Why do some mechanics get taken out?

[LancerStaff]

Believe me, LancerStaff. I think Brawl's a terrible game, but I'm more capable of looking at Smash games objectively than you are.

And I know combos exist in Brawl. I'm generalizing. No one really cares you can do crap like down throw to forward smash Meta Knight with Marth at 0%.

Says the person writing off an incomplete, buggy, unfinished, unstable, unreleased game who just claimed a game with combos doesn't have them. Objectively, Brawl has combos. You discredited your objectiveness the moment you claimed to be objective.

 

[Senario]

Says the person writing off an incomplete, buggy, unfinished, unstable, unreleased game who just claimed a game with combos doesn't have them. Objectively, Brawl has combos. You discredited your objectiveness the moment you claimed to be objective.

I haven't seen him writing off the game in this thread at all. This is a strawman argument and generally isn't valid.

Brawl had combos, but they weren't really great or conductive to offensive competitive play. Brawl is still very much a game of pokes and defense rather than an in your face offensive style like melee, Marvel, and Blazblue. (from the fighting games I know and have played a decent amount.)

 

[Ulevo]

Says the person writing off an incomplete, buggy, unfinished, unstable, unreleased game who just claimed a game with combos doesn't have them. Objectively, Brawl has combos. You discredited your objectiveness the moment you claimed to be objective.

The problem with you is that you need to resort to semantics and strawmans in order to debate. If you're so interested in trying to pick apart generalizations that are conveyed as such with the understanding that anyone reading can read between the lines, you can do it with someone else. If you're going to bait me, you're not worth my time. And if you're not smart enough to understand what I'm telling you, or at least smart enough to ask for clarification, I definitely don't want to argue with you.

 

[LancerStaff]

I haven't seen him writing off the game in this thread at all. This is a strawman argument and generally isn't valid.

Brawl had combos, but they weren't really great or conductive to offensive competitive play. Brawl is still very much a game of pokes and defense rather than an in your face offensive style like melee, Marvel, and Blazblue. (from the fighting games I know and have played a decent amount.)

I've been arguing with him all over the place. Remember the 'Not impressed with SSB4' topic? Hit started that. And I'm just being a smarty-pants telling him Brawl has combos, nothing more.

The problem with you is that you need to resort to semantics and strawmans in order to debate. If you're so interested in trying to pick apart generalizations that are conveyed as such with the understanding that anyone reading can read between the lines, you can do it with someone else. If you're going to bait me, you're not worth my time. And if you're not smart enough to understand what I'm telling you, or at least smart enough to ask for clarification, I definitely don't want to argue with you.

How is pointing out that practically every single thing Melee players have been asking for SSB4 were not originally used in the intended way and/or had unintended side effects a strawman? You keep asking for glitches to get added in, even though their existence in a casual, not-fighting game is flawed. You keep claiming that adding 'techniques' won't anger casuals, when it's a fact it will. All I see coming from you is outrageous requests that will always be doomed to be unfulfilled, and if they were, only .5% of fans would actually like the addition. What's your deal? 'Hardcores' complaining about casual games being aimed at casuals are like adults who complain about kiddie shows for kids. Don't like the game? Don't buy it and quit the mindless complaining falling on def ears.

 

[PCHU]

If we can just have faster gameplay in general (and perhaps a few small ATs here and there for movement options), I think people would be quite pleased.

In regards to casuals getting outright stomped by people who know and use ATs to their advantage...
Keep in mind that "casual" has a very, very large range, spanning from people who think Ike is OP to people who can actually hold their own against some competitive players but don't care enough to learn much beyond what they already know.
In my experience with playing Smash against casuals (Melee, PM, and Brawl), ATs didn't really give me the edge against people who didn't know them (except Melee Fox, but that's more of an issue of balance than general mechanics being overwhelming), it was mostly my ability to combo and react in general (Ganon is a great example of this).
I don't think that adding a few things for people who'd like to learn the game a bit further would really harm people's views of the game; For Fun and For Glory are already solving many problems people might have with online play.

No matter what, casuals and competitive players will complain, but as long as the game is fun enough for casuals (which it already is) and interesting enough for competitive players (it's looking and sounding promising), it will be regarded as a solid game.

 

[LancerStaff]

If we can just have faster gameplay in general (and perhaps a few small ATs here and there for movement options), I think people would be quite pleased.

