Sakurai and the competitive scene

[Ziodyne]

I think the worst part about brawl vs. Melee debates is that most of the people from both sides of the argument are godawfully stupid.

 

[Frostwraith]

I think the worst part about brawl vs. Melee debates is that most of the people from both sides of the argument are godawfully stupid.

Hear, hear!

This sort of debates has already been done to death, it's irritating.

And both sides use bad argumentation that only emphasizes the stupidity of these debates, since both sides can't really defend their points.

 

[Ziodyne]

I just wish people would stop ****ing referencing SALES when they talk about which game they think is better.

 

[Frostwraith]

I just wish people would stop ****ing referencing SALES when they talk about which game they think is better.

This so much.

There are many great games that are overlooked and there are also games that sell a lot (Call of Duty, for example) that are just bland, rehashed games of rehashed games.

The fact that majority of people like and buy ****, doesn't make such **** any good.

Sales =/= Quality

 

[Luco]

The sad thing is Loco luco whatever, that plenty of people will john about a LACK of items.

Set spawn items would be interesting if the stage had a non-obnoxious design to go along with it. The closest there's been in the series is Green Greens which got banned in, what 2002 or 3?, and DP which had a similar lifespan.

Why would people john about a lack of items at a competitive level? I wasn't here for Brawl's release so i'm totally being honest here. I just don't see competitive players saying 'you won because there weren't items...' that, to me, sounds like incredibly flawed logic for several reasons... Obviously some characters directly benefit from a lack of items, as it stops interruptions when doing infinites and the like... but it benefits the other player just as much so...

... Or, I could be mis-interpreting?

I think I'm starting to understand what di Sakurai mean when he said he changed most of the mechanics of Melee be cause he wasn't happy of what people had done of his game. He wanted both experts and newbies to have fun, not only the first class of players. FIRST CLASS OF PLAYERS! How does it sound?
I'm antielite too. And about banning items, that sadly reminds me when in Street Fighter 2 someones (who??) invented the rule that you wont hit an opponent when he is dazed or you would be a dirty player. Jesus Krystal! That's part of the game! If you don't like it play another game, for puck-man sake!

That situation in SF is different (though i'll be honest: I've never heard of this rule myself)... with that situation, it's not about limiting random variables, it's limiting what the player can do. It's like saying, 'don't chain grab'.

Remember, we're talking about competitive play. Competitive play isn't about using everything in the game because in many cases, the game wasn't made to be played competitively. But hey, a bunch of players got together and decided that because they loved the game so much, they wanted to have a competition. What do they do? Make their own rules. Face it, a pokeball with a moltres or even latios/latias spawning right next to one person, allowing them to win the match, is hardly competitive. That's just plain silly at a competitive level. Note that i'm not bashing casual play by saying this, and I think items are incredibly important, just not in competitive play. Of course, you have characters in brawl who spawn items but again, this is a controlled variable and not a random one (indeed, this often then becomes a matter of skill as the player now has to use these items effectively... of course, that happens with normal items too but it shouldn't be that by the virtue of something random that one character gets to use such an item... just, read on to see what i mean). And here's where everyone begins to get confused and muddled.

The thing is, a game is fine with variables. Variables make it fun, variables make it challenging and rewarding and they make the player think. But there's a difference between that and random variables, which allow one player to win based on the numbers generated by a computer. An item dropping at a random place on the board should not and does not determine the better player, which is what competitive play is about.

At the end of the day, we're talking about a competitive scene here. I think that by all means and purposes, items should be in the game and hey, the wackier and kookier, the better. Casual play is an important part of the game at its core and even competitive players will often put their feet up and just play on the funniest stages with the most hilarious items... but if you want to talk about competitive smash, when it boils right down to it, items, at this stage in the meta game, do not promote competitive growth.

Err, also, there's a distinction between elitism and competitive players... lol, I don't look down on casual players, even if I like to 'teach' them stuff about the game, it doesn't mean I view myself as 'the know it all and no-one else can know'. I enjoy sharing as much information as I can on this game and it's very possible for me to be totally incorrect when doing so.





... Now this went off topic, because the original intent of the thread was what Sakurai might do for the competitive scene, not what we have and likely would do.

Now, don't worry, i'm not angry or anything, in fact any post from me is always trying to be super nice... but it is serious, that's why its lengthy and I tried to make it sound as factual as possible ha. ^_^

 

[Ziodyne]

@Luco

Kink-link isn't talking about players at competitive play. I'm sure you can imagine many casual players who john when no items are in play.

