The "Advance Techniques" from Melee. Sensible or Illogical?

[Big-Cat]

Because it clashes with the creator's ideals and only 1% of people would really even care if it was gone. I've argued this like five times in this thread alone, and I don't feel like explaining all of this again.

Yet that doesn't mean that it becomes an official mechanic in a future sequel if it's like a lot. Believe it or not, but the ability to cancel normals into specials in Street Fighter II was entirely an accident. All future games kept it as a deliberate mechanic and became the cornerstone of all combos in fighting games.

 

[LancerStaff]

Yet that doesn't mean that it becomes an official mechanic in a future sequel if it's like a lot. Believe it or not, but the ability to cancel normals into specials in Street Fighter II was entirely an accident. All future games kept it as a deliberate mechanic and became the cornerstone of all combos in fighting games.

Because the creator liked it, and combos were much more widespread.

 

[mimgrim]

You can't definitely know either. My word is as good as yours.

Except unlike you I'm not claiming anything is going to be or not be in this game beside what is shown or what Sakurai will chose or not chose to show off.

My point is, has Sakurai ever made any mechanic remotely important to the overall game for hardcores?

Dash Dance, Power/Perfect Shielding, Crouch Canceling, L-cancel (it was an intentional mechanic, in case you didn't know that), And I know there are more but it's midnight and I'm tired and can't think of them.

The rest of that post just went off the deep end with you trying to save your a**.

Pics? I played the damn thing. It did happen.

Oh good, so I did recall correctly. I was afraid I recalled the detail incorrectly or something.

They're pretty complex to a noob, and Pokemon counts.

But it's really not my opinion we're arguing about, it's Sakurai's. Wavedashing is the second most complex thing in one of Sakurai's games

SWD, Waveshine, SHFFMC, even SHFFL, ect.. are all much more complex then Wave Dash rofl.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

You can't definitely know either. My word is as good as yours. I'm only going down this road to humor the notion that Sakurai would add in Wavedashing in any way. And you don't know how much removing Wavedashing would effect Melee because you haven't played competitive Melee minus Wavedashing.

Do you really think Sakurai is just winging it with the mechanics and balance? First off, adding Wavedashing would alter the balance that he's working so hard on. And second, if it's hidden, that put an end to SSB's signature three button simplicity or add an anti-casual imput like a hadoken motion.

Let's just go over how silly it is to think Sakurai would add something like Wavedashing intentionally. Kirby's Dream Land was designed to let 'casuals' and 'hardcores' play it with mechanics like flying indefinitely and adjustable HP. Meteos is played entirely with the touch screen. Kirby Air Ride is a racing game played with one button. The only remotely complex thing Sakurai has ever added to a game is weapon fusion, but it pretty clearly wasn't supposed to be figured out. It still isn't. And you can still just go down the list to whip up something like my namesake weapon.

My point is, has Sakurai ever made any mechanic remotely important to the overall game for hardcores?

First and foremost, we have played Melee without wavedashing. My first 6 years owning the game I playe din such a way, as I didn't even know it existed until I stumbled upon this website. Every person who knows how to wavedash in Melee doesn't necessarily have to use it, be it that it isn't practical with the way they play or just personal preference. Players like Masashi, who plays without wavedashing are still incredibly successful players, despite the fact that waveshinng with Fox is a critical element to Fox's offensive and pressure game:

Notice Masashi does not wavedash during the first match. However, he learns how BombSoldier plays and changes it up later on during his match up:

So yes, I have seen, so have many players, and even so this was during the era where its use was questionable and not used by as many as we see today. Masashi's use of it was to make practical reads or counter attacks.

Furthermore, these mechanics were intentionally implemented into the game, either that or they were not removed because there was no harm in having them. First, on the Smash Bros. 64 website there is a technique called "smooth landing" which is basically what we today call L-Canceling:

http://web.archive.org/web/20001202105700/http://www.smashbros.com/enter.html

Also a wiki link to the information:

http://www.ssbwiki.com/L-canceling

Secondly, if wavedashing was to be removed, he would have done so in Melee, as there were multiple versions of the game (NTSC 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2), all of which still retained the function to wavedash. If this was such a drastic issue then something would have been done about it in the same way they removed wavelanding from Brawl; modify which attacks give you momentum. Not, I said modify, as there are still glaring resemblances of previous Melee techs in Brawl. Using Mario's Bair in the Brawl E For All Demo allowed you to waveland. In the full version of the game, it does not allow you to do so, but is places your character back a couple of paces, so they specifically modified the momentum given on the aerial. characters in Brawl like Peach still retained the ability to retain momentum by using her Down Tilt attack, which when the IASA (Interrupt As Soon As) frames are cancelled peach could literally slide backwards while doing and attack, or jump with the character moving backwards without touching the stick, which means that the things we specifically discovered during the E For All demo were reported. So, if he wanted wavelanding gone in Melee, he would have done it.

You said it yourself that you don't play fighting games, so your comparisons between smash and kirby air ride fall short on def ears unless its related to the menu sounds of the game (Same applies to the pokemon comparison, as you have months to react to a situation with breeding, EV training etc., in a fighting game you have seconds, if that). Racing games have different objectives and variables to consider in competition, and to use Kirby Air ride in general as a racing game is abysmall when you have options such as Gran Turismo, which is playable and simple at an entry level, bus has a grand plethora of techniques that reflect racing in real life. According to your logic, counter steering in racing is unintuitive because during a drift you have to continually steer in the opposite direction of your turn, so drivers shouldn't be able to drift. the similarity being that both wavedashing and drifting are both physics, integral parts of their respected activities that changed the way we drive/play. It doesn't matter whether or not these things were intentional or not, as these things will only affect the people who intentionally pursue them; the drivers and the players.

Lastly, whether something is hardcore or not is completely objective, as some things may be easier to do for others. However, you can call these things easter eggs, as they have been a part of gaming since it has existed.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

Giving a claim without proper evidence is a bit unprofessional. It is somewhat rude to make a claim and then say "Look it up yourself". That's almost like saying "Hey, I lied, but I'll send you on a hunt for it."

Way to be unprofessional...At least I provide links to back up my claims in regards to smash.

The fact that you assume i'm a liar has nothing to do with me being professional. You could have believed me and it would be the end of it, but you're the one curious. I don't have to hold your hand. Either you find it it yourself or you can sit there inflecting your trust issues on me while I continue to not care. Your call bro.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

Alright. I'm kinda out of the loop with this stuff. Another site is convinced that the Melee tournaments are already dying off again.

http://shoryuken.com/2014/02/10/eig...mpete-in-super-smash-bros-melee-championship/

 

[LancerStaff]

Except unlike you I'm not claiming anything is going to be or not be in this game beside what is shown or what Sakurai will chose or not chose to show off.



Dash Dance, Power/Perfect Shielding, Crouch Canceling, L-cancel (it was an intentional mechanic, in case you didn't know that), And I know there are more but it's midnight and I'm tired and can't think of them.

The rest of that post just went off the deep end with you trying to save your a**.



Oh good, so I did recall correctly. I was afraid I recalled the detail incorrectly or something.



SWD, Waveshine, SFFFMC, SHFFL, ect.. are all much more complex then Wave Dash rofl.

You and your nitpicking... Do you plan to get somewhere with this?

This thread:

This is all that you're doing. I say something slightly off the mark and you have point out every little wrong thing that may or may not be an opinion anyway, and it gets dragged out another ten posts. It's not constructive to the thread. If I'm that wrong, then my core argument would be full of holes. It's not.

