing against it, as it serves as an insult of maturity and a form of mockery. That's why there's so much "salt" in this game. losing has the least to do with it; being subjected to an unskippable results screen where characters pose and make irritating faces (Donkey Kong characters are the main culprit) is not only childish, but contradictory to Sakurai's earlier statements regarding the game and the management of losses.

We don't need a "comedic" Smash Bros. we need an impactful Smash Bros. this degradation of depth isn't something that should continue amongst games. Perhaps it's a reflection of the current generation; but I know we can do better than this:

Smash Bros. used to be a great game. Now it's just another jokefest Party Game (ironically as intended) that serves no purpose than to be purchased and discarded.

You (all) can now start preparing your counter-response(s), as that is the inevitable progression of an online, impersonal environment.

Also, Smash 4's Screen Animations are trash.

 

[Pippin (Peregrin Took)]

I've been lurking at this thread for a little while now trying to figure out what I want to say. The closest thing I can come up with is that I admit Smash 4 can seem a bit on the sterile side, but I can't call it an empty experience.

I invested a ton of time in the Smash 4 community up through patch 1.1.6 which is when I started to taper off. Admittedly the whole situation left me a little salty, in part because I don't like Bayonetta as a character and in part because of the arguments over rulesets of which I always seemed to be on the losing side. Since then I've thought about issues with the new game that I don't like such as the art style coming off as "hodgepodge" at times and the issues I have with the graphic and sound design choices (Mario's voice and perpetual scowl, reusing menu sounds from Brawl). But I just can't bring myself to hate this game or not appreciate what it tried to do.

8 player smash may be a bit much but 5-6 player is awesome. The stage selection is fantastic bringing back the best of Brawl and offering cool new stages like Jungle Hijinxs and the boss stages. I don't agree with every newcomer choice but you can't deny how awesome a lot of them are. Mega Man, Villager, Robin, Duck Hunt, Bowser Jr. and the Koopalings for example all brought something new to the table and I appreciate their inclusion. And the ledge mechanic changes were huge for me. There is enough in this game to make it more than just "Fixed Brawl HD" though the influences from that game are certainly recognizable.

As much as I still consider Smash 64 my favorite in terms of art direction, I can't say I regret purchasing Smash 4, no matter how many times I tried to convince myself.

 

[Bob]

-snip-

Liked for Signature (+1).

 

[R3D3MON]

There's only two Pokemon Stadiums games anyway. It's also, frankly, silly to repeat the same course over and over again. We have yet to get a new Metroid stage that isn't a remake of Melee's two versions in some way. It's either a rotating stage or a stage with acid/lava. Pyrosphere was the closest to a new stage we ever got, and it was not all that good. The new stages for Pokemon were far more interesting than remaking the same type of stage again. It'd likely to have been called Pokemon Coliseum anyway, to fit in with the named games.

I don't see how it's subpar on either of those levels either. It has significantly more balance, creating a very good competitive environment, and has a lot of fun characters and mechanics for casual play. It isn't full of bull in the same way the previous 3 games were either.

Better balance doesn't imply better competitive environment. In fact, many people would argue it is the exact opposite because the game becomes stale much more quickly.

actually, it's just more characters have freaking weird nonsense than the other 3. at least 5 characters have weird fixed knockback multihits that can kill at 0% if only one hit connects, witch time exists, there's a 25% chance of being unable to tech over 100%, corrin's counter exists, shieldstun is high enough that some characters' smash attacks are 100% safe on shield, ding dong and bowser's equivalent exist, rosalina's up air exists, luigi's down b exists, among other things

i feel like the asinine design decisions are what makes smash as a series fun, though

Why are kill confirms considered bad??? This game runs on a stock system, not a health system so characters not having no kill confirms mean you get a smash 4 sheik situation. Do you really want that??

Otherwise I agree with the general premise of your post. I especially hate the weird ass no-tech over 100% thing and not being able to tech when you are too close to the walls of a stage.

 

[Bob]

Smash 4's not more balanced than Brawl; While Brawl Metaknight was a disaster, Brawl's A > tiers (starting at Wario) were actually very balanced. If you were to remove the S-A Tiers of both Brawl and Smash 4, Brawl would be the most balanced game of the two. I can confirm that as I play(ed) both Brawl and Smash 4 competitively, and (in Brawl) I have beaten professional Marths with Mario and Falcon in a serious setting, whereas Smash 4 Yoshi invalidates every character below him.