 

[Kink-Link5]

This so much.

There are many great games that are overlooked and there are also games that sell a lot (Call of Duty, for example) that are just bland, rehashed games of rehashed games.

The fact that majority of people like and buy ****, doesn't make such **** any good.

Sales =/= Quality

Anyone who has played Eternal Darkness can attest to this. The game is critically acclaimed and received by players as one of the best psychological horror games ever made but in A.) a genre that doesn't rack in millions of sales already and B.) an unadvertised game on the GameCube, it's not a matter of quality that made it sell poorly.

 

[Big Burn]

I know this is getting back to the Melee vs Brawl argument but comparing Brawl and Melee sales is kinda futile. Ya, Brawl had pretty good numbers. But Melee should get a good amount of credit for that considering a lot of people obviously bought brawl because of how good Melee was. Brawl built on the success that Melee established. IMO I can't possibly understand why Sakurai would cater smash 4 strictly to casuals. If you make the game have a higher learning curve that's not going to hurt casual players. Casuals and competitive players still love playing melee even though it's 12 years old. That's because casuals generally play with casuals and competitive players play with competitive players. I guess if I was playing devils advocate, an argument to be made would be if online actually worked well with smash 4, maybe casuals could get discouraged if they play someone competitive and lost all the time. But if 10 million people bought smash 4, how many people are competitively really good? The odds of a noob running into someone really good would still be pretty low. They mostly would be playing other noobs and they would not get overly discouraged. As far as I'm concerned, noobs and competitive players would both be happy with a game with a high learning curve. It's a win-win. If you want to take the time to get really good, you can. If you don't, just keep playing with your noob friends. You aren't really alienating either type of fanbase.

 

[Luco]

To be fair, I think i've made a fair few people rage-quit online. I haven't gotten trashed in BB in... like, ages.

I think that, while you're correct, there is something to be said for a balance. You could argue that 64 was the most competitive and Brawl was pretty lax, so why did so many like melee? Perhaps casuals don't want to play a smash game with too much of this mechanic, whatever it might be, that increases the learning curve? Of course, there are arguments against this as well, so I guess it becomes a bit circular.

@Ziodyne: Ahhh, thanks man, okay I see where he's coming from now.

 

[JediKnightTemplar]

Elaborate. 64 has a super steep learning curve to the point there are Isai and a handful of other people (like 2?) that beats everyone else and no one else comes close even when Isai johns with bad characters lol. Melee also has a very very steep learning curve and has faster gameplay in terms of strain and button input than 64. There is no way in hell that Melee nor 64 had the casual appeal that brawl did knowing everything that we know now.
Brawl is not as monopolized (from a player not character standpoint) as 64 by a long shot and melee is also more monopolized.
Not counting metaknight, Brawl is more balanced and there is a smaller gap between tiers of skill levels of players.


There should just be a separation though (competitive and non settings) imo and it wouldn't even be that hard to create and separate the code.

I think you're confusing casual appeal and attempting to force casual play. One could play Melee or 64 just as competitively or casually as one wanted and have fun. The learning curve to fight CPUs, play Adventure Mode and play around with items was just as high in Melee as it was in Brawl. The difference of course comes when you get to competitive play.

Melee and 64 reward player control much more than Brawl. The reason you see a greater disparity between midlevel and top players in Melee is because the game allows players to push it further. Because of the artificial boundaries put into Brawl the game's metagame can only be pushed so far and is likely nearing its limit. On the other hand, Melee's metagame is constantly evolving and growing and unless you're on the cutting edge you're quite unlikely to win major tournaments. Personally I don't see a problem with this. If I'm willing to invest incredible amounts of time I should be able to get better returns than a guy who isn't as willing to put in the hours to master tech skill and matchups.

The question isn't whether the game will appeal to casual and competitive players- we already know even if it isn't as technical or fast as Melee it will still likely attract tourney players. The question is whether the game will be able to offer depth and fun to both parties, and I think that in that respect Melee and 64 were overall more successful than Brawl.

