Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
It appears that you are using ad block :'(
Hey, we get it. However this website is run by and for the community... and it needs ads in order to keep running.
Please disable your adblock on Smashboards, or go premium to hide all advertisements and this notice. Alternatively, this ad may have just failed to load. Woops!
I think Game Arts and Nintendo deserve the blame, not Sakurai, who balanced the game all on his lonesome. Simply put, it was 1 man trying to do the job of many men.
As far as I can see, removal of L-canceling and the wavedash (which was a glitch based on the directional airdodge and ground interacting) were good ideas, just done poorly.
Glitch is the wrong word for this. It is more a result of it. A glitch would insinuate it was random, but actually, it happened because there was no barrier for the stopping of the air dodging any direction mechanics. Sakurai and co. also probably knew about it, because kept it because they felt it didn't do anything negative.
Also, I think the removal of L-cancelling (at least not making it automatic) was a terrible idea. Because of that, the gap between the best and worst characters were bigger, and the big, slow, and aerially challenged characters were nearly worthless. Every character on the Hyrule Tier would have been much better with L-cancelling in Brawl.
I agree with the OP that lots of people are already getting their hopes up for this game. There's still a possibility that it'll be a gimmicky piece of sht revolving around 'family friendly smash' and putting your stickers on your trophies from your 3DS touchscreen. What has Nintendo done in the last few years that would make you think they'd do otherwise? I swear some of you people probably deserve to be disappointed for getting your hopes up so carelessly.
I agree with the OP that lots of people are already getting their hopes up for this game. There's still a possibility that it'll be a gimmicky piece of sht revolving around 'family friendly smash' and putting your stickers on your trophies from your 3DS touchscreen. What has Nintendo done in the last few years that would make you think they'd do otherwise? I swear some of you people probably deserve to be disappointed for getting your hopes up so carelessly.
- Character matchups (Brawl has becomed some sort of a " card game" where someone easily dominates the other. I always lose as Pit to my brother's Mario because of Mario's strengths, despite me being very good as Pit.
This is just flat-out wrong. Melee was WAY more aerial based than Brawl due to the safety of SHFFLing. Some of Brawl's best characters (Meta Knight, Ice Climbers, Olimar, Diddy Kong, Snake) have such a high placing because of their phenomenal ground games.
So... why is it so important for a game to be technically demanding? Do you think Chess would be more popular if the pieces were heavier, forcing you to do weights training just so you can play?
Your negative view on Brawl's strategic depth is misguided. It is definitely not as strategic as Melee - However, it is more strategic than you claim.
1. Have you seen Jigglypuff's Melee Bair hitbox?
2. Dumb stage spikes? Stage spiking is very rare and no dumber than any low percent KO (gimp)...
3. Melee has grab armor as well; you just can't tell because the grabber doesn't take damage in Melee. So Melee's grab armor is actually "stupider" than Brawl's, in your opinion.
Even though this was the case, Melee characters all had the potential to beat top tiers.
@ Grim - That's just 1 move with Jiggs. Snake has huge disjointed hitboxes on his F-tilt and U-tilt. Falco has a lame 1 frame jab, D3's grab range is ridiculous. I mean Brawl can be good, but there are so many exploits to use to win. I can just be lame and camp because I have a super shield that I can buffer and rewards me for doing nothing.
Stage spiking isn't rare. Maybe among professional play because no one wants to take the risk to go off stage and get offensive considering that a light tap into a stage like the default 3 will completely wreck you unless you can tech. In melee it would bounce you off the wall and you would tumble a bit, but you weren't completely helpless .
Why is a technically demanding game important? Because brawl is boring as ****. If you're a person like me who enjoys to play and spectate you would understand that only few players do something exciting in this game, but the amount of boring and predictable playing far surpasses that. Don't get me wrong, this can happen with Melee too, it just happens less.
A technically demanding game still has all the demanding mindgames but has a different outlet of players. You can have the technical players, the intelligent players, and the hybrid of both
My view on Brawl's lame *** competitive scene still remains valid. All you did was reply to my statement with a question then say i'm wrong. Tell you what, since I play both games competitively i'm more than willing to compare and contrast any negative aspects of Brawl's metagame with Melee's if you would want that.
The Puff's bair thing was a joke because of the move's notoriety, I probably should've put a "" face or something. Yes, Brawl's hitboxes are more ridiculous than Melee's on average.
Stage spiking is certainly rare in competitive play, yes. I still don't see any reason to treat it differently than any other kind of gimp (which is a trait present in both games and WAY more prevalent in Melee) - and for that matter, what is wrong with gimps full-stop.
Technically demanding is not the same thing as being exciting or unpredictable. At all. No idea where you are going with that.
