Sakurai does not want Smash to be a competitive franchise

[kirborg]

This thread just shows why Smash will never be taken seriously by any other fighting game community, ever. Just a bunch of high school kids squabbling over nonsense. Brawl is a more competitive game than melee, why? Because the game is easier to play, thus the pool of good players will be larger thus making a bigger and better competitive scene.

Easier to play does not mean the game has no depth. And being easy to play while retaining depth is something every single fighting game strives for. Most fighting game fans would be ecstatic at any change which makes their game more appealing to bring in new blood for competition, but not the Smashers. They're just too busy worrying that new players might actually beat them, thus the cries of it having 'no depth'. Which are completely and utterly false.

The community for this game is a joke.

I agree completely. I thought wavedashing and other techniques in melee were a nice addition, but the fact that it meant that every player had to spend x hours mastering these techniques before standing a remote chance against competitive players was not a good thing. I love brawl for the simple fact that I can have fun and play seriously against any player who has at least the slightest experience with the game.

 

[Narukari]

I'm pretty sure the argument that melee has a more deep combat system is the fact that you have many more options in melee. In brawl, the minute you get out of your standing animation, you can either jump, up smash, dash- attack, or dodge. Where in melee, you could wavedash then have all your standing options open to you.

This makes approching the enemy a lot harder in brawl than it was in melee making the "current" strategy to be to stay away and launch projectiles. This could change if people find a way to approach the enemy without giving up the advantage.

Myself, I can't say whether one is better than the other yet, I'm starting to lean more towards melee being more enjoyable for me in a tournament setting than brawl is, but that could change if I find some new ways to approach the enemy.

 

[flyinfilipino]

I agree completely. I thought wavedashing and other techniques in melee were a nice addition, but the fact that it meant that every player had to spend x hours mastering these techniques before standing a remote chance against competitive players was not a good thing. I love brawl for the simple fact that I can have fun and play seriously against any player who has at least the slightest experience with the game.

But the techniques to master was the fun part for a lot of other players too.

See, different people want different things, and it's pointless to try to argue which way is better. It's so cliche, but can't we all just have fun in our own ways?

 

[Thino]

lol @ ppl thinking less options and less ATs = less competitiveness

 

[Narukari]

One of the greatest things I liked about smash was the open ended fighting style. The closer you come to only haveing 2-3 options available, the closer you come to losing that open endedness.

I don't doubt that there will be people playing brawl, but so far I keep seeing that the better you get at the game, the more your going to be resorting to ranged attacks, which makes a very boring fight.

It just seems that by moving towards your opponent, your letting your opponent have the advantage.

 

[Fletch]

lol @ ppl thinking less options and less ATs = less competitiveness

Care to explain why this is not the case then? This is a big part of it along with the randomness of the game.

 

[LavisFiend]

You misunderstand. Sakurai does not believe in competition. The man has a childish philosophy on competitiveness in games. He never wanted even the casual gamers to compete. To him, every game ends in a tie because both players tried hard and had a good time. Why this man hasn't been assassinated is a mystery for the ages.

Also, brawl is an inferior game to melee. There is no arguement, so stop *****ing about it. I'm not saying in a few years it won't come close to where melee is now, I'm saying that at this point in time it is such a weaker game that it's almost not worth playing.

The only one *****ing about Brawl is YOU.

My post was not even comparing the two games, so what the hell were you smoking?

 

[RDK]

lol @ ppl thinking less options and less ATs = less competitiveness

It's not a matter of the game being less competitive, it's a matter of the game being less deep.

Deep gameplay mechanics are better for competitive play.

And to the bimbo whining about how Melee actually took skill and dedication to be good at--that's the whole spirit of COMPETITION, and it's true with everything in life. You wouldn't expect to go play in a professional NBA game and do well after setting no time aside to practice.

Sakurai is basically saying it's okay to not strive for excellence.

 

[Artery_Clogger]

Because the game is easier to play, thus the pool of good players will be larger thus making a bigger and better competitive scene.