 

[Kink-Link5]

What are all of your ideal skill curves for games? I'd say for a few games for example, that the following are the skill curves present in the games:

This is just a rough illustration reflective of my experience in the games and going by ear, but it gives a decent idea I feel on what kinds of metagames these examples have. Smash64 is a simple game with an elite few have bothered to reach the top. Melee features a gentle curve with a two jumps- one that brings a large number of players into "mediocre" territory and another at the very top. Brawl has a more gentle curve through the lower levels of play followed by a larger gap and a large number of players distinctly better than the lower players with a muddled very top. SkullGirls and by extension most traditional fighters have a huge gap at the very beginning of the game with multiple "basics" being quite complicated, such as the method of inputting moves, understanding "basic" block strings and a large degree of muscle memory and featuring a massive demand for technical execution. After this huge leap the game has a long plateau of "Tournament fillers" and a final gap separating the top from the bracket.

I feel that Melee features a good degree of balance in this regard and that the "ideal" curve would be a straight line.

 

[Big-Cat]

I feel the Skullgirls one is grossly simplified. I would say that there is an initial jump, the execution which will vary from person to person and character to character. After that, I would say fighting games generally gradual with a jump here and there depending on the game. That initial will also vary with each game. KOF XIII, imo, has a ridiculously high learning curve in the execution aspect. I'm not talking about combos, but the fact that inputs are required to be really precise and that you can drop juggle combos easily.

 

[Kink-Link5]

They're all very simplified and of course anyone that has gotten over the larger skill jumps would attest to them not being a big deal.

Generally the first jumps are obtaining the technical tools to perform in the game and the second jumps are almost purely decision based. The Brawl curve could probably stand to have another initial jump toward the beginning since there are a few mechanics that need a touch of technical sensitivity, like RBRing and DACUS.

Another way to look at it is how "bodied" a lower level player gets by a player for knowing just a little more. In a traditional fighting game, being unable to consistently execute a 623 or not understanding how block strings work leaves you at a massive disadvantage to those who do. Compare this to, say Melee, where just Wavedashing and L-canceling does not give you a discernible advantage over a player that might just be making smart decisions. Such a playstyle would do much more poorly in a typical fighting game (BrandX can attest to my failures to try and play a spacing and patience game in SkullGirls without knowing how to effectively escape pressure). Hence a large plateau of players in typical fighters that can go pretty even with all of one another, can run bat**** wild on lower players, and get dominated themselves by the money winners based on decision making.

This might be a better generalized graph from which the others could be skewed:

My "ideal" skill curve would be something like this (I think these graphs are looking better as I make more and more of them):

We can group players this way into a few categories, that I highlighted with shading. The lowest dark shade represents players just picking up a game for the very first time, coming in blind. Their skills are pretty much dictated by whoever can learn the Hundred Hand Slap first. The second category is players learning the mechanics of the game and how to use them properly, the so-called "L-Cancel Barrier." The large light grey category is mid-level players that have overcome the learning aspects of the game and are then applying what they know to one another building off one another. The final category are the actually high level players that see success from the high level decision making skills that come from years of experience with the game.

If I felt the need, I could add another split with the "Top-level Elite" after the slope changes away from 1:1, but I feel that part of the curve is just an extension of high-level decision making skills.

 

[Luco]

I'd argue that this does apply to Brawl with several characters, as some (such as ZSS, Peach, Lucas, etc.) are incredibly technical characters. However, as a whole, Melee would have the higher hill to climb at the start because there are also general game things you have to learn (wavedashing, l-canceling and the like).

 

[GaretHax]

So your ideal game has a low variance for individuals at top level play? I mean I guess I can get behind that, but it seems to me that, in melee, perhaps especially so, the difference between elite and high level play can be pretty staggering. Really the difference between elites seems to often times be pretty significant.

 

[Kink-Link5]

So your ideal game has a low variance for individuals at top level play? I mean I guess I can get behind that, but it seems to me that, in melee, perhaps especially so, the difference between elite and high level play can be pretty staggering. Really the difference between elites seems to often times be pretty significant.

More that the transition into higher levels of play should come naturally in some way or another. The top curve are still a select few, and there will always be those that truly push the limits of the game like Armada and PP. It isn't my ideal, but I would not be opposed to it entirely.

 

[GaretHax]

More that the transition into higher levels of play should come naturally in some way or another. The top curve are still a select few, and there will always be those that truly push the limits of the game like Armada and PP. It isn't my ideal, but I would not be opposed to it entirely.

