Roster Discussion Thread (Closed)

[FlareHabanero]

Content is always the icing on the cake regardless. When it comes to video games there should always be a focus on the gameplay, with the bells and whistles as more of an afterthought. Basically, it's quality over quantity.

You can add 500 characters, 700 stages, 20,000 songs, and 50 different modes, but it doesn't mean jack if the game itself is coded diarrhea. There has to be a balance in order to satisfy people and to keep quality under control, a balance between two sides you could say.

 

[~ Valkyrie ~]

Melee had a fast and frantic-like gameplay with combo ability and sweet amounts of emphasizing on skill, which was quite optional, but effective. Brawl again had me playing time-taking matches due gravity, increased hitlag and reduced hitstun and overall slower gameplay due defensive playing being given much more priority. Needless to say, it was fun for a while, but later on it wore up on me quick because Brawl turned too much into a defensive game, with broken gimmicks to boot on some characters or stages. Items too...

Brawl though brought so much fun content based on Nintendo and it was absolutely fun to look at. Still, it had some nitpicks, but it was quite a stepup from Melee. They just gotta execute it much better next time. (looking at all single player or vault modes)

I really wish they could try balancing the game to take more offensive approach this time. PM went a good way trying to restore what made Smash so fun to me about (and I'm no competitive player. Maybe I just like an offensive gameplay rather than just casualling playing around and trying to bait up an opening or taking turns trying to attack, just to see them easily blocked or miss.)

Habanero: Action 52, nuff said. Would we wish for Smash Bros-series going with this philosophy?

 

[Deleted member]

Content is always the icing on the cake regardless. When it comes to video games there should always have a focus on the gameplay, with the bells and whistles as more of an afterthought. Basically, it's quality over quantity.

You can add 500 characters, 700 stages, 20,000 songs, and 50 different modes, but it doesn't mean jack if the game itself is absolute rubbish.

Exactly, and this is the case with everything really, not just video games. This is the difference between a well written DiCaprio movie like Shutter Island (just watched it, that's why I brought it up) and a Michael Bay film, or between the Twilight Saga, and Lord of the Ring, or between LMFAO and a Bach. Appealing to the masses is never difficult, especially considering the common sheeple are entertained by mindless bull**** like Nikki Minaj. You could easily toss in a couple wanted characters and nice graphics and the masses would eat that **** up. What really matters is the core, the foundation, the MEAT, and the people who can appreciate this are aware of this fact. Why build a luxurious city on a lake bed? The moment an Earth Quake rolls along, it's all gonna tumble down.

I think you ultimately said it better than I did though, just reinforcing your point with my usual babble.

So why bother with getting Namco to work out the balancing if people generally don't care about the gameplay?

This^^^

I think the discussion ends with this.

@Horsetail

I felt the same exact way about Brawl to be honest, and it's not that it was a defensive game, it just felt... wrong, at least to me.

Smash 4 shouldn't be all offensive, as that was Melee's biggest flaw. I think a nice balance between defence and offence, between Rush and Zoning, between putting pressure and turtling, would be the ideal. You can very well achieve this while making it a fast game, point in case Guilty Gear, one of THE fastest (if not the fastest, period) fighters out there, and it has plenty of defensive, Zoning characters that do well.

 

[8-peacock-8]

Also, on Sony Smash, never played it, but from what I hear, the way the game is played makes it seem rather shallow. Only being able to kill with Ultra moves only gives you so many options, I don't think that game is gonna last long, I feel it would get stale very fast, though I could be wrong.

It's actually very fun and it really hasn't gotten stale yet. (Taking a well deserved break right now though. I want to play Persona 3 again)

In the end however, it really depends on the players opinion. For all i know, you might still think it's stale after playing it.

 

[~ Valkyrie ~]

Manly: Much like what I said. It'd make Smash pretty engaging to me if it had more offensive option. Finding a golden path between Brawl and Melee and we'd have a Smash-game everyone might settle on to play.

 

[Deleted member]

It's actually very fun and it really hasn't gotten stale yet. (Taking a well deserved break right now though. I want to play Persona 3 again)

In the end however, it really depends on the players opinion. For all i know, you might still think it's stale after playing it.

Hmm, mmk. I just feel that matches would dilute into really long standoffs with characters building up their meters to get that ultra only to have it avoided, I can see this as a problem at higher levels, but it all depends on how the ultras are implemented, because in general, Ultras tend to be easy to avoid once you get good. Also, it would rank characters on how good their ultras are really, as in the end, that's all that matters with that mechanic.

I guess I'll have to give it a shot eventually. It's not a priority game for me though. I was very disappointed with it's cast choice and I hate the artstyle. I was banking on the fact that maybe the gameplay would save it, but it just doesn't appeal to me. I feel that even the broken Jump series is more fleshed out than it.

@Horsetail: I agree, in stark contrast to Brawl, Smash 4 needs to be more offensive. If anything, just faster in general, just (as we talked before) don't disregard the defensive characters either. Zoning and Turtling can be quite fun if done right. Not just fun to play either, but fun to face off against, especially if defensive characters are given more options, maybe would could actually see DK, Ganondorf, Samus and Zelda grace the higher levels of the tier list.

 

[SmashChu]

So, what? If the gameplay in SSB4 is like Cartoon Network Punch Time Explosion or Dream Mix TV World Fighters, people would still love it if it's got tons of characters, stages, and extra, extra content? I doubt it.

Smash's gameplay is good enough as is. It doesn't need to be a large focus, just maintain (it can be different mind you). Content is what is going to drive Smash.

I might talk about this more down the road, but the next Smash will have a bigger uphill battle. I don't think ti will make Brawl's sales, but I hope I'm wrong. A focus on Smash's core will be important.

So being "a good fighter" and having extra content are mutually exclusive? Gotcha.

What he means is make it more like other fighting games with a larger emphasis on competitive fighting aspects (he mentions cancels specifically). Smash doesn't need to do that. Smash's rise to fame was because it did away with that.

 

[8-peacock-8]

Hmm, mmk. I just feel that matches would dilute into really long standoffs with characters building up their meters to get that ultra only to have it avoided, I can see this as a problem at higher levels, but it all depends on how the ultras are implemented, because in general, Ultras tend to be easy to avoid once you get good. Also, it would rank characters on how good their ultras are really, as in the end, that's all that matters with that mechanic.

