Why do some mechanics get taken out?

[RODO]

It seems that over the years Smash gets less and less mechanics with each new installment after Melee (note that the Wii U version played was a demo and not the final game but I'm still speculating). Usually when games get a sequel they expand upon existing mechanics and add new ones to the table, but why do feel as if with each new smash I have less to work with? What was wrong with dash dancing? Or L-cancelling?? I used to have so much control over my character's movement but now it just feels so limited.

I can understand if something is broken or unintuitive. Wavedashing I can understand but something as simple as just fluidly moving back and forth on the ground is no longer being implemented. It continues the trend of taking a step forward with content but a step backward with gameplay. I am really curious for the reasoning behind cutting mechanics that were perfectly fine to begin with.

 

[Renji64]

I don't get it either so much for this being enjoyable for competitive players and casuals.

 

[nessokman]

Each game needs to be its own individual experience. If they all have the same mechanics, then it's the same game with different characters and stages.that would get boring quickly. New mechanics mix it up without any giant changes.(going 2D to 3D, etc...)

Changing mechanics is what makes all the games great, individual experiences.

 

[Ingulit]

It seems that over the years Smash gets less and less mechanics with each new installment after Melee (note that the Wii U version played was a demo and not the final game but I'm still speculating). Usually when games get a sequel they expand upon existing mechanics and add new ones to the table, but why do feel as if with each new smash I have less to work with? What was wrong with dash dancing? Or L-cancelling?? I used to have so much control over my character's movement but now it just feels so limited.

I can understand if something is broken or unintuitive. Wavedashing I can understand but something as simple as just fluidly moving back and forth on the ground is no longer being implemented. It continues the trend of taking a step forward with content but a step backward with gameplay. I am really curious for the reasoning behind cutting mechanics that were perfectly fine to begin with.

I by no means have any actual knowledge behind these decisions, but I have some theories:

Dash Dancing was a by-product of the mechanics behind starting a dash, so if they upgraded that part of the engine at all in order to do other things (which I'm sure they had to do in many places to achieve the 60FPS thing) it might not have been possible in their new system. It also had a "glitch" feel to it, which I touch on a little later, so that might have something to do with it.

L-Cancelling is a punisher mechanic, and in game design you're supposed to avoid those as much as possible because they, in theory, aren't fun (eg. you always want lower ending lag on aerials, but when you use an aerial if you don't press L at the right time you're punished for it).

Wavedashing was caused by the old airdodge system that just isn't possible with the way airdodges work nowadays (again, whether or not that's a good thing is not what I'm arguing here). It also was KIND OF a "glitch" (for lack of a better term), which despite it adding so much to the competitive community, looks like a lack of polish for it having been left in the game. They COULD have made it an official mechanic, yes, but obviously they didn't, so it needed to be handled somehow.

I'd chalk most of the changes up to the desire to polish via simplification. While that might not be what the competitive community wants, making the game more accessible/understandable goes a long way toward any game's success overall.

 

[Reila]

It happens with every franchise, be it a fighting game franchise or not. Funnily, the Smash fandom is the only fandom I know, who complain about the removal of mechanics... for years. The Street Fighter scene complained about the lack of parrying in Street Fighter 4, but they moved on and embraced the game, which is amazing. Things need to be changed, regardless of some purists liking it or not. Melee wasn't the same as the original game, then why should Brawl and Sm4sh be the same as Melee? Melee ain't special, it is just a game as any other in the series.

 

[-Whiplash-]

Melee ain't special, it is just a game as any other in the series.

While I would agree with you this part of your post is stupid.

If melee wasn't special it wouldn't be the oldest game at Evo and still be played competitively 13 years after it's release.

And before you tell me it's "Because some people refuse to move on" or some nonsense, think that maybe the reason they don't is because it IS a special game that isn't worth moving on from.

 

[Dapplegonger]

I see people are once again forgetting about Smash 64 in their discussions. From 64 to Melee they added or edited: airdodging (and by extent wavedashing), L-canceling, dash-dancing, zairs, pummels, jump from ledge, up and down throws, and an entirely new side-special.

I don't know about everyone else, but I don't think that's really a trend.

EDIT: While there were several mechanics taken out of Brawl from the Melee days, there were also some new mechanics for Brawl too, for better or for worse. For example: footstooling, tripping, swimming, tethers, jab/laser locks, among others that I can't remember off the top of my head.

 

[Ingulit]

I see people are once again forgetting about Smash 64 in their discussions. From 64 to Melee they added or edited: airdodging (and by extent wavedashing), L-canceling, dash-dancing, zairs, pummels, jump from ledge, up and down throws, and an entirely new side-special.

I don't know about everyone else, but I don't think that's really a trend.

That's not entirely fair, since most of those things were fairly logical things that 64 was missing, especially all the directional things; it's kind of hard to add new specials/throws/etc. at this point since they're already using all the main directions you can point a control stick, and barring a weird new controller there isn't much more to do.

L-Cancelling was in 64 btw

 

[LancerStaff]

It seems that over the years Smash gets less and less mechanics with each new installment after Melee (note that the Wii U version played was a demo and not the final game but I'm still speculating). Usually when games get a sequel they expand upon existing mechanics and add new ones to the table, but why do feel as if with each new smash I have less to work with? What was wrong with dash dancing? Or L-cancelling?? I used to have so much control over my character's movement but now it just feels so limited.

I can understand if something is broken or unintuitive. Wavedashing I can understand but something as simple as just fluidly moving back and forth on the ground is no longer being implemented. It continues the trend of taking a step forward with content but a step backward with gameplay. I am really curious for the reasoning behind cutting mechanics that were perfectly fine to begin with.