In regards to casuals getting outright stomped by people who know and use ATs to their advantage...
Keep in mind that "casual" has a very, very large range, spanning from people who think Ike is OP to people who can actually hold their own against some competitive players but don't care enough to learn much beyond what they already know.
In my experience with playing Smash against casuals (Melee, PM, and Brawl), ATs didn't really give me the edge against people who didn't know them (except Melee Fox, but that's more of an issue of balance than general mechanics being overwhelming), it was mostly my ability to combo and react in general (Ganon is a great example of this).
I don't think that adding a few things for people who'd like to learn the game a bit further would really harm people's views of the game; For Fun and For Glory are already solving many problems people might have with online play.

No matter what, casuals and competitive players will complain, but as long as the game is fun enough for casuals (which it already is) and interesting enough for competitive players (it's looking and sounding promising), it will be regarded as a solid game.

Smash Bros. is supposed to be simple though. Pressing R+A is about as physically complex as it should get.

 

[PCHU]

Smash Bros. is supposed to be simple though. Pressing R+A is about as physically complex as it should get.

I kinda think you're oversimplifying this.
It is important to consider that people want things to be relatively simple so they can get a firm grasp on the mechanics, but I'm not saying they should add a bunch of stuff that others NEED to learn, just stuff that's there for the people that want to make use of it, like Snake activating shield to drop the grenade or B reversals.
Also, I don't see how lowering the landing lag in general would really hurt casuals; keep in mind that the people who picked up Melee enjoyed it regardless of its physics because it was a fun game.
I'm not saying I want another Melee, either, I just want a fun game with some cool optional stuff in it.

 

[Rᴏb]

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

I'm positive that a mod is specifically targeting people who they don't agree with. Pretty sad.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Why do some mechanics get taken out? Because dumbing down a game --> widening of the target audience --> more $$$

Filthy casuals.

 

[rawrimamonster]

Long story short? There's more average to casual players in the fanbase for smash than competitive. Plus the execution barrier is too much even for some people getting into competitive, so Nintendo does as they do nowadays, they make things easier. I've seen casual fans of the series even complain about Melee's fall speeds saying it was too hard to control. That coupled with all the things Sakurai said about wanting "everyone to win" and you get nerf foam padded gameplay.

TL;DR Sakurai is concerned with balance first, competitive 2nd. It's nice we're getting shown love this time though so there is that.

 

[thrillagorilla]

Smash Bros. is supposed to be simple though. Pressing R+A is about as physically complex as it should get.

No, not really. Any time people compete, things have to get complicated. If things don't develop, the game dies.

Btw, I finished looking at the link you gave me. I could give you the whole statistical analysis of the page if you really want it, but at any rate your assessment of the comments being made was way off. Assuming that the posters were a fair representation of the American population of Mario Kart 8 players, I can say with 99% confidence that the majority of American Mario Kart players are not against fire hopping.

That being said, I'd like to know where you got your information regarding people hating advanced tech in Smash Bros.

 

[Ulevo]

How is pointing out that practically every single thing Melee players have been asking for SSB4 were not originally used in the intended way and/or had unintended side effects a strawman? You keep asking for glitches to get added in, even though their existence in a casual, not-fighting game is flawed. You keep claiming that adding 'techniques' won't anger casuals, when it's a fact it will. All I see coming from you is outrageous requests that will always be doomed to be unfulfilled, and if they were, only .5% of fans would actually like the addition. What's your deal? 'Hardcores' complaining about casual games being aimed at casuals are like adults who complain about kiddie shows for kids. Don't like the game? Don't buy it and quit the mindless complaining falling on def ears.

Yeah, see, this is what I mean. Despite me proving you wrong multiple times in numerous threads, you basically repeat yourself every time. 99% of this is wrong.

 

[Kamiko]

No, not really. Any time people compete, things have to get complicated. If things don't develop, the game dies.

Depth is what competitive games need, not complexity. Ideally, you'd want high depth and low complexity. There's this "Divekick" game that uses only two buttons, yet is somehow extremely competitive. Players can jump straight up, and kick diagonally downwards. I highly recommend looking into it.

 

[Clint Jaguar]

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.