I think i understand what you are getting at, but wouldn't that mean you HAVE to have a game with an achievable maximum level of skill? For everyone to start stalling out at high levels wouldn't you have to be playing a game with a lower potential for improvement and innovation, and ultimately a lower skill cap/ less total viable strategies and playstyles? Or am I misinterpreting something?

For clarity's sake I'm curious more about the graphs and your overall philosophy as I agree completely that a natural incline to high-level play should exist once someone understands the basics of the game. Its actually one of the things that bothers me about Melee, so many people write off the basics as being silly or glitches and just want to "play the game". Its terrible logic at its finest, however I can't help but wonder how much bigger the community could be if the techniques were more accessible (ie. Less obscure, not easier) and somehow represented in the core experience of the game. I guess I just feel that having more things up front would ultimately encourage players to want to get better, its not like the game gets any less enjoyable lol, in fact I would argue it becomes wayyy more engaging and fun at mid-high levels of play. Anyway that's more of a beef I have with fighters period.

 

[Big-Cat]

I think i understand what you are getting at, but wouldn't that mean you HAVE to have a game with an achievable maximum level of skill? For everyone to start stalling out at high levels wouldn't you have to be playing a game with a lower potential for improvement and innovation, and ultimately a lower skill cap/ less total viable strategies and playstyles? Or am I misinterpreting something?

I think this depends on what you define as the learning curve. Even if everyone mastered their execution, the innovation and strategy will continue to exist.

 

[SmashChu]

Comparing Melee's sales for 8 years and Brawl's sales for 1 year isn't exactly accurate way of comparing sales.
Rather, Consider Brawl's sales as of March 2012: 10.79 million

Still quite disappointing compared to the number of Wii sales.

The flaw in your analysis is that games and systems sales do not have a strong correlation, even among games in the same series. There are numerous game that have sold better on systems with less sales. Mario 64 sold less than Mario Galaxy, for instance. The game defines its own sales. There is no validity in a ratio of game sales to system sales especially since the game sell the systems and not the other way around. Your also making a judgment on the products performance based on another product. Brawl out sold Melee, but Melee did better because the Wii sold more than the Gamecube. This is do different than saying "While Jelly sold 5 million in Q2, Peanut Butter sales were down, so Jelly is under performing."

Sales analysis is profit analysis. This is the actual results of those sales

• 8,100,000 X $50 = 405,000,000
• 10,790,000 X $50 = 539,500,000

This is a difference of $134 million dollars. This is an extra $134 million Nintendo can use to fund their operation, augments capital, payout as dividends, or expand though acquisitions or internal means. Do you think Nintendo is upset that, despite getting an extra $134 million, that it sold less as a percent of system sales? Hell no. They are happy with the extra money they made. If anything, they want more of it which means making more games like Brawl.

 

[Shorts]

Hey now, if you compare the more percentage of Gamecube owners bought Melee than Wii owners bought Brawl. Just sayain

 

[SmashChu]

Hey now, if you compare the more percentage of Gamecube owners bought Melee than Wii owners bought Brawl. Just sayain

But more people bought Brawl. It's how many people you served. 10 million is better than 8 million.

 

[FlareHabanero]

8 million isn't exactly a small number ether you know.

 

[SmashChu]

8 million isn't exactly a small number ether you know.

$134 million is though.

Also, no idea where the 8.1 million for Melee came from. VGchartz, the next best estimate, has it at 7.07 million. A source is likely needed for the 8.

 

[Vkrm]

Wouldn't really be a stretch to say melee brought in more money considering it was the sole reason most bought a GCN. Also this isn't me saying sales=quality.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Get off SmashChu. He's a petty troll that intentionally derails any thread with sales numbers.

Go back to talking about the competitive side of the series and where Sakurai stands on it.

 

[FalKoopa]

Get off SmashChu. He's a petty troll that intentionally derails any thread with sales numbers.

His profile says he's 112 years old.
The sales=quality argument has rusted.

 

[Shorts]

But more people bought Brawl. It's how many people you served. 10 million is better than 8 million.

But I'm saying, Melee really did well, and it SEEMS to have sold better than brawl within it's own realm of possibility. I agree selling more is better. But not at the cost of completely selling OUT. Not saying Brawl is a sell out. Saying Wii Sports is a sell out. But it's a sell out franchise, so that's okay. Brawl would have been a better game competitively even if Sakurai simply managed to accomplish everything he wanted. There was the fatal flaw of balancing though. Smash has NEVER been a well balanced series, but 64 and Melee got away with just Sakurai balancing it because of roster size.