Because not everybody is fine with them, and they generally cause the gap between casual and hardcore to widen.

 

[RODO]

Everyone has pretty good answers but I firmly believe that if older mechanics were fine then they should be kept and expanded upon. Of course new mechanics should be introduced but if it ain't broke don't fix it.

 

[Dapplegonger]

L-Cancelling was in 64 btw

Sorry, I wasn't exactly clear on my point with that one (although I still may be wrong). I realized that there was some form of L-cancelling in 64, but I thought it was changed somehow in the transition.

 

[Saito]

Sorry, I wasn't exactly clear on my point with that one (although I still may be wrong). I realized that there was some form of L-cancelling in 64, but I thought it was changed somehow in the transition.

L cancelling in 64 cancelled all lag after an attack.
L cancelling in Melee cancelled half of it.

 

[thrillagorilla]

I look at it this way...

L-cancelling: I can understand why they would take this out. It can create decisions that would otherwise go to the wayside, such as whether or not you want to risk lagging yourself to get that extra attack in. There is a certain depth added to the game while some options are taken away. Not bad, just different.

Wave dashing: An accidental tech that completely altered some character's play-styles in Melee. It put up a technical barrier for a lot of players who wanted to get good at the game. Its not bad by any means (great in a lot of ways), I can just understand why the developers would want to change it from a design perspective.

Dash dancing: This makes a bit less sense to remove, seeing as it eliminates an easy to use movement option. I can't really explain why they would remove this, though I am still willing to play a Smash game without it. As a side note, this was in 64 Melee and Brawl to a lesser extent, so if it has been removed from Smash for WiiU/3DS I will be highly confused.

Hit-stun:

...

If I were to really get into this, I would be talking for the next page or so. I'll try to summarize. A fighting game with little hit-stun can work, but it changes the way the game is played drastically. The types of decisions made become far more subtle, and the pace of the game naturally slows due to the increased number of decisions and the weight each decision carries, since there are limited options in comparison to a game with hit-stun. With that in mind, a developer should create the type of game their audience wants.

For smash in particular, I think the current longevity of Melee should be speaking volumes to the developers, yet from my observations of Smash for WiiU/3DS game-play I have to question whether they are paying any attention to this group of payers at all. I will say this much though... Nintendo as a company (ie, not the developers but the rest of the business) has payed attention and has done some excellent, wonderful things that I and a very large number of other people appreciate and rightfully should.

I digress...

I wasn't able to play Smash for WiiU/3DS yesterday, so I am limited to my observations of other people playing the game. All I can say is I personally hope for a number of changes before release. If I don't get them I will still likely play this game, albeit only casually.

 

[Manty]

It happens with every franchise, be it a fighting game franchise or not. Funnily, the Smash fandom is the only fandom I know, who complain about the removal of mechanics... for years. The Street Fighter scene complained about the lack of parrying in Street Fighter 4, but they moved on and embraced the game, which is amazing. Things need to be changed, regardless of some purists liking it or not. Melee wasn't the same as the original game, then why should Brawl and Sm4sh be the same as Melee? Melee ain't special, it is just a game as any other in the series.

To be fair, traditional fighting games are made under a different design philosophy. They don't just remove mechanics, they replace them with new ones or add more. Those games are made with a much larger focus on depth and high level play compared to smash bros.

People are always wary of change no matter what because they develop preferences.They stuck with SF4 because the core fundamentals are still intact and the mechanics worked well enough for it to come into its own as a street fighter game, not because it had street fighter in the title. If SF4 lacked the depth they wanted the game would be as dead as SFxT

 

[Oracle_Summon]

The game is still in development. We also got one major thing added to the game (besides character reveals) Amiibos.

Being able to customize your own fighter beyond the typical Computer Level 9 opponent and, the fact, that you can alter their fighting style by fighting them head on, is breathtaking to me.

So, just be patience and wait for more modes to be announced.

 

[hariooo]

It happens with every franchise, be it a fighting game franchise or not. Funnily, the Smash fandom is the only fandom I know, who complain about the removal of mechanics... for years. The Street Fighter scene complained about the lack of parrying in Street Fighter 4, but they moved on and embraced the game, which is amazing. Things need to be changed, regardless of some purists liking it or not. Melee wasn't the same as the original game, then why should Brawl and Sm4sh be the same as Melee? Melee ain't special, it is just a game as any other in the series.

The competitive Street Fighter scene eventually came around to accept the new game that was designed to be competitive by all meanings of the word? Consider me shocked that Brawl's competitive scene is declining though. Smash 4 is quoted as a "party" game by the designers themselves so do you really expect the Melee competitive scene to put any serious effort into it after they tried and failed with Brawl?

And you know what, Melee is ultimately what reinvigorated competitive interest in the series (i.e. EVO/MLG/CEO) 12 entire years after its release so it's a little special even if you personally don't like the game.

 

[Aguki90]

And people forget about hedge countering and the new grappling hook longer range.
Somehow those technique was there in the demo but in the tournament never used them because little know about them or what button to do it.
Those mechanic are new and fair to the series, more than a bug that was very hard to do for any casual players.

Street fighter 2 combo system was glitch in the game but it was easy and fun to everyone, but, wavedash and l-cancelling take practice and concentration just to dominated.

 

[Alondite]

What was wrong with dash dancing? Or L-cancelling?? I used to have so much control over my character's movement but now it just feels so limited.