Smash 4 also has a serious problem with the influx of Fast/Strong characters (who fundamentally invalidate Fast/Weak, Balanced, and Strong/Slow fighters), combine that with Cloud, Bayonetta, Diddy, and Sheik, and you have a game that, in many ways, is worse than Brawl. It's almost as though they took Bretaknight and divided his brokenness into 4; with each character now being a Mini-Metaknight in one way or another.

Truly, the only difference between Brawl and Smash 4 is that it feels as though the player has a better chance at winning against an S-Tier character, except, in reality, they still lose.

Also, even if Bayonetta's not as broken as Metaknight, she's very close. That's why the official tier-lists put her at 2.00.

The idea that Smash 4 is balanced comes from a concept called corporate programming, where their ideas and philosophies become fact in the eyes of the receivers. Sakurai says the balance is good, and the community mindlessly agrees. Sakurai says the game's speed is between Brawl and Smash 4, and the community mindlessly agrees (when actually, Brawl's frame data is better than Smash 4's lol). Completely disregard the words of Nintendo and Sakurai, then play the game from an objective, unbiased, position.

This is no better than Brawl.

 

[R3D3MON]

Smash 4's not more balanced than Brawl; While Brawl Metaknight was a disaster, Brawl's A > tiers (starting at Wario) were actually very balanced. If you were to remove the S-A Tiers of both Brawl and Smash 4, Brawl would be the most balanced game of the two. I can confirm that as I play(ed) both Brawl and Smash 4 competitively, and (in Brawl) I have beaten professional Marths with Mario and Falcon in a serious setting, whereas Smash 4 Yoshi invalidates every character below him.

Smash 4 also has a serious problem with the influx of Fast/Strong characters (who fundamentally invalidate Fast/Weak, Balanced, and Strong/Slow fighters), combine that with Cloud, Bayonetta, Diddy, and Sheik, and you have a game that, in many ways, is worse than Brawl. It's almost as though they took Bretaknight and divided his brokenness into 4; with each character now being a Mini-Metaknight in one way or another.

Truly, the only difference between Brawl and Smash 4 is that it feels as though the player has a better chance at winning against an S-Tier character, except, in reality, they still lose.

Also, even if Bayonetta's not as broken as Metaknight, she's very close. That's why the official tier-lists put her at 2.00.

The idea that Smash 4 is balanced comes from a concept called corporate programming, where their ideas and philosophies become fact in the eyes of the receivers. Sakurai says the balance is good, and the community mindlessly agrees. Sakurai says the game's speed is between Brawl and Smash 4, and the community mindlessly agrees (when actually, Brawl's frame data is better than Smash 4's lol). Completely disregard the words of Nintendo and Sakurai, then play the game from an objective, unbiased, position.

This is no better than Brawl.

And tbh, Brawl had way more technical and character depth than Smash 4. For instance, Brawl Meta Knight probably has more depth to the character than the entire smash 4 roster combined. Also people in smash 4 love to make new names for pretty common stuff (mewtwo air dodging is called phasing, lol why??? Hitting ganon after getting grabbed by his up-b is rockcrocking, dafuq? Also perfect pivot is just called pivot in melee, lolol), probably because people want to make Smash 4 appear more technically deep than in reality, which is pretty sad.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Better balance doesn't imply better competitive environment. In fact, many people would argue it is the exact opposite because the game becomes stale much more quickly.

Which would make sense if Smash 4 wasn't far more popular competitively than Brawl. Brawl is doing horrible competitively because it's too unbalanced. Only Smash 64 has a smaller competitive scene, and that's due to the fact it's a smaller game in general and requires a lot more hoops to properly play it. You can't use Gamecube Controllers via a Wii or Wii U. Emulators are not supported often due to a dubious legal status. N64's overheat too much and make it harder for tournament play, where the Gamecube, Wii, and Wii U all work far better with less problems(and obviously a better and more viable control scheme). Any controller that requires batteries or charging very often hurts a competitive scene.