So Tic-tac-toe has a "bigger and better" competitive scene than chess?

Easier to play does not mean the game has no depth. And being easy to play while retaining depth is something every single fighting game strives for.

Too bad Brawl doesn't retain a large portion of this depth.

Most fighting game fans would be ecstatic at any change which makes their game more appealing to bring in new blood for competition, but not the Smashers. They're just too busy worrying that new players might actually beat them, thus the cries of it having 'no depth'. Which are completely and utterly false.

So fighting game fans will be happy if their game gets watered down and more people want to play this watered down game for whatever reason?

I agree completely. I thought wavedashing and other techniques in melee were a nice addition, but the fact that it meant that every player had to spend x hours mastering these techniques before standing a remote chance against competitive players was not a good thing.

Heaven forbid someone has to practice something to get better at it.

 

[Thino]

Care to explain why this is not the case then? This is a big part of it along with the randomness of the game.

how does more options means more competitiveness it has nothing to do with it, neither does the randomness. its more a matter of how the players are fighting to get better than the others

It's not a matter of the game being less competitive, it's a matter of the game being less deep.

Deep gameplay mechanics are better for competitive play.

I agree

 

[<π]

One of the greatest things I liked about smash was the open ended fighting style. The closer you come to only having 2-3 options available, the closer you come to losing that open endedness.

I don't doubt that there will be people playing brawl, but so far I keep seeing that the better you get at the game, the more your going to be resorting to ranged attacks, which makes a very boring fight.

It just seems that by moving towards your opponent, your letting your opponent have the advantage.

I disagree, I think having limited options makes a game better. But that probably because I grew up dabbleing in other fighters before I got big into smash. One thing I never liked about melee was how easy it was to approach over all. being able to instantly change direction of a dash the instant there was trouble meant you didn't have to think about your approach because no mater the problem you could evade it. In most other fighters when you do something you have to commit to it and in the cases you don't 90% of the time you have to give up a special bar or something of that nature to cancel that action melee had none of that. Just "Oops, scary, wavedash".

And don't get me wrong I've been a part of the community for years, I wavedash, I l-cancel, but I've always had a belief that limited options is very healthy for compedetive games.

 

[Lumpy..]

to say one game is better than the other would be an opinion...
you guys should understand that this argument is dead beyond belief...
there are no winners to this argument...
i haven't seen a new argument in a month...

just play and support the game you like more...

and if you like 'em both equally... then you're in a win/win situation...

 

[Dark Sonic]

I disagree, I think having limited options makes a game better. But that probably because I grew up dabbleing in other fighters before I got big into smash. One thing I never liked about melee was how easy it was to approach over all. being able to instantly change direction of a dash the instant there was trouble meant you didn't have to think about your approach because no mater the problem you could evade it. In most other fighters when you do something you have to commit to it and in the cases you don't 90% of the time you have to give up a special bar or something of that nature to cancel that action melee had none of that. Just "Oops, scary, wavedash".

And don't get me wrong I've been a part of the community for years, I wavedash, I l-cancel, but I've always had a belief that limited options is very healthy for compedetive games.

It was easy to approach, but that was your incentive for being on the offense. Smash is different than other fighters in that both players have a very large area where they can move around. In comparison the stages in smash are quite large, and inherently promote evading. The ease of approach in melee offset that by counteracting this advantage completely, as you could now close the distance without inherently putting yourself in danger.

Brawl however, promotes camping. The stages are just as big, but now we don't have safe approach options. The situation becomes worse with the lack of stun, as now even when you do manage to close the distance, you are still not in an advantageous position, mearly on even ground with the opponent. Thus it is better to camp than it is to approach, as you will never be put at a disadvantage by your position. The attacking player is simply not fast enough to force his way in anymore, as any attempts to do so can be easily countered.