I understand what you're getting at but how about instead of just changing mechanics, you improve upon them to make the game more fun. For example look at how much Mario Kart 8 improved over Mario Kart Wii. The mechanics were altered to improve upon the mistakes made in prior titles, making it a more fun and rewarding experience.

Smash 4 should be very much like that. Taking what worked from the prior games but also improving upon the few missteps. Making the game faster than Brawl is an improvement but limiting the amount of movement and taking out some useful mechanics isn't. The fighters in Brawl didn't seem to have any weight and this doesn't seem to be fixed in Smash 4. The jumping doesn't seem as "floaty" but its still not perfect. Obviously the game is still in development but I'm hoping we see more improvements before the game is released. Changing things for the sake of changing them doesn't make any sense.

 

[Hong]

Hey everyone. While we always welcome a healthy and constructive debate, please keep your arguments about the game and not about other users. Thanks!

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

I'm positive that a mod is specifically targeting people who they don't agree with. Pretty sad.

Sorry to hear if the decision of a staff member has displeased you. That said, users are encouraged to bring up administrative decisions they disagree with via forum support instead of publicly derailing discussion.

Why do some mechanics get taken out? Because dumbing down a game --> widening of the target audience --> more $$$

Filthy casuals.

While we don't expect everyone to agree with one another, there is no need to relegate a sizable chunk of the player-base as "filthy".

 

[NoiseHERO]

I'm positive that a mod is specifically targeting people who they don't agree with. Pretty sad.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Why do some mechanics get taken out? Because dumbing down a game --> widening of the target audience --> more $$$

Filthy casuals.

Don't be like that, there's nothing wrong with being a casual.

And if it's any consolation as a casual I agree that brawl is pretty terrible. Not specifically taking out "mechanics" and techniques or whatever... just the way the game feels in general kind of gets on my nerves. But at least it was fun to play it with all of your friends and family during the hype phase.

I think as long as the game "feels" good then we can all enjoy this new game together. I think sakurai's just looking for that sweet spot that'll make the game enjoyable for everyone. Which is probably why he had a tournament with a game that's only 90% finished. It's looking to show great promise and I'm looking forward to spending 40 dollars on it cause I'm BROKE AND I CAN'T AFFORD A WII U AND PAY 60 DOLLARS FOR THAT **** GET THE **** OUTTA HERE.

Wonder if I can mod my 3DS to have a c-stick.

 

[LancerStaff]

I kinda think you're oversimplifying this.
It is important to consider that people want things to be relatively simple so they can get a firm grasp on the mechanics, but I'm not saying they should add a bunch of stuff that others NEED to learn, just stuff that's there for the people that want to make use of it, like Snake activating shield to drop the grenade or B reversals.
Also, I don't see how lowering the landing lag in general would really hurt casuals; keep in mind that the people who picked up Melee enjoyed it regardless of its physics because it was a fun game.
I'm not saying I want another Melee, either, I just want a fun game with some cool optional stuff in it.

Again, I don't see the point. There's already plenty in SSB as-is and I'd say there's more then enough mechanics for competitive play. Less landing lag is fine, but that's about as far as competitive changes will go.

No, not really. Any time people compete, things have to get complicated. If things don't develop, the game dies.

Btw, I finished looking at the link you gave me. I could give you the whole statistical analysis of the page if you really want it, but at any rate your assessment of the comments being made was way off. Assuming that the posters were a fair representation of the American population of Mario Kart 8 players, I can say with 99% confidence that the majority of American Mario Kart players are not against fire hopping.

That being said, I'd like to know where you got your information regarding people hating advanced tech in Smash Bros.

And it isn't complicated enough?

That's just one article detailing a technique. Here's another example: Hopping down hills in MK7 made you go faster. People wanted to ban hopping down hills in MK. If people want stupid things like this gone, what's the chances of 'exploits' surviving in a game with a report feature? Nintendo would probably have to 'fix' things like dash canceling just so the casual community shuts up.

Tier vs no tier wars. To many people, we're just elitist jerks ruining their fun with tier lists and glitching their online modes.

Yeah, see, this is what I mean. Despite me proving you wrong multiple times in numerous threads, you basically repeat yourself every time. 99% of this is wrong.

Show me where you proved me wrong then. You're repeating yourself too, and don't go saying it's just because I do it, because you've been saying the same nonsense in multiple topics without my imput.

