Proof that Sakurai *is* in touch with his franchise...(New Interview w/ Sakurai)

[ShadowShuriken]

To be honest I'm annoyed with the new 3DS LL release date for EuropeEurope

 

[Renji64]

You have no concept of risk vs reward.

Taking all of the technical mechanics out of a game does not make it more fun for casuals. If you took out drifting and shortcuts from Mario kart, I'd still lose to my more dedicated friends and I would have less fun. Maybe people should learn to have fun, even when you lose instead of ruining everything for the people who lost so much that they tried that much harder to succeed. What's the point of winning if it's easy anyways?
I'm fine with risk vs reward i'm not cool with being limited can't even move left to right.

 

[Big-Cat]

Except you can move left to right. What do you want?

 

[Icylobster]

It sounds like he plans to take the execution difficulty and tone it down a bunch (compared to melee), while making the choice to actually execute in the first place more serious (compared to brawl).

This is how I see Sakurai's direction for Smash 4 as well. He doesn't wan't it where someone has to spend hours practicing mechanics. However, he wants character depth, so that the game has real complexity to it. This way the player who gets outplayed doesn't see it as some cliff that they lost too. There may still be a massive skill gap, but the newer player can visually see all of the simple steps that the advance player did, so it makes more sense to them.

I'm guessing there will be a bit more of small but important details regarding move interactions between characters. Essentially a risk/reward and properly timing counters, combos, etc. It will probably just be a bit more digestible to the general audience, because the moves and mechanics at hand will be simple to understand.

At least this is the vibe I'm getting. Hardcore Melee fans probably won't like this at all, but its a huge step from Brawl. We could use a lot more depth/complexity, even if the controls and mechanics are simple. I personally would prefer something more like Melee, but I also loved Smash 64 and that game was simple.

 

[VictoriaYr]

This was a great interview by Sakurai, he is being really honest it seems.

We really will have a great game on our hands in just a few months (weeks) depending what version you are getting / where you live. His vision is perfectly fine. I think people will naturally blow out of proportion the parts they disagree with. This is still a wonderful game, and the competitive scene is of course... not up to Sakurai at all. Maybe some people won't like it, but that is not anything new. I'd like to think that there are players out there itching to break into a new scene like me. Since it has been years since I played melee, the only comparison in my mind will be how it plays to Brawl. (How lucky for me!) ha-ha-ha...

As long as I can beat my newcomer friends I'm content. The only thing that determines competition for me is the separation between those who are veterans, and those who are newcomers.

 

[PixelPasta]

This is some very good insight, and I definitely agree with what he is saying.
One quote that particularly stood out to me was this one:
"Companies that release products that target a very vocal, visible group of gamers tend to receive good reactions and they may feel good about it, but I think that we have to pay special attention to the less vocal, not so visible group of players, or else games will just fade away."

 

[Kamikazek]

Taking all of the technical mechanics out of a game does not make it more fun for casuals. If you took out drifting and shortcuts from Mario kart, I'd still lose to my more dedicated friends and I would have less fun. Maybe people should learn to have fun, even when you lose instead of ruining everything for the people who lost so much that they tried that much harder to succeed. What's the point of winning if it's easy anyways?
I'm fine with risk vs reward i'm not cool with being limited can't even move left to right.

It's not a matter of being a sore loser. It's not about winning or losing, it is about having fun. For most people, when one player is absolutely beating the other player into the ground with little to no retaliation, it's not very fun for either party. A close match is much more exciting, exhilarating, and enjoyable. It doesn't matter to me how many options I have if I have no reason to use them and my opponent can't even use them.

When I go to a party where people aren't very good at Smash(a fairly common occurrence) and we play Melee, I slaughter them, which isn't fun for them and especially isn't fun for me, I usually stop playing after a couple matches in fact. If I play those same people at Brawl the skill gap is lessened, and I have way more fun, as do the other players, despite the fact that I find Melee much more exiting when playing people at my own skill level. Indeed, what I find a lot of casuals prefer melee...until they play someone out of their skill level, I either direction. (Note: of course, I'm not a competitive level player, I'm just a good casual. If I was competitive level it wouldn't matter which game we're playing as Brawl really only closes the skill gap for lower level play).

