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

[El Duderino]

The question is not if Smash 4 will replace Melee at EVO, it's when Smash 4 has the opportunity, can the game sustain it.

Melee, of all the Smash games, is the best fit for an event filled with enthusiastic Marvel players. So far I'm not so convinced Smash 4 will be as good of a fit, but time will tell.

 

[Priap0s]

I have to admit the smashboards get to me sometimes. I don't even have very high expectations since I was dissapointed personally by Brawl. But still can't help to visit here regulary, hungry for new info. Then there is so little and we try to discuss anyway. Some topics I think we ultimatly just shouldn't be discussing this early or with this sparse info about smash4. This is one of those topics.

The only constructive thing I can up with is that it all depends on how competetible viable smash4 is. For it to replace melee it obviously has to come, not nescecarily as competetive, but pretty darn close to melee. Melee being so old now and this being the new game gives a boost for its chances ofcourse. But then it all comes down to if it is competetive enough or not. Wait and see is all we can do!

 

[greenluigiman2]

Some topics I think we ultimatly just shouldn't be discussing this early or with this sparse info about smash4. This is one of those topics.

The reason I created this topic was because EVO just recently came and went, and it was just a teensy bit odd to see such an outdated game (aesthetics wise and features wise I mean) pared with a bunch of modern fighters.

The only constructive thing I can up with is that it all depends on how competetible viable smash4 is. For it to replace melee it obviously has to come, not nescecarily as competetive, but pretty darn close to melee. Melee being so old now and this being the new game gives a boost for its chances ofcourse. But then it all comes down to if it is competetive enough or not. Wait and see is all we can do!

The funny thing is that Brawl is actually a very competitive game in its own right. A Smash game would have to have to be gimped a lot more than Brawl for it to cease being competitive. From what I already know about Smash 4, it's already competitively viable for me. It remains to be seen how the rest of the community eventually responds to it though.

 

[Renegade TX2000]

lol replace melee, more like replace brawl

 

[Priap0s]

The funny thing is that Brawl is actually a very competitive game in its own right. A Smash game would have to have to be gimped a lot more than Brawl for it to cease being competitive. From what I already know about Smash 4, it's already competitively viable for me. It remains to be seen how the rest of the community eventually responds to it though.

Yes I know Brawl is competetive in its own right. But Brawl did not replace melee at EVO. So therefor I concluded that smash4 needs to be more competetive than brawl if it is going to have a shot at replacing melee.

Oh and didn't mean to whine. A thread about this is fine. It's just me myself getting dissapointed about all the things we try to discuss about smash4 and how little of substance that can be said about it.

 

[greenluigiman2]

lol replace melee, more like replace brawl

Did you actually read the original post? Did you even read the rest of the title past "replace Melee"

Uuuggh...

Yes I know Brawl is competetive in its own right. But Brawl did not replace melee at EVO. So therefor I concluded that smash4 needs to be more competetive than brawl if it is going to have a shot at replacing melee.

Yeah, I understand and I agree.

Oh and didn't mean to whine. A thread about this is fine. It's just me myself getting dissapointed about all the things we try to discuss about smash4 and how little of substance that can be said about it.

I guess I would be disappointed, but I don't want to know a lot about the game until it's closer to release. I don't think a Dojo is necessary this time around.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

. Some topics I think we ultimatly just shouldn't be discussing this early or with this sparse info about smash4. This is one of those topics.

It's kind of hard not too. Some things we claim just come from our knowledge of the overall engine of smash. A lot of people said Meta Knight was going to be broken since the first trailer, and what do you know, he was. But like you said, we should wait before making huge judgements, but given Sakurai's track record it's hard to believe that he will change a lot.

And Link still looks terrible.

 

[Jaedrik]

He never got to unfortunantly. It was a hoax

In response to your earlier post with generalisation about succes:
I am very certain the word "succes" in a dictionairy would not be described as you do it. You are describing what succes, regarding to this topic, is to YOU. Not what the word succes is in itself. "competitive, deep, technical. Those are the terms used to define success.". Those terms doesnt neccesarily have anything to do with succes, even if they can be part of and contribute to succes. IM pretty sure that in some cases they could just as well be part of "failure".

You also add "you simply value the competitive nature of the game less" when I myself have never played Brawl more than the first months after its release. To this day I still only play melee because I am more into the competetive aspects it offers. I just wont call Brawl a failure because it wasn't a succes to me personally. Why does this suprise you? It is how everyone should discuss imo. With an open mind and not only make conclusions out of ones own opinions.

