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

[Jaedrik]

If we were actually willing, but we're not, we want a competitive game where skill is earned through progression.

fire, I don't think that works for me because I hate Street Fighter with the passion of a thousand burning suns. The argument comes "Why can't I just start getting good at the game already?" You shouldn't have to learn something just to start getting good. And to learn things like wavedash (Or how to Shoryuken, for that matter) takea days or even weeks just to get it right. Especially when you go in with a mindset like mine, all techs are unbelievably hard and their only purpose is to keep newer players from becoming good. How do you even do the Z motion of the dragon punch!?

I'm gonna make an example of why I don't disagree with all kinds of technical skill, of course there needs to be some sort of input gap between good players and bad players, but the way Street Fighter and Melee do it is the wrong way to do it. Technical skill shouldn't be called a technical barrier, it should work more like a technical slope.

I'm gonna use Champion's Road from Super Mario 3D World as an example, that level is TOUGH, it challenges all the platforming skills you've learned up to that point and the level design forces you to learn some new tricks, but since the level's divided in segments, there's always a feeling of instant gratification when you achieve something, like you've thwarted a challenge. Fighting games with input barriers don't do that, because they throw a bunch of annoying techs at you all at once and expect you to learn them on your own right, without any feeling of gratification when you actually manage to do them. The bottom line, if you don't keep the players entertained, they're not going to keep playing anytime soon. When gratification comes after a long string of 'learning' and 'practicing', most people just don't want to suffer and struggle all the way through just so they can get beaten into a pulp by a "better" player.

Maybe if there some challenges in-game that required those advanced techniques, or maybe the game having little tutorial sections with thorough explanations of them and the way they should be used...then I'd be OK with advanced techs, but figuring out EVERYTHING on your own and then having to actually start getting good just isn't fun.

And JediLink, yes, learning should be extremely easy, getting good's the hard part.

Your entitlement astounds me. Sometimes, work is require to be good. If you want a game that levels the playing field for you and has a minimal learning curve, go play Tic-Tac-Toe. (I honestly couldn't think of any other examples.) To say you do not like Street Fighter shows your unwillingness to change your mind, so I urge you to instead look at the argument as analogical, as it is, not the superficial detail of the named game "Street Fighter". Replace "Street Fighter" with generic game x, and all the mumbo jumbo with random terms, and it will still make sense, SF is merely used as a point of reference, don't let that bog you down from seeing the argument for what it truly is.

Both execution and application are one in the same. What is execution? The application of one's abilities to manipulate the controls of a given ruleset to a desired outcome. Pressing buttons is execution, using ones ability to move their fingers to manipulate an input permutation into the given [controller] to a desired effect on the screen. This can be applied to a higher level. What is winning a game but execution? Using one's ability to perceive the changing environing factors of the opponent's control, and adjust the inputs of lower ordered executions to suite the higher ordered execution of spacing, zoning, comboing and so forth, which are in turn applied to the highest ordered execution: winning the game.
. . . Which then many be applied to higher ordered executions which turn out to show the motivations and the desires of the individual on a more noble scale, like what they want to do with their life etc., but that's a whole 'nother discussion I suppose.
So to say that one should be easy and the other should be hard is absolutely ridiculous as you say, "Learning should be extremely easy, getting [good should be] the hard part." You contradict yourself.

You pose "Why can't I just start getting good at the game already?" as a rhetorical question, but I have the answer. One who does not get better is simply undedicated. I refuse to accept the supposition that there is anything too difficult for the human will. There are no two ways about it, and there is no other alternative as all actions imply judgments of value between two or more courses, and one is committed the other is left aside, it's not an insult: it's a principle and law of human action just as the laws of execution and application beforehand. To say that others must bow to your whims and play on the same level as you, either explicitly, or here as you have done, implicitly, is arrogant, and I hope you realize this. Heck, a bunch of people tried to get me into SF because they thought I'd be good at it. I politely refused, I did not want to dedicate myself to learning all that stuff, and I did not think I would be good at it.

Learning curves are misappropriated in fighting games, and Mario games always have near perfect learning curves, the comparison is unfair. Fighting games are geared towards "do or die", that is not to say we cannot change it, but I would hesitate to say that it would be easy or that it would be a fighting game afterwards. Also, the very fact that you use the phrase "Instant Gratification" in a positive light disgusts me.

As for tutorials, we have many excellent fan-made tutorials all over the internet, the fact that one does not have the dedication to search them out and acquire appropriate feedback on their execution is telling. Further, there is no such thing as a hand-holding tutorial, it's a contradiction in terms as a tutorial is designed to teach while another is designed as an artificial prop of player skill, hence we use the terms 'leveling the playing field' and 'welfare' and 'low skill ceiling'. How well the tutorial teaches is another story altogether. Heck, Project: Melee has done almost exactly as you should want: it provides a feedback mechanism when one appropriately executes an L-cancel (flashes white), what more could you ask for? Well, of course that would be what you want, but don't take that as me being snark snark jerkface haha at you, I want you to see that your argument from degrees does not work. The fact that games don't have explicit hand-holding tutorials or masterfully designed and expert learning curves may be part to developer ignorance. The entire metagame cannot and will not be worked out by the time a game is released, it allows for discovery and adventure, and I'd say those are more noble than so-called equality. In some cases, a tutorial wouldn't cut it either. Sometimes no matter how well you teach, bad won't change, but I admit those cases are exceedingly rare. I just remembered, Street Fighter 4 HAS TUTORIALS! A LOT OF THEM! I, who am bad at games, found them easy! Why do you overlook this fact?