That's why Melee is arguably not as good a party game and not as fun for casuals as Brawl is and the new games are intended to be. Because of the way it's designed Melee's got some crazy skill gaps going on for low level play, which decreases the chances you'll be playing people in at your skill level, and generally the higher the gap in skill is, the less fun everyone is going to have.

Also....you're saying that people should be able just learn to have fun regardless of the skill gap but...you don't expect yourself to learn to have more fun regardless of the movement options.

Edit: Also, the bulk of your post (and subsequently my response post) has, like, nothing to do with risk vs. reward, so you didn't really counter Kuma's point at all...?

 

[Renji64]

It's not a matter of being a sore loser. It's not about winning or losing, it is about having fun. For most people, when one player is absolutely beating the other player into the ground with little to no retaliation, it's not very fun for either party. A close match is much more exciting, exhilarating, and enjoyable. It doesn't matter to me how many options I have if I have no reason to use them and my opponent can't even use them.

When I go to a party where people aren't very good at Smash(a fairly common occurrence) and we play Melee, I slaughter them, which isn't fun for them and especially isn't fun for me, I usually stop playing after a couple matches in fact. If I play those same people at Brawl the skill gap is lessened, and I have way more fun, as do the other players, despite the fact that I find Melee much more exiting when playing people at my own skill level. Indeed, what I find a lot of casuals prefer melee...until they play someone out of their skill level, I either direction. (Note: of course, I'm not a competitive level player, I'm just a good casual. If I was competitive level it wouldn't matter which game we're playing as Brawl really only closes the skill gap for lower level play).

That's why Melee is arguably not as good a party game and not as fun for casuals as Brawl is and the new games are intended to be. Because of the way it's designed Melee's got some crazy skill gaps going on for low level play, which decreases the chances you'll be playing people in at your skill level, and generally the higher the gap in skill is, the less fun everyone is going to have.

Also....you're saying that people should be able just learn to have fun regardless of the skill gap but...you don't expect yourself to learn to have more fun regardless of the movement options.

Being limited sucks having a watered down game sucks. I'm gonna find some way to enjoy this game some how. I like skill gaps i like facing people legit better than me. I don't like a game being watered down to where i have a chance by default i never improved or got better. If i can't beat someone in melee but i can beat them in brawl and smash 4 it just tells me it is the engine and gameplay being simplified and i'm not the better play.

 

[Ursaguy]

Obviously if a middle ground isn't possible, casual players need to be targeted over hardcore players. You know what happens if he completely ignores casual players and only tourney players buy the game? Smash 4 ends up being the kast because they don't make enough money. Tournament players are less than 1% of people that buy Smash, and at the end of the day, it is a business. He's not trying to screw competitive players, he's trying to make sure his game gets bought by the majority.

I also feel like some people here severely overrate a "casual" player. A casual isn't just good players that never go to tournaments. A casual player is somebody who couldn't name the entire roster and will generally only play when asked by a friend that wants to fight them. Casual players aren't ones that "aren't good enough to not lose a life against the CPU". A casual player prolly plays much closer games against level 3-5 computers than any human.

I have never attended a tournament, never wave dashed, and never acknowledged tiers in my life. That doesn't make me casual, and in reality it probably puts me in the top 10% of hardcore-ness of people who buy the game. If Smash makes a game for tournament people, they're losing over 90% of their buyers, which just isn't practical.

 

[Clavaat]

If i can't beat someone in melee but i can beat them in brawl and smash 4 it just tells me it is the engine and gameplay being simplified and i'm not the better play.

Sorry but this is an immature statement.

A real competitive player adapts. If you can beat someone at one and not the other, all it means is that you are the better player than him in one, and not the other. Nothing more. It also means you both cannot adapt, which is a weak stance in the FGC.

 

[Thunderfang747]

I think the key here is that there are a lot more factors to being good at fighting games than technical prowess, and if anything this article bodes well for Smash's competitive scene. Sakurai said it himself, he is trying to make a game to appeal to both casual and hardcore, and I interpret that as they're keeping the mental depth and options there while simply making them easy on the hands. Reads, mind games, spacing, zoning, and other fundamental aspects of the fighting genre will still be here, and for the first time in the series they are actually focusing on it in particular. Melee would be an equally good game with or without the huge technical barriers it presents, the depth in the game is extraordinary which is really what makes a game like this interesting at higher levels.