I understand what you're getting at but how about instead of just changing mechanics, you improve upon them to make the game more fun. For example look at how much Mario Kart 8 improved over Mario Kart Wii. The mechanics were altered to improve upon the mistakes made in prior titles, making it a more fun and rewarding experience.

Smash 4 should be very much like that. Taking what worked from the prior games but also improving upon the few missteps. Making the game faster than Brawl is an improvement but limiting the amount of movement and taking out some useful mechanics isn't. The fighters in Brawl didn't seem to have any weight and this doesn't seem to be fixed in Smash 4. The jumping doesn't seem as "floaty" but its still not perfect. Obviously the game is still in development but I'm hoping we see more improvements before the game is released. Changing things for the sake of changing them doesn't make any sense.

Making things heavier wouldn't be an improvement, just better in some people's eyes. Tons of players prefer being able to jump off/recover easily with fastfallers.

 

[Ulevo]

Nah, I'm done arguing with you. There's certain people who you can't have a conversation with without it turning in to meaningless circle talk. That's you.

 

[BioZelink]

The whole idea of Smash Bros. was to create a fighting game that anyone can enjoy, a fighting game that doesn't require remembering button inputs or "safe combos". The franchise is supposed to be a game in which the better player will win, but the worse one won't be completely obliterated. Because let's be honest, losing is not fun. Losing and giving a good fight can still be rewarding though. The reason Sakurai removed a lot of the Melee tech, was because because of it the game started becoming something it wasn't supposed to. Wave dash and L-cancel, and other such techniques require an immense amount of practice and tech skill to get just right, and implement. Whoever does though, is rewarded and gets a huge advantage. The idea of Smash is that everyone can pick the game up, and play it. And if you are good, even if you don't play for a while you still will be.
As much as competitive players like Melee,(this is coming from Sakurai interviews mind you) it was going in a direction opposite to what smash was supposed to be like. It is deep, deeper than any regular fighter IMO, but it's not supposed to require countless hours of training so that you can play good and have a chance.

 

[Rᴏb]

While we don't expect everyone to agree with one another, there is no need to relegate a sizable chunk of the player-base as "filthy".

Don't be like that, there's nothing wrong with being a casual.

Spoiler

it was a joke. I love this board.

 

[NoiseHERO]

Spoiler

it was a joke. I love this board.

You used it in a bad context, you have no excuses even in spoken words you would've been punished for talking like that. D<

Wow I'm only allowed to pretend to be patronizingly nice twice a year and you made me waste one.

 

[Ulevo]

The whole idea of Smash Bros. was to create a fighting game that anyone can enjoy, a fighting game that doesn't require remembering button inputs or "safe combos". The franchise is supposed to be a game in which the better player will win, but the worse one won't be completely obliterated. Because let's be honest, losing is not fun. Losing and giving a good fight can still be rewarding though. The reason Sakurai removed a lot of the Melee tech, was because because of it the game started becoming something it wasn't supposed to. Wave dash and L-cancel, and other such techniques require an immense amount of practice and tech skill to get just right, and implement. Whoever does though, is rewarded and gets a huge advantage. The idea of Smash is that everyone can pick the game up, and play it. And if you are good, even if you don't play for a while you still will be.
As much as competitive players like Melee,(this is coming from Sakurai interviews mind you) it was going in a direction opposite to what smash was supposed to be like. It is deep, deeper than any regular fighter IMO, but it's not supposed to require countless hours of training so that you can play good and have a chance.

Except it will always be that way. Even after Sakurai makes all of his changes. Nothing has changed. The only thing it has done is made the game less enjoyable for a specific group of people. It hasn't closed the skill gap in any sense.

 

[BioZelink]

Except it will always be that way. Even after Sakurai makes all of his changes. Nothing has changed. The only thing it has done is made the game less enjoyable for a specific group of people. It hasn't closed the skill gap in any sense.

It has. In melee a skilled fox player could take out a team of 3 other moderately skilled players with easy, in brawl that is impossible. Learning hot to L-cancel gives a huge advantage, and wave dash a big speed advantage and stage control. A new player in Melee playing against an experienced and skilled one has almost no chance of even getting a single stock off the opponent. Most newbies can be 0 to death killed. If you don't know how to DI or choose bad options, you'd just get combo-ed to death.
An experienced Brawl player will still win, but it won't be nearly as bad as in Melee.