Besides, who are you to arbitrarily decide when learning ends and getting good begins? Are they not one in the same? If so, you contradict yourself by saying it should be both hard and easy. Tell me, what makes an execution easy enough? I cannot hold them to your standard, don't make me. It's a subjective notion that reflects one thing and one thing only: the dedication of the player. Further, if you supply the proper design for a more simplified input for advanced techniques, then I commend you and eagerly would promote your ideas, but it entails reducing all types of skill required to have a desired affect, and such is very difficult for every designer ever after a certain point.

Look, I like equality, but you are saying that games should be perfectly designed from the get-go with masterful learning curves, which is nigh impossible, and that all tech skill must be made easy, to which I would say that at some point it becomes impractical or impossible to improve it further without making sacrifices in other realms.

 

[ThomasTheTrain]

I am too lazy to do multiple quotes on a phone so..

@the man comparing brawl to Street fighter four that's an awful comparison. Melee has a zoning game. And for the technically challenged jiggly puff and peech are clear choices of characters that play the zoning game as well as are pretty straight forward tech-wise. As for brawl to ssf that's silly since brawl is a platform fighting game. Has stuff like land mines banana's etc. And while mediocre players probably never notice it but good DI in brawl messes up hitstun and helpless timing horribly. SSF does balance zoning decently, however it has hit stun and combo's where as brawl basically had little. And metaknight is good because he's basicallyas close to a melee character as there is in that game .

As fir the topic of competitiveness. Super Mario world isn't competitive.. it's the text book example of a casual game. And super smash brothers melee is about the lowest *point* where a game has easy tech and game knowledge while still being competitive. All the top "competitive" games that were successful have required way more than smash. For example: Dota, starcraft, quake, cs, age of empires (super oldschool) street fighter, marvel vs capcom, counter strike, halo 2(double shots were 50 times more unnatural than wave dashes) and league of legends. And of that list the most successful are actually the one's with tons of glitches and player/engine innovation. Those being Dota, marvel vs capcom, sc2, LoL, and quake .

Usually the games that try to mainstream a simple competitive game are the ones that fail. Tf2 ( I like 6v6 but it isn't anything compared to the other games listed above) CoD, tribes, smite, shootmania, any of the countless RTS's that failed where SC2 thrived. I can't even think of a fighting game that was simplified while trying to make it competitive, brawl was simplified but it definitely wasn't made for competition.

 

[pitthekit]

Your entitlement astounds me. Sometimes, work is require to be good. If you want a game that levels the playing field for you and has a minimal learning curve, go play Tic-Tac-Toe. (I honestly couldn't think of any other examples.) To say you do not like Street Fighter shows your unwillingness to change your mind, so I urge you to instead look at the argument as analogical, as it is, not the superficial detail of the named game "Street Fighter". Replace "Street Fighter" with generic game x, and all the mumbo jumbo with random terms, and it will still make sense, SF is merely used as a point of reference, don't let that bog you down from seeing the argument for what it truly is.

Both execution and application are one in the same. What is execution? The application of one's abilities to manipulate the controls of a given ruleset to a desired outcome. Pressing buttons is execution, using ones ability to move their fingers to manipulate an input permutation into the given [controller] to a desired effect on the screen. This can be applied to a higher level. What is winning a game but execution? Using one's ability to perceive the changing environing factors of the opponent's control, and adjust the inputs of lower ordered executions to suite the higher ordered execution of spacing, zoning, comboing and so forth, which are in turn applied to the highest ordered execution: winning the game.
. . . Which then many be applied to higher ordered executions which turn out to show the motivations and the desires of the individual on a more noble scale, like what they want to do with their life etc., but that's a whole 'nother discussion I suppose.
So to say that one should be easy and the other should be hard is absolutely ridiculous as you say, "Learning should be extremely easy, getting [good should be] the hard part." You contradict yourself.

You pose "Why can't I just start getting good at the game already?" as a rhetorical question, but I have the answer. One who does not get better is simply undedicated. I refuse to accept the supposition that there is anything too difficult for the human will. There are no two ways about it, and there is no other alternative as all actions imply judgments of value between two or more courses, and one is committed the other is left aside, it's not an insult: it's a principle and law of human action just as the laws of execution and application beforehand. To say that others must bow to your whims and play on the same level as you, either explicitly, or here as you have done, implicitly, is arrogant, and I hope you realize this. Heck, a bunch of people tried to get me into SF because they thought I'd be good at it. I politely refused, I did not want to dedicate myself to learning all that stuff, and I did not think I would be good at it.

Learning curves are misappropriated in fighting games, and Mario games always have near perfect learning curves. Fighting games are geared towards "do or die", that is not to say we cannot change it, but I would hesitate to say that it would be easy or that it would be a fighting game afterwards. Also, the very fact that you use the phrase "Instant Gratification" in a positive light disgusts me.

As for tutorials, we have many excellent fan-made tutorials all over the internet, the fact that one does not have the dedication to search them out and acquire appropriate feedback on their execution is telling. Further, there is no such thing as a hand-holding tutorial, it's a contradiction in terms as a tutorial is designed to teach while another is designed as an artificial prop of player skill, hence we use the terms 'leveling the playing field' and 'welfare' and 'low skill ceiling'. How well the tutorial teaches is another story altogether. Heck, Project: Melee has done almost exactly as you should want: it provides a feedback mechanism when one appropriately executes an L-cancel (flashes white), what more could you ask for? Well, of course that would be what you want, but don't take that as me being snark snark jerkface haha at you, I want you to see that your argument from degrees does not work. The fact that games don't have explicit hand-holding tutorials or masterfully designed and expert learning curves may be part to developer ignorance. The entire metagame cannot and will not be worked out by the time a game is released, it allows for discovery and adventure, and I'd say those are more noble than so-called equality. In some cases, a tutorial wouldn't cut it either. Sometimes no matter how well you teach, bad won't change, but I admit those cases are exceedingly rare. I just remembered, Street Fighter 4 HAS TUTORIALS! A LOT OF THEM! I, who am bad at games, found them easy! Why do you overlook this fact?