Wavedashing is like the tenth most complex thing? Big deal.

You think Sakurai has any interest adding in an old glitch? There's absolutely nothing pointing to it.

You question why I'm not against things like perfect shielding? Who said I'm against any of that? I'm just sharing what I think is likely to happen. Sakurai thinks for whatever reason Wavedashing is bad but ukemi is a-okay.

I truly think Wavedashing has no chance to get in any future SSB.

 

[mimgrim]

You and your nitpicking... Do you plan to get somewhere with this?

You made invalid statements/asked a question and I responded appropriately. If you can't handle it then that is a you problem.

 

[LancerStaff]

You made invalid statements/asked a question and I responded appropriately. If you can't handle it then that is a you problem.

You didn't answer my question. Do you plan on getting anywhere in this argument? Or are you just nitpicking to pick nits?

 

[mimgrim]

You didn't answer my question. Do you plan on getting anywhere in this argument? Or are you just nitpicking to pick nits?

That's all I've been doing is nit-picking basically rofl. xD

I'm not arguing whether WD should or will come back. I don't care what happens to it. However I will defend it, and various other things, when incorrect statements are made on it.

What I'm trying to get at is that you are seriously misinformed on a lot of things you are talking about and don't truly understand a lot of the stuff you are talking about, hence the nit-picking.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

You and your nitpicking... Do you plan to get somewhere with this?



This is all that you're doing. I say something slightly off the mark and you have point out every little wrong thing that may or may not be an opinion anyway, and it gets dragged out another ten posts. It's not constructive to the thread. If I'm that wrong, then my core argument would be full of holes. It's not.

Wavedashing is like the tenth most complex thing? Big deal.

You think Sakurai has any interest adding in an old glitch? There's absolutely nothing pointing to it.

You question why I'm not against things like perfect shielding? Who said I'm against any of that? I'm just sharing what I think is likely to happen. Sakurai thinks for whatever reason Wavedashing is bad but ukemi is a-okay.

I truly think Wavedashing has no chance to get in any future SSB.

All you have been saying throughout this thread is "Sakurai said this..." and "Sakurai said that..." without as much as even providing a single link to where you quoted this information, instead, you just rampantly insisted you knew what he was thinking as if you are making this game yourself even. To be frank, you need to get off his **** and start proving some information. Back up your words instead of asking questions at the end of your statements.

Since you clearly choose to only read things you want to read despite the fact that I and many others have said why it isn't glitch, you bitterly reciprocate the idea because you don't like it. Wavedashing isn't a glitch, this is a glitch.

Please try to differentiate a slide caused by a byproduct of a physics engine from something that renders a game unplayable.

What you think doesn't mean anything, because you haven't been doing much of it in this thread.

 

[mimgrim]

Why does Mega Man look so ugly?

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

Why does Mega Man look so ugly?

Because Capcom hates Megaman and decided to spit in the face of fans who wanted him in a fighting game providing us with Megaman based off of the old NES box art.

 

[LancerStaff]

That's all I've been doing is nit-picking basically rofl. xD

I'm not arguing whether WD should or will come back. I don't care what happens to it. However I will defend it, and various other things, when incorrect statements are made on it.

What I'm trying to get at is that you are seriously misinformed on a lot of things you are talking about and don't truly understand a lot of the stuff you are talking about, hence the nit-picking.

Alright. Just trying to understand what you're trying to accomplish.

All you have been saying throughout this thread is "Sakurai said this..." and "Sakurai said that..." without as much as even providing a single link to where you quoted this information, instead, you just rampantly insisted you knew what he was thinking as if you are making this game yourself even. To be frank, you need to get off his **** and start proving some information. Back up your words instead of asking questions at the end of your statements.

Since you clearly choose to only read things you want to read despite the fact that I and many others have said why it isn't glitch, you bitterly reciprocate the idea because you don't like it. Wavedashing isn't a glitch, this is a glitch.

Please try to differentiate a slide caused by a byproduct of a physics engine from something that renders a game unplayable.

What you think doesn't mean anything, because you haven't been doing much of it in this thread.

I don't back things up because I point to the same exact articles every time.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-12-08-smash-bros-melee-was-too-difficult
Title says it all.
''Nintendo's classic GameCube scrapper Super Smash Bros. Melee was "too difficult", according to the game's creator, and any future title in the series will not be aimed at the same hardcore crowd.''

I'll back up or correct myself on any statement you point out. I've even admitted defeat in this thread.

I've said multiple times in this very topic that I don't care about Wavedashing. I've never done it, yes, but I don't hate it. As for me calling it a glitch, that's because there's no such thing as an 'exploit'. It's a term fanboys came up with to make their trick sound better. Either the mechanics are giving out an intended or unintended result, (and I mean ''Did Sakurai want this to happen?'', not the mechanics themselves ) and there is no between in my eyes. Only difference here is that Sakurai didn't have time to remove it after finding it. Do you really think he would of left it in if he knew it's eventual effect on the metagame?

Here's an honest question: When was Wavedashing discovered and actually put to use? I'll explain when I get my answer.

 

[Eight Melodies]

glitch(glĭch)
n.
1. A minor malfunction, mishap, or technical problem;

Wavedashing is not any of those 3. I never really ever cared for it myself, but it certainly isn't a glitch.

 

[mimgrim]

I've said multiple times in this very topic that I don't care about Wavedashing. I've never done it, yes, but I don't hate it. As for me calling it a glitch, that's because there's no such thing as an 'exploit'. It's a term fanboys came up with to make their trick sound better. Either the mechanics are giving out an intended or unintended result, (and I mean ''Did Sakurai want this to happen?'', not the mechanics themselves ) and there is no between in my eyes. Only difference here is that Sakurai didn't have time to remove it after finding it. Do you really think he would of left it in if he knew it's eventual effect on the metagame?

Wave Dashing is a corner case

A corner case (or pathological case) is a problem or situation that occurs only outside of normal operating parameters—specifically one that manifests itself when multiple environmental variables or conditions are simultaneously at extreme levels, even though each parameter is within the specified range for that parameter.

So I repeat, it is a corner case, a corner case of the physics engine to be exact.

Here's an honest question: When was Wavedashing discovered and actually put to use? I'll explain when I get my answer.

Most people believe it was April 2002 by Toadbanjoconker however I think it was actually discovered January 2002 by Ultimate Melee. Either way, it was discovered on the first year of release.

 

[KrustyKurt]

because people are lazy and dont want to put in work to get good at a game
imo technicality adds depth to the game.

 

[Jaedrik]

Wave Dashing is a corner case

So I repeat, it is a corner case, a corner case of the physics engine to be exact.

Extreme implies a standard, and certainly it is not a standard within the system itself, for 'extreme' is a subjective quality. So, exactly by whose standard are we measuring the wavedash against? Sakurai's?

 

[mimgrim]

Extreme implies a standard, and certainly it is not a standard within the system itself, for 'extreme' is a subjective quality. So, exactly by whose standard are we measuring the wavedash against? Sakurai's?

I would say the standard would be when you airdodge into the ground without doing it diagonally, you don't slide then. Which should mean you shouldn't slide across the ground when you airdodge diagonally into it.

I thought that was obvious. e_e

 

[Jaedrik]

I would say the standard would be when you airdodge into the ground without doing it diagonally, you don't slide then. Which should mean you shouldn't slide across the ground when you airdodge diagonally into it.