I guess I'll have to give it a shot eventually. It's not a priority game for me though. I was very disappointed with it's cast choice and I hate the artstyle. I was banking on the fact that maybe the gameplay would save it, but it just doesn't appeal to me. I feel that even the broken Jump series is more fleshed out than it.

The supers are really difficult to avoid. I've faced multiple high level players and i've caught them off guard with some of the weaker supers. (Toro's level 1, Parappa's Level 1, Fat Princess's Level 1, etc.)

The roster can't be helped in all honesty. Not all the companies were helpful with giving their characters. (Example: Team ICO, guys who made Ico and Shadow of The Colossus, didn't want anything to do with this game despite being second party. Capcom basically forced Superbot to use the new Dante)

Superbot does respect the other companies though. Including the ones that said no.

 

[Robert of Normandy]

What he means is make it more like other fighting games with a larger emphasis on competitive fighting aspects (he mentions cancels specifically). Smash doesn't need to do that. Smash's rise to fame was because it did away with that.

I still don't see how the two are mutually exclusive. Smash 4 could be both packed with content and firendly to both casual and competitive players.

 

[FlareHabanero]

Sony as a whole is not Nintendo when it comes to iconic faces, which is one of the criticizes the game Sony Smash Bros. has with the roster. Let's face it, we're a lot more familiar with Mario, Link, Samus, Pikachu, Kirby, Pit, and Fox then Sackboy, Sweet Tooth, Fat Princess, Sly Cooper, Kratos, and Toro.

 

[8-peacock-8]

Sony as a whole is not Nintendo when it comes to iconic faces, which is one of the criticizes the game Sony Smash Bros. has with the roster. Let's face it, we're a lot more familiar with Mario, Link, Samus, Pikachu, Kirby, Pit, and Fox then Sackboy, Sweet Tooth, Fat Princess, Sly Cooper, Kratos, and Kat.

of course.

 

[Deleted member]

Smash's gameplay is good enough as is. It doesn't need to be a large focus, just maintain (it can be different mind you). Content is what is going to drive Smash.

I might talk about this more down the road, but the next Smash will have a bigger uphill battle. I don't think ti will make Brawl's sales, but I hope I'm wrong. A focus on Smash's core will be important.

The only reason you think Smash 4 will have poor sales is because you think content is all that matters in this series and in this genre.

Blazblue Chrono Phantasma only adds 4 characters to the roster, yet it's hyped to hell and back. Why? Because it brings fresh new mechanics to the table that essentially make it a different game from it's predecessors.

This can be seen in ALL fighting games, even in Smash Bros. The 3 current Smash Bros games are all vastly different from each other. 64 doesn't play anything like Melee, which doesn't play anything like Brawl.


Now I clearly understand why people in this thread thought Smash 4 would be the end of the series. Most of them are looking at content only, and only care about the superficial content, but don't bother to look at what makes a fighting game a fighting game.

If Smash 4's sales do poor in contrast to Brawl it's for two reasons #1, the current economic crisis. The WiiU is doing 'meh' here in Spain, and it's mostly due to the fact that people are opting to buy the much cheaper 3DS than a WiiU. If it comes down to expensive presents and putting food on the table I think people would choose the latter. Likewise with Smash Bros. It might be a system seller, but times are tough, we'll have to see how the WiiU performs to get a better idea on that. #2, it has less hype behind it than Brawl did. As the 4th installment in the series, the Smash series has started to become more predictable, and more expected. Back when Brawl came out, if you said Brawl could potentially be the last game, it had a degree of credibility, that is not the case anymore, especially not with the rebirth of fighting games.

In fact, if current trends in the gaming industry and the current growing popularity of fighters among gamers are taken into account, I'm sure we can expect Smash Bros to show off some flashy mechanics to compete with the 20 something other fighters out there from Generations 7 and 8.

Sony as a whole is not Nintendo when it comes to iconic faces, which is one of the criticizes the game Sony Smash Bros. has with the roster. Let's face it, we're a lot more familiar with Mario, Link, Samus, Pikachu, Kirby, Pit, and Fox then Sackboy, Sweet Tooth, Fat Princess, Sly Cooper, Kratos, and Toro.

Yeah, but Sony has plenty of iconic faces that it's left in the dust in recent years. This was the perfect game to include Cloud and Sephiroth (and I hate them both and FF7 to be honest, but even I recognize their importance), or at the very least Lightning. Also Crash and Spyro are completely missing as well.

I didn't grow up with Sony, so I have a limited knowledge on their history, but I can recognize iconic faces like the ones I mentioned above.

The supers are really difficult to avoid. I've faced multiple high level players and i've caught them off guard with some of the weaker supers. (Toro's level 1, Parappa's Level 1, Fat Princess's Level 1, etc.)

The roster can't be helped in all honesty. Not all the companies were helpful with giving their characters. (Example: Team ICO, guys who made Ico and Shadow of The Colossus, didn't want anything to do with this game despite being second party. Capcom basically forced Superbot to use the new Dante)

Superbot does respect the other companies though. Including the ones that said no.

Yeah, this I can agree on, Sony isn't really to blame so much for the poor roster. Oh well, what can you do. At least you tried Sony.

Also, on the Ultras, well it's nice to hear, maybe if I can around to either pirating it, or borrowing it from a friend, I'll check it out.

But with GG:AC+ on PSN, BB:CP, Jojo, P4A, SFxT, TTT2, SSB4, the new KOF, DOA5 and all the other figters pending on my list, it's hardly a priority. Fighters take time to learn properly.

 

[FlareHabanero]

Yeah, but Sony has plenty of iconic faces that it's left in the dust in recent years. This was the perfect game to include Cloud and Sephiroth (and I hate them both and FF7 to be honest, but even I recognize their importance), or at the very least Lightning. Also Crash and Spyro are completely missing as well..

Cloud and Sephiroth belong to Square Enix, which is infamous for being very stingy with content in other games. In fact being so stingy was the reason we didn't get ether in Sony Smash Bros. and probably never will.