 

[3Years]

i prefer melee but if u like brawl then stick 2 brawl and if u like melee then stick 2 melee but if u like both then play both ^_^

 

[Lumpy..]

i prefer melee but if u like brawl then stick 2 brawl and if u like melee then stick 2 melee but if u like both then play both ^_^

you just posted the solution to the awful argument...
this is the most intelligent post i've ever read...
and for that... i heart you...

 

[ADHD]

Who cares it wont be long before people realize brawl isn't going to be played competitively due to its gentle nature. Its just a fun multiplayer game that got me disappointed, nothing more nothing less. Too bad, moving along to metriod prime 3!

I guess melee is the only game I can compare to any technical type of sport/artistry, because it took practice. No other game ON EARTH took so much joy to thrill someone with practicing a technique or whatever over and over through a couple of weeks. Its just a fact guys, brawl cannot thrill like that.

 

[groovyness]

this may sound dumb but as long as there is the reward of winning over the risk of losing, there will always be an element of competition regardless of your defenition of competetive anything. thats why gimpy goes on to say brawl fails in comparison to melee competitively yet still is competetive

 

[Jun.]

thank you gimpy

 

[LouisLeGros]

Brawl's controls and in game options are limited compared to Melee. This may simply be an opinion, but I believe it has a lot of evidence supporting it.

Brawl's basic controls are essentially the same as Melee. Beyond changes in physics the game is not really anymore approachable for casuals then Melee was.

Melee had a giant tournament scene, I don't think any other fighter could really compare, even with the "elitism" of this community it prospered for years (and may still continue to do so).

When people say Melee is more competitive and requires more skill they are referring to technical skill, reward for effort put into the game, and the tendency for the smallest difference in "skill" to be seen in the outcome of matches consistently.

Those first two a fairly straight forward. You can't say as a fact that Led Zeppelin were a better band the The Beatles , but good luck finding anyone who knows anything about music theory to say The Beatles were more technical. The same goes for Brawl to Melee, it is purely opinion about which one better, but I think it is fairly clear that Melee has more tech skill (while Brawl is better in other technical aspects like music, graphics etc.)

What is meant when I say reward for effort is pretty clear, measuring it is not. However, I think most long term competitive smashers will say that Melee rewards effort more so then Brawl.

The last point hits at the string of most controversial aspect in this debate about "competitiveness." How do we know just how much difference in skill there is between two players? We can only assume that over a long period of time the more consistent winner between to players is the best player. Even in Melee where there is the data and the records of players it is still sort of hard to tell just how much skill difference there is between people, but it was pretty clear who was better.

There really isn't enough data for Brawl to make anysort of conclusion on how good Brawl is at having the better player win. We can't take the Melee power rankings and see if those players are stack up in the same way because Brawl is different from Melee. However, as time goes on and if current trends continue I don't think it will be very good news for Brawl in a competitive sense (It is still gonna make Nintendo buckets of money though).

 

[Vice Lord]

**** greedy nintendo, why hath thou forsaken us.

 

[Koga]

Stock and Item switch say Hello!!

 

[Thinkaman]

I don't see how anyone can read that article and draw the conclusion that Sakurai is in any way, shape, or form anti-competitive. You are putting words in his mouth that are the OPPOSITE of what he is saying!

Gimpy, you are acting like the man is some mom at a t-ball game with the "everyone wins" attitude... That isn't even remotely right. The article is extremely clear: Sakurai wants a game where the loser can feel good about the game they played. That is the EXACT OPPOSITE school of thought as what you are saying, where everyone wins equally.

I don't understand how Sakurai can give an interview titled "Competition is the Core of Gameplay" and talk about how important it is to the experience of playing the game, only to have people read it and complain that he is against competition.

EDIT: I'm sorry gimpy, but a few specific lines you said were so incredibly... I don't even know what to call them. Quite frankly, I'm disappointed.

Basically rather than considering a loss a learning experience, or motivation to improve, he considers it to be nothing but discouraging, which is so anti-competitive I can hardly even believe it.

...what?!? That's the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the quote says! He wants losing to not be viewed as a negative, discouraging experience, are we reading the same words?