I thought that was obvious. e_e

Uh, no, like I said, 'extreme', in this case, is a subjective quality, and implies a standard, so I ask you again, whose standard are we using? If I may be so bold to suggest it is your standard?
Edit: Hey, look at me, the Catholic Subjectivist! Well, I'm dumb.
Anyways, yes, it may be obvious on a basic level, this is called intuition, but unless you can prove that it is objectively 'extreme' outside of the system (seeing as mathematics alone does not imply judgments of quality), then I claim it is not extreme.

 

[mimgrim]

Uh, no, like I said, 'extreme', in this case, is a subjective quality, and implies a standard, so I ask you again, whose standard are we using? If I may be so bold to suggest it is your standard?

If you refuse to see the painfully obvious then that isn't my problem.

It's obvious Wavedash isn't the standard seeing as it wasn't a intentional mechanic. Saying otherwise is just stubborn blindness.

But it obviously isn't a glitch. A glitch is something like what happens in Pandora's Tower at the final tower. Wavedashing doesn't fall under it.

An exploit is another good way to explain Wavedash but the person I originally replied to, but he refused to acknowledge an exploit as an actual thing despite it being an actual thing and having a official definition. The only other thing WD can fall under is a corner case.

 

[Jaedrik]

If you refuse to see the painfully obvious then that isn't my problem.

It's obvious Wavedash isn't the standard seeing as it wasn't a intentional mechanic. Saying otherwise is just stubborn blindness.

But it obviously isn't a glitch. A glitch is something like what happens in Pandora's Tower at the final tower. Wavedashing doesn't fall under it.

An exploit is another good way to explain Wavedash but the person I originally replied to, but he refused to acknowledge an exploit as an actual thing despite it being an actual thing and having a official definition. The only other thing WD can fall under is a corner case.

As for the first, I am offended sir! How about you back up your claims of intuition instead of attacking me? Please don't descend into ad-hominem, I thought we were gonna have a nice discussion
Too many times have I seen people turn away simply because they refused to explain things, but everything has. . . an underlying assumption to work off of, explain that to me, since I apparently don't understand what the word 'extreme' means. I tried to explain what I thought the underlying assumption of the word 'extreme' is.

As for the second, we have confirmation from Sakurai himself that he deliberately left the effect, thus it can be said he encountered a juncture of human action, the first course, which he accepted, would accept the effect and thus legitimize it as a valid means for his intention of the end goal he had in mind. Saying otherwise is to deny the laws of human action, or to suppose Sakurai's end goals were other than to create a good game! Or the, in my opinion, highly improbable viewpoint that he did not foresee it hampering the product of his game, and instead deliberated to use his time to fix other things! The reason we cannot assume that from the quote Sakurai delivered in Nintendo Power is because he was talking about his intentions for Brawl's development.

 

[mimgrim]

As for the second, we have confirmation from Sakurai himself that he deliberately left the effect, thus it can be said he encountered a juncture of human action, the first course, which he accepted, would accept the effect and thus legitimize it as a valid means for his intention of the end goal he had in mind. Saying otherwise is to deny the laws of human action, or to suppose Sakurai's end goals were other than to create a good game! Or the, in my opinion, highly improbable viewpoint that he did not foresee it hampering the product of his game, and instead deliberated to use his time to fix other things! The reason we cannot assume that from the quote Sakurai delivered in Nintendo Power is because he was talking about his intentions for Brawl's development.

That doesn't change it from being an unintentional mechanic. Whether it was left in on purpose or not, it intentions were unintentional still. That alone means it deviates from the standard. Tryiing to claim otherwise is just blind stubbornness.

You're just trying to complicate something that isn't complicated to begin with.

 

[Jaedrik]

That doesn't change it from being an unintentional mechanic. Whether it was left in on purpose or not, it intentions were unintentional still. That alone means it deviates from the standard. Tryiing to claim otherwise is just blind stubbornness.

You're just trying to complicate something that isn't complicated to begin with.

Wh-what? I think it's my turn to be incredulous, you literally just said that intending its existence doesn't mean that its existence is intended.
No, I'm really not trying to complicate anything, I genuinely believe all the things I have said, and it's really not complicated at all.
Will you not even extend me the courtesy of attempting to understand my argument?

 

[xandre]

you guys are driving me ****ing crazy.

i'll throw you a little sound bite from the world of literary scholarship: "authorial intention is irrelevant." anyone who has spent any time consuming art of any form--video games included--should probably come to this conclusion on his own, and it should certainly be a given to anyone experienced with creating art of his own (like sakurai). the point is this: a product grows gradually into something; it evolves in unexpected ways that are either allowed or not allowed to make it into the final product. an author or game designer doesn't just sit down one day and make a finalized list of every piece of his novel/game and fully realize exactly how each piece will fit with all the others before he even begins. indeed, much of the joy of creating something derives from the process of bringing pieces to life, sticking them in the formula that is the rest of the novel/game, seeing what crazy outputs occur, and deciding what outputs "work." it is a process of exploration and experimentation.

"so?" you ask. you can see from this perspective the imminence of unforeseen consequences. to put it simply, there really is no way to know all the consequences of introducing a mechanic (or even a tweak) into a system. just like introducing a new species to an ecosystem, all of the potential effects are simply beyond the purview of even a team of dedicated researchers, or in this case game testers and developers. you can mean to do one thing and cause 10 other things to happen. in fact, you might mean to remove some ill effect from one character and end up accidentally discovering an element that you will intentionally bestow on another character. definition of "intention" blurring yet? don't forget that at one point even forward smashes DIDN'T EXIST. someone had to come up with that for smash 64 for the first time. how did they do it? how did someone come up with bubble shields? with any element of 64? we cannot and never will have the level of access necessary to make any claims about just how every single little detail was conceived, so we cannot and never will have the level of access necessary to make any definitive claims about intention. you could even argue that the creators themselves can't definitively say whether they intended this bit or didn't intend that bit. why did sakurai have the thought that he wanted to put x element in the game? "it just came to him," you say? did he "intend" the thought? did he "intend" the preferences for gameplay that a lifetime of circumstance and experience have inculcated in him? had an employee been subtly suggesting to him for years that he do this or that in this or that way, which subconsciously influenced him to do something in a way that he might not otherwise have? and what do you know? authors say things like "the best part of my book was only sort of intentional" all the time. to say someone either "intended" or "didn't intend" something with "no in-between" is painfully ignorant, and betrays how little you know about how innumerable other aspects of how the world operates.

another related point: have you ever heard an author say something like "i just realized that the main character of my novel is gay"? it might seem like cryptic pageantry to you, but what they're actually saying is that the character that has gradually grown into something with a tangible identity, and as such that character might PUSH BACK AGAINST THE AUTHOR'S ORIGINAL DESIGN. if you write a thousand pages about a character, that character has become something and can't just do anything you want him to do anymore. harry potter can't just become an elf-rapist in book 6, even if rowling thought before she started book one that harry should definitely become an elf-rapist at some point. he just can't. if he does, no one would like the book. it would offend our sensibilities. likewise, if everything else in smash was the same but when someone got to 50% on their last stock they were automatically given a golden tennis racket that shot heat-seeking missiles that did a million% damage, no one would take the game seriously--and this would be true even if sakurai had been dreaming of putting that in a game for 20 years. similarly, if the story dictates to an author that a certain character must become a traitor, it would be a mistake for the author to not allow him to become that traitor for whatever original design / personal attachment she might have for/to him. if sakurai happened upon wavedashing and went through the trouble of striking it from the game JUST because it was an accident, he acted out of haste and petty spite, and made a terrible mistake--he should have at least considered the value of keeping such a dimension in the game for the sake of the game itself. the point is that a good artist will be open to the unexpected places his work-so-far will take the rest of his work, a bad artist will be obsessed with forcing something completely in line with the expectations with which he started. he will squish what was becoming a natural and beautiful creation into his stupid box. in literature, there are editors. they can say "don't do this." unfortunately, gamers with good taste aren't invited to eviscerate and save games before their release.