Really, at the end of the day, this future game is going to rock Brawl's socks, and honestly, be better balanced competitively than Melee was. Videogames should balance the scale of casual and competitive players. Smash is a prime franchise to do so, and this future game will excell in that area. Both communities are going to win, which will make Nintendo win. Sakurai knows this, I'm sure. Probably why Mr. Tekken was brought on board.

I have a lot of respect for Chu, I just disagree that the competitive scene should be ignored completely.

If you balance at the 1 v 1 no items level, 4 on 4 plus items will be just as balanced. It's silly to balance the other way around. Sakurai's fatal flaw. I DO NOT think this flaw will happen again.

 

[SmashChu]

Get off SmashChu. He's a petty troll that intentionally derails any thread with sales numbers.

Go back to talking about the competitive side of the series and where Sakurai stands on it.

First, someone else brought up this discussion, not I. If you don't want to talk sales, blame them. Second, no one is stopping you from discussing competitive Smash. Go on ahead.

But I'm saying, Melee really did well, and it SEEMS to have sold better than brawl within it's own realm of possibility. I agree selling more is better. But not at the cost of completely selling OUT. Not saying Brawl is a sell out. Saying Wii Sports is a sell out. But it's a sell out franchise, so that's okay. Brawl would have been a better game competitively even if Sakurai simply managed to accomplish everything he wanted. There was the fatal flaw of balancing though. Smash has NEVER been a well balanced series, but 64 and Melee got away with just Sakurai balancing it because of roster size.

There really is no such thing as "selling out." What it means is the company wants to branch out beyond an established niche. Companies exist to make profits, so this isn't a bad thing. For one, more people can enjoy it. It can create more jobs and help the economy as the series is making more money.

People here hate sales talk and do not like Sakurai's philosophy because it means they are not the center of attention. They would be OK with Smash selling 0.3 million of it meant they were the focus. Sales talk shows how insignificant competitive Smash and it's fanbase really is. Basically, accessibility is a hot topic here, but it's one of the reasons Smash is where it is.

Really, at the end of the day, this future game is going to rock Brawl's socks, and honestly, be better balanced competitively than Melee was. Videogames should balance the scale of casual and competitive players. Smash is a prime franchise to do so, and this future game will excell in that area. Both communities are going to win, which will make Nintendo win. Sakurai knows this, I'm sure. Probably why Mr. Tekken was brought on board.

Remember what I said above. That the competitive community wants to be the focus. The problem with trying to please both sides is you really can't. People do not dedicate their lives to Videogames so most people want games to be accessable. But competitive community hate that because they find purpose in mastering the game. There are very conflicting views. Naturally, one sides wins. In some games, the dedicated side wins, though this usually comes at the cost of sales and viability as a series. It is one reason why Street Fighter went dark for over 10 years after 3rd Strike. When games appeal to the other side, they tend to have more sales and keep getting made because there are more of those people.

I have a lot of respect for Chu, I just disagree that the competitive scene should be ignored completely.

If you balance at the 1 v 1 no items level, 4 on 4 plus items will be just as balanced. It's silly to balance the other way around. Sakurai's fatal flaw. I DO NOT think this flaw will happen again.

I kind of mentioned it up above. The issue with balancing is that most people are not competitive. Starcraft 2 is a great example of the problem. Terran was balanced for high level play (tournaments). But the strategies in top play for Terran were bio which meant moving a lot of little dudes around at the same time while still building units, supply depots, and dropping Mules. Surprisingly, most people couldn't do the multiple drops that top level players could. But if your in Gold or Platinum, it can be hard to play Terran. Zerg and Protoss can just move into your army and win where you have to do a lot more. It should be no surprise that Terran had no presence in those leagues and less in higher leagues.

A lot of Smash players have a limited view of balance because they have never been in a game with dynamic balance. The issue is that most people don't play 1v1 no items. Even then, they shift the rules outside of the game (Sudden Death is one of them). It means you need to put a lot of work into balancing for a very small group of people and it may not be worth it when other issues come up (Smash is a pretty big title). Those are the problem that come up with trying to balance for competitive Smash. Games like Project M may be the best solution.