I don't know what you said about Brawl's competitive scene, if I didn't respond to it, I probably agreed with you. I'm not defending Brawl here, I'm defending the truth. I also play both games competitively and prefer Melee by a long-shot.
I replied to your statement with a rhetorical question - the question was the reasoning for you being wrong about technical gameplay.
For the last part, how about we start with this: Which strategic aspects do you feel Melee has that Brawl does not, or, which strategic aspects do you feel both games have but Brawl's version of it is shallower?
I think Grims point is a game doesn't have to be incredibly technical for it to be fun and fast paced.
What made melee great was the mobility of your character. Ground movement and fall speed are quick, so spacing was incredibly fun to watch. However, recovery in that game was limited, so when you lobbed someone off the stage it actually meant something.
Shield stun lasted longer too, making it a huge payoff when you actually did get in.
Despite what you think, brawl DOES have alot of safe pressure. But its slower, and has much less payoff.
This is what made melee great. The speed and risk reward ratio of getting in! Not only were things harder to react to, but they were also WAY more dangerous to get struck by. The enormous technical barrier is what has kept people from NOT playing it competitively though. If you could incorporate strong pressure, and high mobility without making it over the top difficult for new comers it would be perfect. I want to rely on my own reaction time, spacing and mix ups. Not how quickly my fingers can press some ridiculous button combination to do what should be a simple maneuver. This is why too much tech in a game is looked down upon.
Can we stop comparing an action-oriented fighter, the actions of which are carried out simultaneously, to a thousand-year-old turn-based board game yet?
The chess analogies are really starting to sour my grapes.
Yes actually. They have reps from Namco Bandai among us right now.
Monitoring what we like and taking careful notes on our suggestions.
They want this game to be made with the help of the fans, for the fans.
There was no context to your post. You responded to a text without referencing an individual selection of it with a bad analogy about games with completely different mindsets involved in their metagame.
Wut. We are talking about how technical depth affects a game's quality, right?
Chess and Smash Bros. are both games.
I asked if Chess would be more popular if you increased the game's technical depth.
This bizarre example showed how silly the whole concept is.
what I truly think is that some people take this whole tournament thing way too far...
Sakurai has the final words on his games, since he is the creator and creators have all the rights to make their creations as they see fit within their liking...
I agree with the OP that lots of people are already getting their hopes up for this game. There's still a possibility that it'll be a gimmicky piece of sht revolving around 'family friendly smash' and putting your stickers on your trophies from your 3DS touchscreen. What has Nintendo done in the last few years that would make you think they'd do otherwise? I swear some of you people probably deserve to be disappointed for getting your hopes up so carelessly.
Kid Icarus, Donkey Kong Country Returns, the Pokemon games, and(to a lesser extent) Super Mario Galaxy 2. and that's just off the top of my head.
seriously damn, you make it sound like they make preschool games. stop trying to claim all Nintendo games are bad just to have an excuse to hate Brawl more. and back up your evidence, because last i checked EVs and IVs weren't removed from Pokemon to make it more acessable, now were they?
On the topic of technical skill, without much technical depth, there isn't much of a game, casually or competitively. Technical means merely doing what you intend to do. Technical depth (at least IMO) means being able to do a lot of things (and in the competitive sense, IMO it means being able to do a lot of viable things). Brawl's final release lacked that, especially the further down you go in the tiers, and with stalling-based defense and strategies based around (what Brawl competitively players call) "being patient," as if they were fishing, and there was no reason to engage without the opponent making a mistake.[COLLAPSE="Click here for the quote of Eternal phoenix Fire"]
I was there at E For All among many of the veteran smashers. The Brawl demo was an amazing game. It featured Dash Dancing in it's Melee form, you were capable of wavelanding by doing a momentum carrying aerial low to the ground, like Mario's back air (You were able to SH back bair, back air again immediately to waveland and jab/utilt or whatever), fast falling aerials canceled them and some characters retained some properties from their Melee movesets, such as peaches F-throw being able to kill. It also had chargeable smashes with the C-stick, double stick DI, crouch canceling and Meta Knight's only solid kill move was his Forward smash, which killed on a 130% average at edge. The demo had a very ideal balance of competitive aspects while remaining accessible The Nintendo representatives took advantage of this and narked on us about every thing we found.
[/COLLAPSE]Yeah, I found it funny how "recording" all of the good aspects (secretly) actually probably made Brawl worse! We did that with the intent of gaining knowledge and helping Sakurai and co. with balance (ie: Mario being buffed), but it all backfired (ie: Mario being turned into garbage). Still, again, I again blame Game Arts/Nintendo not helping.
