![[Corn]](/data/avatars/l/219/219175.jpg?1363907352){kind=avatar}
[Corn]
Smash Ace
Aside form the "2.2" typo of mine.
Kinda assumed it was a joke lol
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
The Difference Between Catering To and Consideration: Explaning Sakurai's Design Philosophy
- Thread starter Jack Kieser
- Start date
Kinda assumed it was a joke lol
Aidebit
Smash Journeyman
Wavedash is actually really simple compared to FG Standards. Played some Tekken, and while I'm technical enough to waveshine sometimes, I couldn't get the hang of that game. Agreed with you on most of the stuff about FG's. Also agreed on Smash 4 being unique. Also, combos in Melee are also pretty simple, even though they look hard to perform.
mimgrim
Smash Hero
I've tried doing the hard looking combos in Melle, they are still hard to preform for me. When it comes to fighting games I don't hvae the best hand cordnation to be able to press different buttons in such a short period of time. which makes Brawl a better game for me then Melee, I don't have anything against combos but I don't float to well with a combo always being guaranteed and the winner of the match pretty much becoming guaranteed. Which is why I prefer Brawl more since it isn't guaranteed you will get a combo in or who the winner is and thus becomes more of a mind game. The ideal game would probably something that actually did fall right smack in between Brawl and Melee, and it looks and sounds like that is what Smash 4 is looking to be and thus making it unique.
Aidebit
Smash Journeyman
I guess everyone just has different preferences. Brawl was a simpler game technically, which helped more people get into the competitive scene, but its lack of combos make it a little stale sometimes.
Agreed on the mixed game part, not so much combos, but let them still exist.
RODO
Smash Ace
Really, in all reality, casuals will buy the game just because of pokemon and Mario being in the game. They won't care about AT's either. Also, even if the game caters to casuals there will still be players that will find a way to make it competitive. But I have to say something here. Competitiveness makes things fun, there's no denying that. I don't watch football games or basketball games just to watch the people playing prance around and be friendly to each other. Playing Brawl online is painful because of taunt parties and no one taking anything seriously half the time.
The point is, even casuals will try to best their friends. You need competitiveness to make something fun, and depth is going to add reply value. He shouldn't try to cater to either side really.
The point is, even casuals will try to best their friends. You need competitiveness to make something fun, and depth is going to add reply value. He shouldn't try to cater to either side really.
RODO
Smash Ace
One more thing. I also don't agree when someone says that competitive players shouldn't be catered to because they are a small percentage. There are games such as Call of Duty that sell tons and I'd say those games are widely played competitively. The whole reason people buy those games is to compete online.
[Corn]
Smash Ace
I dont believe you should even mention COD at all....
RODO
Smash Ace
I had to so I could make a point
it does sell unfortunately (Battlefield is much better imo)
[Corn]
Smash Ace
I had to so I could make a point
Skylanders sell moderately well and so does literally any game with guns ever created.
Dont ever mention COD, or if you do, make sure to mention the correct ones.
Renji64
Smash Lord
Sakurai is gonna focus on casuals he sucks at game design and can't even top his 2nd installment. People aren't gonna accept mediocrity. After that bland offering with brawl he has proved he sucks. He could pretty much remove everything amazing about smash brothers and people would still defend it. He should make a game that appeals to both crowds be he lacks the talent and drive to do such a thing.
Eternal phoenix Fire
Smash Hero
What the hell, man....
I can understand what you're saying Jack, and you're right, this game shouldn't be catered to a specific audience, but any lack of implemented techniques or familiarity with the game is not our biggest issue; It honestly feels as if you are specifically targeting Melee without the realization that there are demands for things from Brawl that players also desire to be there, so let's veer away from targeting specific audiences and address a issue that has been invisible to many for the most part. Very few players want a carbon copy of one of the other games in the franchise, rather, it is desired to have a game that is fleshed out. Brawl was not a bad game by its own right, but it was a result of very ill-planned game design and Sakurai's complacent decision making that turned the game into what it is.
I get that Sakurai was trying to make the game somewhat balanced, but he was devoting his time focusing on the wrong aspects of balance. Sakurai deliberately took his time to remove anything that could give a player minor mobility advantages that could easily be overcame by just devoting a small amount of time into the game, but he really screwed up and didn't look at some of the ridiculous parts of the game that could have been fixed just by simple play testing. Not only that, you made the players discover the intricate parts of the game, then remove them directly after the play test. Not only is that a low blow, but the effort was immensely vain: A character who get's grabbed should not be able to get grabbed infinitely until he dies. Some characters should not have the ability to dash attack into an up smash if all the characters can't do it. One character should not be able to chain grab a character infinitely. Characters with tether recoveries should be able to grab the ledge. There should not be any characters with attacks that out prioritize nearly every other move in the game.
If you consider removing aspects of smash that created a richer and deep experience and ignored game breaking factors of the game as successful balance, then by all means it was successful.What kind of game designer would make a game with characters that could fly and have extremely fast attacks in the same game with a character like Ganondorf and not see any foreseeable problems despite what mode of the game you are playing? What kind of game designer stuff half of the game with content that players will rarely ever use beyond the first time? It's just irresponsible to take priority into your own vision without analyzing the effects it would have on your targeted demographics whether they be as large as the casual player who will play the game for a month or the dedicated fan who will play the game for years to come.