 

[RODO]

It has. In melee a skilled fox player could take out a team of 3 other moderately skilled players with easy, in brawl that is impossible. Learning hot to L-cancel gives a huge advantage, and wave dash a big speed advantage and stage control. A new player in Melee playing against an experienced and skilled one has almost no chance of even getting a single stock off the opponent. Most newbies can be 0 to death killed. If you don't know how to DI or choose bad options, you'd just get combo-ed to death.
An experienced Brawl player will still win, but it won't be nearly as bad as in Melee.

And that just make the game feel less rewarding to play for competitive players. He's catering to people who are already going to buy the game regardless.

 

[HeroMystic]

The whole idea of Smash Bros. was to create a fighting game that anyone can enjoy, a fighting game that doesn't require remembering button inputs or "safe combos". The franchise is supposed to be a game in which the better player will win, but the worse one won't be completely obliterated. Because let's be honest, losing is not fun. Losing and giving a good fight can still be rewarding though. The reason Sakurai removed a lot of the Melee tech, was because because of it the game started becoming something it wasn't supposed to. Wave dash and L-cancel, and other such techniques require an immense amount of practice and tech skill to get just right, and implement. Whoever does though, is rewarded and gets a huge advantage. The idea of Smash is that everyone can pick the game up, and play it. And if you are good, even if you don't play for a while you still will be.
As much as competitive players like Melee,(this is coming from Sakurai interviews mind you) it was going in a direction opposite to what smash was supposed to be like. It is deep, deeper than any regular fighter IMO, but it's not supposed to require countless hours of training so that you can play good and have a chance.

I've already said this a number of times, but this is slippery slope logic.

How far should Sakurai go to lower the skill gap? If non-competitive players don't want to be owned by competitive players, then nothing will satisfy them because they don't put in the amount of time to practice and get better.

A Melee competitive player will destroy a casual player. Sakurai nerfs the skill gap.
A Brawl competitive player will destroy a casual player. Sakurai nerfs the skill gap.
Are we going to repeat this until the end of time? Because I guarantee you that no matter what Sakurai does, a competitive player will destroy a casual player.

Even Mario Party will have players that consistently beat others, because they know how to win.

 

[MrPanic]

I think it has always been a case of trying to make the game more focused on "I'm outplaying my opponent" and less on 'I can execute these inputs very well'. The game has always been made with the mindset of the game being easy to pick up and not requiring lots of practice to get good at. All these techniques people found out are pretty much the exact opposite of what the original design of the game was trying to do, it makes the simple game complicated.

Besides that, it also makes the whole game feel more generic. All characters get their own properties on all their moves, which balances the whole risk and reward game each of those moves have. A lot of the tech basically took away the risk part from moves, basically breaking the game's initial purpose for those moves and maybe even the balance. It generalises the game in a way that you'll need to learn certain tech to play any character in the game, which imo diminishes the uniqueness of every character and makes the game more stale. This might be a good thing from a competitive standpoint, but it totally diminishes the value of the game from a designer standpoint.

Imo I'm glad to see things like L-cancelling, wavedashing or even dash dancing getting the axe. I think it will change the game from being less about execution and learning advanced techniques and more about character knowledge and outplaying your opponent. From what I've seen so far from Smash 4, I do hope they can make the game a bit more offensive, but I hope they can accomplish that without creating advanced techs. I think Smash has a lot of potential in being a great competitive game without having overly complicated controls, they just haven't succeeded yet.

(don't get me wrong, I appreciate the advanced techniques we had, I just want the new smash to be its own thing and I don't think the series has anything to gain out of going back to its melee roots, I think the future would be brighter if smash4 will be its own thing competitively and keep playing melee alongside it as two vastly different games)

 

[Ulevo]

It has. In melee a skilled fox player could take out a team of 3 other moderately skilled players with easy, in brawl that is impossible. Learning hot to L-cancel gives a huge advantage, and wave dash a big speed advantage and stage control. A new player in Melee playing against an experienced and skilled one has almost no chance of even getting a single stock off the opponent. Most newbies can be 0 to death killed. If you don't know how to DI or choose bad options, you'd just get combo-ed to death.
An experienced Brawl player will still win, but it won't be nearly as bad as in Melee.

No, this is false. You give me Meta Knight, and I'll replicate exactly that. But I mean, what are we talking about? Free for all, or singles?