brawl was so intentionally and arbitrarily gimped into softcorehood that it doesn't really become an interesting or worthwhile point of discussion in this context. but for 4, i'd say this: my point is not that removing wavedashing (e.g.) will irrefutably be a case of the creator not letting his game be what it wants to be. my point is only that even if there were such a thing as purely intending or not intending something, the argument that he is indeed not letting the game be what it wants to be will always be available to those who want to make it. a lot of people like wavedashing because it is stylish, feels good, and allows them even more power to wield over an opponent. if a significant population of extremely talented and experienced gamers love wavedashing to death, then a significant population of extremely talented and experienced gamers love it to death. there really isn't anything beyond that you can say. end of discussion. "but sakurai didn't mean it." how in god's name could that matter? just imagine for one second that he did mean it. guess what? a significant population of extremely talented and experienced gamers would still love it to death. and if by contrast sakurai utterly loathes the fact that wavedashing exists, and he was going to take it out but was forced at gunpoint to leave it in? you guessed it: a significant population of extremely talented and experienced gamers would love it to death. in the end, that is arguably worth just as much his opinion. he is in charge, and his decisions are final, but that doesn't invalidate those who say "dude, it was better with this in" because they really feel that way. intention? really?

i half-intended and half-agree with this message.

is that an l-cancel from little mac when he fairs megaman?

 

[Empyrean]

you guys are driving me ****ing crazy.

i'll throw you a little sound bite from the world of literary scholarship: "authorial intention is irrelevant." anyone who has spent any time consuming art of any form--video games included--should probably come to this conclusion on his own, and it should certainly be a given to anyone experienced with creating art of his own (like sakurai). the point is this: a product grows gradually into something; it evolves in unexpected ways that are either allowed or not allowed to make it into the final product. an author or game designer doesn't just sit down one day and make a finalized list of every piece of his novel/game and fully realize exactly how each piece will fit with all the others before he even begins. indeed, much of the joy of creating something derives from the process of bringing pieces to life, sticking them in the formula that is the rest of the novel/game, seeing what crazy outputs occur, and deciding what outputs "work." it is a process of exploration and experimentation.

"so?" you ask. you can see from this perspective the imminence of unforeseen consequences. to put it simply, there really is no way to know all the consequences of introducing a mechanic (or even a tweak) into a system. just like introducing a new species to an ecosystem, all of the potential effects are simply beyond the purview of even a team of dedicated researchers, or in this case game testers and developers. you can mean to do one thing and cause 10 other things to happen. in fact, you might mean to remove some ill effect from one character and end up accidentally discovering an element that you will intentionally bestow on another character. definition of "intention" blurring yet? don't forget that at one point even forward smashes DIDN'T EXIST. someone had to come up with that for smash 64 for the first time. how did they do it? how did someone come up with bubble shields? with any element of 64? we cannot and never will have the level of access necessary to make any claims about just how every single little detail was conceived, so we cannot and never will have the level of access necessary to make any definitive claims about intention. you could even argue that the creators themselves can't definitively say whether they intended this bit or didn't intend that bit. why did sakurai have the thought that he wanted to put x element in the game? "it just came to him," you say? did he "intend" the thought? did he "intend" the preferences for gameplay that a lifetime of circumstance and experience have inculcated in him? had an employee been subtly suggesting to him for years that he do this or that in this or that way, which subconsciously influenced him to do something in a way that he might not otherwise have? and what do you know? authors say things like "the best part of my book was only sort of intentional" all the time. to say someone either "intended" or "didn't intend" something with "no in-between" is painfully ignorant, and betrays how little you know about how innumerable other aspects of the world operate.

another related point: have you ever heard an author say something like "i just realized that the main character of my novel is gay"? it might seem like cryptic pageantry to you, but what they're actually saying is that the character that has gradually grown into something with a tangible identity, and as such that character might PUSH BACK AGAINST THE AUTHOR'S ORIGINAL DESIGN. if you write a thousand pages about a character, that character has become something and can't just do anything you want him to do anymore. harry potter can't just become an elf-rapist in book 6, even if rowling thought before she started book one that harry should definitely become an elf-rapist at some point. he just can't. if he does, no one would like the book. it would offend our sensibilities. likewise, if everything else in smash was the same but when someone got to 50% on their last stock they were automatically given a golden tennis racket that shot heat-seeking missiles that did a million% damage, no one would take the game seriously--and this would be true even if sakurai had been dreaming of putting that in a game for 20 years. similarly, if the story dictates to an author that a certain character must become a traitor, it would be a mistake for the author to not allow him to become that traitor for whatever original design / personal attachment she might have for/to him. if sakurai happened upon wavedashing and went through the trouble of striking it from the game JUST because it was an accident, he is acted out of haste and petty spite, and made a terrible mistake--he should have at least considered the value of keeping such a dimension in the game for the sake of the game itself. the point is that a good artist will be open to the unexpected places his work-so-far will take the rest of his work, a bad artist will be obsessed with forcing something completely in line with the expectations with which he started. he will squish what was becoming a natural and beautiful creation into his stupid box. in literature, there are editors. they can say "don't do this." unfortunately, gamers with good taste aren't invited to eviscerate games and save games before their release.
brawl was so intentionally and arbitrarily gimped into softcorehood that it doesn't really become an interesting or worthwhile point of discussion in this context. but for 4, i'd say this: my point is not that removing wavedashing (e.g.) will irrefutably be a case of the creator not letting his game be what it wants to be. my point is only that even if there were such a thing as purely intending or not intending something, the argument that he is indeed not letting the game be what it wants to be will always be available to those who want to make it. a lot of people like wavedashing because it is stylish, feels good, and allows them even more power to wield over an opponent. if a significant population of extremely talented and experienced gamers love wavedashing to death, then a significant population of extremely talented and experienced gamers love it to death. there really isn't anything beyond that you can say. end of discussion. "but sakurai didn't mean it." how in god's name could that matter? just imagine for one second that he did mean it. guess what? a significant population of extremely talented and experienced gamers would still love it to death. and if by contrast sakurai utterly loathes the fact that wavedashing exists, and he was going to take it out but was forced at gunpoint to leave it in? you guessed it: a significant population of extremely talented and experienced gamers would love it to death. in the end, that is arguably worth just as much his opinion. he is in charge, and his decisions are final, but that doesn't exempt him from some people saying "dude, it was better with this in" because they really feel that way. intention? really?

i half-intended and half-agree with this message.

is that an l-cancel from little mac when he fairs megaman?

I wholeheartedly agree. However, please use capital letters at the start of your sentences, it makes reading long texts easier.