In defense of the players who make comparisons to Melee when they want smash 4, it's not because they want "Melee 2.0" , it's because Melee for the most part is synonymous for what great game design is in smash. Melee already achieved what Sakurai is aiming for in the development of smash 4. Sure there are technical barriers to the game that the player will have to exceed in order to enjoy, but the appeal is that a 99% of advanced mechanics in the smash games are universal, minus a few like Float Canceling, Double Jump Canceling, Jump Cancel Shines, Wave shines etc. Also, a majority of these techniques are just a conglomeration of what you already know and simply applying in a situation. It's like a math problem, to solve some equations you have to use every thing you know about math to find the solution; knowing when to multiply by the reciprocal, when to factor, when to distribute, it all adds up. These same principles apply to smash when you know to do a short hop, an attack, and then fast fall.
Though admittedly these things can be hard for some to learn because the information isn't presented to them, so it's up to the designer to teach the player, or the player to use the given resources.
How people can have an issue with universal options but be completely fine with only a hand full of characters being able to do some things, having some characters who could literally be grabbed to death, and some just having extremely over bearing advantages over others due to a lack revamping and modification to existing characters is beyond me. Even if players online have to face players who have more skill than another, I would rather face an opponent he can defeat me because he has tactile skills than being pinned into a position where i'll have to accept the inevitable coup de grace because of an extremely simple and illogical exploitation that only he can use because I just happened to play with a certain character. Every online game will have players that are better than you, and if you can't face that then it's your issue that you are unwilling to put in the given amount of time to get better. You put in the time, you'll get better at what you're doing. This concept applies to everything in life.
Some may believe that a lot of these issues become unnoticed in chaotic multiplayer games, but that's just plain lazy and presumptuous of the designers to oversee these issues for the sake of alienating a fan base, especially considering that smash is a game designed around giving the player a wide plethora of playing options. These issues surface regardless, as even a hectic multiplayer fight will eventually turn into a one on one fight, then these problems could be abused. Even if smash isn't a traditional fighter, it still shares similar values and situations to where a character will inevitably be faced with another and placed into a situation where players can devise strategic approach and options. Any match can surmise to player+character vs player+character, where the victor of the match is lent to factors such as player intelligence, players knowledge of the character vs X character, the ability for the player to maximize characters potential damage output / movement / defense given the games universal mechanics, characters positioning advantage in air vs grounded, potential tactics based on stage play, player spontaneity, mechanical reflexes of the player etc. When you contribute all of the variables smash still lends itself to be as competitive of a fighter as any other.
I have no doubt in my mind that Smash 4 will become a great game, and based on the fact that Sakurai is acknowledging his mistakes is a step in the right direction, but i'm not going to take his words at face value because of his prowess as a game designer. There is a level of humility that needs to be established here, and even though being in a directive position entitles you to not take sh*t from anyone, it is still wise to take input from others. This is the sole reason why I believe Namco Bandai was selected as a staff as there are some things that Sakurai doesn't know, and that's perfectly fine; he's human after all. So far smash 4 is looking good, and there are still some subtle hints that Sakurai truly is trying to make this game for everyone. Simple things like the fireball effect on a flying character are great for helping newer players understand how Hitstun and Directional Influence work, the streaks on attacks help characters understand visible/lingering hit boxes on attacks, the increased speed makes the game at a somewhat even pace, and the removal of tripping was a far cry from the community that everyone needed, but Sakurai can always do better:
I think for smash 4 to be a great game, he needs to:
A. Individually analyze each characters ability to use the universal mechanics and tweak them to work in favor of how the character works. For example, a character with multiple jumps should have an airdodge that can be punished more easily than a character with a basic double jump as not to abuse their ability to run away and subsequently force the player into making wiser decisions when using the additional jumps, however not by so much that it would cripple the characters ability to defend itself vs X character. This could be as simple as testing it vs the moves of all characters or making an airdodge have slightly more cool down after the third jump with either a modified animation or just a few more frames of lag. This modification alone would helped characters that are grounded have an advantage attacking on and off stage.
B. Analyze hit boxes/ hurtboxes and sweet spots. Characters like Snake in Brawl and Marth in Melee really needed these adjustments as these were all fairly disjointed. Sakurai seems to be already working on this wit the air streaks on attacks as visual compensation for understanding if an attack just has too much/not enough distance.
C. Character specific issues. Playing with characters often has it's share of risk vs rewards given their physics. Fast Fallers who typically get comboed have strong combo abilities themselves, foaty characters who can't get comboed as well usually have good neutral game and zoning; this balance seemed well paced, however some of these characters couldn't do anything when faced against a character who could get grab released. A character who can zone should not be able to get killed in such a way, or any character for that matter. Issues chain grabs should be re-assessed so that the knock back and stun aren't fixated to screw over some characters. These should be escapable at reasonable percentages if a character decides to use them for additional damage. This would place a player into a position to where he will want to maximize damage in risk of a potential escape or attempt to combo attacks for guaranteed damage in lue of attempting to get a character at kill percent. Utilizing both a chain grab and a combo will be lent to players who have superior knowledge and execution.
