Reasons I think Sm4sh can become the highlight Smash game @ EVO

[kackamee]

Don't you understand? Brawl, not having as much depth as Melee makes it worse in the department of gameplay, especially when considering capacity to which a wide range of peoples can enjoy the gameplay. We are, in effect, removing all other thoughts of enjoyment such as character content, or stages. I can then apply this language to a mess up, an intentional mess up.

What we assert is
that such a thing exists, and
that it has a certain objective quality, which we call depth, to distinguish it from other qualities -- volume of content, complexity -- with which it is not identical; while
our statement further implies that the same quality will similarly appear to any normally constituted man, i.e. will affect his sense in the same way that it affects our own. (as in the input is the same, the outcome can indeed be different and still be objective.)
Accordingly, if in the real world such a condition of things obtains -- if, that is to say, the thing in question does exist and has in fact some peculiar and distinctive property whereby it affects my senses in a certain peculiar and distinctive way -- my judgement is true.

There's a lot of philosophy involved in such things, not just semantics, be careful about your 'objective' and 'subjective' there yourselves, don't brandish it and wave it around as such, and I'm sorry that I did so earlier.
However, the statement still stands, Brawl has less depth than Melee, depth by its definition in relation to game design is inherently a good thing, and monstrously so, and as it relates to my outcome, gives me greater flavor in the game and all people capacity to enjoy it.

Tell that to the millions of people who prefer Brawl. If Melee were the objectivity better game and Brawl was the objectivity worse game then that means it is something that would be acknowleged by every single person who's played both games. A game CANNOT be factually good or bad. It's all a matter of opinion. I can't believe anybody's even arguing against this fact.

This is what I'm arguing also. I've played both competitive Melee and Brawl. I enjoy Brawl more. If it were objectively a worse game, why would I enjoy it more?

Yes it does. If Brawl Marth had Melee Ness's grab range and Luigi's traction you can be sure as hell that Lucas and Ness mains wouldn't be worried about it. Wobbling only worker at a high/mid percent makes it near indistinguishable from other solid punishes in the game like Fox's Shine->USmash or Sheik's DThrow->Fair.

Ice climbers have guarenteed grab combos to set up opponents to get to higher %'s where they can wobble. Once again, that doesn't even matter. We are arguing whether the fact that Marth being able to grab release Lucas to death is bad game design. If you think it is, then the same should apply to Ice Climbers and Wobbling. And Brawl Marth's grab range isn't even very good. I don't understand your point there. Marth in Melee actually has the best grab range in the game.

 

[Mr.Jackpot]

Tell that to the millions of people who prefer Brawl. If Melee were the objectivity better game and Brawl was the objectivity worse game then that means it is something that would be acknowleged by every single person who's played both games. A game CANNOT be factually good or bad. It's all a matter of opinion. I can't believe anybody's even arguing against this fact.

People have different default preferences but it's definitely possible to break down a game in terms of it's depth, technical execution, and pacing by analyzing it's mechanics and metagame and it's been done time and time again. But you can shut your ears and and be this guy all day and no one will stop you.

 

[Ulevo]

Tell that to the millions of people who prefer Brawl. If Melee were the objectivity better game and Brawl was the objectivity worse game then that means it is something that would be acknowleged by every single person who's played both games. A game CANNOT be factually good or bad. It's all a matter of opinion. I can't believe anybody's even arguing against this fact.

The millions of people who prefer Brawl? Glad to see you have such intimate relationships with these people. I certainly don't know millions of people.

You can't say that Brawl or Melee are objectively better overall because there are many more ways to experience the game then just the competitive way. But from a competitive standpoint (which should be given based on the fact that you made an EVO thread on a competitive smash board) that argument can be made. That majority you described? They're primarily casual players, and they don't fit the criteria for this topic we're having.

And yes, a game can be factually good or bad. The only way you can fundamentally argue against this is to argue the basis of what good and bad is, at which point you're just tearing down the integrity of conversation entirely because the definitions we use to rely on in conversation is being thrown out the window. And I don't like to choose to have arguments with people who like to opt for the 'we could all live in the Matrix therefor everything is meaningless and irrelevant' idea.