You bring up it didn't have the technical depth and competetivity melee has. Agreed, yt sure as hell doesn't. But was it intended to? Was the game aimed at that? Succes is reaching the goal you have, not the goal of someone else.

Instead of just saying that your idea of what a succesfull smash game would be, is the correct idea of succes. Take your time to explain why and who are you to descide that? Why is your idea of succes the true one when you are such a small factor in the bigger picture of smash as a series? Surely Sakurai or others that have worked with the game, published it, reviewed it, people who have bought it (no, they didn't all get dissapointed like us. Its a loved game) or sold it even, have much more important saying about this than you?

If you are just talking about it not being a succes as a competetive fighter... well duh, it wasn't ment to be so why would it?

Oh, most unfortunate. Good to dispel that wild rumor.
And I'm sorry that I assumed you value competitive less, you probably value it more than me.
And yes, this whole time, as I've made it ABUNDANTLY apparent, it was not a success in the way of gameplay depth, technicality, and competitiveness. (Edit: Sorry if I wasn't clear )

The fact that you can't spell "Success" properly discredits you, sir
Regardless, language, especially this easily corruptible stupid language called English, must be taken in context. The context suggests, in all of my posts, that I am using success in a specific way. No, the language I have used never implied that subject is to be ruled and degrees are to be determined by Sakurai. Strange, though, this is not at odds with one of my favorite quotes: "A man once walked into the Louvre, after many hours of gazing at the art he came out and at once said angrily to the guard there 'there was not a single painting that I liked, not one work of art in there that was good!' the guard immediately snapped back 'The art is not on trial here, YOU are!'" This implies that the artist is not the one who gets to judge the success of the art, nor the observer, but that there is a hidden, static standard for what beauty is, yet beauty is broad, and it's character must be specified. Success only means what it means when there is a descriptor for it, if there is no given one there is one implied, the thing is is that you're taking one of the implied terms of success and applying it to every use of success, this is incorrect. The way this relates is that the standard for what Success means is very, very broad, you must refine and hone it to mean something, and I have never talked about Sakurai's intentions, I have never talked about the bigger picture of the game's financial and critical success. The same thing goes for failure, when failure is said in this context, it is easy to see that I'm not going "Brawl was bad at competitive play, therefore was a failure as an installment in the series", but instead am saying "Brawl is bad at competitive play, comparable to Melee, and comparable to Melee, it is a failure in this department." As it relates to the on topic discussion, I think people will be more cautious about replacing Melee so soon after the failure (read: competitive failure relative to Melee) of Brawl.
Most of these things are misunderstandings or disagreements in ontology and philosophy. So, let us agree to disagree if we disagree further.

 

[Ulevo]

Just to make things easier, Priap0s, since there's too much for me to attempt to address now, I'm just going to wait until I upload a video response for this.

 

[Mr.Showtime]

Oh, most unfortunate. Good to dispel that wild rumor.
And I'm sorry that I assumed you value competitive less, you probably value it more than me.
And yes, this whole time, as I've made it ABUNDANTLY apparent, it was not a success in the way of gameplay depth, technicality, and competitiveness. (Edit: Sorry if I wasn't clear )

The fact that you can't spell "Success" properly discredits you, sir
Regardless, language, especially this easily corruptible stupid language called English, must be taken in context. The context suggests, in all of my posts, that I am using success in a specific way. No, the language I have used never implied that subject is to be ruled and degrees are to be determined by Sakurai. Strange, though, this is not at odds with one of my favorite quotes: "A man once walked into the Louvre, after many hours of gazing at the art he came out and at once said angrily to the guard there 'there was not a single painting that I liked, not one work of art in there that was good!' the guard immediately snapped back 'The art is not on trial here, YOU are!'" This implies that the artist is not the one who gets to judge the success of the art, nor the observer, but that there is a hidden, static standard for what beauty is, yet beauty is broad, and it's character must be specified. Success only means what it means when there is a descriptor for it, if there is no given one there is one implied, the thing is is that you're taking one of the implied terms of success and applying it to every use of success, this is incorrect. The way this relates is that the standard for what Success means is very, very broad, you must refine and hone it to mean something, and I have never talked about Sakurai's intentions, I have never talked about the bigger picture of the game's financial and critical success. The same thing goes for failure, when failure is said in this context, it is easy to see that I'm not going "Brawl was bad at competitive play, therefore was a failure as an installment in the series", but instead am saying "Brawl is bad at competitive play, comparable to Melee, and comparable to Melee, it is a failure in this department." As it relates to the on topic discussion, I think people will be more cautious about replacing Melee so soon after the failure (read: competitive failure relative to Melee) of Brawl.
Most of these things are misunderstandings or disagreements in ontology and philosophy. So, let us agree to disagree if we disagree further.