D. Execution for characters. Meta Knight in Sakurai's idea was a character that was good when a player who was good at execution played with him; a glass canon in a sense, however this wasn't the case as he was still fairly heavy and he was fairly simple to play with. It was a good idea at heart since he did require some execution to chain his faster attacks for the average player, but anyone who can play the game at a remotely faster pace could easily dominate with him. It could have been much better is they would have minimized the stun of his attacks so that links would be harder, reduced his kill potential, not give so much lenience on his recovery attacks, and overall just made him very light. Characters like this should be stricter on execution, similarly to how Fox was in Melee. However, each character should have it's own execution barrier that lends itself to maximizing the characters potential. The hardest part is knowing whether or not it will be overwhelming for others, but play testing will definitely help.
E. Being open to ideas and other players. Nintendo and their development concept dismisses play testing for the most part for the sake of quality control, but I believe if the developers and sakurai are open to a bit of criticism it would make things a bit easier for everyone. However this may not be needed, as I believe a lot of players feel confident in the staff and their abilities.
In the end, i'm glad we just have another smash game, but it's very easy to please people who just want to buy the game and stop playing it after a while, but after Sakurai's recent backlash against having a story mode in the game due to the cut scenes being spread across the internet, I believe Sakurai wants his efforts to be appreciated, and the best way to do that is to look at everyone and their opinions despite how big of a potential sales based you have established. Having a game that is well polished that highlights it's key aspects is the best way to do that. You can't make a game just for yourself if you aren't the only one buying it.
I can understand what you're saying Jack, and you're right, this game shouldn't be catered to a specific audience, but any lack of implemented techniques or familiarity with the game is not our biggest issue; It honestly feels as if you are specifically targeting Melee without the realization that there are demands for things from Brawl that players also desire to be there, so let's veer away from targeting specific audiences and address a issue that has been invisible to many for the most part. Very few players want a carbon copy of one of the other games in the franchise, rather, it is desired to have a game that is fleshed out. Brawl was not a bad game by its own right, but it was a result of very ill-planned game design and Sakurai's complacent decision making that turned the game into what it is.
I get that Sakurai was trying to make the game somewhat balanced, but he was devoting his time focusing on the wrong aspects of balance. Sakurai deliberately took his time to remove anything that could give a player minor mobility advantages that could easily be overcame by just devoting a small amount of time into the game, but he really screwed up and didn't look at some of the ridiculous parts of the game that could have been fixed just by simple play testing. Not only that, you made the players discover the intricate parts of the game, then remove them directly after the play test. Not only is that a low blow, but the effort was immensely vain: A character who get's grabbed should not be able to get grabbed infinitely until he dies. Some characters should not have the ability to dash attack into an up smash if all the characters can't do it. One character should not be able to chain grab a character infinitely. Characters with tether recoveries should be able to grab the ledge. There should not be any characters with attacks that out prioritize nearly every other move in the game.
If you consider removing aspects of smash that created a richer and deep experience and ignored game breaking factors of the game as successful balance, then by all means it was successful.What kind of game designer would make a game with characters that could fly and have extremely fast attacks in the same game with a character like Ganondorf and not see any foreseeable problems despite what mode of the game you are playing? What kind of game designer stuff half of the game with content that players will rarely ever use beyond the first time? It's just irresponsible to take priority into your own vision without analyzing the effects it would have on your targeted demographics whether they be as large as the casual player who will play the game for a month or the dedicated fan who will play the game for years to come.
In defense of the players who make comparisons to Melee when they want smash 4, it's not because they want "Melee 2.0" , it's because Melee for the most part is synonymous for what great game design is in smash. Melee already achieved what Sakurai is aiming for in the development of smash 4. Sure there are technical barriers to the game that the player will have to exceed in order to enjoy, but the appeal is that a 99% of advanced mechanics in the smash games are universal, minus a few like Float Canceling, Double Jump Canceling, Jump Cancel Shines, Wave shines etc. Also, a majority of these techniques are just a conglomeration of what you already know and simply applying in a situation. It's like a math problem, to solve some equations you have to use every thing you know about math to find the solution; knowing when to multiply by the reciprocal, when to factor, when to distribute, it all adds up. These same principles apply to smash when you know to do a short hop, an attack, and then fast fall.
Though admittedly these things can be hard for some to learn because the information isn't presented to them, so it's up to the designer to teach the player, or the player to use the given resources.
How people can have an issue with universal options but be completely fine with only a hand full of characters being able to do some things, having some characters who could literally be grabbed to death, and some just having extremely over bearing advantages over others due to a lack revamping and modification to existing characters is beyond me. Even if players online have to face players who have more skill than another, I would rather face an opponent he can defeat me because he has tactile skills than being pinned into a position where i'll have to accept the inevitable coup de grace because of an extremely simple and illogical exploitation that only he can use because I just happened to play with a certain character. Every online game will have players that are better than you, and if you can't face that then it's your issue that you are unwilling to put in the given amount of time to get better. You put in the time, you'll get better at what you're doing. This concept applies to everything in life.