I'm glad you respect my opinion Shorts. You bring up some good points. Too many people get angry when I come on the scene because I bring a different view point. We should discuss everything. We learn more and will have more fun doing it. Instead, people what to stay in their own little crowd and their own mindset. Basically, get out and explore new ideas. Now, time for Awesomenauts.

 

[Vkrm]

But still, why on earth would they reduce the audience to 9/10's of what it could be? Melee competitive viability didn't turn off casual players, but sakurai going out of his way, tweaking the engine to enforce casual play alienated the competitive community. Even if we are small, deliberately choosing not to make a game that can be enjoyed by all is was not a good marketing choice. If I know this, there's no way sakurai does not. I think the real reason he did what he did was that he doesn't want smash to to be competitive at all. The sales numbers are irrelevant, sakurai knows what he wants smash to be, a simple game that doesn't put an emphasis on winning. He's the boss, he can make what ever he wants, but that doesn't mean I have to buy it.

 

[SmashChu]

But still, why on earth would they reduce the audience to 9/10's of what it could be? Melee competitive viability didn't turn off casual players, but sakurai going out of his way, tweaking the engine to enforce casual play alienated the competitive community. Even if we are small, deliberately choosing not to make a game that can be enjoyed by all is was not a good marketing choice. If I know this, there's no way sakurai does not. I think the real reason he did what he did was that he doesn't want smash to to be competitive at all. The sales numbers are irrelevant, sakurai knows what he wants smash to be, a simple game that doesn't put an emphasis on winning. He's the boss, he can make what ever he wants, but that doesn't mean I have to buy it.

Yeah, the competitive scene didn't hurt Melee's sales per say. A lot of this stuff was coming out after Melee was a few years old. Still, people didn't like it. There was a large outcry against many things including Wavedashing and Tiers. It's similar to Snaking in Mario Kart DS. No surprise, it was changed later.

The problem is that it is mutually exclusive. Focusing on the compeititve community leads to less sales and less penatration. Examples

• Starcraft 2 focused on it's competitive scene. It has sold less than Starcraft 1 and interest is dropping off. We'll have to see how HoTS does.
• While Dota 2 has more depth, LoL has the larger fan base. I believe there are bigger tournaments too (don't quote me on this)
• Fighting games in general. Street Fighter has yet to have sales higher than the second one. Most games in the genre are out sold by WWE and DBZ games.

I could go on, but I need to get ready for a party. Some other time.

 

[Vkrm]

None of your examples really hold any water when you think about how CoD is the most successful gaming franchise of all time and catering to hardcore gamers is pretty much all them **** do. And just so you know the people who hate wave dashing are not the majority. Even if they were, I'd consider them and their ignorance about competitive smash the problem, not competitive smash itself. That lebowski looking fellow went over how casuals inflate the importance of wave dashing in another thread. That's something I really don't understand. People who criticize tourneyfags often go off on wave dashing saying it breaks the game, may I ask how? They claim that playing to win in the smashbros universe is not worthwhile goal, but get hella mad when they can't beat players who have put time in the game. It begs an explaination. Every casual player I've met who buys into no items fox only nonsense tells me how I'm a douche for taking melee seriously, loses with and without items, and then gets hella salty, taking it way more seriously then I would have.

 

[Vkrm]

None of your examples really hold any water when you think about how CoD is the most successful gaming franchise of all time and catering to hardcore gamers is pretty much all them **** do.

Wow, it's hard to believe I can't say that on swf. It's not even a curse word. Sorry about the double post.

 

[Luco]

I dunno chu, I think it's possible to make a game that for the most part will please both communities, via customizable gameplay. For instance, the ability to turn items, tripping, buffer windows, input lag, select stages, random this and that and the other thing... and so on. I think this is why some games are both commercial and also cater towards competitive communities.

I suppose that's up to viewpoint though.

Also Vkrm, i'm pretty sure Sakurai said himself in an interview that with Brawl he didn't want the more skilled player to always thrash the other one, so that both had a chance at winning. This obviously upset competitive communities (as this is a big point of competition in general) but also ticked off quite a few casual players as well. That's why I don't think Sakurai will be having that next game. Could be wrong.

That said, tripping is a much smaller issue than most make it out to be.

 

[Shorts]

I can tell you right now, the reason Melee keeps reselling and reselling is because of the competitive scene. I feel like theres a bunch of left wings, and right wings, and I'm just trying to tell you smash always manages to meet in the middle, so pass the peace pipe and chill out.

Competitive players, we got Mr. Tekken, he's your friend.

