Sakurai: "If we Direct Smash ONLY at The Competitive Players, It Will Have No Future."

[ZeruSlayer]

He is saying if you want to play melee play melee, if you want to play Guilty Gear Xrd... play that! Don't come to smash 4 and expect it to have the game speed and input complexity of those titles. Smash 4 WAS made to appeal to a wider audience, that doesn't mean it isn't a deep thought provoking and competitive game...

You guys blow my mind with this.

You have to be very careful when you are just taking and regurgitating someone else story.

Please follow your own advice. Sakurai said absolutely nothing regarding Melee. Sakurai said if you want to play a more competitive game to look elsewhere (implying that the game is not competitive enough to cater to competitive players). So DarkDream is correct in what he said.

 

[Awstintacious]

There are no highs to experience in competitive melee unless you are one of the top players.

There are plenty of highs to experience, such as pulling off a cool combo, baiting your opponent, mastering a new technique, seeing something amazing, getting team synergy with your friends, beating your friends, and really understanding the game better all are huge sources of joy in my life that have come from how nuanced and difficult this game can be. Nothing comes free.

 

[<π]

Please follow your own advice. Sakurai said absolutely nothing regarding Melee. Sakurai said if you want to play a more competitive game to look elsewhere (implying that the game is not competitive enough to cater to competitive players). So DarkDream is correct in what he said.

There is no such thing as "more or less competitive" in this regard you are either competing or you aren't. AN environment... like a game can either create a competitive situation or not. (If you are using the words "more competitive" by definition you need to be talk about a person who has more of a drive to win.)

He said if you want a more complex game experience than smash 4 than don't look to smash 4 for that experience. That is not the games primary intention. The point I made after that was even without complex inputs and fast game speed a game can stil have deep meaningful options and be suspenseful and exciting.

Sakurai didn't mention melee specifically, but I thought it was a parallel that people here on smash boards could easily grasp. Melee is a game that is very complex and fast. II didn't menion it because I dislike the game or something, but because it put a picture people here could relate to and then compare by. :/

 

[DaRkJaWs]

There are plenty of highs to experience, such as pulling off a cool combo, baiting your opponent, mastering a new technique, seeing something amazing, getting team synergy with your friends, beating your friends, and really understanding the game better all are huge sources of joy in my life that have come from how nuanced and difficult this game can be. Nothing comes free.

Ridiculous. I was better than any of my friends and they hated facing me, even when they became better players. It took darkrain to beat me and do it convincingly, and at that point I wasn't even playing smash. I played melee when it first came out up to the first 8 months it was out and simply stopped playing because the battles between my brother and I were always predictable. If I knew at the time there was a competitive scene developing I would have kept playing, but I came back again in 2004 vs friends and beat them all (badly) having not played it since it came out, and beat everyone (badly) at local tournaments at OU (university of Oklahoma). Anyway with a few adjustments to my play and some practice vs the top characters to learn their intracicies, I would have been kage before kage. But I realized quickly that learning all the combos and how to avoid them was not something I was interested in. If the game is so broken that my READS (as opposed to my speed) couldn't overcome darkrains falcon even though I knew what he was doing (I did win one match vs him, in a 5 stock game where I had sd'd twice and him once), that even if I were to practice it was a losing battle. You think I envy someone like kage? **** no. The guy is never going to win vs the top players/characters, even if he can get close. And I wasn't about to learn how to play fox, sheik or falcon just so I could pretend that I'm the best. He should have moved on from melee a long time ago, like the rest of you Should have.

 

[DaRkJaWs]

Broken post, will edit later.

 

[ZeruSlayer]

There is no such thing as "more or less competitive" in this regard you are either competing or you aren't. AN environment... like a game can either create a competitive situation or not. (If you are using the words "more competitive" by definition you need to be talk about a person who has more of a drive to win.)

He said if you want a more complex game experience than smash 4 than don't look to smash 4 for that experience. That is not the games primary intention. The point I made after that was even without complex inputs and fast game speed a game can stil have deep meaningful options and be suspenseful and exciting.

Sakurai didn't mention melee specifically, but I thought it was a parallel that people here on smash boards could easily grasp. Melee is a game that is very complex and fast. II didn't menion it because I dislike the game or something, but because it put a picture people here could relate to and then compare by. :/

"I feel that if you want to play a fighting game seriously, there are other competitive fighting games that are more suited to that, and people like that could have fun playing those."

By your definition, every game is competitive and casual because it is based on the players and how they feel in the moment. While I don't disagree with what you said, competitve and casual is defined a bit differently in the fighting game genre. A game's competitiveness is defined by the community of players as well as the mechanics associated with the game.

Now to Sakurai's quote (highlighted in yellow since once again you are inaccurately regurgitating what he said. Your thoughts and what Sakurai said don't coincide so I don't know why you're defending him. He states that there are more competitive fighting games better suited for competitive players. This means, he believes that competiveness can be gauged (since he believes there are "more" suitable games for players). This also shows that he is not confident in the competitveness of his own game (if he felt the game was competitive, why did he even bother saying what he said). So at this point Sakurai believes a game can be more or less competitive while you don't believe that.

Finally, we go into Sakurai's goal, he wanted to create a game where anyone could have a chance of winning (and where people didn't feel bad about losing but I will ignore this since that goal is stupid and flawed from the start). By removing the complexity of a game he planned to force the competitive community and casual community into one community (with no skill gap, anyone can participate in a tournament, any side can win, etc.). It's pretty much give and take mentality, Sakurai wanted to give more to casual side, so the competitive side got wrecked for it. I'm not trying to say that Sakurai completely ignored the competitive side but there is an obvious imbalance to what Sakurai provided for both sides in Smash 4.

 

[<π]

"I feel that if you want to play a fighting game seriously, there are other competitive fighting games that are more suited to that, and people like that could have fun playing those."