I set out to make sure the game did not over-emphasize the notions of victory and
defeat.

You seem to have a problem with this line, but I don't. I want it painted on banners hung from every rooftop. See, it is ignorance of THIS CONCEPT that keeps non-competitive players from understanding our game. I will say what I have told them:

Playing to win is about playing, not winning.

Until you come to terms with that axiom, you will never understand the mindset of competition, which is to also say the central design of the game itself.

He went out of his way to make sure Melee wasn't competitive and basically screwed up badly.

After seeing what the competitive players did to that game he had to ensure that the same thing would not happen again in brawl

This is outright laughable. You honestly think that the entire game design of Melee and Brawl is a complete accident, in fact intended to be the opposite? You honestly think Sakurai sat in his underground lair watching videos from FC and plotting how to destroy the game? You think Sakurai resents the community that plays his game? Simply absurd.

I wish somebody who designed real fighting games made Brawl's characters and physics...

Seriously, stop. You have no idea how ignorant you sound right here. No one but Sakurai could have made another Smash game. That is not just an Iwata quote, that is a fact. Sakurai has designed every Smash game ever made, and no one else has made so much as a tech demo.

Tell me, who is anywhere near as qualified as Sakurai to make a Smash Bros game? Of the billions of people on this planet, no one comes even CLOSE.

I don't know why I made this topic, I just found this stuff interesting... getting a sort of look into the mind of sakurai at least in part.

Putting outright incorrect words into his mouth does not constitute looking into his mind. Unless I am very much mistaken, you have never so much as met Masahiro Sakurai. That does not make me more qualified to talk about or enjoy Smash than you or anything of the sort... But I promise that if you got to talk to him, you would see why my position is what it is and why I think your interpretation of this interview is a mile off.

 

[nviv]

I don't see how anyone can read that article and draw the conclusion that Sakurai is in any way, shape, or form anti-competitive. You are putting words in his mouth that are the OPPOSITE of what he is saying!

Gimpy, you are acting like the man is some mom at a t-ball game with the "everyone wins" attitude... That isn't even remotely right. The article is extremely clear: Sakurai wants a game where the loser can feel good about the game they played. That is the EXACT OPPOSITE school of thought as what you are saying, where everyone wins equally.

I don't understand how Sakurai can give an interview titled "Competition is the Core of Gameplay" and talk about how important it is to the experience of playing the game, only to have people read it and complain that he is against competition.

The interview is not titled competition is the core of gameplay, that is a quote from the article.

I think the problem most people have, at least me personally, is how Sakurai wants to achieve the goal, like you said he wants everyone to feel good about the game they play that is true, but he decided that it is not possible to lose a game that is evenly balanced and enjoy it, so he felt it necessary to put in random "accidents" to allow less skilled players be able to better compete with superior players and this kind of environment would be more fun for competition.

Also the competition he address in that interview is seemingly casual competition, meaning people that play the game to win, which anybody who is on this forum probably falls under. He compares the competition he is describing as being the same competition as trying to beat someone else's high score, like in HRC, or comparing game progress with a friend to see who is further along. Competition has a fairly different meaning on this forum, it usually describes people who participate in ladders or tournaments and want to be the best player possible. It is possible to be competitive by Sakurai's definition without striving to be the best player you can. Most of the complaints of Sakurai refer to him being against the forum's definition of competition, like adding random accidents that affect the outcome of matches making it more difficult to determine the better player in a game.

 

[Narukari]

I don't see how anyone can read that article and draw the conclusion that Sakurai is in any way, shape, or form anti-competitive. You are putting words in his mouth that are the OPPOSITE of what he is saying!

The reason that we are saying that he is anti competitive from the interview, is the whole approach he takes on the concept of losing a match. Quote from Sakurai: (from first post)

An example: a game is built with such depth that it brings to a
player's mind memories of defeat. As a game designer, I can't ignore
this possibility. If, in a multiplayer fighting game, only the winner
feels good and the other challengers get no such feeling, then there is
really no joy at all. No matter how people play, I want everyone to be
happy! Is this asking for too much?