My friend demoncaterpie played the E For All 2007 demo, and I questioned him about everything he remembered about the demo a few days after E For All 2007. He isn't a "competitive player," but he knows a lot about Melee's deep competitive meta-game. It was quite interesting what he said in contrast to what other, more competitive people said. He noted a few "simple concepts" that many competitive players of the demo (like yourself, HuGs, and Gimpyfish) somewhat overlooked. A lot of the simple things that weren't in the final game sounded exciting. I would love to see some of the stuff he mentioned used in Smash WiiU and 3DS.
Side note: It would be interesting if someone made a Brawl mod like it was in the demo. It would be awesome if we got our hands on a copy of it. Too bad no one stole a copy!
Kid Icarus, Donkey Kong Country Returns, the Pokemon games, and(to a lesser extent) Super Mario Galaxy 2. and that's just off the top of my head.
seriously damn, you make it sound like they make preschool games. stop trying to claim all Nintendo games are bad just to have an excuse to hate Brawl more. and back up your evidence, because last i checked EVs and IVs weren't removed from Pokemon to make it more acessable, now were they?
Ok, so games being critically and commercially successful suddenly are not good? I know it comes down to a matter of opinion in most cases, but what in the 9 floors of Hell classifies as Good to you people? some of theses games are the best they have made.
and Retro and Sora are substudios of nintendo, so they count. GF is 2nd Party,but still counted as a sub of Nintendo in most rights.
Ok, so games being critically and commercially successful suddenly are not good? I know it comes down to a matter of opinion in most cases, but what in the 9 floors of Hell classifies as Good to you people? some of theses games are the best they have made.
I disagree entirely. The examples you listed were some of the worst of their respective series. Feel free to bring in other games, but the examples you chose were just poor as support. No offense; it's just that the way you're going about supporting your stance is making me distrust your opinion on the matter.
Sales do not determine the quality of a game, for more than one reason. The major ones being the difference in population/market size and target audience.
with the Pokemon example, I was mostly referring to Black and White, which is probably the most well polished and well-thought out game since G/S gen.
Donkey Kong Country Returns is well made, having a much better designed Co-Op system then the previously released NSMBWii and while some features have raised some controversy among fans(no Kremlings or Water levels, having health) in the end the general agreement is that it is on par with the original trilogy(there is a reason why everyone clamors for Retro to do more Nintendo franchises, after all.)
Super Mario Galaxy was well received and was considered by most fans the best since 64, and SMG2 basically was similar to a Director's cut as it kept everything good from the first game and added classic features(Yoshi, Stage select) and an increased difficulty.
KId Icarus Uprising, while admittedly receiving much deserved criticism over it's control scheme, has gained a huge following(as the Light house thread shows), and actually has an active competitive scene.
another noteworthy game would be Skyward Sword. while like Uprising the opinions of the controls are mixed, the story, gameplay elements added(like a true origin story to the series), and character cast has been extremely well praised. the overall concensus is that this should have been the game released at Wii's launch to show it's control potential.
that is why I feel the previous statement from the previous poster(not you Kink) about how Nintendo has been producing nothing but crappy games is utter bulls***.
Well at the very least it is more elaborated now. I still disagree with Pokemon Black and White since I feel it has the poorest balancing since the original games, and I will always hold in my heart true, that Sunshine was a more graceful sequel than Galaxy or its expansion pack, but it is true that the games had good production values and, graphically speaking, polish. The gameplay for most of Nintendo's games, however, much like Brawl's, feels stiff and static- It's like the developers are trying to make the games play like Super Nintendo games, but with a fresh coat of graphics, rather than being truly innovative in using the advents brought out since the N64.
The games feel like a step backward, attempting to be a "Hallmark" to their origins, rather than something new. We've already seen how Mario can function with a simple walk/run threshold. Why go back to that instead of expanding the movement degrees offered by a variable control stick, as Sunshine did adding in new jump mechanics and the versatility of the water pack?
Granted, Other M did a surprisingly intuitive job with its limited controls (Something no doubt a result of the team intentionally playing with the limitation and forming the game around them, rather than putting limitations where there aren't any).
This is why I hold such reservations for Nintendo's games- Instead of expanding on new options offered by the controller, they tend to dedicate their entire creative devision to, I hate to use the word, gimmicky centralizing gameplay mechanics. This is something only present in the company's trends after 2006, so there must have been some sort of shift in their mentality when the Wii came along.
The games brought up by lordvaati are actually really good. D: And Kid Icarus Uprising makes me hopeful for the balance and competitiveness of SSB4 considering how hectic that game should be with the fusion pages and abilities and yet isn't, not to mention Namco Bandai coming on board now and Sakurai willing to have others to balance with him.
There is absolutely no need to jump the gun on how this game is going to be. We literally know nothing other than things that you guys should like to hear. The fact that they are trying to make a party game isn't new, they've been trying to do that since the original.
Yes, but the question of whether or not it is worth getting hyped over something is a legitimate one. Knowing nothing about the game, it is safest to assume the worst.