By your definition, every game is competitive and casual because it is based on the players and how they feel in the moment. While I don't disagree with what you said, competitive and casual is defined a bit differently in the fighting game genre. A game's competitiveness is defined by the community of players as well as the mechanics associated with the game.

I actually made a video about this very topic a few days before this topic was made. which is strangely relevant right now...

in the video I basically say Competitive and casual are not opposite side of a coin. They are completely different spectrum. Casual is defined in most places as Relaxed or Unconcerned. I'd play melee, brawl and smash4 friendlies all the time, but that IS casual play. Me playing when there is nothing on the line. I've always said just because you are playing with no items on doesn't mean you aren't a casual player.
If fighting games use a different definition then... theirs are wrong these words don't mean anything else.

When people say "More competitive" what the often mean are faster, more tech skill, more rewards for precise inputs, but they don't realise that what they mean isn't what they are saying. All games where you compete are competitive period. (even non-competitive games like zelda become competitive in the form of speed runs, etc.) But all competitive games may not test skills that you value.

Now to Sakurai's quote (highlighted in yellow since once again you are inaccurately regurgitating what he said. Your thoughts and what Sakurai said don't coincide so I don't know why you're defending him. He states that there are more competitive fighting games better suited for competitive players. This means, he believes that competiveness can be gauged (since he believes there are "more" suitable games for players). This also shows that he is not confident in the competitveness of his own game (if he felt the game was competitive, why did he even bother saying what he said). So at this point Sakurai believes a game can be more or less competitive while you don't believe that.

He said other... not more; "other competitive fighting games". which implies that his game is also one of the competitive games he is talking about. I feel like you are intentionally trying to take his quote out of context to prove me wrong. But maybe you honestly believe that. So let me try and explain what I'm seeing. And you can tell me exactly where my logic is flawed.

Sakurai isn't just blindly talking about how he feels he is answering questions. This bit actually starts way back here:

"Q: There are people who play very seriously, in grand finals for official tournaments, and then there are people who are just happy to see their favorite character in the game. How do you feel about that?"

fair question... to which sakurai immediately says:
Sakurai: If people want to play seriously 1v1, they should do that, and if people simply want to enjoy the game, they should do so. There might even be people who only like to play with their amiibo. I think it's good that there are so many different ways to enjoy this game.

Sakurai could care less about how people play, he wants them to enjoy themselfs, you can just play against an amibo, but do what you enjoy. Let me point out that part that really resonated with me from that:

Sakurai: If people want to play seriously 1v1, they should do that...

Sakurai is okay with me playing 1v1 no items... thank God.


The interviewer continues the conversation here:

Q: So, then, this is good...
basically he wants a better answer. (at least that's how I've viewing this) Is it really okay; is it a good thing for people to play this game seriously in grand finals? His response:

Sakurai: Mmm. Personally, I feel that if you want to play a fighting game seriously, there are other competitive fighting games that are more suited to that, and people like that could have fun playing those. If we direct Smash ONLY at the competitive players, it will have no future.

If I wanted to, I'm sure I could make a more hardcore Smash Brothers game. I could make the game speed much faster, increase the number of inputs...but then, beginners would no longer be able to play the game. When the game becomes more like a sport, a tool that more strictly rewards the player with more skill, the game tapers off more, like a mountain. Just like how a mountain tapers off into its peak, that area becomes more and more narrow.

See THAT who chunk is his response. Not the one sentence we clip out. It makes a nice headline... but that isn't his whole idea. He says he feels there are other fighting games that appeal to hardcore fighting game guys better than smash does. Well... if we look at the numbers that is true Street fighter gets more attendees and more stream views, more youtube views, etc.
He ALSO says if smash was directed only at competitive players (which is likely a something closer to hardcore players) then smash brothers as a game series wouldn't have a future. Sakurai goes on to say that the more the game only rewards high level play the less it appeals to a wider audience. Well again look at numbers... compare the sales of Street Fighter 4 to Smash brother 4. (the were released around the same time) Or the sales of melee to street fighter 3... if you can find it.
You have to understand that this game is a miracle. Sonic, Snake, Pacman, MEGAMAN?! in a game with mario zelda and pikachu. It takes so much time energy and effort to make these things happen. selling only a million copies doesn't merit the amount of effort. Sakurai has said countless times in interviews even within nintendo it was difficult to get the rights to characters. Without the massive sales these games produce would nintendo still produce a game like this? And would it have the same appeal to these other gaming giants?

Finally, we go into Sakurai's goal, he wanted to create a game where anyone could have a chance of winning (and where people didn't feel bad about losing but I will ignore this since that goal is stupid and flawed from the start). By removing the complexity of a game he planned to force the competitive community and casual community into one community (with no skill gap, anyone can participate in a tournament, any side can win, etc.). It's pretty much give and take mentality, Sakurai wanted to give more to casual side, so the competitive side got wrecked for it. I'm not trying to say that Sakurai completely ignored the competitive side but there is an obvious imbalance to what Sakurai provided for both sides in Smash 4.

Lets be realistic here... everyone doesn't have a chance at winning in smash4 unless you go WAY out of your way to make that happen. But that is just the thing; if you chose to you can play the game that way; THAT is why it has so much appeal. Just slapping popular IPs on the cover of a box isn't going to sell millions of copies, it has to go deeper than the cover of the box.

Honestly I often wonder if by destroying my son in smash brothers he will lose his drive to play and improve in the game. Some people do have a drive to push through a struggle and persevere over hardship, but unfortunately that number is small and gets smaller everyday. Sakurai specifically says in this interview that his reason for making the game easy to play is because he doesn't want the player base to dwindle. it isn't about forcing anyone group of players to do anything. Top players are STILL top players... M2K isn't going to drop a set to me if we start playing now any more than he would with brawl (I've never taken a game off of him in brawl yet alone a set) or melee (same story) Its about make a successful videogame that appeals to the masses rather than targetting in on only the hardcore gamers.