Casual players, Sakurai will never EVER forget you.

 

[FalKoopa]

I'll really have to disagree with SmashChu.

The outcry against wavedashing really shows ignorance.
Despite being a casual player, I don't get it why the competitive scene gets such hate at times.

 

[Ziodyne]

I kind of get smashchu's argument, except that people will always find reasons to complain and the ones who aren't satisfied are usually the much more vocal group. We still see people complaining about melee being melee or brawl being brawl regardless of what changes are made to the game. In the end, i feel like most casual players are happy with new characters and content (which, in terms of quantity, brawl delivered wonderfully), and there is still leeway to make a competitively balanced game.

Also, I'm pretty sure wavedashing was attacked only because it was seen as a "glitch" and not a "legitimate tactic." had Nintendo decided to support wavedashing... Well, hypothetical aside, i don't believe it was necessary or even profitable to alienate the competitve community. Brawl garnered sales for franchise name and content, not by removing wavedashing.

 

[SmashChu]

I'll really have to disagree with SmashChu.

The outcry against wavedashing really shows ignorance.
Despite being a casual player, I don't get it why the competitive scene gets such hate at times.

People don't want their game to be that way. People play games for fun, not for competition. People like wavedashing because they don't want to hop in the game, see players doing that, lose, and then have to learn it to win. They take the path of least resistance, which is quite.

There was a really popular thread in the Korean WoW community that discussed a similar problem. Basically, the game has become very elite and new players are shunned. One guy was hated because his DPS wasn't high enough. People want to play games, but competitive players (competitive Smash too) make it their life. When the game caters to these people, everyone else jumps ship.


Here is a good post that explains the problem

Consider Starcraft. In Brood War, most people didn’t play ladder games even in South Korea. What most people played was Big Game Hunters which was a 4v4 map with a ton of resources. It was crazy, but it was fun. And what is the point of playing a game but to have fun? However, with Starcraft 2, the game is not about just hanging out and having fun. It is about E-Sports. It is about Master league people laughing at the Diamond league players and those players laughing at the Platinum league players and so on down. It’s stupid. It’s just a game.

I kind of get smashchu's argument, except that people will always find reasons to complain and the ones who aren't satisfied are usually the much more vocal group. We still see people complaining about melee being melee or brawl being brawl regardless of what changes are made to the game. In the end, i feel like most casual players are happy with new characters and content (which, in terms of quantity, brawl delivered wonderfully), and there is still leeway to make a competitively balanced game.


Also, I'm pretty sure wavedashing was attacked only because it was seen as a "glitch" and not a "legitimate tactic." had Nintendo decided to support wavedashing... Well, hypothetical aside, i don't believe it was necessary or even profitable to alienate the competitve community. Brawl garnered sales for franchise name and content, not by removing wavedashing.

When you make a game designed for an elite community (in this case, Smashboards), it doesn't work. MMOs have had this problem. Everquest catered to the elite crowd and it eventually tapered off. WoW was designed for the normal player but has declined due to focusing on dedicated players.

The reason for people complaining is that one got catered to over the other, so your right on that front. Normal players complained about Melee because, they felt, it was made for them or was moving away from what they wanted. Competitive players complain about Brawl because it was not made for them. Sakurai has said that he made Melee for more dedicated players and felt it was the wrong way, so we got Brawl.

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.

Brawl was a balance. You've already gotten this game.

 

[FalKoopa]

Melee was good for casual play as well, imo.

 

[Ziodyne]

@smashchu

I can see why MMOs have had this problem. You have many public servers where the dedicated players will pubstomp the noobs. Because everyone and anyone can connect via internet, experienced players have many opportunities to show up the lesser. However, you could also say that games die out only due to age: of course, the dedicated players will always stand by their favorite game, but more casual players will move on to other games. In that sense, I'm not sure if there is really a clear correlation between games losing popularity and the rise of dedicated players over casual noobie players (come to think of it, hasn't LOL gotten bigger than ever having become a legit e-sport of sorts?).

In any case, I don't particularly see why this stigma would affect smash players that much. Most smash play is exclusively with close friends, in which case most people don't particularly care about skill level or competition and never really are exposed to competitive smash anyway. It becomes a choice about whether or not to be exposed to the competitive community, so again, I see no reason to remove the competitive elements from Melee since most people don't even really know competitive Melee exists to begin with.
Also, as a person who used to look down on competitive smash, it's not about being catered to one group more than the other. It's about being a semi-hardcore player with a big ego, who wants to think that he is the best and, as such, the way he plays is the way everyone should play. And out of all the people that play smash, those people are definitely in the vocal minority among casual players.