 

[Kamikazek]

Being limited sucks having a watered down game sucks. I'm gonna find some way to enjoy this game some how. I like skill gaps i like facing people legit better than me. I don't like a game being watered down to where i have a chance by default i never improved or got better. If i can't beat someone in melee but i can beat them in brawl and smash 4 it just tells me it is the engine and gameplay being simplified and i'm not the better play.

Right. That's what you like. That's fine. But it's not what everyone likes and that's not what everyone cares about, I'd even argue it's a fairly niche way of thinking. If the game doesn't appeal to you, that doesn't mean the game is badly made. It just isn't made with the intent that you desire. The point is, the way Brawl is does make it preferable for a lot of people, but you were talking like it makes it straight worse, and if the Melee way doesn't work for someone they should just change what their preference is.

And if you can't beat someone in Melee but you can beat them in Brawl it doesn't mean that you aren't the better player or the engine is worse. I get what you're trying to say but that's a silly train of logic. It could just mean that Brawl suits you better. High or even vaguely highsh level Brawl and Melee require a very different skillset and emphasize different abilities. If playing Brawl just lessens the win to lose ratio, then it's probably just a case of the skill gap going down. But if it flips the win to lose ratio, and in some cases it does, that means you are the better player, at Brawl, and that doesn't mean any less than being the better player at Melee.

Here's an example. I have a friend who I play fighting games a lot with. He is way better at Street fighter than me, but I'm better than him at Blazblue. Yet I've put waaaay more effort into Street fighter than he has and we've both played Blazblue about the same amount. If you look at all fighting games across the board, we're about even. It's not that one game is better made so the more universally skilled player does better in that game, it's that Street fighter suits him better, Blazblue suits me better.

 

[Hentai_Kittie]

Sorry but this is an immature statement.

A real competitive player adapts. If you can beat someone at one and not the other, all it means is that you are the better player than him in one, and not the other. Nothing more. It also means you both cannot adapt, which is a weak stance in the FGC.

Not to mention that while they may be both called SSB and are pretty similar on the surface. As soon as you start actually getting good at the game you'll realize that they are vastly different at their core. It's easy to be top notch at one and mediocre at the other.

 

[The Real Gamer]

the depth in the game is extraordinary which is really what makes a game like this interesting at higher levels.

This is only partially true.

You're also forgetting one important aspect that makes Melee such an incredible spectator sport: its speed. I'd argue that the speed at which interactions take place in Melee is just as interesting as said interactions.

Melee's speed is what allows crazy moments like these to happen:

Now of course I'm not expecting Smash 4 to play at this pace, but I'm at least hoping that it won't be anywhere near as slow as Brawl.

 

[Big-Cat]

Speed still isn't everything.

 

[The Real Gamer]

Speed still isn't everything.

I'd argue that the speed at which interactions take place in Melee is just as interesting as said interactions.

?

 

[DairunCates]

This is only partially true.

You're also forgetting one important aspect that makes Melee such an incredible spectator sport: its speed. I'd argue that the speed at which interactions take place in Melee is just as interesting as said interactions.

Melee's speed is what allows crazy moments like these to happen:

Now of course I'm not expecting Smash 4 to play at this pace, but I'm at least hoping that it won't be anywhere near as slow as Brawl.

In all fairness, speed isn't EVERYTHING. Street Fighter IV is one of the most popular fighting games worldwide and it's the slowest we've seen in decades.

Also, giving a player "complete control" over their character isn't usually terribly conducive to balance or good game design. Gameplay is more frequently defined by its limitations than it's freedoms. A platformer without gravity is just flying.

 

[The Real Gamer]

In all fairness, speed isn't EVERYTHING.

Speed still isn't everything.

There seems to be an issue with reading comprehension... All I stated was that Melee's speed COMBINED with it's depth and complexity is what makes it such an interesting spectator sport for so many people, which is undeniably true.

 

[RanserSSF4]

Right. That's what you like. That's fine. But it's not what everyone likes and that's not what everyone cares about, I'd even argue it's a fairly niche way of thinking. If the game doesn't appeal to you, that doesn't mean the game is badly made. It just isn't made with the intent that you desire. The point is, the way Brawl is does make it preferable for a lot of people, but you were talking like it makes it straight worse, and if the Melee way doesn't work for someone they should just change what their preference is.

