Here's some vague stream of consciousness musings about the game.
With regards to the more 'casual' parts of the game, the 3DS version feels very
wide, but perhaps not very
deep, like a really big pool that only goes up to your knees. Classic and All-Star and Stadium are all fine and dandy, but I can't help but feel as though the game suffers from AGS (Asian Grind Syndrome), where the large majority of the accomplishments in the game can be summarized as 'do this, and then do it again'. The challenge board is a great idea and I always like it, but it quickly degenerates into things that I feel like one can't go out of one's way to beat without getting completely burnt out on single-player very quickly (i.e beat [x] mode with every character).
I feel like Smash Run is great, but suffers (at least in a North American setting) from being a) local only and b) on the handheld version. I'd previously hypothesized ...somewhere (either Smashboards or on Facebook, I can't remember) that Smash Run was intended to be the go-to 'pick up and play' mode of the game, having little in the way of customizable rules to worry about. You're on the bus and see somebody with a 3DS looking to Smash? Instead of spending time deciding whether or not you want items on or etc., you just play a round of Smash Run. Everyone is happy.
That being said, as a big fan of City Trial from Kirby's Air Ride, and as a staunch believer that a portable console's biggest strength is its portability, I believe that Smash Run should have been a feature in the console version - I got Smash 4 for the 3DS because I like the idea of being able to play Smash quickly whenever I want, wherever I am - as such, I think that Smash Run (and to a lesser extent, online play in general) was a waste on the portable version. The chances of there being other Smashers that just so
happen to be nearby (not to mention the chance that we actually even interact with each other) whenever I'm playing the portable version is low enough that I feel as though there should have been more focus on the single player content. Which, of course, I still feel is substantial enough, but as I said, could have benefit from a bit more depth. Why not have a Boss Rush similar to Brawl's, with bosses exclusive to the 3DS version? Why not bring back old favorites like Break the Targets and/or Board The Platforms for people to try and compete for high scores? I'm disappointed that what I feel like is a great game mode (Smash Run) is something that I'm barely ever going to get to actually play with people, 'cause I'm not exactly interested in interacting with each other in public whilst in transit, and by the time the Wii U version comes out, well, if I'm ever playing Smash 4 locally, it's just gonna be on that on a nice big TV with a Gamecube controller, you know?
As far the more "competitive" aspects of the game, I think that it's a huge improvement from both Brawl and Melee - I've made it clear more than a few times that I don't think Brawl's failures were necessarily Melee's successes and vice versa. That being said, I think that Smash 4 is not the successor to Melee that a lot of people wanted (and will never get, at least not as a Smash game), and as such is going to probably cause a rough divide in the community.
I think that there's basically two kinds of Smash players, at this point - the people who play Melee because Brawl wasn't really an appropriate competitive game, and the people who play Melee because Brawl was
different than Melee (I believe it's likely that the majority of Project M players fall under the former category). In this sense, Smash 4 was doomed to fail for many from the start - while the former group will be pleased to have a new Smash that's actually viable as a competitive fighting game (I'll get to that later), the latter group will inevitably be displeased with anything that isn't Melee. The relatively disgruntled response I've seen from many notable smashers towards Smash 4 more or less confirms my suspicions of that, I think.
So while it doesn't have Melee's technical-movement orientation, Smash 4
feels very good to play - it's responsive, it's dynamic, it's accessible, and it's rewarding.
I'm sure anyone reading this who's played it has noticed that it's faster and less floaty than Brawl. A lot of people tend to say that it's not as 'defensive' as Brawl, but that's always been bull**** (both Melee and Brawl's metagames are overwhelmingly defensively oriented) - it's more apt to say that Smash 4 is better at rewarding
intelligent aggression, while simultaneously being better at punishing overly defensive play. Spot dodges and air dodges are less reliable, forcing you to actually read well for them to be useful. Shields don't seem to last as long (or it seems that way, at least), and there are more options than ever that are specifically designed to punish shield heavy players - but on the same token, dropping one's shield is now much faster, so actually shielding something correctly is no longer a punishable offense. Making the player's defensive options much more situational has made the game much more cerebral - while it doesn't have the intricate duck-and-weave style that Melee eventually developed (at the expense of much of the game, mechanically), it doesn't
need it. While Melee has a competitive focus on execution of
action, Smash 4's competitive focus will be on execution of
strategy - reading your opponent will be much more important, which in the long run will make Smash 4 pretty interesting.
Balance-wise, it's too early to say objectively. I feel as though there are basically four types of characters in Smash 4 (with some overlap, of course), all of which seem like they're more or less as good as each other (warning; opinions ahead);
- Fast, aggressive characters, with strong sets of normals and interesting specials to complement. Sheik, Zero Suit Samus, Greninja, Captain Falcon, Lucario, Meta Knight, Peach, Fox, Yoshi, Wii Fit Trainer and Sonic all fall under this category. There's also Little Mac, who plays very differently than the rest of those, but is arguably the same idea. I think these characters will all have a focus on playing aggressively, going for extended combos and early KOs, but will suffer from having difficult-to-land kill options and poor/predictable recoveries. Note that this is basically the only kind of character that's viable in Melee.