Well, I am a bit optimistic about it since my assumption is "It'll be slightly worse than Brawl." It could very well be a tragedy's worth worse than Brawl, but I have to at least give the team the credit to not do that poorly of a job.
We're talking about Namco-Bandai, a development team that has a lot of experience balancing the technical aspects of a fighting game, versus Sakurai, who has admitted to not knowing a damn about balance.
I'm sure it will be better than the competitive trainwreck Brawl turned into.
All those games mentioned were amazing, everyone is just so negative about everything and feel the need to spout out passive-aggressive opinions about things that no one cares about. I'm sure commercial success doesn't equate in a good game all the time but if you are getting million(s) of people to buy something them you're doing something right. I've seen indie games that people claim are amazing and they weren't that fun. Either way, opinions are like *******s, everybody has one. What gamers as a whole need to do is stop being such contrarians and try something before assuming its bad.
All those games mentioned were amazing, everyone is just so negative about everything and feel the need to spout out passive-aggressive opinions about things that no one cares about. I'm sure commercial success doesn't equate in a good game all the time but if you are getting million(s) of people to buy something them you're doing something right. I've seen indie games that people claim are amazing and they weren't that fun. Either way, opinions are like *******s, everybody has one. What gamers as a whole need to do is stop being such contrarians and try something before assuming its bad.
All those games mentioned were amazing, everyone is just so negative about everything and feel the need to spout out passive-aggressive opinions about things that no one cares about. I'm sure commercial success doesn't equate in a good game all the time but if you are getting million(s) of people to buy something them you're doing something right. I've seen indie games that people claim are amazing and they weren't that fun. Either way, opinions are like *******s, everybody has one. What gamers as a whole need to do is stop being such contrarians and try something before assuming its bad.
I tried and did not enjoy any of the games mentioned. Why would I form an opinion of something without indulging in it? I'm insulted and hurt by your statement that implies otherwise.
I think getting a fighting game developer is going to be one of the best things to happen to Smash. Hopefully, they can coerce Sakurai into doing some radically different things like an updated combo engine that takes more to 3D fighters than 2D fighters (as I've said in other threads).
@Kink
I thought most of Nintendo's games were really good. Sure, they aren't perfect, but they are good games. I agree that them looking back to their origins might have done more damage than good. What should've been done was to go back to the basic (as that's typically a good thing to do when you're stuck) and also expand on previous games at the same time.
Honestly, I find the NSMB games to be weak. They're not bad, just not very wowey beyond it being a 2D Mario game. I would rather see a mix of linear levels and nonlinear levels. A mix of Mario 64 and SMG2 would be absolutely fantastic.
Off topic, but I think Other M will be looked at in a few years as a misunderstood game. The whole relationship between Samus and Adam gets way more flack than it deserves.
Actually it was inkdropping I believe. Coined by the person who "found" it while playing it at either E3 or another convention. This was when we learned MAD was removed and they made everyone play one wiimotes with no nunchucks, we should have seen the rest coming really..
My two cent's is at this point I have little to no expectations for this game. As a fan I feel Brawl was a slap in the face to me and anyone who like to play their games competitively. Name any instance where it's a good idea to purposely force a play style of your game on your fans so long as it doesn't effect other players*? As an aspiring game developer I hope people enjoy my game in any way they can. Why? Because that means I made something worthwhile and fun regardless if it was intentional. And if I pay attention I will probably make sure that way of playing stays in the next version because why would I alienate a player or players because they didn't play it the way I made it? I feel like that is such a pompous attitude for a game designer to have.
*I realize snaking in Mario Kart DS was a situation where anyone who didn't do this was alienated, something like this is an unfortunately instance where there is a large gap in players and no way to specific who is who. Instead of making this a part of the game as an option (Snake mode?) they removed it entirely from future releases.
Making Mario Kart competitive is less about snaking and more about giving the items depth beyond "press A for advantage". The thunder cloud was a step in the right direction, imo.
Making Mario Kart competitive is less about snaking and more about giving the items depth beyond "press A for advantage". The thunder cloud was a step in the right direction, imo.
I know, but that's not the point I was making. People enjoyed snaking who really got into, but people who were not had no choice but to race people who did and lets face it if you didn't snake you weren't going to win. The idea is that it is possible to make a game that appeals to both crowds of people, something modern fighting games are struggling with as it is. The main problem for modern fighters is the lack of modes and tutorials that show why things are done.
" face or something. Yes, Brawl's hitboxes are more ridiculous than Melee's on average.
We did that with the intent of gaining knowledge and helping Sakurai and co. with balance (ie: Mario being buffed), but it all backfired (ie: Mario being turned into garbage). Still, again, I again blame Game Arts/Nintendo not helping.