And if you can't beat someone in Melee but you can beat them in Brawl it doesn't mean that you aren't the better player or the engine is worse. I get what you're trying to say but that's a silly train of logic. It could just mean that Brawl suits you better. High or even vaguely highsh level Brawl and Melee require a very different skillset and emphasize different abilities. If playing Brawl just lessens the win to lose ratio, then it's probably just a case of the skill gap going down. But if it flips the win to lose ratio, and in some cases it does, that means you are the better player, at Brawl, and that doesn't mean any less than being the better player at Melee.

Here's an example. I have a friend who I play fighting games a lot with. He is way better at Street fighter than me, but I'm better than him at Blazblue. Yet I've put waaaay more effort into Street fighter than he has and we've both played Blazblue about the same amount. If you look at all fighting games across the board, we're about even. It's not that one game is better made so the more universally skilled player does better in that game, it's that Street fighter suits him better, Blazblue suits me better.

I personally agree with your comment. It doesn't matter what type of fighting game you're playing. Just because it doesn't end up being the game you want, doesn't instantly mean it's a bad game. I get what @ Renji64 is saying and that's understandable, but it's pretty obvious, at least to me, that he really, REALLY wants this game to be just like Melee in terms of mechanics and speed (Same thing goes to Scenerio, even though he does make some valid points).

If he doesn't enjoy the game and refuses to adapt, let him, that's his choice, while others may adapt and play this competitively.

Besides, even slow paced fighting games can be played competitively. Some succeed and can be hyped (Injustice: Gods Among Us) and once in a while, some fail (Street Fighter x Tekken). I've played and enjoyed Injustice competitively, and adapted to Injustice, despite it being slower than MK9!

 

[DairunCates]

There seems to be an issue with reading comprehension... All I stated was that Melee's speed COMBINED with it's depth and complexity is what makes it such an interesting spectator sport for so many people, which is undeniably true.

I think it's more you insinuated that speed makes a game necessarily more interesting when combined with technique. My point was that the inverse can be true.

So, Smash 4 being faster or slower doesn't NECESSARILY have a direct impact on whether it's more watchable. Street Fighter IV, in this case, actually would be less watchable at faster speeds, because the appeal of watching it is the tense spacing and read games that become very noticeable at its current speed.

 

[Big-Cat]

Pretty much the above. A slow game can still be entertaining to watch. I prefer watching Street Fighter over MvC.

 

[Roxas215]

Pretty much the above. A slow game can still be entertaining to watch. I prefer watching Street Fighter over MvC.

That dont even make sense. Wether sf is a better game then marvel is a different story but theres no way sf is more entertaining to watch then Marvel.

 

[Icylobster]

Speed is in no way mandatory, but it is one of the reasons that makes Melee exciting. However, plenty successful games and sports can enjoy a much slower pace and have success. I think the issue here is for people that love a fast pace. In that regard, you may be letdown some.

I personally love watching Melee, Starcraft, UMVC3, all being faster paced games. I struggle a bit more watching SSF4, but it does very well. Essentially, what we need is meaningful gameplay interactions. The speed will matter to a degree, but most of this comes down to preference. I'd say speed really only matters when spectating when the game is far too fast, or too slow. As long as you have the meaningful interaction, then I see no reason that it wouldn't be enjoyable.

Ultimately, changing the speed will either make someone happy or make someone upset but at the end of the day, we should care a lot more about the character depth and interactions, that is what will make this game successful. It might not make it the best for you personally, but it will make it successful.

 

[Big-Cat]

That dont even make sense. Wether sf is a better game then marvel is a different story but theres no way sf is more entertaining to watch then Marvel.

I disagree. There's a lot of tension while watching. Marvel happens so fast that the feeling of tension isn't around long enough to savor.

 

[Leonyx]

That dont even make sense. Wether sf is a better game then marvel is a different story but theres no way sf is more entertaining to watch then Marvel.

It is if you can see the kinds of reads and plays competitors are making. I know Marvel is the "hypest" by popular choice and it's flashiness, but I also prefer the slower pace of Street Fighter.