Some may believe that a lot of these issues become unnoticed in chaotic multiplayer games, but that's just plain lazy and presumptuous of the designers to oversee these issues for the sake of alienating a fan base, especially considering that smash is a game designed around giving the player a wide plethora of playing options. These issues surface regardless, as even a hectic multiplayer fight will eventually turn into a one on one fight, then these problems could be abused. Even if smash isn't a traditional fighter, it still shares similar values and situations to where a character will inevitably be faced with another and placed into a situation where players can devise strategic approach and options. Any match can surmise to player+character vs player+character, where the victor of the match is lent to factors such as player intelligence, players knowledge of the character vs X character, the ability for the player to maximize characters potential damage output / movement / defense given the games universal mechanics, characters positioning advantage in air vs grounded, potential tactics based on stage play, player spontaneity, mechanical reflexes of the player etc. When you contribute all of the variables smash still lends itself to be as competitive of a fighter as any other.
I have no doubt in my mind that Smash 4 will become a great game, and based on the fact that Sakurai is acknowledging his mistakes is a step in the right direction, but i'm not going to take his words at face value because of his prowess as a game designer. There is a level of humility that needs to be established here, and even though being in a directive position entitles you to not take sh*t from anyone, it is still wise to take input from others. This is the sole reason why I believe Namco Bandai was selected as a staff as there are some things that Sakurai doesn't know, and that's perfectly fine; he's human after all. So far smash 4 is looking good, and there are still some subtle hints that Sakurai truly is trying to make this game for everyone. Simple things like the fireball effect on a flying character are great for helping newer players understand how Hitstun and Directional Influence work, the streaks on attacks help characters understand visible/lingering hit boxes on attacks, the increased speed makes the game at a somewhat even pace, and the removal of tripping was a far cry from the community that everyone needed, but Sakurai can always do better:
I think for smash 4 to be a great game, he needs to:
A. Individually analyze each characters ability to use the universal mechanics and tweak them to work in favor of how the character works. For example, a character with multiple jumps should have an airdodge that can be punished more easily than a character with a basic double jump as not to abuse their ability to run away and subsequently force the player into making wiser decisions when using the additional jumps, however not by so much that it would cripple the characters ability to defend itself vs X character. This could be as simple as testing it vs the moves of all characters or making an airdodge have slightly more cool down after the third jump with either a modified animation or just a few more frames of lag. This modification alone would helped characters that are grounded have an advantage attacking on and off stage.
B. Analyze hit boxes/ hurtboxes and sweet spots. Characters like Snake in Brawl and Marth in Melee really needed these adjustments as these were all fairly disjointed. Sakurai seems to be already working on this wit the air streaks on attacks as visual compensation for understanding if an attack just has too much/not enough distance.
C. Character specific issues. Playing with characters often has it's share of risk vs rewards given their physics. Fast Fallers who typically get comboed have strong combo abilities themselves, foaty characters who can't get comboed as well usually have good neutral game and zoning; this balance seemed well paced, however some of these characters couldn't do anything when faced against a character who could get grab released. A character who can zone should not be able to get killed in such a way, or any character for that matter. Issues chain grabs should be re-assessed so that the knock back and stun aren't fixated to screw over some characters. These should be escapable at reasonable percentages if a character decides to use them for additional damage. This would place a player into a position to where he will want to maximize damage in risk of a potential escape or attempt to combo attacks for guaranteed damage in lue of attempting to get a character at kill percent. Utilizing both a chain grab and a combo will be lent to players who have superior knowledge and execution.
D. Execution for characters. Meta Knight in Sakurai's idea was a character that was good when a player who was good at execution played with him; a glass canon in a sense, however this wasn't the case as he was still fairly heavy and he was fairly simple to play with. It was a good idea at heart since he did require some execution to chain his faster attacks for the average player, but anyone who can play the game at a remotely faster pace could easily dominate with him. It could have been much better is they would have minimized the stun of his attacks so that links would be harder, reduced his kill potential, not give so much lenience on his recovery attacks, and overall just made him very light. Characters like this should be stricter on execution, similarly to how Fox was in Melee. However, each character should have it's own execution barrier that lends itself to maximizing the characters potential. The hardest part is knowing whether or not it will be overwhelming for others, but play testing will definitely help.
E. Being open to ideas and other players. Nintendo and their development concept dismisses play testing for the most part for the sake of quality control, but I believe if the developers and sakurai are open to a bit of criticism it would make things a bit easier for everyone. However this may not be needed, as I believe a lot of players feel confident in the staff and their abilities.
In the end, i'm glad we just have another smash game, but it's very easy to please people who just want to buy the game and stop playing it after a while, but after Sakurai's recent backlash against having a story mode in the game due to the cut scenes being spread across the internet, I believe Sakurai wants his efforts to be appreciated, and the best way to do that is to look at everyone and their opinions despite how big of a potential sales based you have established. Having a game that is well polished that highlights it's key aspects is the best way to do that. You can't make a game just for yourself if you aren't the only one buying it.
Eternal phoenix Fire
Smash Hero
Sorry for the double post, but this had to be said.
