I'm not against you or ANYTHING like that, I'm just stating something that I noticed was wrong.
Uhh to be frank, I don't really think l-canceling is advanced, no. Just curious if you've tried to SHDL into drillshine -> waveshine and then repeat 100x. That is pretty dang hard to do. And that isn't even the most difficult thing in Melee, so don't pull that card again. I'm not against SF or any other game, so don't take this the wrong way. I'm just saying, don't try to pull the card of "You think this is hard, well try this" cuz there are a crapload of hard things in Melee, and l-canceling is NOT one of them.
On your second point, if that is truly the case, I'm DEFFINITELY gonna have to play some of those, cuz I like the sound of a game that is DESIGNEd to be competetive.
I'm not trying to say Melee techniques don't have their difficulty, but I found other fighters to have a much steeper learning curve in general. The techniques I was comparing L-canceling to weren't necessarily advanced on their own either. A kara cancel in Third Strike isn't necessarily advanced on it's own (kara throw is probably the easiest way to do it), but doing a lengthy juggle with Makoto involving several kara-canceled moves would be an advanced technique. I was saying the basic individual techniques of the game are more difficult to time.
If you wanna check out other competitive fighting games, I suggest you check out their individual boards.
http://shoryuken.com/
Mostly Capcom fighting games. Street Fighter 3 Third Strike, Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo, Capcom vs SNK 2, Marvel vs Capcom 2. They also have an "Other Games" board.
http://www.dustloop.com/forums/
Guilty Gear
http://virtuafighter.com/
Virtua Fighter
http://www.tekkenzaibatsu.com/forums/index.php
Tekken
Other popular fighting games/series (that I don't have forums links for) are King of Fighters, Soul Calibur, and a whole crapload of SNK fighting games.
S2 said:
I think Smash is actually a lot harder to "pick up" as a competitive game. One big reason being that combos in Melee were much harder to do than other fighters.
You can play at lower skill levels in most fighters by simply getting a few combos under you belt and simply spamming their openers. Given that Smash combos are often matchup and percent specific, its not that simple.
Smash definitely has it's uniqueness with the damage and weight system. Although there are character-specific combos in other fighters as well as situational combos. Guilty Gear epitomizes an in depth combo system that must incorporate character weights, sizes, momentum, position, etc; GG combos are highly situational in many cases. I can't really vouch much for 3D fighters (I've never been a fan), but CVS2 and 3S definitely have thier fair share of situational combos as well. Spamming one or two combos doesn't always get you very far in any serious kind of setting.
S2 said:
There's a difference between casual appeal and how hard it is to master a game. If you think Smash is easier to master than most of the games you mentioned, then you really need to play more fighters. Smash is a very tough game to be good at. It's not really any more technical than other fighters, but the situational combos and dynamic stages make mindgames much more advanced than many other games. Don't confuse mass casual appeal with depth.
I said easy to pick-up; nothing is easy to master or else they wouldn't call it "mastering". Sorry if I was insinuating that mastering the game takes less effort. And I wasn't saying there was any correlation between mass casual appeal and depth; I was saying that the game has a mass appeal because it's easier to pick up. I wasn't saying everyone who picks up the game is a master of the game.
I don't know if dynamic stages make the mindgames more advanced than any other game; I can make a game that's like soccer, except every now and then the field catches on fire. Actually on second thought, that would really mess with people.
S2 said:
Its not just America that has made Smash competitive, its popular worldwide. America didn't turn it into a competitive game, all 3 regions did (NA/JPN/PAL).
Really? Maybe I'm wrong, but are there any Japanese players who MAIN this game? As in this is the game they play over any other game? Or are they players who main other games and play Smash on the side when there's a tourney they're invited to?
S2 said:
Meanwhile plenty of FG series are guilty of "changing up the formula". They don't all just finetune. All 3 SFA games had major changes between them. Tekken went through major iteration changes from 3 to TTT to 4 to 5.
You give other fighters way too much slack for changing the Pro scene, but are immediate to denounce Smash for doing this. Every fighting game has a bunch of techniques that were oversites of the developers. And every fighting game sequel loses important aspects of the tournament scene due to fixes. Jeez, Guilty Gear wasn't ruined when they fixed Dust Infinites after X1 - it just changed what high level play was about. The loss of things like WDing in Melee are going to be the same. You can't base the competitive value of a game based on techniques that are no longer possible in the sequel.
I wasn't saying changes ruin a game. I was saying that Nintendo seems to want to try to remove competitive value from the game (i.e. shift from Melee to Brawl). It's true that other developers make changes to fighting games that don't always make everyone happy, but it seems like Nintendo blatantly tries to remove any trace of the previous competitive techniques. Atleast when they reiterate GG they don't decide to remove aspects of the game that made it great; sure they try to get rid of loops they may consider unbalanced, change the physics of different characters, or whatever, but they make all their changes keeping competitive value in mind. I was just trying to compare how Nintendo develops Smash to how other companies develop fighting games.
I know my last post had a harsh tone; maybe I was in a generally bad mood at the time. I didn't mean to come off as harsh or insult any players.
)