I don't watch sports much and I don't find them particularly exciting.
Whichever player or team wins, I always end up thinking "well done,
everyone!" I'm not really cheering for or supporting any one team. If
there was something like the World Cup going on, I'd be inclined to
cheer for Japan and would be excited, but if the opponent was putting
his heart into it, I'd feel that both were the same.

This is where we are concerned about how he was approaching the creation of this fighting game. Because its a fighting game, there is going to be a winner and a loser. No matter how much you try to make the losses "funny", the person that loses is not going to feel as good as the person who wins. Just by creating a fighting game in the mindset of "everybody wins", he set up brawl for failure AT THE HIGH TOURNAMENT LEVEL.

Sure, when I first got Brawl, I loved the game and played it non-stop for the next few weeks, but it was when my friends and I started getting better at the game that the enjoyment of the game started to fall. The game was dominated by the ranged characters, and there was no other way to win. If you walked to your opponenet, you got hit, hands down.

Solution:
Never walk to your opponent, just use ranged weapons and wait till your opponent comes to you. Or even better, use a ranged weapon that can kill, so that your opponent will eventually have to come to you.

Tripping may have been a wierd thing to implament, but I think even without tripping this game still can't become the fast-paced exciting dueling system melee was. The problem isn't tripping, its the fact that ranged camping is the all powerful strategy that so far can't be beat by any other strategy but ranged camping.

At our school, we got tired of how long matches were lasting and how boring it was to watch, so we banned the use of ranged weapons, but you still have the problem of whoever approaches the other person first is automatically at a disadvantage.

Remember, this isn't saying whether one game at the core is better than the other. Brawl is a great game that we enjoyed playing. The free for alls with items on are loads of fun, but once you start dueling on the game it loses its luster.

Remember: I'm talking about high tournament level play.

 

[Lumpy..]

wow...
i believe that every human life is ignorant to some degree...
just wanted to let you all know that...

 

[nviv]

What new angle? What possible use could "Kishimoto doesn't want the game to be competitive" have for the competitive Brawl crowd trying to evolve the game?

Basically that people should be more open minded to changing the game and not using default rules. Sakurai didn't want the game to be competitive so using the default Brawl mode just because that's how the game was designed is not a valid argument if people really want the most fair competition for tournaments. Things like fast brawl and heavy brawl should be considered to help counter the randomness built in with the game and increase the depth of the game. I'm not supporting either of those modes or saying they do or don't make a better environment for competition, there's already threads specifically for those debates, I'm simply suggesting that they do need to be considered to allow the game to reach it's maximum potential for the competitive scene.

wow...
i believe that every human life is ignorant to some degree...
just wanted to let you all know that...

Completely agree, since ignorant means lacking knowledge and it is impossible to know everything then everybody is at least partially ignorant.

 

[Lumpy..]

Completely agree, since ignorant means lacking knowledge and it is impossible to know everything then everybody is at least partially ignorant.

yes... but i didn't really intend on you using the dictionary definition tho...
but i guess you could understand why i would say that after reading this thread...

 

[Corigames]

Same thing for people saying "unintelligent." to say something is unintelligent would say that it is an inanimate object essentially. In other words, we should say that people are not fully knowledgeable in vast numbers of subjects. And when pertaining to this thread, we say, "Noobs don't know ****!"

 

[Witchking_of_Angmar]

...what?!? That's the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the quote says! He wants losing to not be viewed as a negative, discouraging experience, are we reading the same words?

He does consider it to be that way, which is why he wants to change the whole concept of losing so that people can go: Oh, luck wasn't on my side this match. Doesn't matter, I just got my lucky mascot and I can win the next set," and that, my friend is almost the very definition of anti-competitive.

Sakurai says: Losing=bad, so we have to change the way losing works.

Competitive people say: Losing= I can still improve, I can find ways to be even better, ****, I even get to fight an uphill battle so I have a challenge in front of me.