Besides, who are you to arbitrarily decide when learning ends and getting good begins? Are they not one in the same? If so, you contradict yourself by saying it should be both hard and easy. Tell me, what makes an execution easy enough? I cannot hold them to your standard, don't make me. It's a subjective notion that reflects one thing and one thing only: the dedication of the player. Further, if you supply the proper design for a more simplified input for advanced techniques, then I commend you and eagerly would promote your ideas, but it entails reducing all types of skill required to have a desired affect, and such is very difficult for every designer ever after a certain point.

Look, I like equality, but you are saying that games should be perfectly designed from the get-go with masterful learning curves, which is nigh impossible, and that all tech skill must be made easy, to which I would say that at some point it becomes impractical or impossible to improve it further without making sacrifices in other realms.

Finally d-idara gets called out! If he continues to hate on tech skill and competitive players, I will just put him on ignore.

 

[guedes the brawler]

You're jumping to some quick presumptions there.
This problem doesn't make sense to me. This is smash, since when is anything in it made of sense. Seeming like a odd way to be implemented should not be a valid argument.

While I agree characters like Peach who barely even have a Wavdash need a better one, a lot of it has to do with traction. It can be argued that where Luigi and ICs have great Wavedashes, they have horrible Dash Dances. So it kinda evens out to an extent in that regard, slightly anyway.

Try to transfer the Wavedash's input to Double Jumping, for example. See, it's not about "Wavedashing makes no sense", it's the input. In order to do a dash technique, why should i jump and dodge? i know that this comes from the fact that it was not really intended to happen but... compare with the video i posted (you might have quoted the first version of my post... re posted it with a video on how Wavedashing is done on MvC.).

 

[mimgrim]

Try to transfer the Wavedash's input to Double Jumping, for example. See, it's not about "Wavedashing makes no sense", it's the input. In order to do a dash technique, why should i jump and dodge? i know that this comes from the fact that it was not really intended to happen but... compare with the video i posted (you might have quoted the first version of my post... re posted it with a video on how Wavedashing is done on MvC.).

Despite the fact that it has dash in its name, it's more of a slide then a dash. Lemme see if I can make it have a semblance of sense.

So WD is done through Air Dodging into the ground. So this jumping and air dodging is how the characters gain momentum to slide across the ground, but it is also affected by traction. So a character with lower traction will slide along further then a character with higher traction. So the jumping and air dodge into ground is the whole momentum starter.

 

[D-idara]

Your entitlement astounds me. Sometimes, work is require to be good. If you want a game that levels the playing field for you and has a minimal learning curve, go play Tic-Tac-Toe. (I honestly couldn't think of any other examples.) To say you do not like Street Fighter shows your unwillingness to change your mind, so I urge you to instead look at the argument as analogical, as it is, not the superficial detail of the named game "Street Fighter". Replace "Street Fighter" with generic game x, and all the mumbo jumbo with random terms, and it will still make sense, SF is merely used as a point of reference, don't let that bog you down from seeing the argument for what it truly is.

Both execution and application are one in the same. What is execution? The application of one's abilities to manipulate the controls of a given ruleset to a desired outcome. Pressing buttons is execution, using ones ability to move their fingers to manipulate an input permutation into the given [controller] to a desired effect on the screen. This can be applied to a higher level. What is winning a game but execution? Using one's ability to perceive the changing environing factors of the opponent's control, and adjust the inputs of lower ordered executions to suite the higher ordered execution of spacing, zoning, comboing and so forth, which are in turn applied to the highest ordered execution: winning the game.
. . . Which then many be applied to higher ordered executions which turn out to show the motivations and the desires of the individual on a more noble scale, like what they want to do with their life etc., but that's a whole 'nother discussion I suppose.
So to say that one should be easy and the other should be hard is absolutely ridiculous as you say, "Learning should be extremely easy, getting [good should be] the hard part." You contradict yourself.

You pose "Why can't I just start getting good at the game already?" as a rhetorical question, but I have the answer. One who does not get better is simply undedicated. I refuse to accept the supposition that there is anything too difficult for the human will. There are no two ways about it, and there is no other alternative as all actions imply judgments of value between two or more courses, and one is committed the other is left aside, it's not an insult: it's a principle and law of human action just as the laws of execution and application beforehand. To say that others must bow to your whims and play on the same level as you, either explicitly, or here as you have done, implicitly, is arrogant, and I hope you realize this. Heck, a bunch of people tried to get me into SF because they thought I'd be good at it. I politely refused, I did not want to dedicate myself to learning all that stuff, and I did not think I would be good at it.

Learning curves are misappropriated in fighting games, and Mario games always have near perfect learning curves, the comparison is unfair. Fighting games are geared towards "do or die", that is not to say we cannot change it, but I would hesitate to say that it would be easy or that it would be a fighting game afterwards. Also, the very fact that you use the phrase "Instant Gratification" in a positive light disgusts me.