 

[Jaedrik]

you guys are driving me ****ing crazy.

i'll throw you a little sound bite from the world of literary scholarship: "authorial intention is irrelevant." anyone who has spent any time consuming art of any form--video games included--should probably come to this conclusion on his own, and it should certainly be a given to anyone experienced with creating art of his own (like sakurai). the point is this: a product grows gradually into something; it evolves in unexpected ways that are either allowed or not allowed to make it into the final product. an author or game designer doesn't just sit down one day and make a finalized list of every piece of his novel/game and fully realize exactly how each piece will fit with all the others before he even begins. indeed, much of the joy of creating something derives from the process of bringing pieces to life, sticking them in the formula that is the rest of the novel/game, seeing what crazy outputs occur, and deciding what outputs "work." it is a process of exploration and experimentation.

"so?" you ask. you can see from this perspective the imminence of unforeseen consequences. to put it simply, there really is no way to know all the consequences of introducing a mechanic (or even a tweak) into a system. just like introducing a new species to an ecosystem, all of the potential effects are simply beyond the purview of even a team of dedicated researchers, or in this case game testers and developers. you can mean to do one thing and cause 10 other things to happen. in fact, you might mean to remove some ill effect from one character and end up accidentally discovering an element that you will intentionally bestow on another character. definition of "intention" blurring yet? don't forget that at one point even forward smashes DIDN'T EXIST. someone had to come up with that for smash 64 for the first time. how did they do it? how did someone come up with bubble shields? with any element of 64? we cannot and never will have the level of access necessary to make any claims about just how every single little detail was conceived, so we cannot and never will have the level of access necessary to make any definitive claims about intention. you could even argue that the creators themselves can't definitively say whether they intended this bit or didn't intend that bit. why did sakurai have the thought that he wanted to put x element in the game? "it just came to him," you say? did he "intend" the thought? did he "intend" the preferences for gameplay that a lifetime of circumstance and experience have inculcated in him? had an employee been subtly suggesting to him for years that he do this or that in this or that way, which subconsciously influenced him to do something in a way that he might not otherwise have? and what do you know? authors say things like "the best part of my book was only sort of intentional" all the time. to say someone either "intended" or "didn't intend" something with "no in-between" is painfully ignorant, and betrays how little you know about how innumerable other aspects of the world operate.

another related point: have you ever heard an author say something like "i just realized that the main character of my novel is gay"? it might seem like cryptic pageantry to you, but what they're actually saying is that the character that has gradually grown into something with a tangible identity, and as such that character might PUSH BACK AGAINST THE AUTHOR'S ORIGINAL DESIGN. if you write a thousand pages about a character, that character has become something and can't just do anything you want him to do anymore. harry potter can't just become an elf-rapist in book 6, even if rowling thought before she started book one that harry should definitely become an elf-rapist at some point. he just can't. if he does, no one would like the book. it would offend our sensibilities. likewise, if everything else in smash was the same but when someone got to 50% on their last stock they were automatically given a golden tennis racket that shot heat-seeking missiles that did a million% damage, no one would take the game seriously--and this would be true even if sakurai had been dreaming of putting that in a game for 20 years. similarly, if the story dictates to an author that a certain character must become a traitor, it would be a mistake for the author to not allow him to become that traitor for whatever original design / personal attachment she might have for/to him. if sakurai happened upon wavedashing and went through the trouble of striking it from the game JUST because it was an accident, he is acted out of haste and petty spite, and made a terrible mistake--he should have at least considered the value of keeping such a dimension in the game for the sake of the game itself. the point is that a good artist will be open to the unexpected places his work-so-far will take the rest of his work, a bad artist will be obsessed with forcing something completely in line with the expectations with which he started. he will squish what was becoming a natural and beautiful creation into his stupid box. in literature, there are editors. they can say "don't do this." unfortunately, gamers with good taste aren't invited to eviscerate games and save games before their release.
brawl was so intentionally and arbitrarily gimped into softcorehood that it doesn't really become an interesting or worthwhile point of discussion in this context. but for 4, i'd say this: my point is not that removing wavedashing (e.g.) will irrefutably be a case of the creator not letting his game be what it wants to be. my point is only that even if there were such a thing as purely intending or not intending something, the argument that he is indeed not letting the game be what it wants to be will always be available to those who want to make it. a lot of people like wavedashing because it is stylish, feels good, and allows them even more power to wield over an opponent. if a significant population of extremely talented and experienced gamers love wavedashing to death, then a significant population of extremely talented and experienced gamers love it to death. there really isn't anything beyond that you can say. end of discussion. "but sakurai didn't mean it." how in god's name could that matter? just imagine for one second that he did mean it. guess what? a significant population of extremely talented and experienced gamers would still love it to death. and if by contrast sakurai utterly loathes the fact that wavedashing exists, and he was going to take it out but was forced at gunpoint to leave it in? you guessed it: a significant population of extremely talented and experienced gamers would love it to death. in the end, that is arguably worth just as much his opinion. he is in charge, and his decisions are final, but that doesn't invalidate those who say "dude, it was better with this in" because they really feel that way. intention? really?

i half-intended and half-agree with this message.

is that an l-cancel from little mac when he fairs megaman?

Holy guacamole, all of my yes.

 

[fabulouspants]

melee wasn't technically demanding. only fat idiots who've never played anything other than a moba would say that smh

 

[Stryker]

Started playing Brawl for a long long time, and when i found out about Melee and the competitive scene of smash (Thanks to the smash doc :3),
I switched to PM and never looked back.Brawl was great, but it did seem a little bare and I always wanted more from it. Specifically, more to concepts to learn. Spacing is great. Mind games are awesome. But moving up to Project M from Brawl literally felt like playing a sequel.

melee wasn't technically demanding. only fat idiots who've never played anything other than a moba would say that smh

I've also been playing LOL for the past 4 years. I think the MOBA scene is completely irrelevant to smash though.

Also, as a gamer, just because a game is a sequel does not mean it's superior. This is easily seen just in general with smash. How do you tell if a game is popular? Just ask if people still play it. Thats it.
If I like a game, I will play it. I may drop it for a few months, but in the end that individual game has always offered me something that I want to come back to.I will always pop in Super Mario World, and Donkey Kong Country because they are great games.
Do I pop in DKC 2 or 3? To be honest, no. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE BAD GAMES. I just don't like them for whatever reason, thus I do not play them. If I do not like a game, or another game provides that experience in a way I enjoy it more, then I will not play the game. It's really as simple as that.
Melee players don't play Brawl because melee fills that void better than brawl. The creator made the sequel a different game, not an extension or followup of the same game. This is not people not wanting to move on. (Do you really think people bought brawl saying "Oh man, this game is going to suck I can't wait to just play melee again) No! I'm sure the competitive melee players wanted to love brawl more than any casual player ever did.
They just couldn't. So they had to go back to the game they wanted brawl to be the sequel of.

Edited for spacing

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

you guys are driving me ****ing crazy.

i'll throw you a little sound bite from the world of literary scholarship: "authorial intention is irrelevant." anyone who has spent any time consuming art of any form--video games included--should probably come to this conclusion on his own, and it should certainly be a given to anyone experienced with creating art of his own (like sakurai). the point is this: a product grows gradually into something; it evolves in unexpected ways that are either allowed or not allowed to make it into the final product. an author or game designer doesn't just sit down one day and make a finalized list of every piece of his novel/game and fully realize exactly how each piece will fit with all the others before he even begins. indeed, much of the joy of creating something derives from the process of bringing pieces to life, sticking them in the formula that is the rest of the novel/game, seeing what crazy outputs occur, and deciding what outputs "work." it is a process of exploration and experimentation.