 

[the8thark]

I will never understand the perception that the casual audience was not satisfied with Melee.

I will never understand that either. I didn't partake in any Melee tournaments. But I did earn every trophy and beat classic/adventure on the hardest difficulty and I loved it. I thought Melee was the best thing since sliced bread. Brawl on the other hand I picked to pieces. Brawl was a great game but just not as great as Melee was, even for the casuals like myself. And that is even if you take away my bias for being sad Roy was cut for Brawl. Even without all the fancy tech moves Melee felt more fluid and dare I say it "easier to play" than Brawl was. Sure mastering the Melee techs is hard but you don't need to master those as a casual.

I thought the 51 challenge stages in Melee were just so well done. But the challenge stages in Brawl were just terrible. Same deal with the smash the target stages, better in melee. I could go on and on, but you get my point. I didn't hate Brawl, it's a great game. I just think melee was way better.

Sakurai saying he wants SSB4 to be the best of both worlds (Melee and Brawl) is a great thing. I know you can't have it perfect. SSB4 will have it's flaws. But as long as most of the issues that were in Melee and Brawl are addressed I'll be happy.

And lastly I do consider SSB to be a fighting fame series. It clearly is. It's not a platformer or a racing game or something. But to me it's the most casual friendly fighter out there. No complex combos needed to learn to play etc etc. I never could enjoy Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter etc etc cause I had to learn so much and practice so much before I could even seriously play the game. With SSB I can pick a character, and get right into it and learn as I play. Well that's what I did back in the Smash64 (and them Melee) days. I am really glad Sakurai understands this. I do hope the competitive scene embraces SSB4 like they did Melee. Then we all can watch the SSB4 streams and enjoy them. And the great part is we know we don't have to be that good to enjoy the game. Even the worst of us at fighting games can hit up the easy difficulty and have fun.

 

[The Real Gamer]

I think it's more you insinuated that speed makes a game necessarily more interesting when combined with technique. My point was that the inverse can be true.

So, Smash 4 being faster or slower doesn't NECESSARILY have a direct impact on whether it's more watchable. Street Fighter IV, in this case, actually would be less watchable at faster speeds, because the appeal of watching it is the tense spacing and read games that become very noticeable at its current speed.

Pretty much the above. A slow game can still be entertaining to watch. I prefer watching Street Fighter over MvC.

Of course a game can get by without speed that much is obvious, but in the context of the Smash series you have to acknowledge that Melee's speed (combined with its depth and complexity) is one of the main reasons it was able to carve out its own niche within the FGC. No two fighting games are great for the exact same reasons. Before Melee there has never been a fighting game that gave the player so many options at his or her disposal in such a short time frame. Watching a player making so many calculated, split second risk-reward decisions is what makes Melee, well... Melee. There's really nothing else like it and judging by Sakurai's design philosophy we'll most likely never see anything else like it for a long time.

Since speed was such an important factor in Melee (which is considered the pinnacle of competitive Smash by most) it inherently makes it important factor in any future Smash game since it will undoubtedly be compared to Melee. It's why one of the biggest complaints about Brawl was it's slow, campy pace. Is this fair? Probably not. Could competitive Smash 4 eventually become as successful as Melee without the speed? Probably so. But to blatantly ignore the importance of speed in the context of competitive Smash Bros. is an overly simplistic way of looking at things. It may not be the end all be all, but it's pretty damn important to a lot of competitive Smash players/spectators.

 

[Kevandre]

I'm a guy who completely despises the competitive scene of Smash. Mainly because the people in it are some of the biggest asshats around when it comes to playing a video game.

I also hate being called a "casual" because I don't play in tourneys. Casual implies I'm with the Wii Sports crowd. That **** pisses me off to no end.

TR4Q 2014

 

[MrPanic]

That dont even make sense. Wether sf is a better game then marvel is a different story but theres no way sf is more entertaining to watch then Marvel.

SF is always more entertaining than Marvel when you know both games as Marvel always comes down to ******** set-ups that only look interesting because the game's flashy while there really goes a lot of thought and mindgames into play. If you know what's going on, no way you can legitimately find Marvel more entertaining as it always comes down to dumb sheit (MvC3 at least).