Melee players complain about Brawl because it removed gameplay elements. What reason was there for this? Because some people complained about it on online forums? I dunno about you, but when I played casually, regardless of whether the competitive community existed or not, I would've still continued playing with friends when we hung out because that's just what happens. I got Brawl because it was the next game in the series and played it with friends because it was a new smash game, NOT because "oh man, they removed wavedashing!"

tl;dr Still don't see connection between competitive smash and losing sales.

 

[Signia]

People don't want their game to be that way. People play games for fun, not for competition. People like wavedashing because they don't want to hop in the game, see players doing that, lose, and then have to learn it to win. They take the path of least resistance, which is quite.

There was a really popular thread in the Korean WoW community that discussed a similar problem. Basically, the game has become very elite and new players are shunned. One guy was hated because his DPS wasn't high enough. People want to play games, but competitive players (competitive Smash too) make it their life. When the game caters to these people, everyone else jumps ship.

He wasn't a new player. He was a player who claimed he tried to get good, tried to learn the game's mechanics, even had at least one person trying to help him and failed even in an easy game like WoW. He wasn't hated, he just was so bad that it made no sense to group with him since he couldn't pull his own weight because he sucked. Source: the one guy that tried to help him posted about it. As for players that are new, the internet is there and answers are easy to find. The "shunning" is probably for players that don't listen to others and play some ******** suboptimal way.

When you suck, and you lose, I think the game is working as intended. I am appalled that people see this as a problem, when without this order of things, there would be no losing, and therefore no winning. Don't you understand that without some people feeling bad for losing, winners can't feel good for winning?


Part of the reason Melee is amazing is just how much of a difference, a distance, in skill one can create between other players. This difference exists in other games that are played competitively but in Melee you can really see it. The top players seem like gods to novice players and even to those who don't understand the game. Games that allow such an overbearing level of dominance are rare throughout gaming's history, let alone this decade, where they're practically nonexistent.

They claim that playing to win in the smashbros universe is not worthwhile goal, but get hella mad when they can't beat players who have put time in the game. It begs an explaination. Every casual player I've met who buys into no items fox only nonsense tells me how I'm a douche for taking melee seriously, loses with and without items, and then gets hella salty, taking it way more seriously then I would have.

I have also seen this behavior. People want to win, no matter what they say.

I guess I just feel that having more things up front would ultimately encourage players to want to get better, its not like the game gets any less enjoyable lol, in fact I would argue it becomes wayyy more engaging and fun at mid-high levels of play. Anyway that's more of a beef I have with fighters period.

It's unmistakably true: better players are more engaged as they have more control and feel more connected to actions in the game, as subtle rapid-fire decision-making makes the game react at their command as much as their fingers and their own brain. It seems clear to me that a player playing a competitive game well means they're more engaged and is having way more fun than a casual player that's just mashing buttons.

I would argue that there is two kinds of fun like there are two kinds of drugs: those that create an "experience" or relax you and those that "stimulate" you or heighten awareness. This is the difference between those with taste and those without--you see it with fans of art, movies, everything. The rabble likes things that are merely cathartic experiences (Avatar movie) and those with advanced taste like more deep and complex things that take a little knowledge, a little work, and past experience to appreciate. Sure, Avatar has the box office record, but is it the best movie ever? The ones with taste would say no.

The fact is, it takes a little work to fully appreciate complex works! A simple glance isn't enough, there's more to see. But if it is actually quite simple, however you search, there is nothing more there and one might possibly start seeing things that aren't. It's the deep works of art that even allow for deep experience/stimulation. Basically what I'm saying is, from competitive players to casuals, from the tasteful to tasteless, and from me to you, Smashchu, our fun is better than your fun, since you're too dumb or clumsy to even experience our fun, and your fun? We used to like it, but now it bores us. We're actually in a position to compare the two, as opposed to you, who barely cares anyway.

Without deep games, we'd have less fun. I've already demonstrated that strong players of a skillful game are having more fun than casual players of any game. More games should be made that allow for such fun.

To use your self-defeating argument SmashChu, you already have Brawl and Flower. Have fun with those D: