The sole issue I have with Melee (which I loved and spent many many hours playing, just like the rest of the series) is that if a casual player wishes to become competitive, they face a very large cliff of minimum technical skill they must climb before standing a chance. No mastery of the basics will grant access to competitive skill, you must become adept at the advanced techniques to stand a faint chance.
That's what Sakurai has addressed by making the game less technical, and aye, even by making the game slower (longer execution windows make things easier to do). While Brawl's masterable techniques and options didn't lead to as many diverse options or aggressive play as mastering Melee's did, they were more manageable, and thus it was easier to become decent at Brawl (but no easier to haphazardly beat a better player).
Smash 4 is aiming to hit between those, offering a high skill ceiling through character mechanics and some less-technical-more-manageable advanced techniques, while offering a low skill floor with a moderate game pace and very few particularly tricky mechanics (Luma being the notable exception, and hopefully offering great reward in exchange).
One does not simply become competitive. As I have said, competitive and casual is a false dichotomy. It is a sliding scale with
indistinct (Edit: whoops, I believe that element of the thesis was not in accord with the rest of the post) boundaries and goals. We must refer to so many abstract notions such as skill ceiling, curves, make
vague and imprecise graphs to visualize what we mean, and so on.
I do understand this sentiment, though. It hinges on placing a high desirability on equality. Equality certainly may be important, but in what context is it important, and why? I challenge you to articulate that, sir, as will I.
What would motivate a casual player to improve himself? Presumably, a desire to defeat superior opponents, or to improve himself. Yet, in that very statement we see that equality is an irreconcilable sentiment to competition, for without inequality there would be no superior opponent.
For the sake of improvement, one must measure himself to the inequality.
One must acknowledge the inequality. It is inevitable.
The higher the skill ceiling of a game, generally, the larger the gaps between levels of players.
The lower the skill ceiling of a game, generally, the smaller the gaps and the less frequently they appear.
When the scale changes, when the scope of knowledge about a game increases, ranges that were slight curves beforehand become much flatter. Whence one views what could happen, and what ought happen, compared to what does happen, the gaps become readily apparent.
In this way we say that the gap between certain players is distinct. It is clearly definable. In games with lower skill ceilings, it is more difficult for an individual, who is putting forth effort to improve himself, to actually improve himself. It is more difficult to observe what they ought improve on, what skills they should practice, what they should expand on.
Then what of the people who do not have the same level of passion to do whatever it takes to improve themselves? This is my challenge, sir. Why ought those more passionate to improve themselves be hobbled so that those who put forth less effort would for longer enjoy the fantasy that they are a decent player, where those that put forth the effort will still inevitably beat them yet without such a clear distinction of this? Surely, there is no place in noble thought for appeasing this jealousy, this arrogant baseness?
But, I ought not deride them so, 'tis cruel of me, and a generalization. Being a generalization, it is the general nature of their plight. They are not genuine in their intention to improve themselves. For, even in Brawl we had those that clearly stood above the rest, and it is inevitably so, you yourself, Raijinken, have acknowledged this. Those of less skill and effort and passion will, no matter the game, always be edged out by those who have more.
It might
seem cruel, but it is the natural and inexorable implication of human action. I assure you that it is not cruel, it is noble and just that equality is not part of the natural law, for otherwise there would exist no differences among mankind at all.
If Sakurai be magnanimous, there is no other choice other than to design Smash 4 with a high skill ceiling.
Now, the only other perspective that can be taken is this: the core mechanics (the mastery of the basics, as you call it) which everything else builds off of ought not be difficult to learn.
However, if basic is an absolute term, then it cannot be set at an arbitrary percent of the various techniques of a given game. As for what other absolute it could be set at, I am confounded, since there seems none. If basic be an absolutely relative term (hon hon hon, it seems an oxymoron already!) then how can we know on any basis ever that any distinction we make is reliable in the slightest, are we not groping in the dark for illusory absolutes? There is a third way. That which is a basic skill seems relative to each level. Put another way it means the techniques and skills that clearly distinguish one level from another are the basics of that level. The more subtle things we can put aside as not as immediately integral to the upward journey of progress.
One cannot see that which they have no knowledge of. One cannot perceive or conceive of those who are of a higher skill level without the observation of them. Therefore, for those who do not observe the skill levels which are outside their limited scope are stunted in the fact that they do not know the capacity of the game, in that they have no canon, no measuring rod, no saint, no lodestar. But, those that do not observe higher skill levels are ultimately unconcerned with it, for it cannot enter into their consideration except by deliberate abstraction and intense analysis, therefore it is said that the segregation of casuals and hardcore players is both viable and admirable. It is not the sole intention of matchmaking, however. That might be a discussion for another time.
With the above two facts, it is plain that 'casual' is a subjective term. That is, the distinction between casual and hardcore is found within the observer who has for his object another player. Casual is generally those who are in the lowest known skill range. A hardcore player is to the observer generally he who is in the highest known skill range.
Then, if a high skill ceiling demands some levels be more difficult to enter in to, why is that a bad thing?
We have shown, in the above, that designing for casual and hardcore players can be done at the same time, and it is a false dichotomy to suppose that one cannot cater to both. Further, it was demonstrated that there are multiple levels of skill, each of which have their own entrance requirements.
But even after all that we might still not agree. What say you of the above?