You give me 15 minutes alone with a casual player playing 1v1 in Brawl, and I'll make them hate the game forever. Dedede Chain Grabs all day. Meta Knight. Falco laser spam to phantasm retreats. Ice Climber infinites. Olimar spam.

We had a promotional tournament for my colleges gaming club where we were hosting a Smash tournament. We later decided to run Melee for the event, but initially we were advertising with Brawl. I played for at least 2 hours, playing all the students that came by and challenged them to 1v1's if they wanted, or took part in free for alls. I never lost more than a single stock in the free for alls, and I 4 stocked them almost every time in 1v1s. It wasn't even with a single character either. I haven't played Brawl in years.

Oh yeah. At least when they get their ass kicked in Melee it appears as though it's because they got out played, not out-gayed. You know what casuals really think when you beat them in Brawl? "Wow, that's really cheap." You know what they think when they lose in Melee? "Wow, you're really good at this."

 

[Garquille14]

To even think of competing you're first going spend hundreds of hours learning and implementing advanced techniques.

Hundreds? Oh please, I've been doing it myself and I'm able to l-cancel and wavedash at-will after ~12 hours. Performing elegant chains with them is still difficult, but I'm able to play against people quite fine even with just l-canceling.

There are things you'll need to deliberately practice as time goes on, but it's completely wrong to think that you need to frontload ALL of the techniques before you can do anything.

 

[LancerStaff]

And that just make the game feel less rewarding to play for competitive players. He's catering to people who are already going to buy the game regardless.

He's gearing the game to the majority of players? How horrible!

I've already said this a number of times, but this is slippery slope logic.

How far should Sakurai go to lower the skill gap? If non-competitive players don't want to be owned by competitive players, then nothing will satisfy them because they don't put in the amount of time to practice and get better.

A Melee competitive player will destroy a casual player. Sakurai nerfs the skill gap.
A Brawl competitive player will destroy a casual player. Sakurai nerfs the skill gap.
Are we going to repeat this until the end of time? Because I guarantee you that no matter what Sakurai does, a competitive player will destroy a casual player.

Even Mario Party will have players that consistently beat others, because they know how to win.

Lower the technical skill gap, not applicational skill gap.

No, this is false. You give me Meta Knight, and I'll replicate exactly that. But I mean, what are we talking about? Free for all, or singles?

You give me 15 minutes alone with a casual player playing 1v1 in Brawl, and I'll make them hate the game forever. Dedede Chain Grabs all day. Meta Knight. Falco laser spam to phantasm retreats. Ice Climber infinites. Olimar spam.

We had a promotional tournament for my colleges gaming club where we were hosting a Smash tournament. We later decided to run Melee for the event, but initially we were advertising with Brawl. I played for at least 2 hours, playing all the students that came by and challenged them to 1v1's if they wanted, or took part in free for alls. I never lost more than a single stock in the free for alls, and I 4 stocked them almost every time in 1v1s. It wasn't even with a single character either. I haven't played Brawl in years.

Oh yeah. At least when they get their *** kicked in Melee it appears as though it's because they got out played, not out-gayed.

Mechanically, Brawl is more fair to casuals. Let's say it's Maro vs Mario in both games. Melee won't even be a fight, while in Brawl the lesser player has a chance.

 

[RODO]

Hundreds? Oh please, I've been doing it myself and I'm able to l-cancel and wavedash at-will after ~12 hours. Performing elegant chains with them is still difficult, but I'm able to play against people quite fine even with just l-canceling. I don't have to sit back for a huge amount of time before I can start competing. Just learn to l-cancel and work your way up on everything else.

There are things you'll need to deliberately practice as time goes on, but it's completely wrong to think that you need to frontload all of the techniques before you can do anything.

To piggyback off of this, I was playing Project M with my friend yesterday who had only played Brawl before. He didn't know about L-cancelling or even how to tech landings after being hit. As soon as I told him about these things he was literally doing them like 5 minutes later. If someone is too hard to play against then by all means play against someone else if it's that's boring. We will even have online in the next one with a For Fun mode.

 

[Ulevo]

Mechanically, Brawl is more fair to casuals. Let's say it's Maro vs Mario in both games. Melee won't even be a fight, while in Brawl the lesser player has a chance.