The way this smash is going seems like a good way for the competitive scene imo. It seems like a good balance to keep the old players interested in the game and getting more people into the scene. It will also turn the game into a more mindgame focused game instead of a execution heavy game, which I can only approve because I personally don't feel like execution heavy games are that skilled at all. I'd rather watch a match where someone makes a comeback because he adapted to the opponents style than see a match where one gets outwavedashed (terrible example, but the thought is still there).

 

[The Real Gamer]

I'm a guy who completely despises the competitive scene of Smash. Mainly because the people in it are some of the biggest ******s around when it comes to playing a video game.

This post is so ironic it hurts.

In all seriousness if you have nothing to add except for ad-hominem why bother posting at all? I'll never understand why some always have to make discussions like these so personal...

 

[the8thark]

I'm a guy who completely despises the competitive scene of Smash. Mainly because the people in it are some of the biggest ******s around when it comes to playing a video game.

I also hate being called a "casual" because I don't play in tourneys. Casual implies I'm with the Wii Sports crowd. That **** pisses me off to no end.

TR4Q 2014

You make a good point here. You can be hardcore into SSB and have zero want to enter thew tournament scene. You're not a casual player who plays 1 hour a week. You might be damn good at the game. So calling all non tournament players casual is wrong.

On the flip side, who cares what the tournament players thing if you are not in the tournament scene. Let them have say what they want, you don't have to deal with it.

 

[Big-Cat]

Before Melee there has never been a fighting game that gave the player so many options at his or her disposal in such a short time frame. Watching a player making so many calculated, split second risk-reward decisions is what makes Melee, well... Melee .

Marvel vs. Capcom 2

 

[Kevandre]

You make a good point here. You can be hardcore into SSB and have zero want to enter thew tournament scene. You're not a casual player who plays 1 hour a week. You might be damn good at the game. So calling all non tournament players casual is wrong.

On the flip side, who cares what the tournament players thing if you are not in the tournament scene. Let them have say what they want, you don't have to deal with it.

It just sucks because if I want any kind of challenge, I've got to play with the people I know who are tourney people. And they're irritating. If I want to play with less-irritating people, it's hard to find people near my skill level, most of the people I play with won't play with me because it isn't fun. Which really blows. If I try to tone it down and they know that then it's still not fun. That's why my wife won't play with me anymore.

This post is so ironic it hurts.

In all seriousness if you have nothing to add except for ad-hominem why bother posting at all? I'll never understand why some always have to make discussions like these so personal...

This is a fair point. I concede that

 

[the8thark]

It just sucks because if I want any kind of challenge, I've got to play with the people I know who are tourney people. And they're irritating. If I want to play with less-irritating people, it's hard to find people near my skill level, most of the people I play with won't play with me because it isn't fun. Which really blows. If I try to tone it down and they know that then it's still not fun. That's why my wife won't play with me anymore.

Just go 2v1 and give her a decent AI bot. That'd up the challenge for you and still make the game fun for her.

 

[Kevandre]

Just go 2v1 and give her a decent AI bot. That'd up the challenge for you and still make the game fun for her.

Yar. I'll bring it up and stuff but I'm thinking we'll have fun w/ SSB4. I pretty much only play against bots now lol

 

[Roxas215]

It is if you can see the kinds of reads and plays competitors are making. I know Marvel is the "hypest" by popular choice and it's flashiness, but I also prefer the slower pace of Street Fighter.

I know all about the reads. I've been in the fgc for years now. Actually on my way to summer jam as i type this. Im a avid fan of sf.

But form a purely spectator point of view? Theres no way sf is better then marvel.

Marvel vs. Capcom 2

This. So much this!

 

[pickle962]

I'm a guy who completely despises the competitive scene of Smash. Mainly because the people in it are some of the biggest ******s around when it comes to playing a video game.

I also hate being called a "casual" because I don't play in tourneys. Casual implies I'm with the Wii Sports crowd. That **** pisses me off to no end.

TR4Q 2014

*facepalm*

1. Why are you on here if you despise the competitive crowd of smash bros which was built from people who loved Melee to death during its heyday? (Ironically, some of those same competitive folks I'm willing to bet love playing with items on wacky stages for ****s and giggles every now and again)

2. The only competitive smash player I can think of off the top of my head who sometimes rubs others the wrong way is Mew2King, but even then, the guy is autistic as they come, so he doesn't always mean what he says most of the time anyway!