Crash and Spyro belong to Activision and are currently dust collectors. It could work out as DLC, but probably not considering how mediocre things are turning out for Sony Smash Bros. as a whole.

 

[8-peacock-8]

Yeah, this I can agree on, Sony isn't really to blame so much for the poor roster. Oh well, what can you do. At least you tried Sony.

Also, on the Ultras, well it's nice to hear, maybe if I can around to either pirating it, or borrowing it from a friend, I'll check it out.

But with GG:AC+ on PSN, BB:CP, Jojo, P4A, SFxT, TTT2, SSB4, the new KOF, DOA5 and all the other figters pending on my list, it's hardly a priority. Fighters take time to learn properly.

Yep. It's definitely worth checking out when you have time. My friends, who love smash, consider this the game that is in between Melee and Brawl. Fast paced but not as good as melee. However, it's still very fun. Of course, thats just the opinion my friends and myself. (My friends and i are Nintendo kids btw. I barely know anything about Sony.)

Yeah, a lot of fighters at one time. Too many that have priority over All-Stars. (SSB4, not so much at the moment. lol)

 

[~ Valkyrie ~]

Smashchu: "Smash driven around by content"... pfft. This has failed a lot in Brawl:

- SSE was crap.

- Stage Builder had a lot potential, but turned out to be bland, and very restrictive.

- Events are considered alot more inferior to Melees, Co-Op Event were in much lesser amount that regular ones.

-Classic took step back to 64's predictable matches and also throws double matches or giants much in higher intervals at us which is disorienting compared to Melee or 64

- All Star is very repetitive

- Target Tests were made all same, which kills the individuality and fun on them, and also removes ways to study some character by encouraging a proper use of their skills. (Which the character-specific Target Test-stages had)

- Unlocking trophies are much more tedious than in Melee

- MASTERPIECES VIRTUAL CONSOLE ADVERTISING. NO DONKEY KONG COUNTRY INCLUDED ICE CLIMBERS AGAIN YES BECAUSE THE RIGHTS their game is better.

- Trophies were inconsistent and less varying in means of representation: Mario got too much (Kritter Goalie? Wedding Peach?!), Zelda had only Wind Waker and Twilight Princess despite the fact we had more games than that (And seriously, Salvatore? Pigs?), Mother had only trophies for the characters or items appearing in Brawl compared to Melee's Mother-trophies, Pokemon had no more NPCs, Fire Emblem, Wario Kid Icarus and Yoshi-series got underutilized in means of trophies, and so on.

And these all are why I wish fo Sakurai to not go with this route. Melee had more balance than creativity on this. To think that game was developed about a year and half (someone clarify me) compared to Brawl which took 4 years to complete... sheesh.

 

[FlareHabanero]

Balance when it comes to content was one thing I really hated about Brawl. Brawl is still a good game in it's own right, but there is a lot of stuff that could of been more polished out.

 

[Deleted member]

Cloud and Sephiroth belong to Square Enix, which is infamous for being very stingy with content in other games. In fact being so stingy was the reason we didn't get ether in Sony Smash Bros. and probably never will.

Crash and Spyro belong to Activision and are currently dust collectors. It could work out as DLC, but probably not considering how mediocre things are turning out for Sony Smash Bros. as a whole.

Yeah, Sony's got it bad, Samsung is eating them alive (not to mention all the poor executive decisions), at their current pace, they might not make the next console generation. We'll have to see though. I'd hate to see them go, as I kinda want to see what future the Vita has.

Yep. It's definitely worth checking out when you have time. My friends, who love smash, consider this the game that is in between Melee and Brawl. Fast paced but not as good as melee. However, it's still very fun. Of course, thats just the opinion my friends and myself. (My friends and i are Nintendo kids btw. I barely know anything about Sony.)

Yeah, a lot of fighters at one time. Too many that have priority over All-Stars. (SSB4, not so much at the moment. lol)

Well, by the time I'm done with that list Smash 4 will likely be out, Gahahahahaha. I'll see if I can look into Sony Smash though.

Smashchu: "Smash driven around by content"... pfft. This has failed a lot in Brawl:

- SSE was crap.

- Stage Builder had a lot potential, but turned out to be bland, and very restrictive.

- Events are considered alot more inferior to Melees, Co-Op Event were in much lesser amount that regular ones.

-Classic took step back to 64's predictable matches and also throws double matches or giants much in higher intervals at us which is disorienting compared to Melee or 64

- All Star is very repetitive

- Target Tests were made all same, which kills the individuality and fun on them, and also removes ways to study some character by encouraging a proper use of their skills. (Which the character-specific Target Test-stages had)

- Unlocking trophies are much more tedious than in Melee

- MASTERPIECES VIRTUAL CONSOLE ADVERTISING. NO DONKEY KONG COUNTRY INCLUDED ICE CLIMBERS AGAIN YES BECAUSE THE RIGHTS their game is better.

- Trophies were inconsistent and less varying in means of representation: Mario got too much (Kritter Goalie? Wedding Peach?!), Zelda had only Wind Waker and Twilight Princess despite the fact we had more games than that (And seriously, Salvatore? Pigs?), Mother had only trophies for the characters or items appearing in Brawl compared to Melee's Mother-trophies, Pokemon had no more NPCs, Fire Emblem, Wario Kid Icarus and Yoshi-series got underutilized in means of trophies, and so on.

And these all are why I wish fo Sakurai to not go with this route. Melee had more balance than creativity on this. To think that game was developed about a year and half (someone clarify me) compared to Brawl which took 4 years to complete... sheesh.

QFT

I agree 100% with everything you just said.

The only extra content that was Superior in Brawl were the Stadium, Home-Run Test, and Boss Rush.

Also, Stickers were annoying and totally useless.

 

[Ridley_Prime]

I just wonder how much more Samus would've been sexualized by Team Ninja had they been given complete control of the character, given their past record of females in their games.

At least people can thank Sakamoto for that.

And I wasn't ever saying ZSS was one of the most sexualized characters in gaming or anything to that extent either, but by Nintendo standards she was kinda pushing it in Brawl, IMO.