To those of you who call yourself a casual players, please stop calling yourselves that, as you are not a casual player by any right. A casual player is someone who will play a game just because it's there for amusement. If you have been here for years and are discussing a games competitive potential, you aren't casual. This defense mechanism you established to shield yourself from criticism does not work in the slightest. Own up to who you are, and don't put yourself in the casual category because you were unsuccessful in doing something due to a lack of ability and/or effort.
To those of you who call yourself a casual players, please stop calling yourselves that, as you are not a casual player by any right. A casual player is someone who will play a game just because it's there for amusement. If you have been here for years and are discussing a games competitive potential, you aren't casual. This defense mechanism you established to shield yourself from criticism does not work in the slightest. Own up to who you are, and don't put yourself in the casual category because you were unsuccessful in doing something due to a lack of ability and/or effort.
Chiroz
Tier Lists? Foolish...
I share the vast majority of EPF's opinions, including that last post. I just find it irritating that a lot of player keep using the term casual as a personal shield to avoid certain arguments that they cannot refute. If you are discussing the mechanics of a game that isn't even released, you are not a casual player by any means. Playing with items on pokefloats without using any ATs doesn't make you a casual. A casual is only defined by his mentality. As soon as you get into a discussion with anyone from the competitive scene, you stop being a casual as you show that you have more than just a "casual" interest on the game.
Eternal phoenix Fire
Smash Hero
Thanks Raykz.
Also, it really is irritating when players make assumptions as to why we prefer certain games. I personally prefer Melee, but you shouldn't say that: 1) Us preferring Melee automatically means we dislike Brawl. 2) We dislike Brawl because we have had X technique removed from the game.
This is false, as I play both Melee and Brawl on a competitive level. The difference is I can see the over bearing flaws when they present themselves. This isn't to say Melee is without its own flaws, but that the flaws in Brawl were inexcusable . If you can take the time to remove dash dancing, wave landing, L-canceling, reduce hitstun, modify character moves, why couldn't you take the time to remove infinites, chain grabs, jab locks, overly disjointed hitboxes, outrageous character specific attacks and other ridiculous flaws? the mentality saying that having these things are fine in the game, but saying that things like a slide across the ground or half landing lag on aerial attacks (mind you these can be used by EVERYONE) are over whelming and game breaking are ludicrous. Of course Melee has dumb stuff like being able to roll off of the ledge and have the character unable to grab it, characters who have spikes vs characters that have meteors etc, but these things have the potential to be avoided in some instances.
Look at the game objectively and think about it. Were the corrections made from Melee to Brawl really profitable in the end? Did these things enhance game play? Were these changes in any way shape or form balanced? In my opinion I don't believe so. While Brawl was a great leap forward for content, it was drastic step backwards for game play. That is why it has gained the rep it does now. The game isn't merely hated for no reason, after all there are no 64 vs Melee debates since it was a logical step forward. No game should deliberately nuder itself and accomplish little to nothing.
Also, it really is irritating when players make assumptions as to why we prefer certain games. I personally prefer Melee, but you shouldn't say that: 1) Us preferring Melee automatically means we dislike Brawl. 2) We dislike Brawl because we have had X technique removed from the game.
This is false, as I play both Melee and Brawl on a competitive level. The difference is I can see the over bearing flaws when they present themselves. This isn't to say Melee is without its own flaws, but that the flaws in Brawl were inexcusable . If you can take the time to remove dash dancing, wave landing, L-canceling, reduce hitstun, modify character moves, why couldn't you take the time to remove infinites, chain grabs, jab locks, overly disjointed hitboxes, outrageous character specific attacks and other ridiculous flaws? the mentality saying that having these things are fine in the game, but saying that things like a slide across the ground or half landing lag on aerial attacks (mind you these can be used by EVERYONE) are over whelming and game breaking are ludicrous. Of course Melee has dumb stuff like being able to roll off of the ledge and have the character unable to grab it, characters who have spikes vs characters that have meteors etc, but these things have the potential to be avoided in some instances.
Look at the game objectively and think about it. Were the corrections made from Melee to Brawl really profitable in the end? Did these things enhance game play? Were these changes in any way shape or form balanced? In my opinion I don't believe so. While Brawl was a great leap forward for content, it was drastic step backwards for game play. That is why it has gained the rep it does now. The game isn't merely hated for no reason, after all there are no 64 vs Melee debates since it was a logical step forward. No game should deliberately nuder itself and accomplish little to nothing.
Eternal phoenix Fire
Smash Hero
Not questioning your capabilities as a player, but it honestly sounds like you just lacking skill as there are few thing besides a wobbling in Melee that make you feel powerless.
You playing against a player who knows your character makes you feel powerless
Your opponent reading your approaches makes you feel powerless
Your opponent reading your tech and punishing you for it makes you feel powerless
The enemy reading your DI and comboing you for it makes you feel powerless.
Your opponent covering all of your options upon recovery and gimping you makes you feel powerless.
your lack of knowledge makes you feel powerless
However, a character sliding across the ground does not make me feel powerless.