TL;DR:
Success is objective. To the creators of Brawl, it is successful. To players, it was both successful and unsuccessful.

 

[Jaedrik]

TL;DR:
Success is objective. To the creators of Brawl, it is successful. To players, it was both successful and unsuccessful.

I do not like such simplification.
Also, no, objective is not considered when considering objective. Wait what?

 

[Mr.Showtime]

I do not like such simplification.
Also, no, objective is not considered when considering objective. Wait what?

I was pretty much giving a TL;DR of what your wrote, lol. Also, what in the world are you talking about just then? o.O

 

[greenluigiman2]

You guys are really derailing this topic

 

[smashmachine]

The question is not if Smash 4 will replace Melee at EVO, it's when Smash 4 has the opportunity, can the game sustain it.

Melee, of all the Smash games, is the best fit for an event filled with enthusiastic Marvel players. So far I'm not so convinced Smash 4 will be as good of a fit, but time will tell.

in particular, the next smash wouldn't have to necessarily be as good or better than melee, so much as it needs to have more depth (than brawl) and would ideally be relatively fast-paced

 

[greenluigiman2]

in particular, the next smash wouldn't have to necessarily be as good or better than melee, so much as it needs to have more depth (than brawl) and would ideally be relatively fast-paced

Based on what I've seen it's off to a pretty good start.

 

[PHD]

Based on what I've seen it's off to a pretty good start.

There's honestly no way to tell right now since the game is so far from completion. Brawl was a lot closer to Melee in the demos before it's release, so really anything is up for change.

 

[RODO]

I think it has a fair chance. Melee needs a breather

 

[greenluigiman2]

There's honestly no way to tell right now since the game is so far from completion. Brawl was a lot closer to Melee in the demos before it's release, so really anything is up for change.

That's why I said it's off to a pretty good start.

 

[Vkrm]

Melee is a great fighting game, but that's not why it's at evo. Smash 4 will probably end up at evo at some point, even if it sucks as bad as brawl.

 

[greenluigiman2]

Melee is a great fighting game,

Yep...

but that's not why it's at evo.

It's at EVO because people put threw their money at it. After how well it was received, Smash going to become a staple.

Smash 4 will probably end up at evo at some point

I hope so

even if it sucks as bad as brawl.

Brawl doesn't suck.

 

[Vkrm]

Yep...

Are you implying that melee isn't a good fighting game? If you are, I'd very much like to hear your reasoning why.

It's at EVO because people put threw their money at it. After how well it was received, Smash going to become a staple.

This hasn't been confirmed as far as I know. Also it's not as if smash had never been at evo prior to this year. 07 they had melee and brawl was there in 08. They couldn't do brawl again because it takes way too long. Honestly, if it weren't for brawl they might have kept melee longer.

Brawl doesn't suck.

It sucks if you're talking about playing it competitively.

 

[greenluigiman2]

Are you implying that melee isn't a good fighting game? If you are, I'd very much like to hear your reasoning why.

Apparently where you come from "yep" means "nope"

This hasn't been confirmed as far as I know. Also it's not as if smash had never been at evo prior to this year. 07 they had melee and brawl was there in 08. They couldn't do brawl again because it takes way too long. Honestly, if it weren't for brawl they might have kept melee longer.

Of course it's confirmed. EVO was raising money for breast cancer by having people give money toward which game they wanted to see streamed at EVO. Melee won.

It sucks if you're talking about playing it competitively.

It doesn't suck competitively either. It's just not a game that was made to be played competitively.

 

[Priap0s]

I do not like such simplification.
Also, no, objective is not considered when considering objective. Wait what?

TL;DR:
Success is objective. To the creators of Brawl, it is successful. To players, it was both successful and unsuccessful..

I have to agree with this quote ^
That is all I could take from your post and that is just what success is. It's objective and I thought we where more talking about the game in itselfs form of success ~ the makers and publishers view/definition of what a success would be for it. Still I'm not sure if we should credit peoples view of success when they wish for something the game never strived for? Seems harsh to call something a failure because it isn't something that it doesn't even want to be. Us wishing it was something it's not nor wants to be doesn't make it a failure imo. But sure, you could stil say that competetively Brawl was a failure in comparison to melee. Its objectiv as said so we can't argue it. Now let's give op back his thread! Okey?