@YH
So what exactly are we complaining about here? I'm sure most people can agree that the worst thing to happen to Samus was Other M, but are we really complaining against her inclusion in Brawl? Since it was over Ridley of all things?

That's where I disagree. I wan't Ridley in too, but ZSSamus was a creative addition to the Smash Bros roster, and an over all decent character from a fighting point perspective. She's easily one of the more unique and difficult (to master) characters in Brawl, why anyone would be against her inclusion in Brawl is beyond me. Do you hate fun?

Either way, it doesn't matter. If that whiteboard image drawn by Sakurai's team can be used as a hint of the upcoming roster, you can bet she'll be back, so there's not much of a point in complaining.

Unless this is relating back to that Bayonetta topic from a couple pages back.

Sexualization & characterization stuff aside, I was probably a lot more annoyed at how they made ZSS so much better than the armored Samus competitively than I was her getting in over Ridley, and then adding insult to injury for regular Samus players by greatly nerfing some of her best techniques like the missiles and charge beam. I know she wasn't that great in Melee either, but compared to Brawl Samus she was high tier.

I guess to put it short though, the concept of a Samus without her suit being leagues better than one with her full powered suit, is on the same level of absurdity as Mewtwo being weaksauce compared to nearly every other playable Pokemon in the series.

And yeah, agree completely on Horsetail's last post too.

 

[Propeller Toad]

I also have to agree with many points from Horsetail's post. Of course, more content is welcome; however, it depends on how well it is delivered. Don't get me wrong, I like more content too; however, some of the elements in Brawl were a bit too overexposed.

Some elements like the Masterpieces were extremely useless while things like the SSE which had potential to be great; unfortunately fell to a generic platformer game with Nintendo characters slapped onto it. Of course, we all forgave it due to it being one of the first times in which our favourite Nintendo characters interacted with each other in a storymode like sequence; however, very little gave a vibe to Nintendo's past games (aside from perhaps Kirby...but a much soulless Kirby game). It just felt like the creators added a bit too much and as a result, they strayed away from the original charming idea of Nintendo characters fighting in classic and traditional Nintendo worlds. Just my opinion.

 

[ChronoBound]

Smashchu: "Smash driven around by content"... pfft. This has failed a lot in Brawl:

- SSE was crap.

- Stage Builder had a lot potential, but turned out to be bland, and very restrictive.

- Events are considered alot more inferior to Melees, Co-Op Event were in much lesser amount that regular ones.

-Classic took step back to 64's predictable matches and also throws double matches or giants much in higher intervals at us which is disorienting compared to Melee or 64

- All Star is very repetitive

- Target Tests were made all same, which kills the individuality and fun on them, and also removes ways to study some character by encouraging a proper use of their skills. (Which the character-specific Target Test-stages had)

- Unlocking trophies are much more tedious than in Melee

- MASTERPIECES VIRTUAL CONSOLE ADVERTISING. NO DONKEY KONG COUNTRY INCLUDED ICE CLIMBERS AGAIN YES BECAUSE THE RIGHTS their game is better.

- Trophies were inconsistent and less varying in means of representation: Mario got too much (Kritter Goalie? Wedding Peach?!), Zelda had only Wind Waker and Twilight Princess despite the fact we had more games than that (And seriously, Salvatore? Pigs?), Mother had only trophies for the characters or items appearing in Brawl compared to Melee's Mother-trophies, Pokemon had no more NPCs, Fire Emblem, Wario Kid Icarus and Yoshi-series got underutilized in means of trophies, and so on.

And these all are why I wish fo Sakurai to not go with this route. Melee had more balance than creativity on this. To think that game was developed about a year and half (someone clarify me) compared to Brawl which took 4 years to complete... sheesh.

I agree on all your points.

However, on the end I will clarify you (since you asked) on how much time Brawl spent in development. Brawl's development began in October 2005 and it was not released until very late January 2008 in Japan. That is a little bit over two years.

 

[Deleted member]

So much argumentation.....
Not even sure what to start talking about. Heh.

 

[---]

Smashchu: "Smash driven around by content"... pfft. This has failed a lot in Brawl:

- SSE was crap.

- Stage Builder had a lot potential, but turned out to be bland, and very restrictive.

Agreed. Although I wouldn't say SSE was crap, it just had a lot of wasted potential with the wow factor quickly wearing off, and it was a bit over hyped. Also Stage Building is just begging to be done on the Wii U gamepad.

- Events are considered alot more inferior to Melees, Co-Op Event were in much lesser amount that regular ones.

-Classic took step back to 64's predictable matches and also throws double matches or giants much in higher intervals at us which is disorienting compared to Melee or 64

- All Star is very repetitive

Not sure why events were worse than Melee. Personally I thought Melee's were more frustrating. I don't see why less Co-Op events are bad, personally I don't know anyone who even attempted them, but on the bright side at least they're there.

Classic is the same as it ever was when you get down to it (which is repetitive). I can see the random effects being annoying at times (especially when you're trying to beat it with all characters), but not as much as if they were left out.

All Star has always been very repetitive and will continue to grow even more repetitive as the roster expands. Fighting the matches in order all the time is kinda boring at times, but the attention to Nintendo's history is a nice touch that makes up for it.

- Target Tests were made all same, which kills the individuality and fun on them, and also removes ways to study some character by encouraging a proper use of their skills. (Which the character-specific Target Test-stages had)

I agree and disagree. On one hand I can see why they aren't as much fun, but on the other hand I can see why they're the same (Co-Op play).

Hopefully next game they set aside some separate TT stages for this purpose. The ability to make custom TT stages would also be awesome.

- Unlocking trophies are much more tedious than in Melee

True, but that kinda comes with the territory. I definitely want to see a Trophy Stand revamp however.

The coin launcher has potential, and I personally do find it to be fun and addicting at times, but you're right and it should have some extra options in order to make unlocking new trophies/stickers easier.

- MASTERPIECES VIRTUAL CONSOLE ADVERTISING. NO DONKEY KONG COUNTRY INCLUDED ICE CLIMBERS AGAIN YES BECAUSE THE RIGHTS their game is better.

I don't think advertising was the main inspiration for it (Nintendo history and whatnot), but it could have been done better in that regard instead of having all the Mario/Zelda games, which is the only complaint I have with them.