I can understand if something is broken or unintuitive. Wavedashing I can understand but something as simple as just fluidly moving back and forth on the ground is no longer being implemented. It continues the trend of taking a step forward with content but a step backward with gameplay. I am really curious for the reasoning behind cutting mechanics that were perfectly fine to begin with.

Why? Because Nintendo understands the nature of interactivity and gameplay. That's the short answer.

Dash-dancing and L-canceling both are poor mechanics/properties for essentially the same reason: risk-reward balancing, and because they disrupt the natural push-pull of the interplay systems. Weakness and vulnerability are hugely important in gameplay systems because they encourage interaction and interplay, which, of course, is the core of what gameplay is.

Exactly how much risk is there to a dash, how much consideration and thought-process is involved when you can change direction and retreat at the drop of a hat? It's all push and no pull. The decision-making process is less meaningful because there's les risk, and meaningful decision-making is a key element in both gameplay and competitive play. That's the problem with Melee as a whole. The game's interplay, and thus gameplay, is limited by mechanics that reduce overall engagement between players, because one player is pressing an advantage and the other is doing what little they can to get back on an even playing field. Brawl is the opposite, it's all pull.

L-canceling is even worse, because not only does it limit risk, but it also disrupts balance. Aerials are designed with individual landing lag, and lag relative to grounded moves, for the sake of balancing the moves. L-canceling makes some moves almost absurdly safe, again limiting engagement because the defending player really can't press an advantage, or "push back" because there is no pull. Not only that, but executing an l-canceled aerial requires little deliberation because there's not much risk involved relative to a grounded move or a non-l-canceled aerial. Melee is all push, and that's why it will never be as deep and engaging as a game where the interplay is more balanced.

The same goes for mobility. Having a high degree of control over your character is good, but having absolute control and being able to essentially cancel any movement/action limits gameplay potential and lessens the meaning of the decisions you make, becuase you can just take it back, more or less.

The one and only reason why Melee has a large competitive following and Brawl doesn't is rooted entirely in human pshychology, and not at all in whether or not the game is more viable for competitive play. Melee makes players feel skilled, and people like to feel skilled. Melee also gives players exorbitant reward for little to no risk, which is something people like just as much. People like to tout "tech skill" (a ridiculous and inaccurate term) and action frequency as if either of those have anything to do with the quality of gameplay and competitive potential. It's also exciting to watch because it's fast and flashy.

Brawl, on the other hand, is the exact opposite. There's very little reward for most actions; safe execution requires impeccable technique. The game is very technical and "analog" in that sense because there are varying degrees of success based on technique. Kind of like how a golf swing is very technical because minute changes can yield significantly different outcomes. Melee, on the other hand, is much more binary because of the increased hitstun. Spacing matters, but generally just hitting an opponent is enough to not only stay safe, but also follow-up. The problem with this is that engaging with a player who is in hitstun is FAR less engaging for both players than engaging with a player who has all of their potential actions at their disposal. Brawl went overboard with this and discouraged interaction because there was so little reward for the risk, and Melee did the opposite. They're equally poor design (though the core design of SSB remains incredibly dynamic with enormous gameplay potential, so I'm not saying that either is a bad game or is poorly designed on the whole).

By the looks of things, Smash 4 seems to toe the line between the two, and by release (and potentially some tuning patches) should be the first SSB that gets it right.

 

[Speed Demon]

Why? Because Nintendo understands the nature of interactivity and gameplay. That's the short answer.

Dash-dancing and L-canceling both are poor mechanics/properties for essentially the same reason: risk-reward balancing, and because they disrupt the natural push-pull of the interplay systems. Weakness and vulnerability are hugely important in gameplay systems because they encourage interaction and interplay, which, of course, is the core of what gameplay is.

Exactly how much risk is there to a dash, how much consideration and thought-process is involved when you can change direction and retreat at the drop of a hat? It's all push and no pull. The decision-making process is less meaningful because there's les risk, and meaningful decision-making is a key element in both gameplay and competitive play. That's the problem with Melee as a whole. The game's interplay, and thus gameplay, is limited by mechanics that reduce overall engagement between players, because one player is pressing an advantage and the other is doing what little they can to get back on an even playing field. Brawl is the opposite, it's all pull.

L-canceling is even worse, because not only does it limit risk, but it also disrupts balance. Aerials are designed with individual landing lag, and lag relative to grounded moves, for the sake of balancing the moves. L-canceling makes some moves almost absurdly safe, again limiting engagement because the defending player really can't press an advantage, or "push back" because there is no pull. Not only that, but executing an l-canceled aerial requires little deliberation because there's not much risk involved relative to a grounded move or a non-l-canceled aerial. Melee is all push, and that's why it will never be as deep and engaging as a game where the interplay is more balanced.

The same goes for mobility. Having a high degree of control over your character is good, but having absolute control and being able to essentially cancel any movement/action limits gameplay potential and lessens the meaning of the decisions you make, becuase you can just take it back, more or less.

The one and only reason why Melee has a large competitive following and Brawl doesn't is rooted entirely in human pshychology, and not at all in whether or not the game is more viable for competitive play. Melee makes players feel skilled, and people like to feel skilled. Melee also gives players exorbitant reward for little to no risk, which is something people like just as much. People like to tout "tech skill" (a ridiculous and inaccurate term) and action frequency as if either of those have anything to do with the quality of gameplay and competitive potential. It's also exciting to watch because it's fast and flashy.