I don't care at all. I'm arguing the fact that which game is better is subjective. This Ulevo clown is trying to tell me that Sakurai "objectively" messed up with Brawl.

The argument you made was that Sakurai didn't mess Brawl up. There are legitimate examples of why this is wrong. In fact there are a lot of them. And your choosing to ignore this by giving the argument that it isn't just the competitive aspect of the game that matters, and yet you made a thread talking about how you want to see Smash 4 at EVO on a competitive Smash forum.


If you had an argument to give me that followed a logic that was reasonable, you wouldn't have to resort to insults.

 

[Jaedrik]

It doesn't matter what the rest of your post said, the part that I quoted was false. I didn't read the rest because it's not important to me.

 

[kackamee]

Brawl EVO 09 didn't have items.

http://www.smashboards.com/threads/...d-doubles-july-17th-19th-las-vegas-nv.229075/

Oh, sorry I was thinking about 08. But Brawl in Evo 09 wasn't advertised as heavily. Melee was an actual huge event. Brawl was just a side event in 09, like how persona 4 and TTT2 were at EVO 2013.

 

[Ulevo]

Ice climbers have guarenteed grab combos to set up opponents to get to higher %'s where they can wobble. Once again, that doesn't even matter. We are arguing whether the fact that Marth being able to grab release Lucas to death is bad game design. If you think it is, then the same should apply to Ice Climbers and Wobbling. And Brawl Marth's grab range isn't even very good. I don't understand your point there. Marth in Melee actually has the best grab range in the game.

The infinites themselves are not inherently good nor bad by themselves. Most things can't be objectively stated as good or bad in isolation. It's based on the environment and context they're placed in. The infinite Ice Climbers have in Melee is fine even if it might not be preferable because it is still in a system where the player can handle it appropriately. Brawl does not offer this sort of a luxury, be it with Ice Climbers, or with Marth. I explained why in a previous post.

This never had to do with that though. Even assuming wobbling was just plain bad and shouldn't have been included in Melee, that's one of the few mistakes it has with its design by comparison to the problems Brawl has, which was my entire point to start with. I'm not claiming Melee is immaculate.

 

[greenluigiman2]

The argument you made was that Sakurai didn't mess Brawl up. There are legitimate examples of why this is wrong.

You know what, I'm just gonna make this easier on both of us and put you on ignore. You can go ahead and do the same thing with me if you want. I just don't want to argue this anymore because this argument is going nowhere.

Did the rest of your post change the meaning of first part?

 

[Jaedrik]

This is what I'm arguing also. I've played both competitive Melee and Brawl. I enjoy Brawl more. If it were objectively a worse game, why would I enjoy it more?

You didn't read it all either, did you? I am not taking the 'pramatic' or '"New" realist' approach, note, the input is the same, the outcome and processing can be different and still objective.
Note, also, in my post, I said we were removing all other consideration of enjoyment beyond gameplay, and neither have I based what I have said upon anything else. I enjoy Brawl more, for example, because I lost my GameCube and the memory stick.
That's not what I'm talking about, at least.

 

[Mind Ranger]

That's what we all said (and hoped) about Brawl.

Correct.

SSB4 has a much larger fanbase than brawl had.
There will no doubt be hype during its early stages, but once people realize what kind of game it is...(Faster/slower/more balanced/less balanced/more casual game) we cant say for sure.
I guess what I am trying to say is I hope it is up there competitive-wise with melee, but also can welcome newcomers.

 

[Jaedrik]

You know what, I'm just gonna make this easier on both of us and put you on ignore. You can go ahead and do the same thing with me if you want. I just don't want to argue this anymore because this argument is going nowhere.
Did the rest of your post change the meaning of first part?

As you know it and how I hope you would see it, yes.
We were arguing? I thought we were just discussing

 

[greenluigiman2]

You didn't read it all either, did you? I am not taking the 'pramatic' or '"New" realist' approach, note, the input is the same, the outcome and processing can be different and still objective.
Note, also, in my post, I said we were removing all other consideration of enjoyment beyond gameplay, and neither have I based what I have said upon anything else. I enjoy Brawl more, for example, because I lost my GameCube and the memory stick.
That's not what I'm talking about, at least.