DKC was probably left out due to Rare and Sakurai was probably fine with just the original DK (which does make a some sense and is technically more deserving). Ice Climbers makes sense (so I don't know why you're complaining about that in particular).

- Trophies were inconsistent and less varying in means of representation: Mario got too much (Kritter Goalie? Wedding Peach?!), Zelda had only Wind Waker and Twilight Princess despite the fact we had more games than that (And seriously, Salvatore? Pigs?), Mother had only trophies for the characters or items appearing in Brawl compared to Melee's Mother-trophies, Pokemon had no more NPCs, Fire Emblem, Wario Kid Icarus and Yoshi-series got underutilized in means of trophies, and so on.

Agreed. Although I do think that the trophies look better than they did in Melee, and that it was easier to navigate the mode.

And these all are why I wish fo Sakurai to not go with this route. Melee had more balance than creativity on this. To think that game was developed about a year and half (someone clarify me) compared to Brawl which took 4 years to complete... sheesh.

All that stuff was probably added to keep the game from being Melee 2.0. Brawl in itself took twice as long as Melee did technically, but one must also remember that Brawl more than doubled the content that Melee had and that Sakurai wasn't pulling all nighters with Brawl either. Either way the multiplayer and gameplay is the main focus and driving point of Smash anyway, and Brawl did an amazing job with it.

I'd hate to repeat myself, but Brawl was a testing ground for all of these new ideas (so was Melee technically) and that Smash 4 should be the final product. Which, now relating back to what SmashChu previously said, is why more than likely content (and single player) will be the bigger focus now that the gameplay doesn't need much refinement.


I probably sound like a Brawl sympathizer, which I am to an extent, but a lot of this I do think we're overreacting to. Brawl would have sucked if it was just Melee 2.0, and all this extra stuff, while not amazing, is something we shouldn't take for granted.

EDIT: For some reason I feel that I should bring up Uprising's Giving Hearts to the Goddess mode and add that to the list of unneeded but there stuff, along with the trading card game/AR reader.

 

[IntelliHeath1]

I have a hard time to responding to this arguments but I would like to add my 2 cents to Content for SSB4, but I'm afraid that I might end up making it into melee 2.0 in term of contents despite that I know SSB4 will be it's own game.

I would love to see that they would work hard to put better contents for casuals and hardcore players that have been with nintendo for long time.

Trophy Collection - I would love to see them making a lot of trophies that represented the games and series very well, just like Melee. I was very disappointed with Brawl trophies but it's still somewhat good. I had too high exceptions from Sakurai and Brawl. IT wouldn't happen again for SSB4, so I am keeping my hype at minimum as I can.

Stickers Collection - Get rid of this collection, please. I thought it was waste of space, imo.

If they are going to add more contents to the game then I'm fine with it. They are more likely to save most of the features for SSB 3DS.

 

[---]

Consider this an extension to my last post as I've done some more thinking.

Classic Mode: Honestly they're both the same, but IMO Melee beats Brawl solely due to the loss of the mini-games.

Adventure Mode: SSE wins IMO.

Honestly the only real fun part of Melee's Adventure mode was the Mario level (which was also the funnest lvl in SSE too), and maybe the Zelda level. But having to repeat it all the time with every character is much more repetitive than SSE and it's 30(?) varying stages that you don't have to repeat and takes around the same time as it would if you had to repeat said 15 stages.

The enemies and story of SSE, while definitely lame, did offer a lot. You're lying if you weren't blown away watching the cutscenes and didn't feel at least some nostalgia. The enemies, while uninspired, did offer a lot more options for hazards that would have been tough and time consuming to pull off if a bunch of enemies from Nintendo's platformers were used.

Honestly while it was repetitive, it did build off of Melee's Adventure mode in a lot of ways, and everyone is correct in saying that Smash 4's Adventure mode should combine the best points of both Adventures (Melee's short but sweet notalgia stages, Brawl's length, enemy variety, cutscenes, and story (the story's going to be lame even if set in the Mushroom Kingdom)).

Events: Both are about the same. Melee had more events, while Brawl had difficulty settings and Co-Op. And each had their own frustrating events as well.

Stadium: A tie depending on how you look at things. On one hand Melee had unique Target Test stages, on the other Brawl had Boss Battles, Co-Op for all events, and Golden Hammers in the Challenges got rid of some frustrations (such as 15min Melee/Brawl).

Collectables: Another tie depending on how you look at it. Melee had more creativity with it's trophies and getting them all was a lot easier (except for Diskun). Brawl had Stickers/CDs/more trophies, Chronicle, Stage Builder, Snapshots, My Music, Masterpieces, the Coin Launcher mini-game (ignoring that it's hard to collect stuff with it), Challenges to help/monitor your progress, but the trophies were devoid of charm.

Gameplay: I wouldn't touch this even with a 29 1/2 ft poll (you win points if you get this reference), but I do prefer Brawl's.

Multiplayer: Brawl wins this, mostly due to more options and with it's awful, but there, online.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong though, I do think Melee was the bigger leap forward for the series and had the biggest impact.

 

[shrooby]

I wouldn't touch this even with a 29 1/2 ft poll (you win points if you get this reference), but I do prefer Brawl's.

Hooray for being subtly festive!

I remember someone saying (don't remember who), on the topic of other possible goodies that could be unlockable, that you could unlock concept art and such. To get a look at behind-the-scenes stuff. Maybe also get a look at stuff that didn't quite make the final cut such as stages, bosses, items, or, as much as I'd prefer it not be the case, characters. It would definitely make me want to play through single-player a lot more than for just characters, and it would push the whole collecting aspect of the game above both Melee and Brawl in my opinion.

 

[Ridley_Prime]

Far as comparing Melee's adventure mode to Brawl's SSE, while both can be considered repetitive, I found the former to at least be more replayable, and not just because of the trophy collecting to be gained from it, though it helped. The SSE I would have to say was more repetitive as well (if you compare it to just one playthrough of Melee's adventure), due to in part having to face all the same 6 bosses again in the Great Maze before facing Tabuu and other things of that nature. Even after getting all the character trophies from Melee's adventure mode, I still played it quite a bit. Can't say the same for Brawl's SSE after I unlocked the last of the characters... I'd might have if the Great Maze didn't give me such a frustrating final impression of it at the time though.