Smash 4's only has to worry about the Melee scene being stronger at best these days. Brawl is so significantly unbalanced that it has an even smaller list of top tiers and many people don't even bother to play someone out of Meta Knight. The game has gotten stale far quicker than the other 3 versions(well, 4 technically) due to a poorly balanced competitive scene. The game's speed is so slow they can't even do a typical 3 stock limitation. It's the only actual game among the series that has highly unique rules due to one character dominating the meta so severely that he's constantly been in his own tier. Before you say Pikachu and Smash 64 as a counterpoint, while he is naturally in his own tier, the game's own overall balance isn't nearly as one-sided either. Even the worst characters can still do pretty well because the game overall doesn't have the same issues. Considering the stages all are oddly shaped or have hazards, a character can't dominate to the same degree and has to worry about RNG keeping some balance. Not saying it's the proper way to do balance, but it does affect the 64 competitive scene.

 

[R3D3MON]

Which would make sense if Smash 4 wasn't far more popular competitively than Brawl. Brawl is doing horrible competitively because it's too unbalanced. Only Smash 64 has a smaller competitive scene, and that's due to the fact it's a smaller game in general and requires a lot more hoops to properly play it. You can't use Gamecube Controllers via a Wii or Wii U. Emulators are not supported often due to a dubious legal status. N64's overheat too much and make it harder for tournament play, where the Gamecube, Wii, and Wii U all work far better with less problems(and obviously a better and more viable control scheme). Any controller that requires batteries or charging very often hurts a competitive scene.

Smash 4's only has to worry about the Melee scene being stronger at best these days. Brawl is so significantly unbalanced that it has an even smaller list of top tiers and many people don't even bother to play someone out of Meta Knight. The game has gotten stale far quicker than the other 3 versions(well, 4 technically) due to a poorly balanced competitive scene. The game's speed is so slow they can't even do a typical 3 stock limitation. It's the only actual game among the series that has highly unique rules due to one character dominating the meta so severely that he's constantly been in his own tier. Before you say Pikachu and Smash 64 as a counterpoint, while he is naturally in his own tier, the game's own overall balance isn't nearly as one-sided either. Even the worst characters can still do pretty well because the game overall doesn't have the same issues. Considering the stages all are oddly shaped or have hazards, a character can't dominate to the same degree and has to worry about RNG keeping some balance. Not saying it's the proper way to do balance, but it does affect the 64 competitive scene.

But Brawl didn't die just because it was unbalanced. There were so many other factors, such as the fact that the game was very slow and aerial-based (similar to Smash 4), along with other general mechanical aspects that made the game less competitive. By that logic melee should not be alive to this day, nor smash 64.

There is a reason older (competitive) Street Fighters players are heavily criticizing SFV. Both SFV and Smash 4 share the trait of being overly focused on balancing and reducing difficuty (e.g. the fact that Smash 4 has a 10-frame buffer window is absolutely ****ing ridiculous) that makes both games more appealing for casuals, but much less viable competitively. Competition thrives with technical depth, not with "balance".

I guess Sakurai got what he wanted with Smash 4, a noob-friendly game that's good for casual playing.

 

[Bob]

And tbh, Brawl had way more technical and character depth than Smash 4. For instance, Brawl Meta Knight probably has more depth to the character than the entire smash 4 roster combined. Also people in smash 4 love to make new names for pretty common stuff (mewtwo air dodging is called phasing, lol why??? Hitting ganon after getting grabbed by his up-b is rockcrocking, dafuq? Also perfect pivot is just called pivot in melee, lolol), probably because people want to make Smash 4 appear more technically deep than in reality, which is pretty sad.

True. Brawl Metaknight is a very complex character. Contrary to belief, an unskilled Metaknight won't get very far in a competitive setting. There's a lot that goes into the character, and even if the result is someone extremely powerful, the player has a lot to do with that as well.

That depth is part of what makes Melee and Brawl so great; the player has the potential to exceed the creator's expectations. When Fox is selected in Melee, it's not just Fox anymore; it's also the player, and that unique element of improvisational transcendence isn't present in Smash 4. In Sm4sh, Fox is only Fox, Metaknight is only Metaknight, etc; You as a player and smasher, are no longer represented through the characters. Your only option is to play exactly how Sakurai wanted you to play and no differently. For that reason, despite Smash 4 being the more recent game, I still find myself returning to Brawl.

Lol, I actually didn't know that. Rockcrocking? Phasing? That truly is pitiful.