You shouldn't think that the game is the reason why you lose, as the players who are winning the major tournaments are typically very consistent, this applies in Melee and Brawl. If you want to talk about being powerless, try getting chain grabbed across to an infinite percent, being grab released across stage and being spiked or being laser locked by Falco. No matter how much you DI you can't escape any of these. If you are having problems playing you shouldn't blame the game and analyze your own capabilities. There are so many more things in Brawl that makes the match one sided.
[Corn]
Smash Ace
Melee has things that make you feel powerless, just different basically but yes, Brawl has a few things that honestly shouldnt be in play. This is mostly infinite grab releases though as the other ones arent nearly as damaging to specific characters, dont have any idea why they are allowed. Capitalizing on grab releases is fine as long as the grab isnt stationary and doesnt lead into another grab. Chaingrabs are also fine as long as they dont hurt the metagame. Most of the dislike for things comes down to pure subjectivity though.
In Laser lock Falco cannot get a hit off of it due to ending lag and it is very unlikely that it ever happens. If he chain grabs and spikes you can smash di the spike and land on the stage.
Jab lock is totally fine as well, considering how hard it is to actually land and the situations in which it can be used. You can also di and try to avoid the next jab.
Conis
Smash Rookie
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2011
- Messages
- 17
Hm, from the title of the topic, I expected an argument much different than the one that was actually presented. I would not argue that appealing to competitive and casual players (and the entire spectrum of skill levels, really) is a bad decision or one that should be criticized; however, it seems that the suggestion being made here is more along the lines of "competitive players should not be catered to, because most players are casual and catering to competitive players alienates casual players." As many have noted, that's not a valid argument for a number of reasons.
What really doesn't make much sense to me is the idea that no advanced techniques should be included because the inclusion of them allows highly skilled players to easily dominate less skilled ones, which is a rather ridiculous argument to make when that is a phenomenon that is going to occur anyway. It was also brought up that ATs create steeper skill curves to some extent (a great increase in success at the game for a small increase in skill), which is admittedly a legitimate point, but as long as ATs require skill to be used effectively and aren't simply something you do all the time once you know how (like L-cancelling apparently was in Melee), I wouldn't consider that a huge problem.
I also don't understand the staunch opposition that some have to a matchmaking system that would pair players with others of similar skill level. That seems like something that the mast majority of players, competitive or casual or anywhere in between, would benefit from, because most people will enjoy playing with someone who is near their level of skill. It makes for matches that are closely fought, where both players have a good chance of winning. If you simply pair up players randomly, you have people of vastly different skill levels getting put together, which leads to lopsided matches (unless you have random elements enabled, but even then the skilled player will likely win most of the time). This isn't really fun for either player - the skilled player gets bored and the unskilled player gets discouraged. This has been brought up many times already, but it bears repeating: you simply cannot prevent great players from defeating not-so-great players most of the time. All you can do is mitigate the effect, either by balancing the playing field with random stuff (as Smash already does) or by segmenting those player types (as a matchmaking system could). Plus, if this matchmaking setup is optional, you could let players elect not to use it and play against anyone of any skill if they want to, which is fine - I'm willing to concede that there are people who want to play against (or wouldn't mind playing against) people of a much greater or lesser skill level than their own. There are reasons for wanting to do that which are perfectly legitimate, so let people do that if they want.
(Sidenote: If online in this game lets people choose what rules they want to play by, whatever item/stage/etc. choices they prefer - and it really ought to - then that would probably segment players to some extent without matchmaking anyway - competitive players will mostly play with neutral setups and casual players will opt to play with items and gimmicky stages. Would you consider that a problem too?)
But most of all, I, as a not particularly competitive player, don't get the mindset that explicitly catering to competitive players in any way will automatically drive away casuals, since it will pit them against really good players who will wreck them and discourage them from playing. It is absolutely insane to make this argument when better players destroy worse players in literally every competitive game ever, previous Smash games included. It happens, and yet tons of casual players still play them! And before you say "oh but with online it's different", the presence of online play does not cause nearly as much of a problem as has been suggested. The very fact that Smash mainly appeals to casual players, which is largely why this debate is occurring in the first place, is a major reason why - most of the people online are going to be casual players, with a very small minority of skilled players. Thus, the instances of those players running into the big bad "competitive" types who curbstomp them and make them feel bad should hypothetically be uncommon. It'll be even less so if you throw in things like matchmaking that pairs up players by skill and options that allow casual players to play with items and stage hazards and whatnot (which should give them less chance of facing high-level players and a better chance at putting up a decent fight if they do end up facing such players). Smash is already a game that does the whole "helping the loser have fun" thing well for numerous reasons - even Melee, the game which supposedly caters entirely to competitive players, is great at that. I don't see why reducing the competitive appeal of the game is necessary to accomplish that goal - it's already been accomplished, and with some adjustments, it can continue to be accomplished even when online play is factored in, still without sacrificing competitive appeal.
Again, though, the segmentation of players by skill level is apparently a contentious point. But if you truly want to force people of drastically different skill levels to play together, yet you don't want the more highly skilled players to destroy the less skilled players and discourage them when they are forcibly paired together...I really don't know what to tell you. You're asking for something that's basically impossible to accomplish.