A lot of both Melee's and Brawl's event matches were pretty solid, but I'd have to say the best of Melee's beat out the best of Brawl's. A prime example being the one with a team of Giga Bowser, Mewtwo, and Ganondorf in Melee. While Brawl tried, it fell short in having a final event on quite that level of epicness, IMO.

They're more or less a tie for me in the other modes too, but for multiplayer... The nagging reminder of online play being the one important thing that Brawl has over Melee kinda makes me wish there would be a re-release collection or something of the previous Smash games on the Wii-U where they would all have online (being just $40 or so like a lot of other re-releases), but that prolly won't happen, though to me it'd be a nice way of hyping or preparing people for SSB4 aside from the usual.

 

[Santa Claus]

Hooray for being subtly festive!

Ho ho ho, why only be subtle?

If Sakurai asks, I'd be glad to have a character around me. I haven't had a chance to practise my moves since Clayfighter!

 

[Opossum]

Gameplay: I wouldn't touch this even with a 29 1/2 ft poll (you win points if you get this reference), but I do prefer Brawl's.

Fun fact: the guy who sings that is the same guy who played Tony the Tiger. Isn't that GRRRRRREAT?

 

[SmashChu]

I still don't see how the two are mutually exclusive. Smash 4 could be both packed with content and firendly to both casual and competitive players.

I'll give the abridged version cause I'm lazy.

They are mutually exclusive. Accessibility and competitive friendly can not co exist because they are opposites. To make it appeal to competitive players, they would make the game faster, add more hitstun and make combos. The regular Smash fan does not want to play this. Smash rose to fame because it didn't focus on what other fighting games did. The game was simpler in controls and focused on being fun rather than being competitive.

Smash fans enjoy the fact that the game isn't competitive because they want to just play (wavedashing was universally hated outside of Smashboards). Sakurai should please the many Smash fans, not the few competitive players. Besides, every other fighting games panders to competitive players.

The only reason you think Smash 4 will have poor sales is because you think content is all that matters in this series and in this genre.

No, that is not why. There are three things I see happening in 2014 that wasn't a problem in 2008.

1. The economic environment has greatly changed. Japan isn't doing very well and Europe has their own crisis. The US is the only country looking OK but this will likely change. People are not going to want to spend money on videogames, or at least, not as much. The market is becoming more frugal. I believe games around the board are going to decline in sales. It will be hard for Smash to maintain it's numbers.
2. The Wii U wont be doing well. Even now, it gets beaten by PS3 and 360 on a weekly basis. Smash will moves systems, but I'm not sure how many. Gamers are more hostile to Nintendo then they were during the Gamecube days. Nintendo doesn't have the same level of respect they once had. We also STILL don't know about the game, even after launch. We got, what, Pikmin and Wii U Fit? A system needs games. Smash can't sell the system if it's the only game people want.

I expect the next game to sell more like Melee. It will start slower and sell over a longer period of time as people buy Wii Us.

Smashchu: "Smash driven around by content"... pfft. This has failed a lot in Brawl:

- SSE was crap.

- Stage Builder had a lot potential, but turned out to be bland, and very restrictive.

- Events are considered alot more inferior to Melees, Co-Op Event were in much lesser amount that regular ones.

-Classic took step back to 64's predictable matches and also throws double matches or giants much in higher intervals at us which is disorienting compared to Melee or 64

- All Star is very repetitive

- Target Tests were made all same, which kills the individuality and fun on them, and also removes ways to study some character by encouraging a proper use of their skills. (Which the character-specific Target Test-stages had)

- Unlocking trophies are much more tedious than in Melee

- MASTERPIECES VIRTUAL CONSOLE ADVERTISING. NO DONKEY KONG COUNTRY INCLUDED ICE CLIMBERS AGAIN YES BECAUSE THE RIGHTS their game is better.

- Trophies were inconsistent and less varying in means of representation: Mario got too much (Kritter Goalie? Wedding Peach?!), Zelda had only Wind Waker and Twilight Princess despite the fact we had more games than that (And seriously, Salvatore? Pigs?), Mother had only trophies for the characters or items appearing in Brawl compared to Melee's Mother-trophies, Pokemon had no more NPCs, Fire Emblem, Wario Kid Icarus and Yoshi-series got underutilized in means of trophies, and so on.

And these all are why I wish fo Sakurai to not go with this route. Melee had more balance than creativity on this. To think that game was developed about a year and half (someone clarify me) compared to Brawl which took 4 years to complete... sheesh.

Again, this is your opinion. It would be better to have a meatier game then a smaller one. There is more to Smash then the vs mode.

 

[Robert of Normandy]

I'll give the abridged version cause I'm lazy.

They are mutually exclusive. Accessibility and competitive friendly can not co exist because they are opposites. To make it appeal to competitive players, they would make the game faster, add more hitstun and make combos. The regular Smash fan does not want to play this. Smash rose to fame because it didn't focus on what other fighting games did. The game was simpler in controls and focused on being fun rather than being competitive.

And they don't have to. My friends and I(all of whom were definatley NOT competitive players) played and loved Melee for years without knowing about combos or wavedashing or anything like that. That's the beatuy of Smash: you can play it how you want.

Smash fans enjoy the fact that the game isn't competitive because they want to just play (wavedashing was universally hated outside of Smashboards).

Again, nobody is forcing casual fans to play cometitivley.

Sakurai should please the many Smash fans, not the few competitive players.

He's already doing a good enough job of that.

Besides, every other fighting games panders to competitive players.

So what? Very few other fighters have mechanics similar to Smash.

Edit: How can I turn off this snow thing? It's making my browser lag.

 

[FlareHabanero]

As a general rule, it's better to have quality over quantity. Adding meat to a game is futile if the meat consists of rotten bison carcass.

 

[~ Valkyrie ~]

Habanero summed it. I'm not the only one here thinking Brawl's content was poorly executed or took a step backwards. There more more of poorly implemented ideas than good ones found in the game.

 

[Opossum]

Merry Christmas Eve, everyone.