Brawl is a game of attrition. You don't win by making a single marvelous play to secure a stock, not usually. You do it by consistently being better. Spacing better, avoiding hits better, consistent positioning, because it's all about how you can accrue a lead over time and keep it.

Melee is a game of high risk, high reward gambits. You put yourself in to positions that can either be advantageous or disadvantageous with the hope that you'll deal huge % damage, gain a big positional advantage on the stage, or take their stock. Because Melee rewards these types of plays, making mistakes is much more punishing.

Here's the thing. In Melee, if a casual player makes enough mistakes, the match is going to end really quickly if who they're playing is really experienced. In Brawl, they have a lot more opportunities to make mistakes without it ending their stock, but the better player is going to make so few mistakes by comparison that it doesn't matter. The better player will accrue a lead the casual player can't overthrow. Inevitably it amounts to the same thing, just that one happens in a couple minutes, while the other takes a lot longer, and feels a lot worse to be subjected to.

 

[Anomalus]

The problem I have is that it seems to me that Sakurai designed Melee by adding or changing things from 64, but designed Brawl by removing things from Melee, and is now designing Smash 4 by removing things from Brawl. Not a fan of this sort of subtractive design.

As for skill gaps, trying to close them by removing options just changes optimal strategies from "get the cleanest kill as fast as possible" to "accrue small advantages as safely as possible" which is why Brawl is the way it is. I'd rather get demolished quickly than tortured til defeat. You can't turn a bad player into a good player or vice versa while the game is running, but you can try to give players tools to improve or the means to not face too uneven opposition, which is the motivation for matchmaking systems.

 

[Ulevo]

The problem I have is that it seems to me that Sakurai designed Melee by adding or changing things from 64, but designed Brawl by removing things from Melee, and is now designing Smash 4 by removing things from Brawl. Not a fan of this sort of subtractive design.

As for skill gaps, trying to close them by removing options just changes optimal strategies from "get the cleanest kill as fast as possible" to "accrue small advantages as safely as possible" which is why Brawl is the way it is. I'd rather get demolished quickly than tortured til defeat. You can't turn a bad player into a good player or vice versa while the game is running, but you can try to give players tools to improve or the means to not face too uneven opposition, which is the motivation for matchmaking systems.

Basically this times a million. Especially the first paragraph.

 

[thrillagorilla]

A really blatant attempt to divert the conversation and avoid the subject.

Don't change the subject. I wanted data that proved your point, you gave me data, and you tried to divert when the data didn't say what you thought it did. No. Let me explain what is now going to happen. You are going to try and talk about all these other things that you think are relevant (and may possibly be) in and attempt to try and get me to move on from the point you originally tried to make, but failed to do so. I am then going to respond by saying the exact same thing over and over until one of two things happen.

1) You admit you were wrong.

2) You show me how I am wrong with the data you provided.

I am honestly fine with either. I would much rather be proven wrong if I am wrong so I can be right the next time. Trying to change the subject though? Not classy. If you want to move on in this conversation, do one of the above two things. Maybe even a combination if you can. I don't mind, as long as it is relevant.

Depth is what competitive games need, not complexity. Ideally, you'd want high depth and low complexity. There's this "Divekick" game that uses only two buttons, yet is somehow extremely competitive. Players can jump straight up, and kick diagonally downwards. I highly recommend looking into it.

I love Divekick. :-)

When I was talking about complexity, I was thinking in terms of player thought processes, not technical skill. That is what is commonly called depth, so sorry about the wrong use of terminology, my fault.

That being said, complexity can turn into depth. Looking at Divekick, there is the simple jump and kick. But then you realize that you can start your kick at most any point during the jump. And then you realize that if you kick you opponent in the head, they move more slowly next round. And then you realize that if the timer ends and you are closer to the center line, you win. And then you realize that all the characters jump and kick differently. And then you realize that there are special techs that do different things, such as make you move much faster or toss the opponent into the air in a daze. And then you realize the game isn't just jumping and kicking. The same goes for Smash Bros., or any good game really. Hey, there is an AT in chess for crying out loud. Just because some ATs are not programmed in doesn't mean that they are bad or not relevant.

Edit note: I just had a chance to read some of the posts that came up while I was composing this one. I am of the mind that Brawl is a much harder game to play than Melee due to the lack of options comparatively speaking. That being said, since there is a much smaller number of options in the game, the more experienced and/or practiced player should win every time since they already know what to do.