As for tutorials, we have many excellent fan-made tutorials all over the internet, the fact that one does not have the dedication to search them out and acquire appropriate feedback on their execution is telling. Further, there is no such thing as a hand-holding tutorial, it's a contradiction in terms as a tutorial is designed to teach while another is designed as an artificial prop of player skill, hence we use the terms 'leveling the playing field' and 'welfare' and 'low skill ceiling'. How well the tutorial teaches is another story altogether. Heck, Project: Melee has done almost exactly as you should want: it provides a feedback mechanism when one appropriately executes an L-cancel (flashes white), what more could you ask for? Well, of course that would be what you want, but don't take that as me being snark snark jerkface haha at you, I want you to see that your argument from degrees does not work. The fact that games don't have explicit hand-holding tutorials or masterfully designed and expert learning curves may be part to developer ignorance. The entire metagame cannot and will not be worked out by the time a game is released, it allows for discovery and adventure, and I'd say those are more noble than so-called equality. In some cases, a tutorial wouldn't cut it either. Sometimes no matter how well you teach, bad won't change, but I admit those cases are exceedingly rare. I just remembered, Street Fighter 4 HAS TUTORIALS! A LOT OF THEM! I, who am bad at games, found them easy! Why do you overlook this fact?

Besides, who are you to arbitrarily decide when learning ends and getting good begins? Are they not one in the same? If so, you contradict yourself by saying it should be both hard and easy. Tell me, what makes an execution easy enough? I cannot hold them to your standard, don't make me. It's a subjective notion that reflects one thing and one thing only: the dedication of the player. Further, if you supply the proper design for a more simplified input for advanced techniques, then I commend you and eagerly would promote your ideas, but it entails reducing all types of skill required to have a desired affect, and such is very difficult for every designer ever after a certain point.

Look, I like equality, but you are saying that games should be perfectly designed from the get-go with masterful learning curves, which is nigh impossible, and that all tech skill must be made easy, to which I would say that at some point it becomes impractical or impossible to improve it further without making sacrifices in other realms.

You didn't even get my point...did you? I like challenges, yes...but a challenge shouldn't be a wall, it should be a slope. I don't want to climb and claw my way up the wall because it's the only way to do it, I want to go up the slope at my own pace. When you simplify technical skill, you leave more room for the strategical part of the game...good competitive games aren't about "Can I do this?"...they're about "How do I use this?"

Then again, I can't get the Dragon Punch to work 3 times straight on Street Fighter because I just refuse to turn such a nonsense command into muscle memory.

I am too lazy to do multiple quotes on a phone so..

@the man
As fir the topic of competitiveness. Super Mario world isn't competitive.. it's the text book example of a casual game. And super smash brothers melee is about the lowest *point* where a game has easy tech and game knowledge while still being competitive. All the top "competitive" games that were successful have required way more than smash. For example: Dota, starcraft, quake, cs, age of empires (super oldschool) street fighter, marvel vs capcom, counter strike, halo 2(double shots were 50 times more unnatural than wave dashes) and league of legends. And of that list the most successful are actually the one's with tons of glitches and player/engine innovation. Those being Dota, marvel vs capcom, sc2, LoL, and quake .

Super Mario 3D World has a huge level of depth for platforming gameplay...and trust me, it IS competitive, it's much more satisfying and rewarding to compete againist your own limits than try to be at level with people that can't play the game normally. There's this stigma where people think technical skill and execution are as important as strategic thinking and mindgames, mental skill should always be more important than technical skill. Player Innovation is just another way of saying people glitching because they don't want to play the game the way it's supposed to be played.

And, for the tutorials thing, I don't want to seek out tutorials, I don't want to watch them over and over again TRYING to get the commands right, I just want to play the ****ing game and get better by playing more and more, but if there's a huge gap called advanced techniques, then why even bother if you're never going to be as good as the other people?

Also...are you recognizing that learning curves on fighting games are wonky? And Instant Gratification IS good, what's the purpose of everything if you'll get no short-term enjoyment? Good games reward the player when they achieve something, bad games demand them to achieve even more to earn...nothing at the end, because defeating another human opponent is as empty as victories get.

 

[pitthekit]

You didn't even get my point...did you? I like challenges, yes...but a challenge shouldn't be a wall, it should be a slope. I don't want to climb and claw my way up the wall because it's the only way to do it, I want to go up the slope at my own pace. When you simplify technical skill, you leave more room for the strategical part of the game...good competitive games aren't about "Can I do this?"...they're about "How do I use this?"

Then again, I can't get the Dragon Punch to work 3 times straight on Street Fighter because I just refuse to turn such a nonsense command into muscle memory.

Super Mario 3D World has a huge level of depth for platforming gameplay...and trust me, it IS competitive, it's much more satisfying and rewarding to compete againist your own limits than try to be at level with people that can't play the game normally. There's this stigma where people think technical skill and execution are as important as strategic thinking and mindgames, mental skill should always be more important than technical skill. Player Innovation is just another way of saying people glitching because they don't want to play the game the way it's supposed to be played.

And, for the tutorials thing, I don't want to seek out tutorials, I don't want to watch them over and over again TRYING to get the commands right, I just want to play the ****ing game and get better by playing more and more, but if there's a huge gap called advanced techniques, then why even bother if you're never going to be as good as the other people?

Also...are you recognizing that learning curves on fighting games are wonky? And Instant Gratification IS good, what's the purpose of everything if you'll get no short-term enjoyment? Good games reward the player when they achieve something, bad games demand them to achieve even more to earn...nothing at the end, because defeating another human opponent is as empty as victories get.

Smash always had low tech skill, people with high mental skills usually do very well, like ally from brawl.
Also player invocation is amazing: player can create new things that were thought impossible.

And winning battles against people is not empty... See people conquering other peoples land.

Also long term rewards is being one of the best players- go even farther and you can make money, so that is your reward; Good feelings.