Apparently, "Perfect" Pivoting is even called Empty Pivoting by Melee players. How hilarious that their "perfect" technique is considered "empty" by them .

Smash 4 players--Be proud, however; Sakurai finally perfected his long-sought vision. This, is the new Smash Bros.

"Perfect" Pivoting lol

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

But Brawl didn't die just because it was unbalanced. There were so many other factors, such as the fact that the game was very slow and aerial-based (similar to Smash 4), along with other general mechanical aspects that made the game less competitive. By that logic melee should not be alive to this day, nor smash 64.

There is a reason older (competitive) Street Fighters players are heavily criticizing SFV. Both SFV and Smash 4 share the trait of being overly focused on balancing and reducing difficuty (e.g. the fact that Smash 4 has a 10-frame buffer window is absolutely ****ing ridiculous) that makes both games more appealing for casuals, but much less viable competitively. Competition thrives with technical depth, not with "balance".

I guess Sakurai got what he wanted with Smash 4, a noob-friendly game that's good for casual playing.

Smash 4 isn't dying competitively either. It's in fact striving to a hefty degree. The issue is the Wii U dying. Smash 4 is the most popular Smash to this day.

The series was always intended to be noob-friendly anyway. Pick-up-and-play was a huge factor in its design. Smash 4 is also balanced, but not overbalanced to the point where anyone can easily win. That's casual play. Competitive play still has Ganondorf extremely unviable(along with tons of others) with a very clear top. However, the difference isn't as severe as Melee or Brawl. The game never got stale in competitive play either. The balance patches constantly kept the game scene flowing for quite a while, with huge change-ups to who started winning.

It's lasted this long because of not just support, but proper and worthwhile balance that makes sure the top tiers actually aren't just one severely dominating force. There's multiple characters at the top and they're even in many ways, but also could take a game easily. The balance isn't stale, it's variant and allows for easy game upsets that weren't expected. You barely could get that with Melee or 64. Brawl is the worst balanced game in Smash history, and never could get real upset tourneys. As least when Meta Knight wasn't unbanned, which was the only time we even remotely saw a good metagame.

But that's a huge problem with how Brawl's meta was handled too. Meta Knight has intentional rule nerfs, so it's very hard for actual players to find good ways to beat him when they can't face a full powered MK on average. The metagame got stale because there was no way to advance it properly. The other Smash games lacked this kind of an issue and had people constantly finding new ideas or had balance patches that required a new metagame to be played automatically, eliminating any chance of a stale meta.

 

[Bob]

Smash 4 is the most popular Smash to this day.

Nice lie m8.

Smash 4 is also balanced,

Competitive play still has Ganondorf extremely unviable(along with tons of others) with a very clear top.

Nice definition of "balance" you got there, champ.

However, the difference isn't as severe as Melee or Brawl.

Wrong, see my above post(s). Brawl's A > Tiers are infinitely more balanced than Smash 4's. Smash 4 Yoshi is overpowered. You all can say "learn the matchup" until you collective throats give out, but being Fast/Strong (which is already broken by definition), with disproportionately long range, a projectile, the strongest dair in the game, a combo throw, a combo U-Tilt and F-Tilt, a Super Armor double jump, and an Up-B boost (which contradicts the "bad recovery" statement) is broken. Fundamentally, Yoshi has no weaknesses. Smash 4 Metaknight is a Fast/Weak character; he's been balanced as he should. Smash 4 Falcon is a Fast/Strong character. Falcon fundamentally invalidates Metaknight. Any other stats can be adjusted, but if the creator of the game cares anything about balance, you never mess with the fundamental formula. It would be better if the characters shot stage-encompassing lazers beams that were fundamentally balanced than be short-ranged and broken.

Smash 4 is bad because it is the literal translation of characters into itself, which, by definition, can only be broken. In Smash 4, Falcon is literally F-Zero Falcon. Fox is literally StarFox Fox etc. This leads to broken (and unbalanced) characters like Bayonetta, who's literally "hitting the climax" on opponents with her OP witch powers. That's Sakurai's problem; these characters need to be balanced collectively, not individually (because that's unbalanced), and due to Sm4sh's heightened emphasis on the latter of these balancing techniques, Smash 4 is destined to be greatly unbalanced. At least in Brawl the A > Tier characters were relatively equal in ability. The same cannot be said here.