Brawl, on the other hand, is the exact opposite. There's very little reward for most actions; safe execution requires impeccable technique. The game is very technical and "analog" in that sense because there are varying degrees of success based on technique. Kind of like how a golf swing is very technical because minute changes can yield significantly different outcomes. Melee, on the other hand, is much more binary because of the increased hitstun. Spacing matters, but generally just hitting an opponent is enough to not only stay safe, but also follow-up. The problem with this is that engaging with a player who is in hitstun is FAR less engaging for both players than engaging with a player who has all of their potential actions at their disposal. Brawl went overboard with this and discouraged interaction because there was so little reward for the risk, and Melee did the opposite. They're equally poor design (though the core design of SSB remains incredibly dynamic with enormous gameplay potential, so I'm not saying that either is a bad game or is poorly designed on the whole).

By the looks of things, Smash 4 seems to toe the line between the two, and by release (and potentially some tuning patches) should be the first SSB that gets it right.

First I completely disagree with your claims on each game. First of all we all know Melee is the most technical smash game. The techniques like l-canceling and wavedashing in melee actually make each move have equal risk because the these moves are used to counter one another. If someone is shield pressuring you in melee with l-cancelled aerials one great option is to wavedash out of shield so these advanced techniques don't make the game low risk high reward. Also since melee requires great timing and such then it ends up being even more technical because if you mess up then you can be punished HARD. Brawl simplified the mechanics actually. First you can air dodge multiple times making approaches and baits safer because you can short hop and airdodge past an opponents attempt to punish the approach they anticipated. Also the slower pace made the game way easier to predict. I remember before even taking smash seriously I would play brawl and could spot dodge and roll past most attacks on reaction because it was so easy to read and the pace was so slow leaving no anticipation to my opponent's move. Also Brawl was less balanced than Melee because in Brawl you had one character that dominated all the rest which was Metaknight. However, in Melee you had the top characters being the spacies followed by characters like Cap. Falcon, Shiek, Marth, and Samus. This lead to a greater variety in matchups. Also, even though the spacies had an amazing neutral game they were high risk high reward characters because they had such high weights that allowed them to be 0 to deathed if they messed up once and their tech skill was the hardest to perfect. On the other hand Metaknight had all you could ask for in Brawl and seemed very low risk and high reward. He has great recovery, speed, and one of the only characters that could actually pull of real combos. He was a dominating force and basically had his own tier on the tier list. It wasn't even smash bros it was basically Metaknight's game. Melee had a much stronger design because it was an actual fighting game with combos and such but unique and actually ended up being way more complex than most fighting games, where as brawl was more of a game of trading hits and Metaknight. The reason why Melee shines isnt because it is a game with skills that have low risk and high reward that makes people feel good because then the game would be easy to play and not as competetive. I can promise that players put way more time into practicing techniques in melee and PM then they do in Brawl because Brawl is like rock, paper, scissors, Metaknight. Brawl simplified the game and people had to find ways to make it competitive. Its like trying to turn Rock, Paper, Scissors into a competitive game. It will only grasp interest for so long before it dies and that is why brawl is suffering the fate it is today. Melee got the system right and allowed a variety of matchups that made it more or less balanced and PM took the unbalanced areas of Melee and fixed that while maintaining the fast-paced, skillful, technical, and competitive design that made it so unique but made it a real fighter. People used to say Smash wasn't a real fighting game and if I only saw Brawl I couldn't really argue its case but Melee proved that it was not just a fighting game but one of the deepest, and most complex fighting games out there.

 

[Coonce]

I believe Sakurai removed these mechanics to cater toward the "casual," which makes no sense to me.

Imagine we are waiting for Brawl again and not Smash 4. What I don't get is this:

You have a game (Melee), that me and my friends had a blast playing. Were were 12 years old at the time. We knew nothing about the competitive scene, L canceling, wave dashing, dash dancing, crouch canceling, jump canceling, pivot grabs, dash grabs, double shining, short hopping, shield grabbing, pivot smashing, DI, SDI, dash canceling, SHFFLing, and so on. But we still had fun. Why? Because at its core, smash bros is a simple game to understand. Basic actions like moving and attacking are far simpler than that of most 2D fighters.

When Brawl came out, I still wasn't what I'd consider competitive. I played it and only noticed that everything was slower. I didn't notice many of the techniques I listed were gone. But what if they came back? Why would that have had a negative impact on me? These mechanics I listed were greatly liked by the competitive community, and they didn't affect me because I played with my friends. Why get rid of them? I just don't understand. These techniques didn't create a barrier of entry to Melee because they're only required if you want to be seriously competitive.

This idea that Sakurai is trying to cater toward both casual and competitive players makes no sense to me. Smash Bros isn't like most other fighting games. As long as the game stays as 2 attack buttons, a jump button, a grab button, and a shield button, anyone can figure it out. It's not like Street Fighter with 6 attack buttons, away to block, up to jump, multiple buttons to focus or grab, and crazy quarter-half-full-circle/charge/dp motions.

 

[Ulevo]

Each game needs to be its own individual experience. If they all have the same mechanics, then it's the same game with different characters and stages.that would get boring quickly. New mechanics mix it up without any giant changes.(going 2D to 3D, etc...)

Changing mechanics is what makes all the games great, individual experiences.

The only problem with this is that they're not changing the mechanics. They're removing them.

If the proportion of mechanics that were removed from Melee to Brawl, or Brawl to Smash Wii U, were equal to or similar to ones that were introduced, I and many others might be fine with this because it would be a deep but different experience.

That's not the reality. They're removing mechanics left and right and not replacing them with anything meaningful. Not for the most part.

The one and only reason why Melee has a large competitive following and Brawl doesn't is rooted entirely in human pshychology, and not at all in whether or not the game is more viable for competitive play. Melee makes players feel skilled, and people like to feel skilled. Melee also gives players exorbitant reward for little to no risk, which is something people like just as much. People like to tout "tech skill" (a ridiculous and inaccurate term) and action frequency as if either of those have anything to do with the quality of gameplay and competitive potential. It's also exciting to watch because it's fast and flashy.