(Another sidenote: since that Extra Credits Depth vs. Complexity was posted back on the first page, I would say that Smash absolutely excels at being a very deep game that has little complexity. It has much less complicated inputs than other fighters do, but still has tons of variety in movements and strategies to offer the player. ATs also extend that depth without adding much complexity - they're not terribly difficult to execute and lend well to additional strategization, which makes me wonder why they're so controversial).
What really doesn't make much sense to me is the idea that no advanced techniques should be included because the inclusion of them allows highly skilled players to easily dominate less skilled ones, which is a rather ridiculous argument to make when that is a phenomenon that is going to occur anyway. It was also brought up that ATs create steeper skill curves to some extent (a great increase in success at the game for a small increase in skill), which is admittedly a legitimate point, but as long as ATs require skill to be used effectively and aren't simply something you do all the time once you know how (like L-cancelling apparently was in Melee), I wouldn't consider that a huge problem.
I also don't understand the staunch opposition that some have to a matchmaking system that would pair players with others of similar skill level. That seems like something that the mast majority of players, competitive or casual or anywhere in between, would benefit from, because most people will enjoy playing with someone who is near their level of skill. It makes for matches that are closely fought, where both players have a good chance of winning. If you simply pair up players randomly, you have people of vastly different skill levels getting put together, which leads to lopsided matches (unless you have random elements enabled, but even then the skilled player will likely win most of the time). This isn't really fun for either player - the skilled player gets bored and the unskilled player gets discouraged. This has been brought up many times already, but it bears repeating: you simply cannot prevent great players from defeating not-so-great players most of the time. All you can do is mitigate the effect, either by balancing the playing field with random stuff (as Smash already does) or by segmenting those player types (as a matchmaking system could). Plus, if this matchmaking setup is optional, you could let players elect not to use it and play against anyone of any skill if they want to, which is fine - I'm willing to concede that there are people who want to play against (or wouldn't mind playing against) people of a much greater or lesser skill level than their own. There are reasons for wanting to do that which are perfectly legitimate, so let people do that if they want.
(Sidenote: If online in this game lets people choose what rules they want to play by, whatever item/stage/etc. choices they prefer - and it really ought to - then that would probably segment players to some extent without matchmaking anyway - competitive players will mostly play with neutral setups and casual players will opt to play with items and gimmicky stages. Would you consider that a problem too?)
But most of all, I, as a not particularly competitive player, don't get the mindset that explicitly catering to competitive players in any way will automatically drive away casuals, since it will pit them against really good players who will wreck them and discourage them from playing. It is absolutely insane to make this argument when better players destroy worse players in literally every competitive game ever, previous Smash games included. It happens, and yet tons of casual players still play them! And before you say "oh but with online it's different", the presence of online play does not cause nearly as much of a problem as has been suggested. The very fact that Smash mainly appeals to casual players, which is largely why this debate is occurring in the first place, is a major reason why - most of the people online are going to be casual players, with a very small minority of skilled players. Thus, the instances of those players running into the big bad "competitive" types who curbstomp them and make them feel bad should hypothetically be uncommon. It'll be even less so if you throw in things like matchmaking that pairs up players by skill and options that allow casual players to play with items and stage hazards and whatnot (which should give them less chance of facing high-level players and a better chance at putting up a decent fight if they do end up facing such players). Smash is already a game that does the whole "helping the loser have fun" thing well for numerous reasons - even Melee, the game which supposedly caters entirely to competitive players, is great at that. I don't see why reducing the competitive appeal of the game is necessary to accomplish that goal - it's already been accomplished, and with some adjustments, it can continue to be accomplished even when online play is factored in, still without sacrificing competitive appeal.
Again, though, the segmentation of players by skill level is apparently a contentious point. But if you truly want to force people of drastically different skill levels to play together, yet you don't want the more highly skilled players to destroy the less skilled players and discourage them when they are forcibly paired together...I really don't know what to tell you. You're asking for something that's basically impossible to accomplish.
(Another sidenote: since that Extra Credits Depth vs. Complexity was posted back on the first page, I would say that Smash absolutely excels at being a very deep game that has little complexity. It has much less complicated inputs than other fighters do, but still has tons of variety in movements and strategies to offer the player. ATs also extend that depth without adding much complexity - they're not terribly difficult to execute and lend well to additional strategization, which makes me wonder why they're so controversial).
Eternal phoenix Fire
Smash Hero
I agree with Conis. Another thing, many assume that the players they lose to online will cause them to jump ship, quit playing the game, or complain to another player. The reality of the matter is that this isn't always true, rather these people are inflecting their ideas and principles to people who may or may not even act in such a manner. Rather, why not look at the potential benefits of a player losing to a superior player; it may bring a new player into the smash scene. When I first started here I was completely humiliated and demolished, and instead of complaining I decided to gain knowledge and understanding.
Improving myself in smash, going to tournaments and meeting new people was a great experience. And even if you don't have the time or money to do so, you can still improve by accessing resources. I honestly can't see the problem in putting in a little time if you truly want to compete with the better players, but feeling as if you should be on another persons level without practice (Which you won't despite any limits opposed to the other player because of his/her knowledge of the game is superior) comes of as childish.