"so?" you ask. you can see from this perspective the imminence of unforeseen consequences. to put it simply, there really is no way to know all the consequences of introducing a mechanic (or even a tweak) into a system. just like introducing a new species to an ecosystem, all of the potential effects are simply beyond the purview of even a team of dedicated researchers, or in this case game testers and developers. you can mean to do one thing and cause 10 other things to happen. in fact, you might mean to remove some ill effect from one character and end up accidentally discovering an element that you will intentionally bestow on another character. definition of "intention" blurring yet? don't forget that at one point even forward smashes DIDN'T EXIST. someone had to come up with that for smash 64 for the first time. how did they do it? how did someone come up with bubble shields? with any element of 64? we cannot and never will have the level of access necessary to make any claims about just how every single little detail was conceived, so we cannot and never will have the level of access necessary to make any definitive claims about intention. you could even argue that the creators themselves can't definitively say whether they intended this bit or didn't intend that bit. why did sakurai have the thought that he wanted to put x element in the game? "it just came to him," you say? did he "intend" the thought? did he "intend" the preferences for gameplay that a lifetime of circumstance and experience have inculcated in him? had an employee been subtly suggesting to him for years that he do this or that in this or that way, which subconsciously influenced him to do something in a way that he might not otherwise have? and what do you know? authors say things like "the best part of my book was only sort of intentional" all the time. to say someone either "intended" or "didn't intend" something with "no in-between" is painfully ignorant, and betrays how little you know about how innumerable other aspects of the world operate.

another related point: have you ever heard an author say something like "i just realized that the main character of my novel is gay"? it might seem like cryptic pageantry to you, but what they're actually saying is that the character that has gradually grown into something with a tangible identity, and as such that character might PUSH BACK AGAINST THE AUTHOR'S ORIGINAL DESIGN. if you write a thousand pages about a character, that character has become something and can't just do anything you want him to do anymore. harry potter can't just become an elf-rapist in book 6, even if rowling thought before she started book one that harry should definitely become an elf-rapist at some point. he just can't. if he does, no one would like the book. it would offend our sensibilities. likewise, if everything else in smash was the same but when someone got to 50% on their last stock they were automatically given a golden tennis racket that shot heat-seeking missiles that did a million% damage, no one would take the game seriously--and this would be true even if sakurai had been dreaming of putting that in a game for 20 years. similarly, if the story dictates to an author that a certain character must become a traitor, it would be a mistake for the author to not allow him to become that traitor for whatever original design / personal attachment she might have for/to him. if sakurai happened upon wavedashing and went through the trouble of striking it from the game JUST because it was an accident, he is acted out of haste and petty spite, and made a terrible mistake--he should have at least considered the value of keeping such a dimension in the game for the sake of the game itself. the point is that a good artist will be open to the unexpected places his work-so-far will take the rest of his work, a bad artist will be obsessed with forcing something completely in line with the expectations with which he started. he will squish what was becoming a natural and beautiful creation into his stupid box. in literature, there are editors. they can say "don't do this." unfortunately, gamers with good taste aren't invited to eviscerate games and save games before their release.

brawl was so intentionally and arbitrarily gimped into softcorehood that it doesn't really become an interesting or worthwhile point of discussion in this context. but for 4, i'd say this: my point is not that removing wavedashing (e.g.) will irrefutably be a case of the creator not letting his game be what it wants to be. my point is only that even if there were such a thing as purely intending or not intending something, the argument that he is indeed not letting the game be what it wants to be will always be available to those who want to make it. a lot of people like wavedashing because it is stylish, feels good, and allows them even more power to wield over an opponent. if a significant population of extremely talented and experienced gamers love wavedashing to death, then a significant population of extremely talented and experienced gamers love it to death. there really isn't anything beyond that you can say. end of discussion. "but sakurai didn't mean it." how in god's name could that matter? just imagine for one second that he did mean it. guess what? a significant population of extremely talented and experienced gamers would still love it to death. and if by contrast sakurai utterly loathes the fact that wavedashing exists, and he was going to take it out but was forced at gunpoint to leave it in? you guessed it: a significant population of extremely talented and experienced gamers would love it to death. in the end, that is arguably worth just as much his opinion. he is in charge, and his decisions are final, but that doesn't invalidate those who say "dude, it was better with this in" because they really feel that way. intention? really?

i half-intended and half-agree with this message.

is that an l-cancel from little mac when he fairs megaman?

Wow. I want to **** your words. Real ****.

 

[xandre]

Melee players don't play Brawl because melee fills that void better than brawl. The creator made the sequel a different game, not an extension or followup of the same game. This is not people not wanting to move on. (Do you really think people bought brawl saying "Oh man, this game is going to suck I can't wait to just play melee again)No! I'm sure the competitive melee players wanted to love brawl more than any casual player ever did.
They just couldn't.

yes. the "move on, stop being afraid of change" bit is inane.

 

[nat pagle]

I disagree with having L-cancelling in the new Smash (wavedashing is never coming back). There is not a single place where missing an L-cancel will benefit you. Either you hit it or you are at the disadvantage. It is solely there to artificially increase difficulty and require another button press. Some argue this adds "depth", but it only adds depth in the sense that "you must hit this or you'll get punished, no questions asked" department. You either make them miss the L-cancel, get an easier punish/approach, whatever. Never does a missed L-cancel benefit the one who missed it.

Nothing else in your moveset will put you at the guaranteed disadvantage if you opt not to use it. All strategies that are pro L-cancel simply stem from requiring it or being punished for it. I cannot think of a scenario where having much more landing lag benefits you.

Essentially, L-cancelling is somewhat likened to requiring an extra button press following every aerial. If you hit that button, you will halve ending lag where it's not able to hurt the opponent but you are still vulnerable. If you don't, you keep the lag. This can be applied to almost any move with ending lag.

You can add an extra input requirement to almost every move just to give the game artificial "depth". IMO that's just a cop out to make the game harder without actually having to add anything, just adding a technique who's only alternative is disadvantage.

 

[tarextherex]

No one educated thinks that tech skill, in and of itself, is a bad thing. Hell, pressing buttons on a controller is a tech skill, and a non-trivial one at that (try handing twin sticks to someone who has never gamed before, and see how far they get in any game).

What people have a problem with is tech skill gone crazy, tech skill implemented for no other reason that to have tech skill. And tech skill for the sake of it is kind of antithetical to Smash, a series which prides itself on accessibility and simplicity.

Wavedashing wasn't a problem, as a concept and a method of movement. Yes, it's true that wavedashing added strategic complexity to the game, and had it done that in a simple, intuitive way, everyone would have loved it. But, it wasn't simple and intuitive. To perform it, you had to do actions COMPLETELY unrelated to the desired result; explain to me how it makes sense to dash forward by first jumping straight up, then air dashing into the ground. It made no sense, as a set of actions, and therefore was tech skill for no reason.

L-cancelling was the same thing. There was literally no situation in existence where you would consciously choose increased aerial landing lag. None. But, in order to halve the lag, you had to make an arbitrary and unrelated action upon landing (shielding). All that L-cancelling served to do was increase the number of inputs a player was required to do in order to excel at the game. It was an arbitrary APM increase.

And, this isn't Starcraft, nor is it Ultimate Marvel.