The idea that Melee gives exorbitant reward for little to no risk is ridiculous. The entire game is one big risk. "One stock is not a lead" as Mango said. That's because at any given moment, you could make a positional error, an incorrect call, or a mechanical mistake, and you lose a stock for it. Everything in Melee has a risk/reward associated to it because of the vast amount of control and movement options. Like I said in another thread, this is a two way street. Melee is high risk, high reward. It's like gambling without the luck factor, and that's what makes it exciting to play and to watch.

I believe Sakurai removed these mechanics to cater toward the "casual," which makes no sense to me.

Imagine we are waiting for Brawl again and not Smash 4. What I don't get is this:

You have a game (Melee), that me and my friends had a blast playing. Were were 12 years old at the time. We knew nothing about the competitive scene, L canceling, wave dashing, dash dancing, crouch canceling, jump canceling, pivot grabs, dash grabs, double shining, short hopping, shield grabbing, pivot smashing, DI, SDI, dash canceling, SHFFLing, and so on. But we still had fun. Why? Because at its core, smash bros is a simple game to understand. Basic actions like moving and attacking are far simpler than that of most 2D fighters.

When Brawl came out, I still wasn't what I'd consider competitive. I played it and only noticed that everything was slower. I didn't notice many of the techniques I listed were gone. But what if they came back? Why would that have had a negative impact on me? These mechanics I listed were greatly liked by the competitive community, and they didn't affect me because I played with my friends. Why get rid of them? I just don't understand. These techniques didn't create a barrier of entry to Melee because they're only required if you want to be seriously competitive.

This idea that Sakurai is trying to cater toward both casual and competitive players makes no sense to me. Smash Bros isn't like most other fighting games. As long as the game stays as 2 attack buttons, a jump button, a grab button, and a shield button, anyone can figure it out. It's not like Street Fighter with 6 attack buttons, away to block, up to jump, multiple buttons to focus or grab, and crazy quarter-half-full-circle/charge/dp motions.

Basically this.

Casual players really don't give a damn, or they're completely ignorant of the situation. I remember the very first time I got interested in competitive Smash. I showed a video of Ken vs KDJ to my friends I played with, and I had an argument with them because they thought that the video was sped up to make it look exciting. They couldn't accept players were going that fast because they didn't know any better. They had no idea about the specifics of the game. They loved it anyway.

 

[Cassio]

Stuff

The idea that Melee gives exorbitant reward for little to no risk is ridiculous. The entire game is one big risk. "One stock is not a lead" as Mango said. That's because at any given moment, you could make a positional error, an incorrect call, or a mechanical mistake, and you lose a stock for it. Everything in Melee has a risk/reward associated to it because of the vast amount of control and movement options. Like I said in another thread, this is a two way street. Melee is high risk, high reward. It's like gambling without the luck factor, and that's what makes it exciting to play and to watch.

You mostly missed his point, the conversation is about specific mechanics and it comes down to the push pull he mentioned. Dash dancing takes the risk out of risk-reward. Ditto to l-canceling, but I think Ingulit provided a better reason.

 

[Ulevo]

You mostly missed his point, the conversation is about specific mechanics and it comes down to the push pull he mentioned. Dash dancing takes the risk out of risk-reward. Ditto to l-canceling, but I think Ingulit provided a better reason.

No, I very much caught his whole point. I agree that dash dancing has more associated reward than risk because you can act out of it at any time, though that is a simplification of the subject. L-Cancelling isn't a mechanic so much as it is a gate-way method for controlling character power. While it takes risk away and only provides reward, that is insignificant to the core of the matter, which is how much end lag and recovery frames does the specific character have performing a specific move while L-Cancelling, and how does that affect game interaction. If a move has 120 frames upon landing, and you give it 60 while L-Cancelling, that's still extremely significant, and regardless of the reduced risk through the technique applied, risk will still be largely prevalent.

Basically, he has legitimate points, but they don't paint the whole picture properly. They don't lead to a legitimate view of Melee's risk and reward system in my mind.

 

[Cassio]

Yeah but your only concern in that case is the landing lag itself, not the existance of l-cancelling.

Anyways, I can see the case for something that fits into a bigger picture, but there wasnt any reason provided. I can see how the mechanics can reduce risk in gameplay too. I feel like project M, while a very fun game, is a good example of that.

 

[LancerStaff]

Personally, I find most 'techs' pointless. A good example is MKDS snaking. It completely changed the way the game played for virtually no gain other then it being faster. Not faster paced, faster. It killed the balance and was basically a giant arbitrary motion designed to make your thumbs bleed. Even worse was the continuous start boost, which would carry it until you messed up your snaking or got hit, and being Mario Kart, this was all luck based. People hated it. I hated it. You don't see alot of hate for Melee techs. Why? Because there's no online in Melee. People would of hated Wavedashing and L-canceling if it was in Brawl, because it would be commonplace online.

 

[Ulevo]

Personally, I find most 'techs' pointless. A good example is MKDS snaking. It completely changed the way the game played for virtually no gain other then it being faster. Not faster paced, faster. It killed the balance and was basically a giant arbitrary motion designed to make your thumbs bleed. Even worse was the continuous start boost, which would carry it until you messed up your snaking or got hit, and being Mario Kart, this was all luck based. People hated it. I hated it. You don't see alot of hate for Melee techs. Why? Because there's no online in Melee. People would of hated Wavedashing and L-canceling if it was in Brawl, because it would be commonplace online.