It's lasted this long because of not just support, but proper and worthwhile balance that makes sure the top tiers actually aren't just one severely dominating force.

Wrong. When have you seen Jigglypuff, Little Mac, or even Mewtwo (in recent events) win a major tournament? It's always the same 4 players/characters in rotation: ZeRo with his Diddy, Salem (or anyone else) with their Bayonetta, and varying players for Sheik and Cloud. Yes, maybe you can win against them, but that's not telling the full story; You can win the game, but you will lose the set (or tourney, eventually) to one of them because they too, are broken.

In that regard though, you're absolute right. They are not a dominating force; they are dominating forces, who, when one fails, gets substituted by another who will win the game, set, or tournament in their place.

Brawl is the worst balanced game in Smash history, and never could get real upset tourneys. As least when Meta Knight wasn't unbanned, which was the only time we even remotely saw a good metagame.

You know nothing about Brawl, buddy. Also, you got a little spelling error there. "As -> At" should do the trick
The problem is as I stated earlier; removing the S/A-Tiers (and Zero Suit Samus) and the game instantly becomes one of the most balanced in the history of Smash. The only difference between Brawl and Sm4sh in terms of brokenness is that one game has one broken character, the other has four.

But that's a huge problem with how Brawl's meta was handled too. Meta Knight has intentional rule nerfs, so it's very hard for actual players to find good ways to beat him when they can't face a full powered MK on average. The metagame got stale because there was no way to advance it properly. The other Smash games lacked this kind of an issue and had people constantly finding new ideas or had balance patches that required a new metagame to be played automatically, eliminating any chance of a stale meta.

Brawl "died" because of problems on a business level relating to CLASH Tournaments, among other things. The metagame was very much alive prior to the ruleset fiasco, and even when it's numbers were dwindling, it wasn't a significant issue until Strife and co. started butchering the rules and succumbing to the demands of the (then) prominent smashers. Had it not been to the Metaknight influx (which could've been stopped), Brawl would still be actively alive to this day (albeit in a smaller state).

Smash 4 is next, however. Once people get over the business programmed philosophy of balance, and perfect the Bayonetta metagame, a combination of staleness, slowness, and irrelevance will kill this game.

 

[Pyrover]

I'm not going to comment on much, but you have no concept of balanced or broken characters. For one, having to remove the top ten of Brawl to make it balanced is a pretty serious flaw.

For two... Yoshi isn't that strong. He's not bad by any means, but he's pretty mid tier. Most tier lists put him in C or D tier for a reason (even if I think he's better than that), and he's yet to win... anything of note. For reasons. Very low range, having a mediocre ground game, the third worst grab in the game, instantly dying if he gets footstooled, and very few true combos outside of early up-tilt stuff and his jab confirms will do that.

Learn the character before you criticize it, and argue with facts.

 

[Meatbag]

Nice lie m8.Yoshi has no weaknesses. Smash 4 Metaknight is a Fast/Weak character; he's been balanced as he should. Smash 4 Falcon is a Fast/Strong character. Falcon fundamentally invalidates Metaknight

This is a strong b8. I understand what you're trying to say, but please, stop.

 

[Bob]

I'm not going to comment on much, but you have no concept of balanced or broken characters. For one, having to remove the top ten of Brawl to make it balanced is a pretty serious flaw.

For two... Yoshi isn't that strong. He's not bad by any means, but he's pretty mid tier. Most tier lists put him in C or D tier for a reason (even if I think he's better than that), and he's yet to win... anything of note. For reasons. Very low range, having a mediocre ground game, the third worst grab in the game, instantly dying if he gets footstooled, and very few true combos outside of early up-tilt stuff and his jab confirms will do that.

Learn the character before you criticize it, and argue with facts.

You just got here 5 months ago, and have 39 posts. Leave this to the professionals.

This is a strong b8. I understand what you're trying to say, but please, stop.

You have no concept of game design, I do. That's why Smash 4 is unbalanced (if you argue this you're ignorant). Balancing characters properly would've fixed the collective balance, but the result is a mediocre game with invalid weaknesses (bad recovery isn't a weakness if you never get hit, being weak is an omnipresent weakness).

Edit: I (mostly) can't blame anyone who thinks I'm preposterous, however, as most people have never seen a game that was balanced correctly. I should've been more conscious of that in my post. You can't hold someone accountable for what they can't understand.