You're trying way too hard my friend. This is getting into nutjob territory. Please save yourself.

As you know it and how I hope you would see it, yes.
We were arguing? I thought we were just discussing

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you mean. The part of your post that I quoted stated something in absolutes. Did the rest of your post nullify/reverse that part?

 

[Ulevo]

Correct.

SSB4 has a much larger fanbase than brawl had.
There will no doubt be hype during its early stages, but once people realize what kind of game it is...(Faster/slower/more balanced/less balanced/more casual game) we cant say for sure.
I guess what I am trying to say is I hope it is up there competitive-wise with melee, but also can welcome newcomers.

I'm actually not sure about it having a much larger fan base. Outside of Nintendo just making higher sale quotas every year with their releases, I'm not sure there's a way to prove this.

On a side note, these forums are much, much less flooded with talk about Smash Wii U than the Brawl forums were about Brawl talk when it was first announced.

 

[kackamee]

The infinites themselves are not inherently good nor bad by themselves. Most things can't be objectively stated as good or bad in isolation. It's based on the environment and context they're placed in. The infinite Ice Climbers have in Melee is fine even if it might not be preferable because it is still in a system where the player can handle it appropriately. Brawl does not offer this sort of a luxury, be it with Ice Climbers, or with Marth. I explained why in a previous post.

This never had to do with that though. Even assuming wobbling was just plain bad and shouldn't have been included in Melee, that's one of the few mistakes it has with its design by comparison to the problems Brawl has, which was my entire point to start with. I'm not claiming Melee is immaculate.

That's arguable at the least. For instance, DDD has an infinite chaingrab on DK and it is known for being a very difficult matchup. Will (a top DK player) has beaten many known DDD players despite this. Whether or not it can be handled appropriately is an opinion.
And I may have missed stuff, but the Marth/Lucas thing and imbalanced character roster were the two examples you gave of Brawl being messed up, and I disagree with both.

You didn't read it all either, did you? I am not taking the 'pramatic' or '"New" realist' approach, note, the input is the same, the outcome and processing can be different and still objective.
Note, also, in my post, I said we were removing all other consideration of enjoyment beyond gameplay, and neither have I based what I have said upon anything else. I enjoy Brawl more, for example, because I lost my GameCube and the memory stick.
That's not what I'm talking about, at least.

I understand what you're saying but in the end having "depth", of this particular kind, isn't necessary to have a good game.

It seems I've lost track of this argument, so I'm going to close out my thoughts. I still disagree that Brawl was a "mess up". The points i've read about bad game design haven't really been proof to me, or it could've also been related to Melee, unless I missed something.
I'd also like to state that MvC2 wasn't meant to be played like it was today, but through exploits and bad game design, it became one of the most played competitive fighting games ever. I feel like the depth we are referring to in this argument doesn't make Brawl a worse game because it doesn't have a certain level of it. If it's unnecessary, why have it? Very akin to L-cancelling.

 

[BaPr]

Ignore this post.

 

[Ulevo]

That's arguable at the least. For instance, DDD has an infinite chaingrab on DK and it is known for being a very difficult matchup. Will (a top DK player) has beaten many known DDD players despite this. Whether or not it can be handled appropriately is an opinion.
And I may have missed stuff, but the Marth/Lucas thing and imbalanced character roster were the two examples you gave of Brawl being messed up, and I disagree with both.

That's the thing though. In those circumstances, you're experiencing skill compensating for a match up deficit. Much like the DK vs Dedede matchup, I've seen Fox's pull it out vs Pikachu in tournament. And I mean, from a competitive players perspective, that's how you have to view the game. Don't complain, win the game. But from a game designers perspective, there's no reason a player should have to be subjected to those kinds of gameplay imbalances and oversights. It's just not necessary.

There were a lot more examples I can give, just not within the constraints of this threads discussion.