That is where we disagree.

 

[hippochinfat!!]

ITT: People who don't know the definition of competitive.

 

[RDK]

Thinkaman, your post was so full of ridiculous notions and blatant Sakurai fanboyism that it made my eyes bleed.

Please keep your limited knowledge of what competitive play actually is to yourself.

 

[LouisLeGros]

We all know what the definition of competitive is. Every post of yours that I have seen has been trolling.

The use of those stupid memes in every post is not amusing.

 

[Deathanchor]

It's the community that really decides if they want Brawl to be competitive or not. There is nothing holding us back from forcing ourselves to like Brawl, lol. Well anyway a great comparison is Brawl is to Melee as Counter Strike Source is to CS 1.6 The reason why I think they are so alike is because the CS community is very serious as is the smash one. And when Source was released, the players tried it, didn't like it as much as CS 1.6, and simply stuck with 1.6 for the competitive scene. This is the kind of logical reasoning that the Smash community needs to use.

Although it might not happen in the exact same way. I think Brawl should be given a little more time for players to realize "Wait a second, this game takes less skill than melee." Until then it's best to experiment and continue to play Brawl before people entirely decide it won't be suitable for competition.

 

[NilliX]

I don't understand the players that don't like Sakurai all of a sudden, just because he doesn't want Smash to be competitive.
If it weren't for him we wouldn't even have a Brawl, so I don't understand where players think they can go off complaining and hating the creator. It's just ignorance.

Stop there. Z canceling in 64 directly translated to Melee. So know, I don't remember not L-canceling.

Oh. I'm sorry. I'll try to remember the specific list of people that used AT in Smash 64 next time. My mistake. S'called "Generalisation", buddy. It was a light, passive comment. There's really no need to jump on me.

 

[greenblob]

We're not angry at Sakurai for making Brawl not as competitive as Melee. Sure we'd still be pissed, but we know that Smash was never meant to be a competitive game and we'd say, "Oh well," and leave it at that. No, we're angry at Sakurai because of this:

Sakurai: *makes Melee*
Us: OMGOMG thank you Sakurai! *spends the next few years dedicating ourselves to the game, traveling across the country and in some cases across the world to play different people, becoming the best we can be*
Sakurai: **** you, *****es!

 

[Illussionary]

Lol I still have fun even if I do lose, nothing is more fun then a good competition, and @Sakurai if he didn't want it to be competitive he shouldn't have made a fighting game.

 

[NilliX]

Sakurai: *makes Melee*
Us: OMGOMG thank you Sakurai! *spends the next few years dedicating ourselves to the game, traveling across the country and in some cases across the world to play different people, becoming the best we can be*
Sakurai: **** you, *****es!

Hahah, I can actually see what you mean. Sakurai is being ignorant to Smash's biggest community.

Perhaps he'll realise the slight error for Nintendo's next console and make it as fast as a brain-wave. Because we all know that the next system will be mind-controlled.

 

[Dark Sonic]

Hahah, I can actually see what you mean. Sakurai is being ignorant to Smash's biggest community.

Perhaps he'll realise the slight error for Nintendo's next console and make it as fast as a brain-wave. Because we all know that the next system will be mind-controlled.

Dude, then we can litterally have

MINDGAMES!!!

 

[RDK]

We all know what the definition of competitive is. Every post of yours that I have seen has been trolling.

The use of those stupid memes in every post is not amusing.

I've made plenty of long and windy posts in this thread trying to convince Brawl Board goers to accept logic, but sometimes you have to just accept the fact that the majority of people here are either ******** or have set up some mental roadblock that hinders them from thinking clearly.

And what are you talking about? Memes? Name one time I've posted anything remotely close to a meme.

 

[NilliX]

Dude, then we can litterally have

MINDGAMES!!!

Epic ones, at that.


Darkstar, I think his poor brain sees all animated GIFs as "memes". And signiatures don't seem to register either.

What a shame.