Right. People loved Melee, and didn't hate Melee, because it lacked online play. That makes total sense.

I also like how all you mentioned are L-Cancelling and Wavedashing again. Want to talk about why you think the other techs are pointless?

 

[LancerStaff]

Right. People loved Melee, and didn't hate Melee, because it lacked online play. That makes total sense.

I also like how all you mentioned are L-Cancelling and Wavedashing again. Want to talk about why you think the other techs are pointless?

Casuals didn't hate L-canceling and Wavedashing in Melee because they didn't have to deal with it. They hated Snaking because they had to deal with it if they wanted a remote chance at winning. They're forced into something they don't want to do in something they want to do. Ever hear of firehopping? It's a minor tech in MK8. People hate a tech that doesn't even give a palpable advantage. Obviously including major techs in SSB4 would cause a significant uproar alia MKDS.

And I never said the other 'techs' are pointless, just 'techs' in general, including other series.

 

[Wanderer from Roseyard]

These things probably got removed starting with Brawl because the online latency was awful and there would be no way to use reflex/splitsecond techniques in an online match.

Or, since the playable cast was becoming large, these techniques were removed so there would be fewer things that require extensive testing.

 

[himemiya]

Sorry, I wasn't exactly clear on my point with that one (although I still may be wrong). I realized that there was some form of L-cancelling in 64, but I thought it was changed somehow in the transition.

n64 l-cancel is 100% complete cancel while in melee its only half.

 

[PCHU]

Casuals didn't hate L-canceling and Wavedashing in Melee because they didn't have to deal with it. They hated Snaking because they had to deal with it if they wanted a remote chance at winning. They're forced into something they don't want to do in something they want to do. Ever hear of firehopping? It's a minor tech in MK8. People hate a tech that doesn't even give a palpable advantage. Obviously including major techs in SSB4 would cause a significant uproar alia MKDS.

And I never said the other 'techs' are pointless, just 'techs' in general, including other series.

Techs are there to give people more options (or, sometimes, because a developer had an oversight or two).
Someone who knows how to wavedash, l-cancel, usmash OoS, crouch cancel, and/or crouch cancel from dash isn't necessarily going to beat someone who doesn't know or use any of it.
It's all about how you incorporate the techniques into your playstyle.
If someone refuses to use something that's at their disposal and truly wants to win, then they should expect an uphill battle.
If someone wants to pick up a game and play it, that's fine, but if someone wants to pick up a game and be good at it, they shouldn't complain that they have to work for it.
I played a bit of UMvC3, and there's a reason I don't use Magneto or Felicia -- I just can't do their stuff, so I looked at what I can do.
The same could be said for Smash -- if you can't do well with your character or are upset that other people are doing better with that character, maybe it's time to find another main.

In Mario Kart, it's sounding like snaking gave an absolute advantage, so I'll give you that, but techs in general aren't pointless.
Brawl's tech didn't really raise much concern, and yet they were techs that still gave people an edge over others.
People flock to wavedashing and l-canceling as if that's all Melee was and what made competitive players good, and really, that's wrong; fundamentals combined with technical knowledge are what make them great.
I love playing against casuals in Brawl because it's good to take a break from more "serious Smash", but I sandbag a lot because I know these people don't want to learn the game like I do, and that's cool.
However, on occasion, I'll throw in a semi-serious match or two because some people are interested in improving (and others just want to see that one uppity guy get smoked).
Most of the time, I do well because my fundamentals are decent, not because of techs.
I did a Snake ditto in a tournament with someone who didn't like to use grenades, and I 3-stocked him -- he told me he would definitely start learning how to use them after seeing what I was doing with them.
Speaking of Snake, he has a tech that covers a fairly large portion of the stage, but anybody with decent fundamentals can punish it -- it just takes work, and if you don't want to put in that work, you've only got yourself to blame (not speaking directly to you, but in general).

 

[LancerStaff]

Techs are there to give people more options (or, sometimes, because a developer had an oversight or two).
Someone who knows how to wavedash, l-cancel, usmash OoS, crouch cancel, and/or crouch cancel from dash isn't necessarily going to beat someone who doesn't know or use any of it.
It's all about how you incorporate the techniques into your playstyle.
If someone refuses to use something that's at their disposal and truly wants to win, then they should expect an uphill battle.
If someone wants to pick up a game and play it, that's fine, but if someone wants to pick up a game and be good at it, they shouldn't complain that they have to work for it.
I played a bit of UMvC3, and there's a reason I don't use Magneto or Felicia -- I just can't do their stuff, so I looked at what I can do.
The same could be said for Smash -- if you can't do well with your character or are upset that other people are doing better with that character, maybe it's time to find another main.

In Mario Kart, it's sounding like snaking gave an absolute advantage, so I'll give you that, but techs in general aren't pointless.
Brawl's tech didn't really raise much concern, and yet they were techs that still gave people an edge over others.
People flock to wavedashing and l-canceling as if that's all Melee was and what made competitive players good, and really, that's wrong; fundamentals combined with technical knowledge are what make them great.
I love playing against casuals in Brawl because it's good to take a break from more "serious Smash", but I sandbag a lot because I know these people don't want to learn the game like I do, and that's cool.
However, on occasion, I'll throw in a semi-serious match or two because some people are interested in improving (and others just want to see that one uppity guy get smoked).
Most of the time, I do well because my fundamentals are decent, not because of techs.
I did a Snake ditto in a tournament with someone who didn't like to use grenades, and I 3-stocked him -- he told me he would definitely start learning how to use them after seeing what I was doing with them.
Speaking of Snake, he has a tech that covers a fairly large portion of the stage, but anybody with decent fundamentals can punish it -- it just takes work, and if you don't want to put in that work, you've only got yourself to blame (not speaking directly to you, but in general).