Ps: As you have probably guessed english isn't my native language (will use "success" in the future thou, so ty). But saying that it matthered for our discussion is just dumb. If a spelling error takes away from the argument at hand I'd say thats a big issue for you and it will hinder your ability to discuss in a civil way. Mentioning it just makes you come off as elitist and doesn't give the feeling that you discuss things, in the true sense of "discussing". More like arguing to win. Important to remember that your own opinion should be just as subject to change as your debatants. It's not a battle, it's about finding out what is correct and learn from it. Not about making your own point right no mather what.

Or do you mean that you couldn't understand? If you can't make out succes is "success" I'd say you have an even bigger problem

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

The fact that you can't spell "Success" properly discredits you, sir
Regardless, language, especially this easily corruptible stupid language called English, must be taken in context. The context suggests, in all of my posts, that I am using success in a specific way.

Just wanted to chime in and say that this is bull****. Not being able to spell a word doesn't discredit anyone's ability to discuss a topic; in fact it makes you seem mad pretentious, dude. Congratulations, you can do something most smart phones and google does for you.

 

[MasterOfKnees]

Just wanted to chime in and say that this is bull****. Not being able to spell a word doesn't discredit anyone's ability to discuss a topic; in fact it makes you seem mad pretentious, dude. Congratulations, you can do something most smart phones and google does for you.

Well, the tongue smiley does kind of refer that it was a joke. No need to go bonkers on him.

 

[Jaedrik]

Just wanted to chime in and say that this is bull****. Not being able to spell a word doesn't discredit anyone's ability to discuss a topic; in fact it makes you seem mad pretentious, dude. Congratulations, you can do something most smart phones and google does for you.

Ps: As you have probably guessed english isn't my native language (will use "success" in the future thou, so ty). But saying that it matthered for our discussion is just dumb. If a spelling error takes away from the argument at hand I'd say thats a big issue for you and it will hinder your ability to discuss in a civil way. Mentioning it just makes you come off as elitist and doesn't give the feeling that you discuss things, in the true sense of "discussing". More like arguing to win. Important to remember that your own opinion should be just as subject to change as your debatants. It's not a battle, it's about finding out what is correct and learn from it. Not about making your own point right no mather what.

Or do you mean that you couldn't understand? If you can't make out succes is "success" I'd say you have an even bigger problem

Well, the tongue smiley does kind of refer that it was a joke. No need to go bonkers on him.

I wasn't being serious. . . Sorry. But yeah, I try and will try to stay away from debate and argument and make it a discussion instead, you're absolutely right. Spelling something wrong has absolutely no weight on an issue (unless it hinders understanding, which it didn't ).

As for the topic, those chants of "One more year!" were glorious, and I think it'll stay, and I still think it won't be replaced as the main stage event by Smash4 until Smash4 proves itself.

 

[Mr.C]

Are people already forgetting what information is available for S4? The videos released already show: Auto edge-grabs, the same shielding mechanics as Brawl, the same dashing mechanics as Brawl (no shield in the initial dash animation), no Lcanceling and no change on aerial lag, the same engine clunkiness Brawl has, etc. The game is pretty much Brawl HD, with a minor speed increase. The games going nowhere fast, and will absolutely not surpass melee as a tournament competitive e-sport title unless they COMPLETELY change the game play from the videos we've seen so far (highly doubtful considering it's Nintendo).

 

[Chiroz]

Are people already forgetting what information is available for S4? The videos released already show: Auto edge-grabs, the same shielding mechanics as Brawl, the same dashing mechanics as Brawl (no shield in the initial dash animation), no Lcanceling and no change on aerial lag, the same engine clunkiness Brawl has, etc. The game is pretty much Brawl HD, with a minor speed increase. The games going nowhere fast, and will absolutely not surpass melee as a tournament competitive e-sport title unless they COMPLETELY change the game play from the videos we've seen so far (highly doubtful considering it's Nintendo).

First off on the first Brawl demo it had L-Cancelling and it retained momentum after jumping just like in Melee which made it feel very close to Melee but this was only because the game had ported Melee's engine, just like Smash 4 has ported Brawl's engine.

Second, the dashing mechanics have changed, you can look at the Mario vs Megaman video you can notice them being able to change their dashes and dash into or out of things much faster including dashing out of a jump or a move almost immediately, many people speculate dash dancing might be back to Melee's level although there is no way to prove either way.