3. Not to be mean, but I'm glad the ignore button exists as ad hominem comments like yours infuriate me to no end!

On Topic: I just read the comment section of said article and wow...some people just don't want to give 4 a shot despite the game cutting out all the junk that weighed Brawl down as well as appealing quite a bit to us hardcore fans this time rather than giving us the shaft again! As long as you don't ignore the hardcore audience and their needs (of which Sakurai has seemingly addressed about every one of them), there is absolutely nothing wrong with giving a helping hand to new players who usually aren't very good at fighting games.

 

[DairunCates]

Since speed was such an important factor in Melee (which is considered the pinnacle of competitive Smash by most) it inherently makes it important factor in any future Smash game since it will undoubtedly be compared to Melee.

...And this is where we fundamentally disagree. Fighting game series evolves over time. Later iterations are not always entirely similar to previous ones. In fact, it's arguably a bad idea to make another game that's Melee 2.0 simply because Melee has stood as the standard for SO LONG that multiple tournament players aren't going to move over no matter what the new game is like (unless it's almost an exact duplicate of melee). You'd just be splitting the community. If a game like this wants to be competitively viable, it needs to be building its own community, not desperately hoping that the old community will adopt it whole-heartedly, because it's never going to happen. There's almost always gonna be more melee tournaments. Street Fighter II (pretty much the original tournament fighter) still has tournaments here and there, and its community isn't nearly as passionate as Melee's.

So, arguing that speed will be appropriate just because it was for Melee doesn't really add up. On top of that, one person could argue that the speed of melee is exactly the reason that melee's community was so divided. So, even if you want to go that way, that sword definitely has two edges to it.

Regardless, I haven't really seen any convincing arguments for why Smash 4 SHOULD be as fast as melee beyond "It'll be exciting" (Which, without other facts backing it up just doesn't necessarily ring true).

Edit:

But form a purely spectator point of view? Theres no way sf is better then marvel.

I actually believe that no only did Street Fighter have more entrants this year, but it had more viewers on the twitch stream as well. So, I'm not sure this argument entirely holds water.

 

[Roxas215]

Marvel vs. Capcom 2

SF is always more entertaining than Marvel when you know both games as Marvel always comes down to ******** set-ups that only look interesting because the game's flashy while there really goes a lot of thought and mindgames into play. If you know what's going on, no way you can legitimately find Marvel more entertaining as it always comes down to dumb sheit (MvC3 at least).

The way this smash is going seems like a good way for the competitive scene imo. It seems like a good balance to keep the old players interested in the game and getting more people into the scene. It will also turn the game into a more mindgame focused game instead of a execution heavy game, which I can only approve because I personally don't feel like execution heavy games are that skilled at all. I'd rather watch a match where someone makes a comeback because he adapted to the opponents style than see a match where one gets outwavedashed (terrible example, but the thought is still there).

This sounds like you are the one who don't know whats going on and are making excuses. Is there dumb stuff in marvel? Absoultely. But if marvel is so "********" then why does marvel have the most consinstent results of any fgc game??

If YOU actually knew what was going on you would understand that performing combos and setups is the "Easy" part of marvel. It's understanding what your and your oppenents options are at any given time and captabilizing on them that is the "Hard" part of marvel.

Sf is very tech heavy and yes more mindgames are in sf. But lets not act like sf isn't dumb in it's own way. Ultra is universally accepted as the worst version of the game right now. Yun is just as dumb as vergil and mk

Edit:
I actually believe that no only did Street Fighter have more entrants this year, but it had more viewers on the twitch stream as well. So, I'm not sure this argument entirely holds water.

I was at evo. Sf had more entrants due to japan. Marvel had the most views out of the big 3 followed by Melee. SF was 3rd place in terms of views at evo.

 

[DairunCates]

I was at evo. Sf had more entrants due to japan.

That still doesn't mean that the game doesn't have strong universal appeal.

Marvel had the most views out of the big 3 followed by Melee. SF was 3rd place in terms of views at evo.

I'd actually like to see the numbers on that. Even then, the numbers weren't terribly far off. The argument was that there was "no way" Street Fighter had as much appeal as Marvel. It obviously has at least similar appeal.