It IS fun to play a match with a friend (without thousands on the line) and feel like you could have won if you didn't drop that combo; if you reacted a frame faster to that roll you KNEW he was going to do. And even if it is a frustrating loss you pick up the controller and run it back because you enjoy PLAYING the game more than you do winning. THAT is great game design, and that's what smash (since 64) has always been to me. But I'm half way decent at these games. When you honestly feel like you have no chance... that is a very crippling and disheartening feeling. I've loss touch with life long friends because of a skill gap in melee friendlies.. FRIENDLIES! I can't imagine that guy went home and popped the game in. It is SO important as a game developer to have people feel like they are improving and/or that they can win. If they don't have that sensation they don't play period. Sakurai understands this and makes his games with that idea in mind because he wants people to buy his games.

 

[DaRkJaWs]

I would direct people to my comment above to reiterate the point made just above me. And let's go straight to that feeling of hopelessness. Did I feel hopeless vs darkrain with my ganondorf? Yes, but not because I thought he was better than me, but because I knew the game revolved around character balance, reads, and successful combo sets. I felt hopeless not on the reads, of which I was as adept as darkrain. I get hopeless in knowing ganondorf didn't have the opportunities to pull off the kinds of combos captain falcon did, and that I was not about to judge my own strength vs someone else on the basis of whether I could mash my controller with pinpoint accuracy, doing a variety of difficult moves that many cannot do without repeated tries, and be rewarded by doing a set of combos they cannot escape. When the game becomes as much as about combos as it is about reads, I think it's in general rather meaningless, especially when the idea of "balance" is already destroyed when some characters are better than others. In smash 4 it is much more about the successful reads, and combos are in general less a part in this game than in melee. But smash 4 makes up for that in having the game ie the characters being harder counters to each other than in all previous smash games. This is why it is essential that one learns to play multiple characters in smash 4, you can't get away beating everyone with one character (although sheik and diddy may to some extent be an exception to that, remains to be seen). Which is why smash 4 is more balanced than melee, and overall a better game. I'll add that unlike in previous smash games, sakurai made it more pivotal that a characters entire move set be used frequently, which is why the counters are harder in smash 4 as well.

 

[ZeruSlayer]

I actually made a video about this very topic a few days before this topic was made. which is strangely relevant right now...

in the video I basically say Competitive and casual are not opposite side of a coin. They are completely different spectrum. Casual is defined in most places as Relaxed or Unconcerned. I'd play melee, brawl and smash4 friendlies all the time, but that IS casual play. Me playing when there is nothing on the line. I've always said just because you are playing with no items on doesn't mean you aren't a casual player.
If fighting games use a different definition then... theirs are wrong these words don't mean anything else.

When people say "More competitive" what the often mean are faster, more tech skill, more rewards for precise inputs, but they don't realise that what they mean isn't what they are saying. All games where you compete are competitive period. (even non-competitive games like zelda become competitive in the form of speed runs, etc.) But all competitive games may not test skills that you value.


He said other... not more; "other competitive fighting games". which implies that his game is also one of the competitive games he is talking about. I feel like you are intentionally trying to take his quote out of context to prove me wrong. But maybe you honestly believe that. So let me try and explain what I'm seeing. And you can tell me exactly where my logic is flawed.

Sakurai isn't just blindly talking about how he feels he is answering questions. This bit actually starts way back here:

"Q: There are people who play very seriously, in grand finals for official tournaments, and then there are people who are just happy to see their favorite character in the game. How do you feel about that?"

fair question... to which sakurai immediately says:
Sakurai: If people want to play seriously 1v1, they should do that, and if people simply want to enjoy the game, they should do so. There might even be people who only like to play with their amiibo. I think it's good that there are so many different ways to enjoy this game.

Sakurai could care less about how people play, he wants them to enjoy themselfs, you can just play against an amibo, but do what you enjoy. Let me point out that part that really resonated with me from that:
Sakurai: If people want to play seriously 1v1, they should do that...

Sakurai is okay with me playing 1v1 no items... thank God.


The interviewer continues the conversation here:

Q: So, then, this is good...
basically he wants a better answer. (at least that's how I've viewing this) Is it really okay; is it a good thing for people to play this game seriously in grand finals? His response:

Sakurai: Mmm. Personally, I feel that if you want to play a fighting game seriously, there are other competitive fighting games that are more suited to that, and people like that could have fun playing those. If we direct Smash ONLY at the competitive players, it will have no future.

If I wanted to, I'm sure I could make a more hardcore Smash Brothers game. I could make the game speed much faster, increase the number of inputs...but then, beginners would no longer be able to play the game. When the game becomes more like a sport, a tool that more strictly rewards the player with more skill, the game tapers off more, like a mountain. Just like how a mountain tapers off into its peak, that area becomes more and more narrow.

See THAT who chunk is his response. Not the one sentence we clip out. It makes a nice headline... but that isn't his whole idea. He says he feels there are other fighting games that appeal to hardcore fighting game guys better than smash does. Well... if we look at the numbers that is true Street fighter gets more attendees and more stream views, more youtube views, etc.
He ALSO says if smash was directed only at competitive players (which is likely a something closer to hardcore players) then smash brothers as a game series wouldn't have a future. Sakurai goes on to say that the more the game only rewards high level play the less it appeals to a wider audience. Well again look at numbers... compare the sales of Street Fighter 4 to Smash brother 4. (the were released around the same time) Or the sales of melee to street fighter 3... if you can find it.
You have to understand that this game is a miracle. Sonic, Snake, Pacman, MEGAMAN?! in a game with mario zelda and pikachu. It takes so much time energy and effort to make these things happen. selling only a million copies doesn't merit the amount of effort. Sakurai has said countless times in interviews even within nintendo it was difficult to get the rights to characters. Without the massive sales these games produce would nintendo still produce a game like this? And would it have the same appeal to these other gaming giants?