If wavedashing could be implemented in a simple, intuitive way, like double-tapping a direction, then it would be a fine addition to Smash's existing movement mechanics. There would be NO reason to dislike it, strategically or mechanically. But, until that happens, yes, I think it's perfectly rational in the context of Smash to dislike arbitrary and unintuitive tech skill for the sake of having tech skill barriers to entry.

That. @wavedashing I don't think it's even that necessary for smash, in marvel it's natural due to the nature of the game, you'd want to have your movement down so you can dodge all hidden missiles and stuff, plus it's only one screen, there's no platforms or ledges or whatnot. In smash you already have much more that you can do movement-wise than in traditional fighters. I think it's better to have unique character-specific advanced movement options for each character rather than just wavedashes which depend on traction. Stuff like using b reversals, falco side b being useful, peach's float, little mac with that speed and dodges, etc. That's why I don't think no wavedashing in smash is a big deal, smash as a fighter already has a bunch of other stuff to compensate for it. Plus it's funny because most people who advocate wavedashing are bandwagoners who don't even use it correctly in-game, you better start knowing how to play without it than trying too hard to be flashy in-game. Those same people blindly throw the lcancel argument as well when that is a joke, removing it was actually "more competitive" because you still had aerials autocanceling in brawl, so you had to have precise knowledge on timing/frames to use autocanceling for your advantage, rather than simply pressing a button on landing because you knew that, now that is an unnecessary barrier. One of the reasons why azen was that dominant in his prime, no one else knew

 

[Stryker]

And I'm on art school and doing pretty good...coincidentally, let me make an example.
At first, painting with brushes and such and mixing paint makes you struggle a lot because it's just very hard, but when you fail a lot of times and finally you make something that looks pretty epic, you feel good about yourself because you made it through a challenge with practice. And you can only start experimenting with your own ideas and imagination when you stop worrying about the painting technique because you've mastered it. But on Melee and most fighting games, there's no "At the end I made a good painting". You never achieve anything by getting good.

I wanted to comment on this, as I also went to art school, and as you basically talk about getting what you want out of smash with this.

At first, fighting in smash with l cancels and such and wave dashing makes you struggle a lot because it's very hard, but when you fail a lot of times and finally you combo someone that looks pretty epic, you feel good about yourself because you made it through a challenge with practice. And you can only start experimenting with your own ideas and imagination when you stop worry about the Advanced techniques because you've mastered them.

Spacing is your canvas, you character is your brush.
If you don't blend your colours properly, then you don't get a smooth gradient.
If you don't L-cancel your Air attacks proper, you don't get a smooth combo.
If you don't know how to dagger stroke with a brush, you won't be able to create an art piece with that look.
If you don't know how to wave dash, you aren't going to be able to connect combos with wave dashing.

But maybe just maybe there is something deeper here
"But on Melee and most fighting games, there's no "At the end I made "a good painting"". You never achieve anything by getting good"
You're saying that you get no reward from playing smash? (This is kind of a legit question.)
If you are comparing a good painting to smash, you probably have to compare something like M2K level play to being the Mona lisa/"a good painting".
What makes M2K's painting's beautiful?
To me, the thing that makes smash hype/amazing/beautiful is the combos. Being able to pull of epic or cool or creative looking combos is one of my favourite parts of this game.
Just as I'm sure creating epic, cool or creative looking art is a passion for you when it comes to art.
However, you still cannot expect to paint the mona lisa if you can't blend colours.
And you can't expect to be able to have an M2K combo game without using the necessary tech.

But you don't have to!
To bring this all back around though, no one expects you to be a world class painter before you get into painting as a career. Which is great, because you don't need to be world class painter to paint beautiful art.
The same can be said for smash. No one will expect you to Lcancel perfectly, wavedash perfectly, and tech perfectly every time. You can still create things that look amazing even if you don't know all the advanced techniques. You can still make a Smash Painting that looks just as badass as M2K's. (Or almost). But man, picking up those advanced techniques will make it waaaay easier.

But maybe you're smash painting is different. Maybe to you, an amazing game of smash isn't landing an amazing combo, or scoring an awesome kill. If thats the case, then practicing wave dashing and L-canceling is probably useless to you. It's all about what your end goal of a good painting is.

 

[D-idara]

I wanted to comment on this, as I also went to art school, and as you basically talk about getting what you want out of smash with this.

At first, fighting in smash with l cancels and such and wave dashing makes you struggle a lot because it's very hard, but when you fail a lot of times and finally you combo someone that looks pretty epic, you feel good about yourself because you made it through a challenge with practice. And you can only start experimenting with your own ideas and imagination when you stop worry about the Advanced techniques because you've mastered them.

Spacing is your canvas, you character is your brush.
If you don't blend your colours properly, then you don't get a smooth gradient.
If you don't L-cancel your Air attacks proper, you don't get a smooth combo.
If you don't know how to dagger stroke with a brush, you won't be able to create an art piece with that look.
If you don't know how to wave dash, you aren't going to be able to connect combos with wave dashing.

But maybe just maybe there is something deeper here
"But on Melee and most fighting games, there's no "At the end I made "a good painting"". You never achieve anything by getting good"
You're saying that you get no reward from playing smash? (This is kind of a legit question.)
If you are comparing a good painting to smash, you probably have to compare something like M2K level play to being the Mona lisa/"a good painting".
What makes M2K's painting's beautiful?
To me, the thing that makes smash hype/amazing/beautiful is the combos. Being able to pull of epic or cool or creative looking combos is one of my favourite parts of this game.
Just as I'm sure creating epic, cool or creative looking art is a passion for you when it comes to art.
However, you still cannot expect to paint the mona lisa if you can't blend colours.
And you can't expect to be able to have an M2K combo game without using the necessary tech.

But you don't have to!
To bring this all back around though, no one expects you to be a world class painter before you get into painting as a career. Which is great, because you don't need to be world class painter to paint beautiful art.
The same can be said for smash. No one will expect you to Lcancel perfectly, wavedash perfectly, and tech perfectly every time. You can still create things that look amazing even if you don't know all the advanced techniques. You can still make a Smash Painting that looks just as badass as M2K's. (Or almost). But man, picking up those advanced techniques will make it waaaay easier.

But maybe you're smash painting is different. Maybe to you, an amazing game of smash isn't landing an amazing combo, or scoring an awesome kill. If thats the case, then practicing wave dashing and L-canceling is probably useless to you. It's all about what your end goal of a good painting is.

That's actually a very sound argument, so you're saying that if my 'perfect painting' of Smash is just having fun with items and crazy stages and becoming good inside of that, it's still OK?

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

Wow so many artist here. I'm an artist too. Couldn't major in it; money isn't the best in that field, so I just majored in business with a marketing focus so I can have some flexibility and have art as a secondary approach. Everyone needs business and economist so art will be my nich--damn I'm just tellin' all my business. Anyway, yeah, may upload some pictures some day.





Tech skill rules.

 

[pitthekit]

That's actually a very sound argument, so you're saying that if my 'perfect painting' of Smash is just having fun with items and crazy stages and becoming good inside of that, it's still OK?

Yes... You better make a damn good item combo video.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

Yes... You better make a damn good item combo video.

That actually have some in Melee.

 

[Stryker]

That's actually a very sound argument, so you're saying that if my 'perfect painting' of Smash is just having fun with items and crazy stages and becoming good inside of that, it's still OK?