Anyway, I'll put in my two cents. But no more than that. I'm on a budget.

I do think that Brawl did a good job to introduce us to newer features, but they should definitely be fleshed out more if they are to be included again. That being said, it is silly to think that a competitive game cannot coexist with a game with extra content. No one is forcing the competitive attitude onto the casuals; fighting games just come with a competitive territory from the fans.

Quality is quality is quality. However, saying that Competition + Content =/= Quality is silly.

 

[Deleted member]

I'll give the abridged version cause I'm lazy.

They are mutually exclusive. Accessibility and competitive friendly can not co exist because they are opposites. To make it appeal to competitive players, they would make the game faster, add more hitstun and make combos. The regular Smash fan does not want to play this. Smash rose to fame because it didn't focus on what other fighting games did. The game was simpler in controls and focused on being fun rather than being competitive.

Smash fans enjoy the fact that the game isn't competitive because they want to just play (wavedashing was universally hated outside of Smashboards). Sakurai should please the many Smash fans, not the few competitive players. Besides, every other fighting games panders to competitive players.

Everyone else already responded to this, and I already said what I had to a few posts back. They are not mutually exclusive and you can very easily please the mainstream audience.

No, that is not why. There are three things I see happening in 2014 that wasn't a problem in 2008.

1. The economic environment has greatly changed. Japan isn't doing very well and Europe has their own crisis. The US is the only country looking OK but this will likely change. People are not going to want to spend money on videogames, or at least, not as much. The market is becoming more frugal. I believe games around the board are going to decline in sales. It will be hard for Smash to maintain it's numbers.

1. 
   
   You're wrong here. I may not be too keen when it comes to videogame history, but if there is one thing I know a lot about it is about politics and the economy. As an English teacher, this is a hot-topic with my students. So I do well to make sure I stay up to date and well informed on current matters.
   
   You're completely wrong on Japan. In fact, Asia in general is booming, and Japan is predicted to recover very soon.
   Sources:
   http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2012/12/20/is-japan-about-to-boom/
   http://www.iol.co.za/business/international/japan-economy-s-condition-stable-1.1444092#.UNiCH28k9O8
   http://www.news.com.au/business/bre...-on-central-bank/story-e6frfkur-1226542797378
   
   The new Prime Minister is putting a lot of pressure on the Bank of Japan, which has been the cause for a lot of their problems this past decade. In fact, you can defintely bet Japan will be the first to come out of their recession. If anything, western countries should be looking towards them as an example of how to deal with the current crisis (read up on the Lost (Two) Decade(s)).
   
   Japan still has its problem to deal with, but the way this crisis has played out for them has caused a bit of "spring effect" based on what I read. It's only a matter of time before Japan bounces back.
   
   This is that MAIN reason why I plan on moving there in a couple years to be honest. Europe and US don't have that sort of future. Let alone those opportunities. With rumors that the European Union will fall apart and the Euro cease to exist things look very grim over here. Same goes for the US, currently it is going through a very delicate recovery, however, if things get any worse in Europe (read: Spain), the US is gonna have it worse, simply because of its strong economic ties with Europe. Not to mention with countries like China and Russia rejecting the Petro-Dollar status, the Dollar is beginning to lose it's market value.
   
   What we are seeing right now with the economic crisis, is a shift in the World Order in my opinion. No longer will we live in an Era dominated by ONE Superpower. In my personal (and limited) opinion, the pillars of Modern Society, in the future, will be Latin America and Asia. I believe we are in for a very interesting (and conflicted) future, in the coming decades. Many people are paying close attention to what will be happening in the next 50 or so years on this planet as we are indeed living through a very important period of time in human history.
   
   I would recommend you check this (theoretical) webpage out, it's a very interesting read:
   http://www.futuretimeline.net/
   
   

   [*]The Wii U wont be doing well. Even now, it gets beaten by PS3 and 360 on a weekly basis. Smash will moves systems, but I'm not sure how many. Gamers are more hostile to Nintendo then they were during the Gamecube days. Nintendo doesn't have the same level of respect they once had. We also STILL don't know about the game, even after launch. We got, what, Pikmin and Wii U Fit? A system needs games. Smash can't sell the system if it's the only game people want.

As I said the WiiU is only beaten put by the older consoles because they are a lot cheaper now. I'm not too sure about WiiU sales in Japan, but I think it did pretty damn good, likewise in the US.

I disagree on the gamer opinion at the moment, the WiiU is actually pulling in a lot more positive attention from the gamer crowd that the Wii did, simply because of its line up. You mentioned WiiU Fit and Pikmin as the system sellers on the WiiU but completely forgot about Monster Hunter Tri Ultimate, Bayonetta 2, TTT2, the Plat Games titles and so on (http://www.ign.com/wikis/wii-u/Wii_U_Launch_Games). All of which have perked more interest in the console than with the Wii launch (with the "hardcore" audience). In my personal opinion. The WiiU line up is MUCH better than that of the Wii, and I bought a Wii on launch.

 

[SmashChu]

@shinpichu:Making the game more competitive means making the game less accessable. Sakurai tremoved things from Melee because the player base hated it, despite compeitive players loving it. Had it stayed, you would have heard some serious backlash.The heart of Smash Brothers is to not got that route. Combos and cancles go against the very nature of Smash (Sakurai points this out in the Uprising interview).

The core of Smash is: Accessibility, replayability and Nintendo content. It should focus on those. It means not making it competitive but, perhaps, make it more accessible.

You're wrong here. I may not be too keen when it comes to videogame history, but if there is one thing I know a lot about it is about politics and the economy. As an English teacher, this is a hot-topic with my students. So I do well to make sure I stay up to date and well informed on current matters.

You're completely wrong on Japan. In fact, Asia in general is booming, and Japan is predicted to recover very soon.
Sources:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2012/12/20/is-japan-about-to-boom/
http://www.iol.co.za/business/international/japan-economy-s-condition-stable-1.1444092#.UNiCH28k9O8
http://www.news.com.au/business/bre...-on-central-bank/story-e6frfkur-1226542797378

The new Prime Minister is putting a lot of pressure on the Bank of Japan, which has been the cause for a lot of their problems this past decade. In fact, you can defintely bet Japan will be the first to come out of their recession. If anything, western countries should be looking towards them as an example of how to deal with the current crisis (read up on the Lost (Two) Decade(s)).