 

[greenluigiman2]

So we can get back on topic, does anyone have anything to say in response to this post?:

I think the community will see SSB4 and Melee as complementary games. Melee will be the game people play when they want something super fast paced, nostalgic, familiar, technical. Smash 4 will be the game people play when they want something with more balance (supposedly), more variety, more polish, better visuals, a bigger character and stage selection, and online. Basically each one will have something the other is missing.



Also, considering the number of views, the amount of hype and the unique gameplay style, I can see Smash becoming a staple at EVO.

What do you think?

 

[Chiroz]

I'm actually not sure about it having a much larger fan base. Outside of Nintendo just making higher sale quotas every year with their releases, I'm not sure there's a way to prove this.

On a side note, these forums are much, much less flooded with talk about Smash Wii U than the Brawl forums were about Brawl talk when it was first announced.

I don't think thats technically true...

I mean back when Brawl was just announced in 2006 there wasn't even a big section like this one if I remember correctly. It wasnt until the 2007 announcement and trailer and the release of the Pre-Dojo site that things really kicked off. I mean I have lurked this boards since the day Brawl was announced (Back in 2006) and as you can see by my joined date I lastes a whole 1-2 years without even joining the site, that sort of tells you how interesting things were.

I dont quite remember if there was more or less hype than there is for Brawl, but I do remember that Brawl hype on these forums wasnt even nearly as high as the day the trailer and Pre-Dojo came out.

I am expecting the same thing to happen with Smash 4. As soon as we get some type of hype-changing news (A playable demo, An official release date, a new Dojo site, etc) I believe the boards will suddenly flood with new members.

 

[Ulevo]

I feel like the depth we are referring to in this argument doesn't make Brawl a worse game because it doesn't have a certain level of it. If it's unnecessary, why have it? Very akin to L-cancelling.

You're circumventing your own logic here. Depth doesn't have to be a necessity for it to be desirable. L-Cancelling is just unnecessary because it doesn't add anything to the game outside of a mechanical barrier. They're not the same.

Mind you maybe I just wasn't keeping up with what other people were misperceiving as 'depth' to be. I'm not going to go back and look though.

 

[kackamee]

That's the thing though. In those circumstances, you're experiencing skill compensating for a match up deficit. Much like the DK vs Dedede matchup, I've seen Fox's pull it out vs Pikachu in tournament. And I mean, from a competitive players perspective, that's how you have to view the game. Don't complain, win the game. But from a game designers perspective, there's no reason a player should have to be subjected to those kinds of gameplay imbalances and oversights. It's just not necessary.

There were a lot more examples I can give, just not within the constraints of this threads discussion.

Okay, yeah. I agree with you there.

You're circumventing your own logic here. Depth doesn't have to be a necessity for it to be desirable. L-Cancelling is just unnecessary because it doesn't add anything to the game outside of a mechanical barrier. They're not the same.

Mind you maybe I just wasn't keeping up with what other people were misperceiving as 'depth' to be. I'm not going to go back and look though.

Maybe I am, I don't know anymore lol. I got confused and lost and I don't particularly feel like going back either. But it was a nice discussion none the less. Goodnight to you and everyone else.

 

[Jaedrik]

What we assert is
that such a thing exists, and
that it has a certain objective quality, which we call depth, to distinguish it from other qualities -- volume of content, complexity -- with which it is not identical; while
our statement further implies that the same quality will similarly appear to any normally constituted man, i.e. will affect his sense in the same way that it affects our own. (as in the input is the same, the outcome can indeed be different and still be objective.)
Accordingly, if in the real world such a condition of things obtains -- if, that is to say, the thing in question does exist and has in fact some peculiar and distinctive property whereby it affects my senses in a certain peculiar and distinctive way -- my judgement is true.
However, the statement still stands, Brawl has less depth than Melee, depth as I understand it by its definition in relation to game design is inherently a good thing, and monstrously so, and as it relates to my outcome, gives me greater flavor in the game and all people capacity to enjoy it.

You're trying way too hard my friend. This is getting into nutjob territory. Please save yourself.