You cannot even tell if L-Canlling is in or not, care to illustrate how you can supposedly tell it is in, because if no one ever pressed L on Melee how would you know it has L-Cancelling? How exactly can you claim with 100% veridity that it isn't there?

There has been a huge change in aerial lag, watch the video gameplays closely and you will see just how fast people can react after performing an aerial right above the ground, it goes even as far as Megaman being able to move IMMEDIATELY after landing while performing his B-Air (in the middle of the move) and also in the middle of performing his F-Air, having no lag at all sort of like N64. (This might just be that some of the new aerial moves on the newcomer characters have 0 lag and not an actual change to the aerial lag mechanics on all characters, we cannot really tell until there is a comparison of a veteran's aerials but you cannot claim there hasn't been any change without actual comparisons either)

Why do people like to claim things that are not true? Obviously most of the things are bound to change also so anything that was seen on any of those videos might not be how they are done in the final version.

 

[Mr.Showtime]

Are people already forgetting what information is available for S4? The videos released already show: Auto edge-grabs, the same shielding mechanics as Brawl, the same dashing mechanics as Brawl (no shield in the initial dash animation), no Lcanceling and no change on aerial lag, the same engine clunkiness Brawl has, etc. The game is pretty much Brawl HD, with a minor speed increase. The games going nowhere fast, and will absolutely not surpass melee as a tournament competitive e-sport title unless they COMPLETELY change the game play from the videos we've seen so far (highly doubtful considering it's Nintendo).

Counter Argument: It was seen that Mario only auto grabbed with his Up Special...which in every game is the same. Mario's Up Special always has a magnet factor. However, were you even paying attention when Mario was trying to recover and he used his cape, right above the ledge and fell anyway? I never saw any magnet features when MegaMan was recovering...but sure stay in your little world for as long as you can.

People saw some L-Canceling during the MegaMan vs Mario fight. Look around youtube, I'm sure you'll be surprised. Once again, nothing can really be actually seen until we either see more gameplay specifically on these techniques or have it in our hands ourselves. I saw little to no lag time with MegaMan's FAir hit ground, and as Sakurai shield it canceled the lag time.

The game is faster than Brawl, but slower than Melee. In all honesty, I don't think Melee is even an E-Sport unless Nintendo themselves state that otherwise. Fans can't go out and automatically turn a game into an E-Sport. The only two people that were sponsored for Melee were Hungrybox and M2K...and by ClashTournaments....which isn't even really an actual sponsor.

I want a competitive game as much as anyone else does, but your comments are so bland and trolly, it's kind of sickening. The game could be casual, and if it is, whatever, we'll move on. But assuming, with such little proof that you are stating, is just plain silly. Especially since there are frame by frame videos that might prove L-Canceling might exist. It is either that or there is little to no lag time after touching the ground from an aerial. Are you watching their hands hit the L/R bumper while they are playing? Jeez you must have super eyes or actually played the game yourself!

 

[Mr.C]

The game is faster than Brawl, but slower than Melee. In all honesty, I don't think Melee is even an E-Sport unless Nintendo themselves state that otherwise. Fans can't go out and automatically turn a game into an E-Sport. The only two people that were sponsored for Melee were Hungrybox and M2K...and by ClashTournaments....which isn't even really an actual sponsor.

You make no sense. Nintendo doesn't get to dictate anything about Melee's standing as an e-sport, the people who play the game do. The same for any game.
Wes, P.C Chris, Ken, Isai, every pro-point MLG competitor, etc? All sponsored. Wes had a television episode on MTV based around him playing Melee competitively. MLG sponsored tons of smash players when Melee was on its circuit. This was also years ago, before e-sports was anywhere near as big as it is today.

I don't care what you think about my posts. Don't read or reply to them.

P.S
The game play videos obviously show there is Brawl aerial lag, go do some research.

 

[Renji64]

The gameplay video is subject to change hopefully alot of stuff is WIP or placeholders like mario's fludd still being in his moveset i was expecting some new moves and nothing lol.

 

[Priap0s]

...

You can't just answer some things and then go on to ignore the other points people made. Just because you don't have an answer to them. That's not how a discussion works.....

People have mostly made the assumptions made above, but interesting to hear your view. Do you have any link to videos or something where you or other people discuss and explain why the gameplay clip confirmed Brawl physics? To me personally, it really didn't. But if you got some evidence pointing towards the opposite, I'll change my mind.

Most importantly thou. We shouldn't speculate to much and certainly not judge the game by that clip. Alot could change. Just like with brawl. It turned out completly different than how it looked in its first shown gameplay.