Lets be realistic here... everyone doesn't have a chance at winning in smash4 unless you go WAY out of your way to make that happen. But that is just the thing; if you chose to you can play the game that way; THAT is why it has so much appeal. Just slapping popular IPs on the cover of a box isn't going to sell millions of copies, it has to go deeper than the cover of the box.

Honestly I often wonder if by destroying my son in smash brothers he will lose his drive to play and improve in the game. Some people do have a drive to push through a struggle and persevere over hardship, but unfortunately that number is small and gets smaller everyday. Sakurai specifically says in this interview that his reason for making the game easy to play is because he doesn't want the player base to dwindle. it isn't about forcing anyone group of players to do anything. Top players are STILL top players... M2K isn't going to drop a set to me if we start playing now any more than he would with brawl (I've never taken a game off of him in brawl yet alone a set) or melee (same story) Its about make a successful videogame that appeals to the masses rather than targetting in on only the hardcore gamers.

It IS fun to play a match with a friend (without thousands on the line) and feel like you could have won if you didn't drop that combo; if you reacted a frame faster to that roll you KNEW he was going to do. And even if it is a frustrating loss you pick up the controller and run it back because you enjoy PLAYING the game more than you do winning. THAT is great game design, and that's what smash (since 64) has always been to me. But I'm half way decent at these games. When you honestly feel like you have no chance... that is a very crippling and disheartening feeling. I've loss touch with life long friends because of a skill gap in melee friendlies.. FRIENDLIES! I can't imagine that guy went home and popped the game in. It is SO important as a game developer to have people feel like they are improving and/or that they can win. If they don't have that sensation they don't play period. Sakurai understands this and makes his games with that idea in mind because he wants people to buy his games.

It was a long read and I don't know how to reply to this so I'll keep it as brief as possible (whatever I didn't comment on I agree...or I missed commenting on it). Sakurai's goal did not succeed, a skill gap was formed by the competitive scene through unintended tech (ex. pivot cancelling). If mechanics like that weren't found, it would be a game based off of character knowledge and matchups; hence why I said it was designed to make anyone able to win. With the games barebone mechanics and at the time when vectoring existed (which didn't allow players to have much, if not any, control over surviving) Sakurai would've been succesful. I'm not undermining competitive players but you have to admit that this Smash game was incredibly easy to pickup and play. The only difficulty was adjusting to the games engine, mastering a character can take at most a day and I main Marth, whom is supposed to be a technical character.

A competitive game can be casual, I already agreed with that sentiment and I agree with your examples. What Sakurai did however was to lower the competitiveness of the game in hopes of catering to both fearing that newer (or casual) players would be put off by the skill gap and quit, but did he ever consider the opposite? I'm not a competitive player but I'm not a fan of the game's mechanics, I hate how they made most characters aerials punishable through shield and grab (due to the end lag); this made the game extremely defensive. Also, I hate the rage mechanic as a whole because it seems that your attacks are underpowered without it and there are times where rage doesn't act as a comeback mechanic making two stocks frequent in this game (since 2 stocks are the new standard)...which is why I prefer controlled comeback mechanics like X-factor and the Ultra Gauge.

Finally, with the correction of my quote, I used more instead of other but my argument still stands even if you switch the words. Look at it this way, why did Sakurai say that? From what I read, you believe he said that because he was referencing Melee and how competitive players wanted a game similar to that (also that he was put into a situation where he had to say more so he might have said something to emphasize his previous quote). I believe he is not confident in the competitiveness of his game or that he knows his game is not that competitive to cater to the competitive scene (either way, the game is not as competitive as most traditional competitive fighters). Competitive players by definition are hardcore so if you replace hardcore with competitive it more or less falls into place unless you believe that hardcore players and competitive players are different from that quote? I'm going to take this time to emphasize that I did not say that Smash 4 is not competitive, I said that it is more casual than competitive (if I were to gauge it, I would say the game is 70% casual and 30% competitive based solely on gameplay).

But smash 4 makes up for that in having the game ie the characters being harder counters to each other than in all previous smash games. This is why it is essential that one learns to play multiple characters in smash 4, you can't get away beating everyone with one character (although sheik and diddy may to some extent be an exception to that, remains to be seen). Which is why smash 4 is more balanced than melee, and overall a better game. I'll add that unlike in previous smash games, sakurai made it more pivotal that a characters entire move set be used frequently, which is why the counters are harder in smash 4 as well.

I agree that Smash 4 is more balanced than Melee (I would say that it's the most balanced Nintendo Smash title) but Smash 4 is not a balanced game. A character whos purpose is to counter another character is the complete opposite of balance in my opinion. Giving a character tools to be able to contend with the rest of the cast is what I believe balance is all about (matchups can be difficult but if they are winnable then it is fine). This is why the most balanced fighters I've ever played are Project M and Ultra Street Fighter 4.

 

[DaRkJaWs]

No, hard counters was actually the best thing sakurai could have done, I have to congratulate him on having done that. The reason why is that in the limited time frame that they have to make the game, including character, map, and game design, it is a grueling process to get perfect balance between characters with patches (takes years, FYI). Hence, it's better they introduce hard move sets like shield breakers or being unable to interrupt particular move sets like ganon's punch or dks punch or his up+b, to not only bring Balance but to also bring more variability to the game, which is actually crucial to the balancing. That is to say, Ironically, gimps and shield breakers (among other things), in being hard counters, actually allows for the variability to exist peacefully with all characters, meaning all characters are viable in their own way. You don't, and won't, have the hard tiers in ssb4 like you did in melee or brawl with the exception of a few characters. The good thing with the for glory matchup is that Nintendo has all that data being accumulated to tell them who those characters are, and the fixes that will be put in place will be minor ones only the competitive types will notice. The rest will take care of itself, with no interference or excessive patching.