It's just a fact that casuals hate advanced techniques of any kind. Melee's, Brawl's, any game really. Melee's falling speed is quite a significant sticking point for casuals once you point it out. As I've said elsewhere, casual players have a strong aversion to intercepting recovery. This is a direct result of Melee's falling speeds, and carried over somewhat to Brawl. Already several important aspects of Melee simply will obviously not reappear in a Smash game. Anybody expecting this to be closer to Melee then it is was setting themselves up for disappointment.

Personally, I don't like techs in SSB because it feels like it's altering the game to something not intended. They widen the gap between the casual and hardcore in the casual oriented, un-fighting game. I use and abuse them regularly, but they're just pointless glitches to me. The only two games where I find glitches like this satisfying are Super Metroid, a game from the 90s where you had to look everything up anyway, and KIU, where it streamlined the overcomplicated fusion process in such a way that it only cut the final, almost mindless, step.

 

[Gazdakka Gizbang]

I liked the fall speed/gravity of Melee not because it was integral to the advanced techniques of the competitive community, but because it was the right blend. You still had to time things correctly in order to recover, whereas Brawl's recovery window was way too long, and lost the sense of desperation to recoveries. The game can afford to be inflexible in a few ways - if you play the game for a week or two and you're still dying in droves because you're not using Up-B effectively, you have a problem, sir.

 

[hariooo]

The competitive Street Fighter scene eventually came around to accept the new game that was designed to be competitive by all meanings of the word? Consider me shocked that Brawl's competitive scene is declining though. Smash 4 is quoted as a "party" game by the designers themselves so do you really expect the Melee competitive scene to put any serious effort into it after they tried and failed with Brawl?

And you know what, Melee is ultimately what reinvigorated competitive interest in the series (i.e. EVO/MLG/CEO) 12 entire years after its release so it's a little special even if you personally don't like the game.

I can't even fathom why this of all posts is the one that deserved a warning.

 

[LancerStaff]

I liked the fall speed/gravity of Melee not because it was integral to the advanced techniques of the competitive community, but because it was the right blend. You still had to time things correctly in order to recover, whereas Brawl's recovery window was way too long.

Any halfway decent player was getting back, even in Melee. (Unless we're talking about Battlefield's glitchy ledges.) I'd say it's better like this because because it promotes off-stage play at lower levels and overall brings everybody up. What they should really do is increase fastfall speeds to Melee levels so casuals aren't brought down by it. Honestly, if there's one request Sakurai would listen to, it's this.

 

[PCHU]

It's just a fact that casuals hate advanced techniques of any kind. Melee's, Brawl's, any game really. Melee's falling speed is quite a significant sticking point for casuals once you point it out. As I've said elsewhere, casual players have a strong aversion to intercepting recovery. This is a direct result of Melee's falling speeds, and carried over somewhat to Brawl. Already several important aspects of Melee simply will obviously not reappear in a Smash game. Anybody expecting this to be closer to Melee then it is was setting themselves up for disappointment.

Personally, I don't like techs in SSB because it feels like it's altering the game to something not intended. They widen the gap between the casual and hardcore in the casual oriented, un-fighting game. I use and abuse them regularly, but they're just pointless glitches to me. The only two games where I find glitches like this satisfying are Super Metroid, a game from the 90s where you had to look everything up anyway, and KIU, where it streamlined the overcomplicated fusion process in such a way that it only cut the final, almost mindless, step.

You have a point, but casuals are all different -- I've had a few that actually were intrigued by some techniques I showed them.
Some even started aiming to improve themselves.

In regards to techs in SSB, I like them because I feel they add to the game.
I play a flashy Fox, but only after I get the KO -- just stuff to mess around with because I find it fun.
I actually use wavedashing, l-canceling, and crouch canceling from dash because they're useful and the way I play uses those techniques to make my desired movements possible, but I like a lot of other techs because they're amusing.
I'd pick Pikachu online and see how many QACs I could do, or do the crazy glide stuff with MK because I thought someone else might find it interesting and somewhat useful.
Techniques give me more options when the core of the game has nothing left to offer, and I enjoy that.

 

[LancerStaff]

You have a point, but casuals are all different -- I've had a few that actually were intrigued by some techniques I showed them.
Some even started aiming to improve themselves.

In regards to techs in SSB, I like them because I feel they add to the game.
I play a flashy Fox, but only after I get the KO -- just stuff to mess around with because I find it fun.
I actually use wavedashing, l-canceling, and crouch canceling from dash because they're useful and the way I play uses those techniques to make my desired movements possible, but I like a lot of other techs because they're amusing.
I'd pick Pikachu online and see how many QACs I could do, or do the crazy glide stuff with MK because I thought someone else might find it interesting and somewhat useful.
Techniques give me more options when the core of the game has nothing left to offer, and I enjoy that.

I was one of those casuals interested in improving, but what really stuck out at me was 'intermediate' stuff like intercepting recoveries, learning what defensive option to use where, and deeply understanding character's moves. 'Techs' have always felt hollow to me. No 'technique' has ever felt rewarding. They're just... There. It's not that I feel like I'm cheating or anything. It's just hard to explain. Most of Super Metroid's stuff was completely intentional, the rest broke down small barriers. KIU's only useful tech just outright saves a huge hunk of time and currency.