Japan still has its problem to deal with, but the way this crisis has played out for them has caused a bit of "spring effect" based on what I read. It's only a matter of time before Japan bounces back.

This is that MAIN reason why I plan on moving there in a couple years to be honest. Europe and US don't have that sort of future. Let alone those opportunities. With rumors that the European Union will fall apart and the Euro cease to exist things look very grim over here. Same goes for the US, currently it is going through a very delicate recovery, however, if things get any worse in Europe (read: Spain), the US is gonna have it worse, simply because of its strong economic ties with Europe. Not to mention with countries like China and Russia rejecting the Petro-Dollar status, the Dollar is beginning to lose it's market value.

What we are seeing right now with the economic crisis, is a shift in the World Order in my opinion. No longer will we live in an Era dominated by ONE Superpower. In my personal (and limited) opinion, the pillars of Modern Society, in the future, will be Latin America and Asia. I believe we are in for a very interesting (and conflicted) future, in the coming decades. Many people are paying close attention to what will be happening in the next 50 or so years on this planet as we are indeed living through a very important period of time in human history.

I would recommend you check this (theoretical) webpage out, it's a very interesting read:
http://www.futuretimeline.net/

Japan likely wont recover. It's hard to believe they will just spring back after a 20 year recession. They also have an upsidedown population which is going to cost more and reduce their economy as well as Debt to GDP of 200%. That last one is why I don't Japan will bounce back. Any disruption and they get crushed by debt. China is also declining as the world can't take on any more debt and can't buy Chinese goods.
http://www.richdad.com/Resources/Rich-Dad-Financial-Education-Blog.aspx?month=0&author=Richard%20Duncan&page=2

We have only just started the new depression. There are a lot of problems.

1. The US will not be able to pay social security or medicare. It has become unaffordable and will crash
2. All of the nations in the world are in debt to each other. When one can't pay back the interest, everyone can't pay off the interest. The European Crisis is that on a smaller scale.
3. The fiat currencies will likely crash as they always have. This will put most nations into a hyperinflation

I do agree that South American and Asia will be the new powers, but it will be more Korea and Singapor and not Chin and Japan.
http://www.richdad.com/Resources/Rich-Dad-Financial-Education-Blog/November-2012/The-Economic-Crisis-Enters-A-New-Stage.aspx

As I said the WiiU is only beaten put by the older consoles because they are a lot cheaper now. I'm not too sure about WiiU sales in Japan, but I think it did pretty damn good, likewise in the US.

I disagree on the gamer opinion at the moment, the WiiU is actually pulling in a lot more positive attention from the gamer crowd that the Wii did, simply because of its line up. You mentioned WiiU Fit and Pikmin as the system sellers on the WiiU but completely forgot about Monster Hunter Tri Ultimate, Bayonetta 2, TTT2, the Plat Games titles and so on (http://www.ign.com/wikis/wii-u/Wii_U_Launch_Games). All of which have perked more interest in the console than with the Wii launch (with the "hardcore" audience). In my personal opinion. The WiiU line up is MUCH better than that of the Wii, and I bought a Wii on launch.

The Wii has negative reception from the industry and is sold out for 3 years. The Wii U has positive reception from the same people and is being beaten by 6 year old systems. That should tell you something. Most Nintendo fans are not interested in the Wii U where everyone rushed to get a Wii. The interest isn't there, even from their own fanbase.

The Wii U is doing badly, but we'll wait until February to see how it shapes up.

 

[Robert of Normandy]

@shinpichu:Making the game more competitive means making the game less accessable. Sakurai tremoved things from Melee because the player base hated it, despite compeitive players loving it. Had it stayed, you would have heard some serious backlash.The heart of Smash Brothers is to not got that route. Combos and cancles go against the very nature of Smash (Sakurai points this out in the Uprising interview).

Because if Sakurai says it, it must be true.

Brawl was a solution looking for a problem. I don't remember any complaining about Melee being "inaccessible" prior to Brawl's release and Sakurai spouting off all that nonsense. Had it stayed, I think the casual fans would have continued on like nothing happened.

 

[SmashChu]

Because if Sakurai says it, it must be true.

Brawl was a solution looking for a problem. I don't remember any complaining about Melee being "inaccessible" prior to Brawl's release and Sakurai spouting off all that nonsense. Had it stayed, I think the casual fans would have continued on like nothing happened.

Let's listen to Sakurai

However, he has one particularly deep regret: the game's accessibility level. "I had created Smash Bros. to be my response to how hardcore-exclusive the fighting game genre had become over the years," Sakurai said. "But why did I target it so squarely toward people well-versed in videogames, then? That's why I tried to aim for more of a happy medium with Brawl's play balance. There are three Smash Bros. games out now, but even if I ever had a chance at another one, I doubt we'll ever see one that's as geared toward hardcore gamers as Melee was. Melee fans who played deep into the game without any problems might have trouble understanding this, but Melee was just too difficult."

There you go. I'm going to trust the man as he has better information then me and Brawl preformed better than Melee.

 

[FlareHabanero]

Honestly now, did anyone actually complain about Melee being too difficult? Anyone at all? It seems like Sakurai is the only one that thinks so.

 

[Robert of Normandy]

There you go. I'm going to trust the man as he has better information then me and Brawl preformed better than Melee.

Of course it did better. Sequels usually do better, regardless of quality.

Also, your "Melee did better than Brawl" "argument" has been deconstructed before, so I'm not going to do that here unless someone else(i.e. not you) asks me to do so.

Again, just because Sakurai says it, that doesn't mean it's true.

 

[---]

Honestly now, did anyone actually complain about Melee being too difficult? Anyone at all? It seems like Sakurai is the only one that thinks so.

I do. Like everyone else I played Melee for years but I never felt that I was getting any better. Watching all the competitive stuff online and trying to attempt some of it myself (like Wavedashing) was the final kick in the bucket for me. Melee being too hard is one of the reasons I never post in the Melee forums, that and the downright mean attitude they often have towards Brawl and Sakurai.