 

[D-idara]

I don't think smash is the game your looking for.

Also long term rewards is being one of the best player- go even farther and you can make money, so that is your reward: Good feelings.

Yay! So satisfying! not

Smash IS the game I'm looking for, and what's this whole deal againist instant gratification? When you eat good food and you feel the taste, when you finish a level and watch an exhilarating cutscene, when you crush a challenge and you're awarded something. Life NEEDS instant gratification or else it's just "Keep working, you'll eventually...eventually...maybe someday...get something good"

 

[Reznor]

Yay! So satisfying! not

Smash IS the game I'm looking for, and what's this whole deal againist instant gratification? When you eat good food and you feel the taste, when you finish a level and watch an exhilarating cutscene, when you crush a challenge and you're awarded something. Life NEEDS instant gratification or else it's just "Keep working, you'll eventually...eventually...maybe someday...get something good"

no life should not be about instant gratification people who think that way are lazy
would you rather get 5 bucks for doing nothing then eat at McDonalds or would you rather work for 50 bucks and eat at a 5 star dinner

 

[D-idara]

no life should not be about instant gratification people who think that way are lazy
would you rather get 5 bucks for doing nothing then eat at McDonalds or would you rather work for 50 bucks and eat at a 5 star dinner

There needs to be a balance, not everything can be long-term. That's my point, there should be both instant and long-term gratification in competitive enviroments. I don't see how learning wavedashing makes you feel better or anything, it's just a barrier that you need to overcome to actually start playing so you can eventually have fun.

Also, we're talking about a game here, aren't games supposed to be fun?

 

[ThomasTheTrain]

How does college work out for you? 90% of undergrad math and physics courses are basically "5 years from now you might actually learn why that functions as it does"

As for tech skill> mind games... maybe you're just really bad. I'm not good by anymeans at mind games and I can still get trounced by players with way worse tech skills. Hell there are quite a few top level jiggly puff and peech players out there and they're kinda simple in terms of tech skill but win mostly in terms of mind games... maybe you should stop blaming tech skill and just accept you aren't that good. (And if you lose to people and think "I woulda won if it wasn't for his tech skill, I have way better mind games." Odds are you making an excuse to make yourself feel better )

 

[Reznor]

There needs to be a balance, not everything can be long-term. That's my point, there should be both instant and long-term gratification in competitive enviroments. I don't see how learning wavedashing makes you feel better or anything, it's just a barrier that you need to overcome to actually start playing so you can eventually have fun.

wavedashing in itself shouldn't make you feel better it should be that you can compete with higher level players

 

[mimgrim]

you just said instant gratification is good
this is whats wrong with videogames now days

This isn't the only thing wrong with gamers nowadays.

There is also the people wanting constant hand holding for the game. They want to be told on how to do everything and when they are given a something that doesn't explain everything, or don't make it in such a obvious way, they call it hard. Prime example is the Bravely Default demo. I miss the age when video games put you in a world without telling you anything and you had to figure it out all on your own, it was much more satisfying. Fighting games are somewhat in the same light when it comes to ATs, you need to figure them out or look for them online, which make them oh so more satisfying when you get them down.

How does college work out for you? 90% of undergrad math and physics courses are basically "5 years from now you might actually learn why that functions as it does"

As for tech skill> mind games... maybe you're just really bad. I'm not good by anymeans at mind games and I can still get trounced by players with way worse tech skills. Hell there are quite a few top level jiggly puff and peech players out there and they're kinda simple in terms of tech skill but win mostly in terms of mind games... maybe you should stop blaming tech skill and just accept you aren't that good. (And if you lose to people and think "I woulda won if it wasn't for his tech skill, I have way better mind games." Odds are you making an excuse to make yourself feel better )

Eh, that's a common misconception of Peach. But in actuality she is a a rather technical character.

 

[D-idara]

How does college work out for you? 90% of undergrad math and physics courses are basically "5 years from now you might actually learn why that functions as it does"

As for tech skill> mind games... maybe you're just really bad. I'm not good by anymeans at mind games and I can still get trounced by players with way worse tech skills. Hell there are quite a few top level jiggly puff and peech players out there and they're kinda simple in terms of tech skill but win mostly in terms of mind games... maybe you should stop blaming tech skill and just accept you aren't that good. (And if you lose to people and think "I woulda won if it wasn't for his tech skill, I have way better mind games." Odds are you making an excuse to make yourself feel better )

Yes, I'm really not very good at Smash, but it's because I haven't ever wanted to put the time into it because I know that it's not just practice, I'll have to look up advanced techniques online and I'm not willing to face obstacles, I'd rather go around them. I'm sure I'd be able to get much better at the game if I really wanted to practice...but I know I'll be faced with technical barriers so I don't do it.

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.

Also, I live in a country where there's rarely videogame tournaments of the sort, and I'd have to play for years to even think about entering one. I don't want to learn, I want to be taught.

 

[LancerStaff]

You're jumping to some quick presumptions there.

Brawl started out on the Melee engine, and look how much the engine changed there. Just because it is starting off of the Brawl engine doesn't mean that it is going to have the same engine, Melee to Brawl is proof of that.

But nothing came about from simple changes like fall speed. I doubt we'll get any significant movement changes to dodging, we'd know by now if Sakurai wanted to implement gamechanging new moves like grabs and dodges, and chances are that it'll get patched out of existence if it's bigger then the DACUS.

And what's the point about arguing what'd be best for smash when we clearly know Sakurai wants the skill ceiling to simply be what was designed? That argument is 100% opinion and will get you nowhere. Only one person's opinion matters: Sakurai's.