 

[Jellyfish4102]

If a random person played Melee and than decided hey I'm going to try to get really good at this game. Well you've got a lot of work to do. To even think of competing you're first going spend hundreds of hours learning and implementing advanced techniques.
Nintendo is a business and has to make money. A big part of that is appealing to the masses. Techniques that will take you hundreds of hours to master is not appealing to potential customers.

 

[Senario]

Techs are there to give people more options (or, sometimes, because a developer had an oversight or two).
Someone who knows how to wavedash, l-cancel, usmash OoS, crouch cancel, and/or crouch cancel from dash isn't necessarily going to beat someone who doesn't know or use any of it.
It's all about how you incorporate the techniques into your playstyle.
If someone refuses to use something that's at their disposal and truly wants to win, then they should expect an uphill battle.
If someone wants to pick up a game and play it, that's fine, but if someone wants to pick up a game and be good at it, they shouldn't complain that they have to work for it.
I played a bit of UMvC3, and there's a reason I don't use Magneto or Felicia -- I just can't do their stuff, so I looked at what I can do.
The same could be said for Smash -- if you can't do well with your character or are upset that other people are doing better with that character, maybe it's time to find another main.

In Mario Kart, it's sounding like snaking gave an absolute advantage, so I'll give you that, but techs in general aren't pointless.
Brawl's tech didn't really raise much concern, and yet they were techs that still gave people an edge over others.
People flock to wavedashing and l-canceling as if that's all Melee was and what made competitive players good, and really, that's wrong; fundamentals combined with technical knowledge are what make them great.
I love playing against casuals in Brawl because it's good to take a break from more "serious Smash", but I sandbag a lot because I know these people don't want to learn the game like I do, and that's cool.
However, on occasion, I'll throw in a semi-serious match or two because some people are interested in improving (and others just want to see that one uppity guy get smoked).
Most of the time, I do well because my fundamentals are decent, not because of techs.
I did a Snake ditto in a tournament with someone who didn't like to use grenades, and I 3-stocked him -- he told me he would definitely start learning how to use them after seeing what I was doing with them.
Speaking of Snake, he has a tech that covers a fairly large portion of the stage, but anybody with decent fundamentals can punish it -- it just takes work, and if you don't want to put in that work, you've only got yourself to blame (not speaking directly to you, but in general).

Techs are not glitches, at least in melee. In brawl they were though lol. Techs are important but the answer isn't removing them just because casual players who don't practice the game to get really good can't win. I go to melee tourneys and lose every match but I still have fun because the game's mechanics are very fun.

That said, I'm sure nobody would argue if they took these techs and instead of removing them, replaced them with versions that are more accessible to people. Pokemon got supertraining for EVs (now all we need is to fix having to do a lot to get IV's lol). Smash should have lower landing lag across the board and better mobility options, dashing and retention of momentum if you jump.

 

[Dapplegonger]

Techs are there to give people more options (or, sometimes, because a developer had an oversight or two).
Someone who knows how to wavedash, l-cancel, usmash OoS, crouch cancel, and/or crouch cancel from dash isn't necessarily going to beat someone who doesn't know or use any of it.
It's all about how you incorporate the techniques into your playstyle.
If someone refuses to use something that's at their disposal and truly wants to win, then they should expect an uphill battle.
If someone wants to pick up a game and play it, that's fine, but if someone wants to pick up a game and be good at it, they shouldn't complain that they have to work for it.

It's actually funny you should point this out, as I am in the exact same situation you are describing. I want to get into tournaments and I use a bunch of advanced techniques, but my brother uses none of them and it's still an even match. Just because one knows how to use these skills doesn't mean they automatically win.

Now to the more meaningful part of this post, if you're a casual and don't want to use these techniques, by all means don't. If you're playing against someone who knows tech skill, sure they have a slight advantage, but they've put in countless hours to perfect these tech skills. It's for this reason they can win. You're not good because you use tech skills, you use tech skills because you're good. Tech skills don't do anything to widen any skill gaps, they just help make the skill gaps. It even applies to stuff in real life sports. Take baseball for example. If you're the pitcher, you can just throw the ball over the plate, that's your basic tech. But you can also throw in you're advanced 'techs' like curveballs, knuckleballs, etc. They're not winning because they use those pitches. They can win because they're good, and they use their skill to learn advanced techniques.

tl;dr, If you actually want to be good, do what the good players do: spend time playing the game. With time you can perfect the advanced techniques. Casual players can just play with other casual players.

 

[Coonce]

If a random person played Melee and than decided hey I'm going to try to get really good at this game. Well you've got a lot of work to do. To even think of competing you're first going spend hundreds of hours learning and implementing advanced techniques.
Nintendo is a business and has to make money. A big part of that is appealing to the masses. Techniques that will take you hundreds of hours to master is not appealing to potential customers.

This kind of logic seems flawed to me. I'll agree that Nintendo is in the business of making money. All businesses are. The problem is that no matter what you do, people who spend more time with a game will be better than those who don't. It doesn't matter what game it is. The only time this doesn't apply is when the game is completely random. In which case that will frustrate a lot of people, even casuals. So I find it odd they'd try to achieve what is not possible.

All fighting games strive for one thing: easy to pick up, difficult to master. If a fighting game achieves this, that means their game is so intuitive that a newcomer can easily pick up. And that there is enough depth to make mastery daunting task. Fighting games these days are hard to get into because their controls are nothing like any other games out there. Smash bros uses general platformer style controls. Almost anyone whose played a game has played a platformer. And over simplified, smash bros is simply "point the control stick where you want to attack, and hit the attack button." It doesn't get much simpler than that.