 

[ZeruSlayer]

No, hard counters was actually the best thing sakurai could have done, I have to congratulate him on having done that. The reason why is that in the limited time frame that they have to make the game, including character, map, and game design, it is a grueling process to get perfect balance between characters with patches (takes years, FYI). Hence, it's better they introduce hard move sets like shield breakers or being unable to interrupt particular move sets like ganon's punch or dks punch or his up+b, to not only bring Balance but to also bring more variability to the game, which is actually crucial to the balancing. That is to say, Ironically, gimps and shield breakers (among other things), in being hard counters, actually allows for the variability to exist peacefully with all characters, meaning all characters are viable in their own way. You don't, and won't, have the hard tiers in ssb4 like you did in melee or brawl with the exception of a few characters. The good thing with the for glory matchup is that Nintendo has all that data being accumulated to tell them who those characters are, and the fixes that will be put in place will be minor ones only the competitive types will notice. The rest will take care of itself, with no interference or excessive patching.

"In game design, balance is the concept and the practice of tuning a game's rules, usually with the goal of preventing any of its component systems from being ineffective or otherwise undesirable when compared to their peers. An unbalanced system represents wasted development resources at the very least, and at worst can undermine the game's entire ruleset by making important roles or tasks impossible to perform." (Wikipedia)

If there are exceptions then you can't tell me with a straight face that the game is balanced. You've been using balance and variability in conjunction with each other but balance ≠ variability. Also, I kind of found it funny how you put shield breaker as a hard moveset when this game makes it so easy to shield break with buffing Marth's neutral b, Bowser's aerial down b, and more.

All in all, there is no such thing as a 100% balanced game so I agree that excessive patching won't solve anything and the game evolves through adaptation of the players so I guess this conversation is more about agreeing to disagree and becomes a matter of preference.

 

[<π]

Okay. First of all. No game worth its salt is going to ever aim for true balance... It just isn't interesting. the only way to achomplish this state of perfection is to have 1 character. The instant you add two one will always have some advantage over the other even if that advantage shifts from time to time.

I am a very firm believe that games need much more character. And again... smash does this BEAUTIFULLY. I feel like charizard when I'm UpBing through falcon punches or rock smashing someone for 40 damage off a good read. I feel like sheik when I'm comboing someone across the stage. But I think more importantly than that characters give players an opportunity to find THEMSELVES in the games they play.

Take me for example. I was always the youngest smallest kid where ever I went. In my neighborhood we played basket ball every day. My short stature and low body weight work against me especially in basketball, but I worked hard to turn that into an advantage in sports, I was always an underdog. But I was quick and nimble and would even "train" myself (whatever that means as a preteen) to enhance those aspects of myself since I couldn't make myself grow.
I've always been emotionally closed off and to myself approaching people with a facade; at a distance to keep myself safe.
As I started playing games I found parallels between me and the quick light characters or long range zone control characters. And found a special attachment who have historically be label the underdog sex of society. Even now as a married man with kids I still gravitate to those same types of characters. When given the option I almost ALWAYS will create a female avatar instead of a male.

Other games from my personal experience that do a great job of creating characters instead of just... units are Warcraft 3. League of Legends, Street Fighter (they better have karin in 5 man...)

I say all that to say this. Sometimes you sacrifice balance and fairness to create a memorable experience for the player. Every character doesn't need to be viable for a game to be fun and entertaining. I'd also argue that it makes it even more exciting when that underdog character comes from out of the blue and turns heads.

I don't think this game is "hard counter" heavy. But I've only played a small handful of top level players and most of those guys have characters they are gravitating towards. My character pool is about 4 or 5 deep, and most of my characters are bad. So I may not be at a point where my view point is helpful. Melee is counter heavy, Brawl was VERY counter dependent, this game doesn't strike me like the other two.

It was a long read and I don't know how to reply to this so I'll keep it as brief as possible (whatever I didn't comment on I agree...or I missed commenting on it). Sakurai's goal did not succeed, a skill gap was formed by the competitive scene through unintended tech (ex. pivot cancelling). If mechanics like that weren't found, it would be a game based off of character knowledge and matchups; hence why I said it was designed to make anyone able to win. With the games barebone mechanics and at the time when vectoring existed (which didn't allow players to have much, if not any, control over surviving) Sakurai would've been succesful. I'm not undermining competitive players but you have to admit that this Smash game was incredibly easy to pickup and play. The only difficulty was adjusting to the games engine, mastering a character can take at most a day and I main Marth, whom is supposed to be a technical character.

That just isn't true... MY buddy and I joke around all the time how the new age melee kids come in with all their tech skill and our old man hands can still bop them in a game we stopped playing seriously YEARS ago. Tech skill is neat and all but it is only part of it, it doesn't define a skill gap alone. There are a lot of factors that go along with it.

Game speed is a big one; people talk about it but I think a lot don't understand how polarizing it is when an experienced player is playing a novice. We, as humans, only have so much reaction time when I can activate say 6 very different options, from half stage, in a time span you have never seen before; yet alone can't humanly react to I have an AMAZING advantage.
The faster the game speed the faster and more precise the inputs need to be. If you ever have the chance get your kid sister, parent, someone who doesn't play games much to play melee and watch how they move around the stage then show them how quickly and precisely you can move and try to have them emulate it. How long do you think it would take them to get to your level of mastery? What about someone like Mango or M2K? It took them literally half of their lives to get as consistent as they are at melee.

I was a hard core melee guy back in the day, so hearing you say pivot canceling creates a skill gap is laughable to me. Pivot canceling is so much easier to do and SOOO much more intuitive than wavedashing or L-Canceling. Or even brawl techs like dacus.
I think every smash game has been easy to pick up and play, and for me this one actually was harder than the others because the characters are just SO different from one another, I still can't wrap my head around just the basics of WiiFit or DHD or Pac, Robin. Now part of that may be I just have less time to invest in the games now, but Smash's appeal to me and I'm sure most smashers out there has been that these games ARE very easy to get into but some much harder to master.