So interestingly enough, I'm going to say yes and no here. But that's only because of your own definition.
I would say that what you described would be just one of your normal "smash paintings"

Expand upon the part where you say "Becoming good inside of that" because there may be some cool gold here.

For instance, lets say you are playing Brawl.
You and a nameless friend are playing with just the two of you and you random Shadow Moses (Banned stage) with items on high.
If you are looking at "becoming good inside of [items and crazy stages]"
You're perfect painting would probably be something like... surviving getting hit at 250% because you wall tech on the silly walls that the stage has and then catch a pokeball that was thrown at you, killing your opponent with the beast within.

If you are trying to become good, then your perfect painting has you playing perfectly.
If you are trying to have fun then your perfect painting has you having fun.
(One just takes a lot less practice )

 

[LancerStaff]

Er, sorry for taking so long. My computer got messed up and I didn't have anything I wanted to type out walls of text with.

Wave Dashing is a corner case



So I repeat, it is a corner case, a corner case of the physics engine to be exact.



Most people believe it was April 2002 by Toadbanjoconker however I think it was actually discovered January 2002 by Ultimate Melee. Either way, it was discovered on the first year of release.

I've already explained I don't believe in corner-cases and such nonsense. I'm not budging off of this. Was it 100% intentional, yes or no? No? Glitch.

Now I recall somebody hating on my 'comparison' to Kirby Air Ride, when it wasn't a comparison. It is solid proof that Sakurai thinks that complex things have no place in his games, SSB or otherwise. The man made a racing game played with one button, removed the more complex things from Melee to Brawl and he believes in supporting the silent majority over the volcal minority, but still throws them a few bones. It's completely unreasonable to believe something like Wavedashing would end up in SSB4, for very long, atleast.

you guys are driving me ****ing crazy.

i'll throw you a little sound bite from the world of literary scholarship: "authorial intention is irrelevant." anyone who has spent any time consuming art of any form--video games included--should probably come to this conclusion on his own, and it should certainly be a given to anyone experienced with creating art of his own (like sakurai). the point is this: a product grows gradually into something; it evolves in unexpected ways that are either allowed or not allowed to make it into the final product. an author or game designer doesn't just sit down one day and make a finalized list of every piece of his novel/game and fully realize exactly how each piece will fit with all the others before he even begins. indeed, much of the joy of creating something derives from the process of bringing pieces to life, sticking them in the formula that is the rest of the novel/game, seeing what crazy outputs occur, and deciding what outputs "work." it is a process of exploration and experimentation.

"so?" you ask. you can see from this perspective the imminence of unforeseen consequences. to put it simply, there really is no way to know all the consequences of introducing a mechanic (or even a tweak) into a system. just like introducing a new species to an ecosystem, all of the potential effects are simply beyond the purview of even a team of dedicated researchers, or in this case game testers and developers. you can mean to do one thing and cause 10 other things to happen. in fact, you might mean to remove some ill effect from one character and end up accidentally discovering an element that you will intentionally bestow on another character. definition of "intention" blurring yet? don't forget that at one point even forward smashes DIDN'T EXIST. someone had to come up with that for smash 64 for the first time. how did they do it? how did someone come up with bubble shields? with any element of 64? we cannot and never will have the level of access necessary to make any claims about just how every single little detail was conceived, so we cannot and never will have the level of access necessary to make any definitive claims about intention. you could even argue that the creators themselves can't definitively say whether they intended this bit or didn't intend that bit. why did sakurai have the thought that he wanted to put x element in the game? "it just came to him," you say? did he "intend" the thought? did he "intend" the preferences for gameplay that a lifetime of circumstance and experience have inculcated in him? had an employee been subtly suggesting to him for years that he do this or that in this or that way, which subconsciously influenced him to do something in a way that he might not otherwise have? and what do you know? authors say things like "the best part of my book was only sort of intentional" all the time. to say someone either "intended" or "didn't intend" something with "no in-between" is painfully ignorant, and betrays how little you know about how innumerable other aspects of how the world operates.

another related point: have you ever heard an author say something like "i just realized that the main character of my novel is gay"? it might seem like cryptic pageantry to you, but what they're actually saying is that the character that has gradually grown into something with a tangible identity, and as such that character might PUSH BACK AGAINST THE AUTHOR'S ORIGINAL DESIGN. if you write a thousand pages about a character, that character has become something and can't just do anything you want him to do anymore. harry potter can't just become an elf-rapist in book 6, even if rowling thought before she started book one that harry should definitely become an elf-rapist at some point. he just can't. if he does, no one would like the book. it would offend our sensibilities. likewise, if everything else in smash was the same but when someone got to 50% on their last stock they were automatically given a golden tennis racket that shot heat-seeking missiles that did a million% damage, no one would take the game seriously--and this would be true even if sakurai had been dreaming of putting that in a game for 20 years. similarly, if the story dictates to an author that a certain character must become a traitor, it would be a mistake for the author to not allow him to become that traitor for whatever original design / personal attachment she might have for/to him. if sakurai happened upon wavedashing and went through the trouble of striking it from the game JUST because it was an accident, he acted out of haste and petty spite, and made a terrible mistake--he should have at least considered the value of keeping such a dimension in the game for the sake of the game itself. the point is that a good artist will be open to the unexpected places his work-so-far will take the rest of his work, a bad artist will be obsessed with forcing something completely in line with the expectations with which he started. he will squish what was becoming a natural and beautiful creation into his stupid box. in literature, there are editors. they can say "don't do this." unfortunately, gamers with good taste aren't invited to eviscerate and save games before their release.

brawl was so intentionally and arbitrarily gimped into softcorehood that it doesn't really become an interesting or worthwhile point of discussion in this context. but for 4, i'd say this: my point is not that removing wavedashing (e.g.) will irrefutably be a case of the creator not letting his game be what it wants to be. my point is only that even if there were such a thing as purely intending or not intending something, the argument that he is indeed not letting the game be what it wants to be will always be available to those who want to make it. a lot of people like wavedashing because it is stylish, feels good, and allows them even more power to wield over an opponent. if a significant population of extremely talented and experienced gamers love wavedashing to death, then a significant population of extremely talented and experienced gamers love it to death. there really isn't anything beyond that you can say. end of discussion. "but sakurai didn't mean it." how in god's name could that matter? just imagine for one second that he did mean it. guess what? a significant population of extremely talented and experienced gamers would still love it to death. and if by contrast sakurai utterly loathes the fact that wavedashing exists, and he was going to take it out but was forced at gunpoint to leave it in? you guessed it: a significant population of extremely talented and experienced gamers would love it to death. in the end, that is arguably worth just as much his opinion. he is in charge, and his decisions are final, but that doesn't invalidate those who say "dude, it was better with this in" because they really feel that way. intention? really?

i half-intended and half-agree with this message.

is that an l-cancel from little mac when he fairs megaman?

I don't care if they intentionally came up with X. Did the authors intend to put in X thing when they did? What was X's intended effect? An author's perception of his art can change. When it comes to art, only right answers come from the artist while he's making it. He can make his art whatever he wants. If it goes against what the minority (or majority) thinks is right, it's his decision to choose what really is right. When it's complete and can no-longer be fixed, he can then deem things wrong.

So essentially, Wavedashing and no Wavedashing are right, as long as he intentionally puts them in and then he can flip-flop later. If you're going to try and make the 'intentional' thing vague, keep your opinions out of the argument. After all, art is in the eye of the beholder.