 

[Reznor]

This isn't the only thing wrong with gamers nowadays.

There is also the people wanting constant hand holding for the game. They want to be told on how to do everything and when they are given a something that doesn't explain everything, or don't make it in such a obvious way, they call it hard. Prime example is the Bravely Default demo. I miss the age when video games put you in a world without telling you anything and you had to figure it out all on your own, it was much more satisfying. Fighting games are somewhat in the same light when it comes to ATs, you need to figure them out or look for them online, which make them oh so more satisfying when you get them down.

also the lack of consequences
the best example is Skyrim which literally has zero negative consequences

 

[ThomasTheTrain]

Venezuela has pretty open borders with its neighbors you can travel around . ( atleast last time I was there in 2009-2010ish)

Also I don't agree with your major art is a fine passion but as with the words of Mr Feynman it's a damn waste of a degree since it can easily be pursed outside of college .

 

[josh bones]

Your entitlement astounds me. Sometimes, work is require to be good. If you want a game that levels the playing field for you and has a minimal learning curve, go play Tic-Tac-Toe. (I honestly couldn't think of any other examples.) To say you do not like Street Fighter shows your unwillingness to change your mind, so I urge you to instead look at the argument as analogical, as it is, not the superficial detail of the named game "Street Fighter". Replace "Street Fighter" with generic game x, and all the mumbo jumbo with random terms, and it will still make sense, SF is merely used as a point of reference, don't let that bog you down from seeing the argument for what it truly is.

Both execution and application are one in the same. What is execution? The application of one's abilities to manipulate the controls of a given ruleset to a desired outcome. Pressing buttons is execution, using ones ability to move their fingers to manipulate an input permutation into the given [controller] to a desired effect on the screen. This can be applied to a higher level. What is winning a game but execution? Using one's ability to perceive the changing environing factors of the opponent's control, and adjust the inputs of lower ordered executions to suite the higher ordered execution of spacing, zoning, comboing and so forth, which are in turn applied to the highest ordered execution: winning the game.
. . . Which then many be applied to higher ordered executions which turn out to show the motivations and the desires of the individual on a more noble scale, like what they want to do with their life etc., but that's a whole 'nother discussion I suppose.
So to say that one should be easy and the other should be hard is absolutely ridiculous as you say, "Learning should be extremely easy, getting [good should be] the hard part." You contradict yourself.

You pose "Why can't I just start getting good at the game already?" as a rhetorical question, but I have the answer. One who does not get better is simply undedicated. I refuse to accept the supposition that there is anything too difficult for the human will. There are no two ways about it, and there is no other alternative as all actions imply judgments of value between two or more courses, and one is committed the other is left aside, it's not an insult: it's a principle and law of human action just as the laws of execution and application beforehand. To say that others must bow to your whims and play on the same level as you, either explicitly, or here as you have done, implicitly, is arrogant, and I hope you realize this. Heck, a bunch of people tried to get me into SF because they thought I'd be good at it. I politely refused, I did not want to dedicate myself to learning all that stuff, and I did not think I would be good at it.

Learning curves are misappropriated in fighting games, and Mario games always have near perfect learning curves, the comparison is unfair. Fighting games are geared towards "do or die", that is not to say we cannot change it, but I would hesitate to say that it would be easy or that it would be a fighting game afterwards. Also, the very fact that you use the phrase "Instant Gratification" in a positive light disgusts me.

As for tutorials, we have many excellent fan-made tutorials all over the internet, the fact that one does not have the dedication to search them out and acquire appropriate feedback on their execution is telling. Further, there is no such thing as a hand-holding tutorial, it's a contradiction in terms as a tutorial is designed to teach while another is designed as an artificial prop of player skill, hence we use the terms 'leveling the playing field' and 'welfare' and 'low skill ceiling'. How well the tutorial teaches is another story altogether. Heck, Project: Melee has done almost exactly as you should want: it provides a feedback mechanism when one appropriately executes an L-cancel (flashes white), what more could you ask for? Well, of course that would be what you want, but don't take that as me being snark snark jerkface haha at you, I want you to see that your argument from degrees does not work. The fact that games don't have explicit hand-holding tutorials or masterfully designed and expert learning curves may be part to developer ignorance. The entire metagame cannot and will not be worked out by the time a game is released, it allows for discovery and adventure, and I'd say those are more noble than so-called equality. In some cases, a tutorial wouldn't cut it either. Sometimes no matter how well you teach, bad won't change, but I admit those cases are exceedingly rare. I just remembered, Street Fighter 4 HAS TUTORIALS! A LOT OF THEM! I, who am bad at games, found them easy! Why do you overlook this fact?

Besides, who are you to arbitrarily decide when learning ends and getting good begins? Are they not one in the same? If so, you contradict yourself by saying it should be both hard and easy. Tell me, what makes an execution easy enough? I cannot hold them to your standard, don't make me. It's a subjective notion that reflects one thing and one thing only: the dedication of the player. Further, if you supply the proper design for a more simplified input for advanced techniques, then I commend you and eagerly would promote your ideas, but it entails reducing all types of skill required to have a desired affect, and such is very difficult for every designer ever after a certain point.

Look, I like equality, but you are saying that games should be perfectly designed from the get-go with masterful learning curves, which is nigh impossible, and that all tech skill must be made easy, to which I would say that at some point it becomes impractical or impossible to improve it further without making sacrifices in other realms.

Yes.
Best post on this thread. FInally Didara gets called out.

 

[pitthekit]

also the lack of consequences
the best example is Skyrim which literally has zero negative consequences

Same with diablo 3, Diablo 2 had much more depth.