- Methodical, spacing oriented characters, with slow-to-medium speed normals with disjointed/extended reaches. Marth, Robin, Ness, Lucina, Pit and Dark Pit, Mr. Game and Watch, Palutena Ike, Shulk, Pikachu, Jigglypuff, Bowser Jr... basically all the characters with swords or weapons. These characters will be more about reacting to your opponents than going for combos, with easier ways to kill but less ways to rack up damage, and generally better recoveries than the first group.
- Very similar to the second group is the zoners, characters with movesets that revolve around controlling space, usually with lots of projectiles. Rosalina, Samus, Duck Hunt, Mega Man, Pac-Man, Diddy Kong, Villager, Link and Toon Link, Olimar, Zelda, ROB, all the characters with notable projectiles and extended space control. These characters also seem to have generally the best recoveries, but often not that many tools for dealing with lots of up close aggression (or if they do, the tools are generally predictable or relatively ineffective).
- Finally, we have the BIG FATTIES, whose whole deal is that they're enormous, hard to kill, and hit really hard. These characters have always basically been the worst in Smash, but this time around they've all been given tools, whether character specific or game-wide mechanics, to be better than they've ever been. Bowser, Donkey Kong, Charizard, Ganondorf, King Dedede round out this relatively small group, but I feel as though they have more of a fighting chance than they ever had before, and are probably the most fun characters to watch. They also, notably, all have a move that they can use to try and suicide KO.
Some character specific thoughts;
Rosalina is currently my contender for Best Character. Her control of space is incredible - all of her normals have hitboxes that I can only describe as
very ****ing generous, her damage is notable, her recovery is fantastic, and she's basically immune to projectiles. Smart, capable players will use the Luma in such a way where you're basically fighting two characters at once - like the Ice Climbers, except much more threatening. It also seems like it's impossible to grab her if the Luma is near, which is obviously huge. Expect to see strong results from her.
Bowser seems notably good for a big fatty - lots attacks that, despite hitting hard, are really fast, a noticeably buffed recovery ranged, and his huge weight makes him benefit the most from the rage mechanic. An early lead with Bowser will go a long way in matches, probably. I especially like that his neutral B isn't an enormous waste of time, now.
I've tried to defend Dark Pit as being a clone similar to Dr. Mario (who I played a lot of in Melee), and that a clone here and there is better than not having a character there at all - but unlike Dr. Mario and Lucina, I feel like Dark Pit is
basically the same as Pit, and it's not very interesting. So, bleh.
I don't really care about the Mii Fighters.
Pac-Man is probably my favorite character to actually play as (thankfully, since I was clearly very hyped about him),
but will probably not be my competitive main (Greninja, who just so happens to be one of my favorite pokemon). I love all of his tools and I feel like he's really smooth to play as, but I've found it way too difficult to land any of his KO moves reliably so far.
Everyone seems to have a pocket Little Mac (even me!), but I don't think he's
that good. Definitely good, but I feel like people playing him in reaction to losing is based more on how satisfying he feels to play as and less on how often he actually wins.
King Dedede's Gordos are simultaneously the best
and worst projectile in the game.
I don't know what to think about Wario. He just sort of
exists and I feel as though I'm supposed to acknowledge him but I can't look at him for too long or my brain starts to hurt.
While Fox is probably a strong contender all around (though his Reflector is basically the worst parts of the Melee and Brawl versions combined), Falco feels like he was hit maybe a bit too hard with the nerf bat. While I don't think he's
bad, I do feel as though he (likely inadvertantly) suffers
the most from wide gameplay changes that were probably made for balance reasons. Projectiles were nerfed across the board, but it feels especially jarring with Falco, who now takes forever and a day to shoot a laser
and to put his gun away. Recoveries are generally stronger, but with Falco this means just
barely being able to recover, whereas before he just plain couldn't, so now he feels noticeably weak in this area. Chaingrabs are gone, so his most reliable damage option from Brawl doesn't exist (though I feel this change was for the best). His legendary down aerial has been changed to a move that, on any other character, would feel fine (and arguably, it's still fine on Falco), but compared to his old one, feels just... bleh. I always mained Falco in previous games because I
love Star Fox and Falco has always been my favorite character, and I've always bemoaned him being so strong in Melee and Brawl 'cause I felt like a scrub for playing Falco all the time, you know? But now, while I still think he's okay-to-good, he just feels really stilted and jarring for longtime Falco players from Melee
or Brawl. Probably my only real disappointment, as far as characters go. That being said, while at this point I'm maining Pac-Man and Greninja, I'll still probably play a lot of Falco, 'cause he'll always be my favorite.
---
That's all I can think of right now. If you have any other specific questions, I'm always willing to post many, many words in response.
Bleck 's saying entirely. He summed up my thoughts of Smash 4 very nicely.
? Currently,