A competitive game can be casual, I already agreed with that sentiment and I agree with your examples. What Sakurai did however was to lower the competitiveness of the game in hopes of catering to both fearing that newer (or casual) players would be put off by the skill gap and quit, but did he ever consider the opposite? I'm not a competitive player but I'm not a fan of the game's mechanics, I hate how they made most characters aerials punishable through shield and grab (due to the end lag); this made the game extremely defensive. Also, I hate the rage mechanic as a whole because it seems that your attacks are underpowered without it and there are times where rage doesn't act as a comeback mechanic making two stocks frequent in this game (since 2 stocks are the new standard)...which is why I prefer controlled comeback mechanics like X-factor and the Ultra Gauge.

A few things here...

So... I'm going to try and push through what I see as miss use of the words casual and competitive here. Lets redefine every "Competitive game" as "Hardcore game" and maybe casual player in to "novice" or "new player" Hardcore games want to test different skills than you average gamer does. Hardcore guys want to test reaction time, accuracy. the hardcore gamer values "fair" and "predictable". Generally the hardcore gamer wants to prove they are amazing at the game and these are great metrics to test yourself by. Unfortunately for us we are a minority. I mentioned it above but even something as seemingly trivial as speed of the game is actually really polarizing when a novice gets the game for the first time. And that's just one thing. Insane tech skill, combo memorization, etc. etc. I will be the first to agree the newer smash games do not put nearly as much emphasis on the skills the hardcore gamer seeks out, but that doesn't mean no skills are tested. You mentioned aerials on shield being unsafe. That's been true since melee unless you were fox or peach or Gdorf's fair. You have never been able to just throw moves out on a shield. In my opinion that;s isn't a good choice at all. in the rock paper scissors game that is attack shield grab. shields SHOULD beat attacks.
Fortunately though by spacing correctly you can throw out a lot of aerials on a lot of characters shields and not be punished for it and then a lot of characters can feint an aerials and just land to grab or land to zoner or land; do nothing and just watch your reaction. You aren't committed to an aerial just because you jumped. Honestly if people want to get better at smash 4 they have to start applying that idea. Defensive aggressive whatever.... play the game with the mindset of a winner. People who want to win with fox and falco in melee? the will DEFINITELY use the power of the lazer and camp you out and force the opponent to approach. People criticized brawl for being too defensive and then top MKs, diddys, marths, ZSS, pikachu (see what I did there), and olimars never let off pressure.. well until the Ice CLimbers froze brawl. So much of it is the lens you are looking through. Me? I just play the way I think the ruleset will let me win easiest.

Finally, with the correction of my quote, I used more instead of other but my argument still stands even if you switch the words. Look at it this way, why did Sakurai say that? From what I read, you believe he said that because he was referencing Melee and how competitive players wanted a game similar to that (also that he was put into a situation where he had to say more so he might have said something to emphasize his previous quote). I believe he is not confident in the competitiveness of his game or that he knows his game is not that competitive to cater to the competitive scene (either way, the game is not as competitive as most traditional competitive fighters). Competitive players by definition are hardcore so if you replace hardcore with competitive it more or less falls into place unless you believe that hardcore players and competitive players are different from that quote? I'm going to take this time to emphasize that I did not say that Smash 4 is not competitive, I said that it is more casual than competitive (if I were to gauge it, I would say the game is 70% casual and 30% competitive based solely on gameplay).

Hey man You can believe what you need to. Me I've explained my logic. But I do want to clarify I don't think sakurai was talking specifically about melee; I don't actually think he was talking about melee as an "other", I think in this interview he was saying the smash series as a whole, including melee, do not put as much emphasis on the skills that hardcore gamers and spectators normally seek out. But as he said before he has nothing against us playing the games he has created how ever we desire to. If he targets the smash series at the hardcore audience it will no longer do what smash was designed to do. Sell millions upon millions of copies.

 

[ZeruSlayer]

I say all that to say this. Sometimes you sacrifice balance and fairness to create a memorable experience for the player. Every character doesn't need to be viable for a game to be fun and entertaining. I'd also argue that it makes it even more exciting when that underdog character comes from out of the blue and turns heads.

What did I just read, "sacrifice balance for fairness"? Fairness is entirely subjective, fairness has nothing to do with the game as a whole but more so the players against each other in that game. Balance is objective where it focuses on the game itself and its mechanics which is why it is more reliable and why fighting game developers work towards making their games balanced. Then why balance a game? What have fighting games been doing since last gen? They've been updating their games with additional content, bug fixes, and balance patches. If balance doesn't matter to developers they would just send the game as is and give it to customers only adding content and ignoring the "errors" in their product.

That just isn't true... MY buddy and I joke around all the time how the new age melee kids come in with all their tech skill and our old man hands can still bop them in a game we stopped playing seriously YEARS ago. Tech skill is neat and all but it is only part of it, it doesn't define a skill gap alone. There are a lot of factors that go along with it.

Game speed is a big one; people talk about it but I think a lot don't understand how polarizing it is when an experienced player is playing a novice. We, as humans, only have so much reaction time when I can activate say 6 very different options, from half stage, in a time span you have never seen before; yet alone can't humanly react to I have an AMAZING advantage.
The faster the game speed the faster and more precise the inputs need to be. If you ever have the chance get your kid sister, parent, someone who doesn't play games much to play melee and watch how they move around the stage then show them how quickly and precisely you can move and try to have them emulate it. How long do you think it would take them to get to your level of mastery? What about someone like Mango or M2K? It took them literally half of their lives to get as consistent as they are at melee.

What isn't true? This reply went on a tangent all because I gave you one example of a skill gap and then this post is telling me that there are other factors (which I already know and stated in the same post, "character knowledge and matchups"...basically experience). If I have to apologize for anything it would be for my exaggeration of saying that anyone can win but the game was designed and intended to put players on an even playing field if you infer to Sakurai's quote:

Sakurai: I fought, I lost...these results and suffering from painful feelings is how the user base shrinks, and we want to avoid that with Smash. In that sense, Smash has many elements that are rather ambiguous and nebulous in regards to competition.