 

[josh bones]

Yes, I'm really not very good at Smash, but it's because I haven't ever wanted to put the time into it because I know that it's not just practice, I'll have to look up advanced techniques online and I'm not willing to face obstacles, I'd rather go around them. I'm sure I'd be able to get much better at the game if I really wanted to practice...but I know I'll be faced with technical barriers so I don't do it.

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.

Also, I live in a country where there's rarely videogame tournaments of the sort, and I'd have to play for years to even think about entering one. I don't want to learn, I want to be taught.

If you want to be taught, look on youtube. Nobody is going to hold you're hand and teach you this stuff. If you want to be lazy, play with items on temple.

 

[D-idara]

Venezuela has pretty open borders with its neighbors you can travel around . ( atleast last time I was there in 2009-2010ish)

Also I don't agree with your major art is a fine passion but as with the words of Mr Feynman it's a damn waste of a degree since it can easily be pursed outside of college .

I'm just gonna block you if that's your opinion about art, everything can be pursued outside of college but people go to college because they want teachers to teach them, people that know, anyone who chooses something that'll give them more money over their passion are just fooling themselves. I've gotten much better after a single semester and I get to be with people who are passionate about what they do and are willing to go over challenges to do it.

Also, just so you bunch of morons SHUT THE HELL UP, I am going to give a try at the Smash4 competitive scene, I was much less interested in videogames as a whole during the Melee/Brawl times and I'll give it a try now, probably try to learn the advanced techniques if they're intuitive enough, but you people are implying that this subject is only black and white, there's a lot of greys in what skill means.

 

[josh bones]

Also I don't agree with your major art is a fine passion but as with the words of Mr Feynman it's a damn waste of a degree since it can easily be pursed outside of college .

And this has to do with the topic how?

 

[D-idara]

And this has to do with the topic how?

He's probably an arrogant engineer/programmer and can't stand to see someone happy with their studies.

 

[pitthekit]

I'm just gonna block you if that's your opinion about art, everything can be pursued outside of college but people go to college because they want teachers to teach them, people that know, anyone who chooses something that'll give them more money over their passion are just fooling themselves. I've gotten much better after a single semester and I get to be with people who are passionate about what they do and are willing to go over challenges to do it.

Lol I agree with d-idara on this one, a genius technological person without a degree or w/e can get a job if he/she proves worthy.
Although some people chose the more money job because they enjoy a more lavish lifestyle.

 

[mimgrim]

But nothing came about from simple changes like fall speed. I doubt we'll get any significant movement changes to dodging, we'd know by now if Sakurai wanted to implement gamechanging new moves like grabs and dodges, and chances are that it'll get patched out of existence if it's bigger then the DACUS.

And what's the point about arguing what'd be best for smash when we clearly know Sakurai wants the skill ceiling to simply be what was designed? That argument is 100% opinion and will get you nowhere. Only one person's opinion matters: Sakurai's.

Simple changes like fall speed completely changed the metagame from Brawl to Melee. ROFL. How can you say nothing came from them? If DACUS is the limit on an AT, then Wavedash would totally be allowed then rofl.

If that's your view, then why did you start arguing in the first place and continue to do so? I argue because I find it as a time passer and find it moderately fun.

 

[D-idara]

I argue because I find it as a time passer and find it moderately fun.

^This
But seriously, I'm not the same way towards life, I love to practice new things when it comes to drawing and other stuff like that, and I like honing my skills on certain games, but maybe back on Melee/Brawl times I just didn't feel like playing on a higher level because it required too much time and dedication compared to my level of interest. I'll try to do it on Smash4 because I'm way more hyped for this game. I mean, come on, Smash 4 is the game that's supposed to unite the community, isn't it?

 

[LancerStaff]

Simple changes like fall speed completely changed the metagame from Brawl to Melee. ROFL. How can you say nothing came from them? If DACUS is the limit on an AT, then Wavedash would totally be allowed then rofl.

If that's your view, then why did you start arguing in the first place and continue to do so? I argue because I find it as a time passer and find it moderately fun.

I ment no techniques came from them. And how is the DACUS bigger then Wavedashing? Wavedashing effects practically everybody, but the DACUS only really works for like ten characters.

I also argue because it's fun. Anyways, I thought I'd try to finish the 'techs or no techs' argument objectively. Rather then proving one side right, I proved Sakurai sees only one answer, regardless of what both sides think.

 

[guedes the brawler]

Despite the fact that it has dash in its name, it's more of a slide then a dash. Lemme see if I can make it have a semblance of sense.

So WD is done through Air Dodging into the ground. So this jumping and air dodging is how the characters gain momentum to slide across the ground, but it is also affected by traction. So a character with lower traction will slide along further then a character with higher traction. So the jumping and air dodge into ground is the whole momentum starter.

dude, you are not getting it. i know how wavedash works, but it if's to be re-implemented without taking the easy way out (Melee air dodge and let things work out by themselves) it needs a new input, and due to being intentionally programmed, it's distance will probably be more of a "it's like that cause balance issues" than "it's like this because accidents happen".

 

[mimgrim]

dude, you are not getting it. i know how wavedash works, but it if's to be re-implemented without taking the easy way out (Melee air dodge and let things work out by themselves) it needs a new input, and due to being intentionally programmed, it's distance will probably be more of a "it's like that cause balance issues" than "it's like this because accidents happen".

I already mentioned this earlier, but....

IIRC, the Brawl E3 demo had a similar thing to WD that was done through air attacks or something rather then the dodge the system. Bu because people found it during the demo it got taken out, because Nintendo/Sakurai. It still has the same concept of being in the air to gain the momentum required. Something like that would work.