Tell that to the millions of people who prefer Brawl. If Melee were the objectivity better game and Brawl was the objectivity worse game then that means it is something that would be acknowleged by every single person who's played both games. A game CANNOT be factually good or bad. It's all a matter of opinion. I can't believe anybody's even arguing against this fact.

Tell me exactly how I'm being a nutjob and I'll do my best to stop it.
I am giving a different idea of absolutes than the ones you're used to, a different standard by which to judge objective and subjective. That being said, I reject your standards of what absolutes are, what objective is, and what is subjective. Please read it, do not dismiss it outright, I have not dismissed your idea of absolute outright.
The fact that you take empirics as the end all be all form of proof of this odd logic which cannot be denied on any ground is astounding, it's like I'm looking at an example from Kant's "Critique of Practical Reason". No, that you or however many enjoy Brawl more does not prove anything about the qualities of depth. You have already accepted as fact that "It's all a matter of opinion", and as it seems all things being a matter of opinion, that is truly the only reason we diverge. I propose that a game can be, factually, good or bad, and the things I have said which you ignored are the logical proponent for this reason. Go to the root and deny it there.

 

[xMidgetman101x]

It doesn't matter what the rest of your post said, the part that I quoted was false. I didn't read the rest because it's not important to me.


Of course it's possible, I never denied that and it doesn't change anything. The overall quality of a game will always differ based on who's playing it. This means that Sakurai "messing up" Brawl is not something that can be objectively proven, which is what I'm arguing. To me, Sakurai DID NOT mess up Brawl. To me, Brawl is a great game.

I had to make an account to tell you how completely obnoxious and disrespectful you make yourself out to be in these arguments.

 

[xMidgetman101x]

It doesn't matter what the rest of your post said, the part that I quoted was false. I didn't read the rest because it's not important to me.


Of course it's possible, I never denied that and it doesn't change anything. The overall quality of a game will always differ based on who's playing it. This means that Sakurai "messing up" Brawl is not something that can be objectively proven, which is what I'm arguing. To me, Sakurai DID NOT mess up Brawl. To me, Brawl is a great game.

Edit: woops, repost

 

[Chiroz]

I had to make an account to tell you how completely obnoxious and disrespectful you make yourself out to be in these arguments.

Welcome to the forums. Do not be scared by the arguments and such, we are nice, welcoming people. Hope you have a good time and if you have any questions feel free to ask.

 

[Jaedrik]

1) The game is highly likely to be the most balanced Smash game yet. Multiple people will be included in the balancing and Sakurai is open to patches
2) With Mega Man in Sm4sh, Capcom will probably want to promote a game with their character in it
3) It will have a larger character selection and most likely a larger audience/fanbase (especially considering it'll be available on two platforms)
4) After Melee's performance at this year's EVO, Nintendo may take notice and want to promote the newest game in the series
5) The fact that it will be the newest game with tons of hype

All sound reasons why it could happen.

I think the community will see SSB4 and Melee as complementary games. Melee will be the game people play when they want something super fast paced, nostalgic, familiar, technical. Smash 4 will be the game people play when they want something with more balance (supposedly), more variety, more polish, better visuals, a bigger character and stage selection, and online. Basically each one will have something the other is missing.
Also, considering the number of views, the amount of hype and the unique gameplay style, I can see Smash becoming a staple at EVO.

But I sincerely think that its inclusion and continued inclusion depends solely on what the competitive fighting game community sees in it, and those things topple all others, such as your reasons. If, it turns out, that Smash 4 is not as refined, polished, and deep as Melee's technical gameplay, then it will not matter any of the other reasons, in the long run.

 

[xMidgetman101x]

Welcome to the forums. Do not be scared by the arguments and such, we are nice, welcoming people. Hope you have a good time and if you have any questions feel free to ask.

Thanks man, I've been a lurker for a while but for some reason the arguments in this thread really fired me up.

Also just to add my own opinion on this discussion, I'm not really sure how well received Sm4sh will be if it makes it into an Evo. On one hand, it would be a new exciting game which is certainly appealing to the viewers. I don't have much faith though because it is described as having a speed between melee and brawl and I think we would really need to have melee speed and mechanics to give the game a high skill ceiling and something interesting competitively. Then again, the possibility of a much more balanced roster is also appealing. I guess we'll see.