I'm going to take this time to tell you that since this conversation started I didn't compare Melee to Smash 4 but you're the one doing so which is a big misconception because I'm assuming you think I want a game with faster speed when I have already said before that I want a more balanced game (I don't care about its level of competitiveness, I don't care if it has wavedashes or L-cancels, I want an experience where I can play a character I want to play as and not feel helpless against most of the cast (ex. Little Mac vs anyone who can gimp...which is every character in the game except himself).

I was a hard core melee guy back in the day, so hearing you say pivot canceling creates a skill gap is laughable to me. Pivot canceling is so much easier to do and SOOO much more intuitive than wavedashing or L-Canceling. Or even brawl techs like dacus.

Well, glad to hear that it's easy for you. If you must know, I have no problem doing it also when I tested it at my friend's house on his Wii-U. But what about other players? You brought up before how long it would take for inexperienced players to master a faster game. I chose not to answer because that is subjective and based solely on the person. The same can be said about this. Even though pivot canceling was easy for us, who are we to say it would be easier for everyone else? A skill gap is still a skill gap no matter how small it might be so what I said was accurate and not very laughable if you look at the big picture.

I think every smash game has been easy to pick up and play, and for me this one actually was harder than the others because the characters are just SO different from one another, I still can't wrap my head around just the basics of WiiFit or DHD or Pac, Robin. Now part of that may be I just have less time to invest in the games now, but Smash's appeal to me and I'm sure most smashers out there has been that these games ARE very easy to get into but some much harder to master.

Correct, all smash games were designed to be easy to pick up and play but with previous titles it was a game that was easy to pick up but difficult to master (but you already know that). I may be speaking preemptively since there can be more untapped potential in the game through unintended tech but as of now this game for me has been easy to master character wise, mainly because my primary focus was one character since during the 3ds release I knew Shulk was terrible (even though I got backlash for it on smashboards but as soon as Shulk got massive buffs the nay sayers were nowhere to be found...rant over). I realize this is subjective to the player so there is no right or wrong answer here.

Unfortunately for us we are a minority. I mentioned it above but even something as seemingly trivial as speed of the game is actually really polarizing when a novice gets the game for the first time. And that's just one thing. Insane tech skill, combo memorization, etc. etc. I will be the first to agree the newer smash games do not put nearly as much emphasis on the skills the hardcore gamer seeks out, but that doesn't mean no skills are tested. You mentioned aerials on shield being unsafe. That's been true since melee unless you were fox or peach or Gdorf's fair. You have never been able to just throw moves out on a shield. In my opinion that;s isn't a good choice at all. in the rock paper scissors game that is attack shield grab. shields SHOULD beat attacks.
Fortunately though by spacing correctly you can throw out a lot of aerials on a lot of characters shields and not be punished for it and then a lot of characters can feint an aerials and just land to grab or land to zoner or land; do nothing and just watch your reaction. You aren't committed to an aerial just because you jumped. Honestly if people want to get better at smash 4 they have to start applying that idea. Defensive aggressive whatever.... play the game with the mindset of a winner. People who want to win with fox and falco in melee? the will DEFINITELY use the power of the lazer and camp you out and force the opponent to approach. People criticized brawl for being too defensive and then top MKs, diddys, marths, ZSS, pikachu (see what I did there), and olimars never let off pressure.. well until the Ice CLimbers froze brawl. So much of it is the lens you are looking through. Me? I just play the way I think the ruleset will let me win easiest.

I already know the competitive side is the minority but that doesn't mean that they aren't allowed to have a voice. I already spoke about some of the things I didn't like in Smash 4 and I don't consider myself a competitive player. I can't vouch for Fox but you are incorrect about Ganon and Peach, a properly spaced f-air from both on shield alongside a L-cancel and taking into account shieldstun should be safe. It's been a while since I played Melee since I mainly play Project M but since those two characters are meleefied and I have played at my locals against those characters I can guarantee that what you said is not true. The reason why shield out of grab is so prevalent is because of the recovery time of aerials as you hit the ground and the little to no shield stun the game has. If you can't see the difference between that and previous Smash titles then I don't know what to say to you. Some characters aren't so lucky to have safe aerials and even then, most of the characters are limited to only 1 safe aerial making their air to ground game extremely predictable. My problem wasn't with the shield...it was with the universal punish that came with it and how easy it was to punish aerial opponents. Fighting games for the most part were mostly revolved around offense, sure there are defensive and zoning characters but if the game becomes a poke/grab fest (which Smash 4 is for the most part), spectating and playing the game is boring...which is why I can't watch Xanadu Smash 4 games for more than 2 hours, I almost fall asleep on my laptop (with the exception of a handful of good sets but for the most part it is pretty lackluster). I don't enjoy playing zoney or defensive characters nor do I want to play an offensive character defensively throughout majority of the battle which is why I lost interest in playing Smash 4 and went back to Project M. This is where our views differ, I play towards my preference and playstyle while adapting accordingly. I refused to change my playstyle to meet the game's standard so I have no real drive in playing the game.

Hey man You can believe what you need to. Me I've explained my logic. But I do want to clarify I don't think sakurai was talking specifically about melee; I don't actually think he was talking about melee as an "other", I think in this interview he was saying the smash series as a whole, including melee, do not put as much emphasis on the skills that hardcore gamers and spectators normally seek out. But as he said before he has nothing against us playing the games he has created how ever we desire to. If he targets the smash series at the hardcore audience it will no longer do what smash was designed to do. Sell millions upon millions of copies.

I hate it when people act like this.This post and the one before you break off into a tangent, it becomes increasingly difficult for me to extract the relevant information from the irrelevant information but whatever, I'll believe what I want to believe. Incorrect, this was an interview specifically for Smash 4. The only time he could've possibly refrenced the entire series as a whole would be in the last post but that wouldn't make any sense because it is contradictory to feelings players exhibited in previous titles. Well of course, because that segregates one part of the community. If game was designed equally with preference to both sides then I'm sure the game would've sold the same amount of copies. I'm under the impression that you think I want a Meleefied Smash 4 game (since you keep bringing Melee up whenever possible) so I will say this one last time, I want a more balanced Smash 4 (already gave you 2 notable gripes I have with the game's mechanics).