The players who are going to get upset and complain about a player beating them aren't going to be casual players, as they will just dismiss it and move on with their life. However, the players that will complain are those who are self-entitled and fail to evaluate their mistakes or take the initiative to improve. Other players should not have to suffer because of this.
Improving myself in smash, going to tournaments and meeting new people was a great experience. And even if you don't have the time or money to do so, you can still improve by accessing resources. I honestly can't see the problem in putting in a little time if you truly want to compete with the better players, but feeling as if you should be on another persons level without practice (Which you won't despite any limits opposed to the other player because of his/her knowledge of the game is superior) comes of as childish.
The players who are going to get upset and complain about a player beating them aren't going to be casual players, as they will just dismiss it and move on with their life. However, the players that will complain are those who are self-entitled and fail to evaluate their mistakes or take the initiative to improve. Other players should not have to suffer because of this.
Ogre_Deity_Link
Smash Lord
Why...why did this get necro-posted?
FlamingForce
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2013
- Messages
- 390
This is everything that is wrong with us right now. That statement assumes that, when ANYONE plays this game, their goal should be getting to a high level of execution and play, to learn solid strategy, and to win. This is NOT the case. This kind of thinking assumes that WE are playing the game correctly, and that casual players should cater their playstyles to us.
If they don't want to win then what's the problem?
You make a strange argument, if someone wants to defeat a player that has spent more time playing the game, learning the intricacies of a game and simply being better at the game then that player should damn sure be forced to start spending more then his usual amount of time at said game.
Design philosophy has very little to do with this, Brawl was about as casual as the Smash games could get but that doesn't mean a casual player has even the slightest chance in all hell against someone like for instance, Salem.
The fact of the matter is that Smash is not a traditional fighter, as Sakurai has stated repeatedly in interviews; he has learned over the years that he doesn't want to cater only to us. This is not a bad thing. In another thread, someone posed the question "how does ATs existing affect casuals", to which I responded, "in an online environment, casuals are forced to play with us; they can't just choose not to go to the tournament. So, giving us those tools breaks the game for them, which is unacceptable." The response I got was, "well, if they want to compete, they should learn, get better, and play on our level."
We have no idea on how this new online environment will be shaped, assuming that we'll be getting a much more fleshed out and playable version of what SSBB presented to us, we'll be able to decide whether we want to play with items or not, how many other people we want to play with and on what kind of stage we want to play in such a way that everyone hopping on the online service will be able to play in a setting closest to his/her desires.
Hardcore players will be interested in 1v1, no items, tourney stages etc and they should be able to use the online environment to play the game the way they want to just like the casuals should be able to use the online environment to cater to whatever it is they do.
There is absolutely no guarantee that casual players will be forced to play in a competitive setting with competitive players.
And yes, assuming that they'll be given the choice, if they WANT to compete with those players then they SHOULD put more time in, they SHOULD practice and they SHOULD play to get better because a player that doesn't bother with these things should not be beating a player that does.
If they don't want to win then what's the problem?
You make a strange argument, if someone wants to defeat a player that has spent more time playing the game, learning the intricacies of a game and simply being better at the game then that player should damn sure be forced to start spending more then his usual amount of time at said game.
Design philosophy has very little to do with this, Brawl was about as casual as the Smash games could get but that doesn't mean a casual player has even the slightest chance in all hell against someone like for instance, Salem.
The fact of the matter is that Smash is not a traditional fighter, as Sakurai has stated repeatedly in interviews; he has learned over the years that he doesn't want to cater only to us. This is not a bad thing. In another thread, someone posed the question "how does ATs existing affect casuals", to which I responded, "in an online environment, casuals are forced to play with us; they can't just choose not to go to the tournament. So, giving us those tools breaks the game for them, which is unacceptable." The response I got was, "well, if they want to compete, they should learn, get better, and play on our level."
We have no idea on how this new online environment will be shaped, assuming that we'll be getting a much more fleshed out and playable version of what SSBB presented to us, we'll be able to decide whether we want to play with items or not, how many other people we want to play with and on what kind of stage we want to play in such a way that everyone hopping on the online service will be able to play in a setting closest to his/her desires.
Hardcore players will be interested in 1v1, no items, tourney stages etc and they should be able to use the online environment to play the game the way they want to just like the casuals should be able to use the online environment to cater to whatever it is they do.
There is absolutely no guarantee that casual players will be forced to play in a competitive setting with competitive players.
And yes, assuming that they'll be given the choice, if they WANT to compete with those players then they SHOULD put more time in, they SHOULD practice and they SHOULD play to get better because a player that doesn't bother with these things should not be beating a player that does.
Dunno. It's a terrible thread and the op makes dim-witted observations, but the last several posts have been quite good and make great points.
Aidebit
Smash Journeyman
While necroposting isn't the best practice, we're at least seeing some proper arguments for advanced techniques, and you can't deny that good arguments deserve to be heard.
Ogre_Deity_Link
Smash Lord
I thought the arguments on either side had stopped though...
Wishful thinking, I suppose.
Wishful thinking, I suppose.