What I was getting at in the post was trying to make the input make sense for those who find the input to be senseless.

I ment no techniques came from them. And how is the DACUS bigger then Wavedashing? Wavedashing effects practically everybody, but the DACUS only really works for like ten characters.

I also argue because it's fun. Anyways, I thought I'd try to finish the 'techs or no techs' argument objectively. Rather then proving one side right, I proved Sakurai sees only one answer, regardless of what both sides think.

WD is universal, but characters with good traction, like Peach, have horrible WDs.

Also Dacus not being universal is more reason for it being worse then WD. Either it should be for a single character or for all characters. :C

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

There needs to be a balance, not everything can be long-term. That's my point, there should be both instant and long-term gratification in competitive enviroments. I don't see how learning wavedashing makes you feel better or anything, it's just a barrier that you need to overcome to actually start playing so you can eventually have fun.

Also, we're talking about a game here, aren't games supposed to be fun?

Ok.

Instant gratification. Learning how to jump and do an arial attack

Long term goal: learning how to use that aerial attack low to the ground; in sequence with other attacks; combo attacks etc.

The specific techs learned aren't learned arbitrarily, but to help you understand how both you and the opponent may benefit from the use in addition to your unique application of them. Players like Masashi don't use wave dashing with Fox, arguably one of the most important techs for a Fox to learn, yet he still does extremely well .

As for the shoryuken comment, that's ridiculous because rotational inputs are part of the games core engine. That's like saying you should play smash without learning how to use Smash attacks.

 

[LancerStaff]

Smash is about being simple, at low and high level play. Sakurai sees no room for techs in smash and can patch them now. What else is there to say? You can argue about this all you want, but you won't get anywhere. The tech vs no tech/Melee vs Brawl arguments end in the same way as Goku vs Superman arguments.

 

[pitthekit]

Lol if sakurai sees no rooms for techs then every character will suffer a huge nerf- most techs are simple to perform.

I guess smash 4 will have auto di, auto perfect shield, auto aerial spacing, auto short hop lasers, auto foot stools, auto teching, auto arrow loop(this would actually make pit soooo good) auto wing dashing, auto wave bounce(lol) auto jab combo, auto air dodging, auto spot dodge, auto shield grab,auto shield drop, auto boasted grab, auto dacus, auto glide toss, auto wasping, auto bomb dropping and so on.

Or just remove every advance technique. Sorry pit and every smash character in smash.

Sakurai will not patch advance techniques because he put them in the game. In brawl he knew that pit players would loop arrows since he made the tools to do so. Same with wing dashing for pit, if you fail this AT you get ending lag with an animation that is different from every other pit ending lag animations; meaning, that sakurai knew players would discover this advance technique.

 

[Jaedrik]

You didn't even get my point...did you? I like challenges, yes...but a challenge shouldn't be a wall, it should be a slope. I don't want to climb and claw my way up the wall because it's the only way to do it, I want to go up the slope at my own pace. When you simplify technical skill, you leave more room for the strategical part of the game...good competitive games aren't about "Can I do this?"...they're about "How do I use this?"

Then again, I can't get the Dragon Punch to work 3 times straight on Street Fighter because I just refuse to turn such a nonsense command into muscle memory.

No, I understand entirely, I simply refuse to allow the discussion to be held on your terms with your way of framing the issue. I demand a higher standard. I've considered your position heavily, and you brush all my words aside as nonsense and assert that I am ignorant to your meaning? Pray tell what right you have to such arrogance?

 

[LancerStaff]

Lol if sakurai sees no rooms for techs then every character will suffer a huge nerf- most techs are simple to perform.

I guess smash 4 will have auto di, auto perfect shield, auto aerial spacing, auto short hop lasers, auto foot stools, auto teching, auto arrow loop(this would actually make pit soooo good) auto wing dashing, auto wave bounce(lol) auto jab combo, auto air dodging, auto spot dodge.

Some of those things are true techs (wavebouncing,SHDL) in the sense they weren't intentional. Most are 100% intentional mechanics and not techs. (teching lol,air dodging)

 

[Venus of the Desert Bloom]

Keep things civil, guys. Don't troll/spam/flame and please don't respond to it. If it escalates further, this thread runs the risk of being locked.

 

[Jaedrik]

Keep things civil, guys. Don't troll/spam/flame and please don't respond to it. If it escalates further, this thread runs the risk of being locked.

Duly noted. Forgive me, I felt slighted.

 

[Substitution]

Keep things civil, guys. Don't troll/spam/flame and please don't respond to it. If it escalates further, this thread runs the risk of being locked.

What'd you expect?

But you know, after thinking about it, I fully support teching. I love using a good ukemi to mix up my strategies.

 

[pitthekit]

What'd you expect?

But you know, after thinking about it, I fully support teching. I love using a good ukemi to mix up my strategies.

In most cases the dodge tech is always better, but on small ledges the ukemi is the most ideal choice.

Should teching be auto tech? This could remove the jab lock.

 

[Substitution]

In most cases the dodge tech is always better, but on small ledges the ukemi is the most ideal choice.

Should teching be auto tech? This could remove the jab lock.

...And the joke was lost.
Welp, back to hiding...

 

[LancerStaff]

In most cases the dodge tech is always better, but on small ledges the ukemi is the most ideal choice.

Should teching be auto tech? This could remove the jab lock.

Interesting thought. Perhaps a system where if you get tossed around/combo'd enough in a certain frame of time you'll auto tech or something. Like the thing in TMNT smash up where if you get hit enough by certain things you can teleport by pressing up.