 

[Mr.Jackpot]

That's arguable at the least. For instance, DDD has an infinite chaingrab on DK and it is known for being a very difficult matchup. Will (a top DK player) has beaten many known DDD players despite this. Whether or not it can be handled appropriately is an opinion.
And I may have missed stuff, but the Marth/Lucas thing and imbalanced character roster were the two examples you gave of Brawl being messed up, and I disagree with both.

I understand what you're saying but in the end having "depth", of this particular kind, isn't necessary to have a good game.

It seems I've lost track of this argument, so I'm going to close out my thoughts. I still disagree that Brawl was a "mess up". The points i've read about bad game design haven't really been proof to me, or it could've also been related to Melee, unless I missed something.
I'd also like to state that MvC2 wasn't meant to be played like it was today, but through exploits and bad game design, it became one of the most played competitive fighting games ever. I feel like the depth we are referring to in this argument doesn't make Brawl a worse game because it doesn't have a certain level of it. If it's unnecessary, why have it? Very akin to L-cancelling.

For starters, the minuscule dash dance range, lack of air-to-ground and ground-to-air movement options and momentum carrying cripple movement and de-emphasize stage control (a huge staple of the Smash series) compared to both Melee and Smash 64. The poor air-dodging system, hitstun cancelling, low gravity options all completely take away from the percentage dependent, character weight dependent, crouch cancel dependent, stage position dependent, DI reading, Smash DI reading, 7 option on knockdown dynamic combo system that separates the Smash series from every other fighting games. Auto-snap ledges, hilarious looking ledge-snapping windows, and huge ledge invincibility times lower the advantage the edge-guarder has on the person trying to recover, de-emphasizing once again stage control and edge game. What you're left with is a lot of neutral game with little emphasis on stage positioning and little incentive to punish. Aside from game design issues, Brawl also has basic input issues such as fast-falling on C-Stick (what the **** really?!), random input lag and momentum physics calculation delay. It's hardly a mess up though, Sakurai ingenuously designed Brawl to destroy every we loved about the depth in competitive Smash without casual players noticing too much (until they play Brawl+ or Project M).

Also how is MvC2 bad game design? If you say infinites it's clear right away that you haven't even ****ing played that game.

 

[greenluigiman2]

I had to make an account to tell you how completely obnoxious and disrespectful you make yourself out to be in these arguments.

I'm being blunt. When an argument/discussion gets down to the wire... you try to get your point across in the most blunt way you can.

But I sincerely think that its inclusion and continued inclusion depends solely on what the competitive fighting game community sees in it, and those things topple all others, such as your reasons. If, it turns out, that Smash 4 is not as refined, polished, and deep as Melee's technical gameplay, then it will not matter any of the other reasons, in the long run.

I mean, Marvel vs. Capcom 3 and even MK9 aren't as refined, polished, and deep as other fighters. Games vary in how technical they were created. I don't think Sm4sh will have to be as "deep" as Melee to be accepted at EVO. It just has to be "deep" enough.

 

[Jaedrik]

I mean, Marvel vs. Capcom 3 and even MK9 aren't as refined, polished, and deep as other fighters. Games vary in how technical they were created. I don't think Sm4sh will have to be as "deep" as Melee to be accepted at EVO. It just has to be "deep" enough.

That may be, but only time will tell. The reason for my pessimism being that I think the FGC and the tournament organizers don't judge a Smash game's worthiness like they do other fighting games, and our competitive community will more readily reject Smash 4 if it's not as good as Melee (in the respect of depth of gameplay of course), much in the same way the rest of the FGC will see it. But, I can't predict the future, so we shall see :3

Edit: That being said, look what happened to Street Fighter X Tekken, Gems turned on and everyone rejected it and left.