 

[T0RN]

I don't understand daddy Sakurai. Why can't he just make the game hardcore? It would be easy for the people who want it to be easy (they would probably never encounter a highly skilled player) and for the people that want to take it seriously, then they can. Win win?

 

[Thor]

I haven't read the comments above me, but I had to laugh when I re-read most of the first page and realized how most of the comments now would seem totally unrelated to anything if they had deleted instead of struckthrough the error.

 

[Tcll]

if Sakurai wanted us to have fun, he wouldn't have made the game so douchey and limited

sure it's extended with DLC and what not, but what's the point when there's not much you can do with it.

fighting in the game just utterly sucks (so much move-lag, so many nerfs, so much being left in the open), and if that isn't bad enough, the game knows your every move and retorts with humanly impossible dodges and P-shields.

if Sakurai wanted the game to be fun, he wouldn't have put in the disgusting Smash Tour mode and instead would've allowed 3DS co-play with WiiU on Smash Run.
(if the 3DS can already be used as a controller, it's more than capable of Smash Run)

another thing is the menu layout and behavior that's just beyond annoying.

and there's much more about the game I could name off that could compare pretty well to the expectations of Sonic Boom.

one thing that bugs me personally is the claymation graphics.
(I was expecting more realism than Brawl)

 

[drewilliam]

I know old post.. but are you ****ing kidding me sakurai?!?! Do you know what game has no future: Brawl. Zero, None. It's been made irrelevant by its sequel.

Do you know what game has been relevant for 13+ years even after 2 (or 3) sequels have been released: Melee.

 

[drewilliam]

Sakurai: "If I wanted to, I'm sure I could make a more hardcore Smash Brothers game. I could make the game speed much faster, increase the number of inputs...but then, beginners would no longer be able to play the game."

Once again, are you ****ing kidding me Sakurai??? Melee has insane button inputs at high levels, but beginners can still play. Maybe he just means they won't be able to compete. Why not go for something like Rivals of Aether then? Fast paced game-play with Melee mechanics, but with much less button inputs. Functionally most of the same options but with more reasonable inputs.

 

[BlushFactory]

I support what Sakurai said.

Because you can make almost any game competitive as long as it has options within it to do so (all of Smash for example)

People laughed at the idea of Smash as a joke game for competitive, look what it turned into though because the game had all the tools already there to make it playable on both a CASUAL and COMPETITIVE aspect.

 

[drewilliam]

you're contradicting yourself^
True, literally any game can be played competitvely in some manner. But Melee has tools in it to make it a great competeitve game while still appealing to casual players with its basic gameplay.

So don't you mean you disagree him and he should make another game like Melee that is for both casual and competitve players (Project M and Rivals of Aether are good examples) instead of making a game like Smash 4 that really only appeals to casual gameplay (i know people play it competitvely, but the characters have so few options compared to Melee that it lacks competitively realtive to Melee)

 

[BlushFactory]

you're contradicting yourself^
True, literally any game can be played competitvely in some manner. But Melee has tools in it to make it a great competeitve game while still appealing to casual players with its basic gameplay.

So don't you mean you disagree him and he should make another game like Melee that is for both casual and competitve players (Project M and Rivals of Aether are good examples) instead of making a game like Smash 4 that really only appeals to casual gameplay (i know people play it competitvely, but the characters have so few options compared to Melee that it lacks competitively realtive to Melee)

But Melee had/has/etc a great competitive system mainly due to the way the game is built.

With Brawl and sm4sh the game can easily be regarded at best as "casually competitive" compared to how Melee plays. Sakurai acts like he wants it to be a party game and no matter what he does we the players make it as competitive as possible.

Also off topic: Melee has that "Modern Warfare 2" effect on everyone lol

 

[tbtechwiz]

for fun, for glory

more like
for enjoyment
and
for SALT

 

[Someperson8760]

Sakurai really seems to dislike competitive play or have some skewed view on it. This makes me really want a new director next game. Smash as a whole has no future that sucks to hear and even tells people to find another game wow..

You disgust me.

 

[TurboLink]

You disgust me.

LOL @ your overreaction. Try aiming some of that disgust towards Sakurai why don't you.

 

[LancerStaff]

This topic is funny... Since Samurai made the game more casual we get a ridiculous number of entrants now. The game has more life then most fighting games ever will because of it.

Also worth mentioning that it's completely overwritten Melee in Japan.

 

[tbtechwiz]

This topic is funny... Since Samurai made the game more casual we get a ridiculous number of entrants now. The game has more life then most fighting games ever will because of it.

Also worth mentioning that it's completely overwritten Melee in Japan.

i find this thread funny too, especially since it gives me that unwelcoming vibe that competitive smash is a closed off competition community with no outsiders or newcomers welcome unless they already know the insides of the scene themselves

 

[Nivrap]

As someone who enjoys both playing Smash normally and competitively, I understand the enjoyment competitive players get from playing a system they deem more "fair." However, I would REALLY like to see the elitists of the competitive community get their heads out of their own behinds for a change. The fact that not all of the Omega stages (stages DESIGNED to cater to competitive players) are allowed is mind-blowing to me. There's balancing, and then there's enforcing restraints due to an inability to adapt. Same goes for players who say items ruin the game: get good at items. I'm fine with both zany party play and hardcore competitive play, but I certainly prefer the normal fanbase to the competitive one. If Sakurai has to take a side, I'm glad it's the side of the average player.

 

[captainbatty]

A solution would be to have two modes in the next smash game. 1 for noobs and Friends and family and **** and your grandmother. And the other one for the competitive scene. Just leave the hard tecs out of the simple mode and everybody wins