 

[Ulevo]

For starters, the minuscule dash dance range, lack of air-to-ground and ground-to-air movement options and momentum carrying cripple movement and de-emphasize stage control (a huge staple of the Smash series) compared to both Melee and Smash 64. The poor air-dodging system, hitstun cancelling, low gravity options all completely take away from the percentage dependent, character weight dependent, crouch cancel dependent, stage position dependent, DI reading, Smash DI reading, 7 option on knockdown dynamic combo system that separates the Smash series from every other fighting games. Auto-snap ledges, hilarious looking ledge-snapping windows, and huge ledge invincibility times lower the advantage the edge-guarder has on the person trying to recover, de-emphasizing once again stage control and edge game. What you're left with is a lot of neutral game with little emphasis on stage positioning and little incentive to punish. Aside from game design issues, Brawl also has basic input issues such as fast-falling on C-Stick (what the **** really?!), random input lag and momentum physics calculation delay. It's hardly a mess up though, Sakurai ingenuously designed Brawl to destroy every we loved about the depth in competitive Smash without casual players noticing too much (until they play Brawl+ or Project M).

Also how is MvC2 bad game design? If you say infinites it's clear right away that you haven't even ****ing played that game.

Wait that's right. C-Stick dairs made you fall didn't they? I've been so used to Brawl mods taking that out for so long I've forgotten they did that. Another problem to add to the list I suppose.

 

[greenluigiman2]

That may be, but only time will tell. The reason for my pessimism being that I think the FGC and the tournament organizers don't judge a Smash game's worthiness like they do other fighting games, and our competitive community will more readily reject Smash 4 if it's not as good as Melee (in the respect of depth of gameplay of course), much in the same way the rest of the FGC will see it. But, I can't predict the future, so we shall see :3

After Melee's performance at EVO I think the FGC may have a new found respect for Smash. And I don't mean Melee alone, but Smash as a concept.

Edit: That being said, look what happened to Street Fighter X Tekken, Gems turned on and everyone rejected it and left.

I don't even know what Capcom was aiming for with Street Fighter X Tekken. I think they just wanted it to be unique I guess. I would have settled with simply Tekken characters in SF4, and vice versa (I don't know why Namco hasn't done this yet).

 

[Branman64]

I hope so. I don't hate melee but i would rather see something new. And also at the end of the melee finals one of the comentaters asked that if you enjoyed watching the game e-mail nintendo saying thanks for allowing them to stream it so maybe nintendo will see how much people love competitive smash.

 

[greenluigiman2]

I hope so. I don't hate melee but i would rather see something new. And also at the end of the melee finals one of the comentaters asked that if you enjoyed watching the game e-mail nintendo saying thanks for allowing them to stream it so maybe nintendo will see how much people love competitive smash.

This, exactly. Melee is good and all, but character wise, stage wise, aesthetics wise... I just need to see something new.

 

[Priap0s]

...

How come that in every thread I see you post, the topic gets derailed into melee vs brawl in some way or form? I think you are ruinig alot of good discussions with the mindset you enter threads. It plagues this forum a bit.

Like, just think to yourself "hmm, what am I commenting on here. Is this I just wrote really relevant to the thread Im posting in?" before you hit the post button.

 

[Priap0s]

Brawl being mentioned as a failure by some in this thread...
That is like the people saying the wii was a huge failure for Nintendo. Just like the wii broadened the gaming industry and introduced an insane ammount of non gamers to video games, Brawl introduced alot of casuals and even non gamers to the series. It was catered with this in mind and became a huge succes in the way it was ment to be. Just like the wii was a huge succes and did exactly what they wanted it to do.

People need to stop confusing their personal affection to a product with it being a failure or succes in general.


PS: This thread got derailed, as most threads do on smash boards lately. I think we are over thinking and trying to discuss things that honestly, isn't discussable yet (and won't be untill the game is released or atleast a lot of more information has been shown).

 

[Vkrm]

This, exactly. Melee is good and all, but character wise, stage wise, aesthetics wise... I just need to see something new.

Something good > something new.

 

[Priap0s]

Something good > something new.

That mindset equals that nothing ever gets better or improved. Something new CAN be even better than something that was good before.

I see your point thou. Forcing changes just for the sake of changing is never good.

 

[greenluigiman2]

Something good > something new.

Duh

 

[Neo Zero]

For what its worth, I can definitely see Smash 4 as an EVO main event if it launches with enough time (about what Injustice had, maybe a bit less) between launch and EVO.

I do want to say I'm optimistic though, I mean Melee had as many as 135k people watching. Second most of the day behind Marvel (which only passed in its GF's and it had a later but not to late time slot). The fact more people watched Melee over KOF, Injustice and even SFIV shows that the FGC, the whole FGC, not just all the little cliques (Capcom, Anime, Smash, etc; ) want these games there and want to support them. As a Smash fan, I was proud of us, we as a community looked good, the crowd got hype without being disrespectful, the stream monsters weree pouring in just to watch, it actually made me feel like there was less of a border between every community and that Smash (regardless of its just Melee or as a whole) has a place in the FGC. Even if the game is "bad" (which is often subjective but given the less casual focus and better balance testing, the competitve value will go up), if the community keeps up what was started at EVO, we could see Smash 4 not only A part of EVO, but a part of the entire FGC as well.

 

[kackamee]

For starters, the minuscule dash dance range, lack of air-to-ground and ground-to-air movement options and momentum carrying cripple movement and de-emphasize stage control (a huge staple of the Smash series) compared to both Melee and Smash 64. The poor air-dodging system, hitstun cancelling, low gravity options all completely take away from the percentage dependent, character weight dependent, crouch cancel dependent, stage position dependent, DI reading, Smash DI reading, 7 option on knockdown dynamic combo system that separates the Smash series from every other fighting games. Auto-snap ledges, hilarious looking ledge-snapping windows, and huge ledge invincibility times lower the advantage the edge-guarder has on the person trying to recover, de-emphasizing once again stage control and edge game. What you're left with is a lot of neutral game with little emphasis on stage positioning and little incentive to punish. Aside from game design issues, Brawl also has basic input issues such as fast-falling on C-Stick (what the **** really?!), random input lag and momentum physics calculation delay. It's hardly a mess up though, Sakurai ingenuously designed Brawl to destroy every we loved about the depth in competitive Smash without casual players noticing too much (until they play Brawl+ or Project M).

Also how is MvC2 bad game design? If you say infinites it's clear right away that you haven't even ****ing played that game.

This post is kinda messy so I may be missing some of your points but all of that more or less just boiled down to what you liked that they added or took away in Brawl, not things that are necessary to make a good competitive smash game. Not it being a flawed game, either which is the point that I think you're trying to make. Random input lag and physics calculation delay I could understand, but even then I've never witnessed it.

This part right here.

It's hardly a mess up though, Sakurai ingenuously designed Brawl to destroy every we loved about the depth in competitive Smash without casual players noticing too much (until they play Brawl+ or Project M).

How you can even say this baffles me to no end. Who is WE? The 338 Brawl players who entered Apex2013? WE are a part of this community too. Please don't try to speak for people who don't share your opinion, for all you know.
And the point about MvC2, and even Melee, is that they weren't meant to be played how they are today, and they are played the way they are today because of exploits, bad game design, glitches, etc. It just seemed relevant to add that tidbit because "mistakes" can end up making the best of games.

 

[greenluigiman2]

And the point about MvC2, and even Melee, is that they weren't meant to be played how they are today, and they are played the way they are today because of exploits, bad game design, glitches, etc. It just seemed relevant to add that tidbit because "mistakes" can end up making the best of games.

This right here is something I wanted to say earlier in this thread, but never got around to saying. Melee is a game filled with mistakes, because a lot of the things people love about the game weren't intentional. He tried to rectify those "mistakes" with Brawl, but went a little too far for some and made the game too different from Melee. It wasn't to destroy everything the Melee players loved about the game, he did it because Melee wasn't supposed to be what it ended up being in the first place. The difference between Brawl and what Capcom did with Marvel 3 is that Capcom, as a huge fighting game company, embraced the Marvel 2 competitive scene and built on that, but Sakurai, as a very proud game designer of many genres, decided to go along with his own vision. I think with Smash 4, he better understands just how loud the minority of competitive Smash players are, and is going to cater to them/us a lot more than he did with Brawl.