 

[LancerStaff]

Brawl is a game of attrition. You don't win by making a single marvelous play to secure a stock, not usually. You do it by consistently being better. Spacing better, avoiding hits better, consistent positioning, because it's all about how you can accrue a lead over time and keep it.

Melee is a game of high risk, high reward gambits. You put yourself in to positions that can either be advantageous or disadvantageous with the hope that you'll deal huge % damage, gain a big positional advantage on the stage, or take their stock. Because Melee rewards these types of plays, making mistakes is much more punishing.

Here's the thing. In Melee, if a casual player makes enough mistakes, the match is going to end really quickly if who they're playing is really experienced. In Brawl, they have a lot more opportunities to make mistakes without it ending their stock, but the better player is going to make so few mistakes by comparison that it doesn't matter. The better player will accrue a lead the casual player can't overthrow. Inevitably it amounts to the same thing, just that one happens in a couple minutes, while the other takes a lot longer, and feels a lot worse to be subjected to.

In Melee, skill snowballs. Casuals can't combo effectively, can't edgeguard effectively, and are sent even further behind because of it. In Brawl, better players just play the 'normal' game better. Edgeguarding is much more specific, combos don't rely on 'techs,' and much more.

It's inevitably the same thing? Then why are you so upset over the changes?

If being beaten faster or slower is better is an opinion, not a fact. If you think it is, prove it.

Don't change the subject. I wanted data that proved your point, you gave me data, and you tried to divert when the data didn't say what you thought it did. No. Let me explain what is now going to happen. You are going to try and talk about all these other things that you think are relevant (and may possibly be) in and attempt to try and get me to move on from the point you originally tried to make, but failed to do so. I am then going to respond by saying the exact same thing over and over until one of two things happen.

1) You admit you were wrong.

2) You show me how I am wrong with the data you provided.

I am honestly fine with either. I would much rather be proven wrong if I am wrong so I can be right the next time. Trying to change the subject though? Not classy. If you want to move on in this conversation, do one of the above two things. Maybe even a combination if you can. I don't mind, as long as it is relevant.




I love Divekick. :-)

When I was talking about complexity, I was thinking in terms of player thought processes, not technical skill. That is what is commonly called depth, so sorry about the wrong use of terminology, my fault.

That being said, complexity can turn into depth. Looking at Divekick, there is the simple jump and kick. But then you realize that you can start your kick at most any point during the jump. And then you realize that if you kick you opponent in the head, they move more slowly next round. And then you realize that if the timer ends and you are closer to the center line, you win. And then you realize that all the characters jump and kick differently. And then you realize that there are special techs that do different things, such as make you move much faster or toss the opponent into the air in a daze. And then you realize the game isn't just jumping and kicking. The same goes for Smash Bros., or any good game really. Hey, there is an AT is chess for crying out loud. Just because some ATs are not programmed in doesn't mean that they are bad or not relevant.

No, you misunderstood. I presented the 'tier wars' as evidence that many casuals can't stand competitive play and things associated with it, such as 'techniques.' I am not arguing that adding 'techniques' would upset a majority, but that adding them would cause unwanted attention to what's generally perceived as a negative part of the game. Would Nintendo do this when a struggling system depends on the game? They need the most sales they can get, and they're not getting them by appealing to the 1% that'll buy the game anyway. 1/100 hardcores not interested in the new game because of a few missing glitches they liked? That's nothing compared to 1/100 casuals not wanting a 'broken' game.

 

[RODO]

He's gearing the game to the majority of players? How horrible!

I don't think you understand what I mean. It would be like if Nintendo only advertised games to people who have already bought a Wii U. It gets people hyped but what are they doing to get people on board who don't have a Wii U? Without TV ads or other ads that non-owners can see then sales would stagnate.

My point here is that he is catering to people who are already going to be buying the game regardless. The competitive crowd is looking at the gameplay and expressing their concerns. They know there is a community and it would be smart to include things to ensure that they will buy the game as well.

 

[Ulevo]

In Melee, skill snowballs. Casuals can't combo effectively, can't edgeguard effectively, and are sent even further behind because of it. In Brawl, better players just play the 'normal' game better. Edgeguarding is much more specific, combos don't rely on 'techs,' and much more.

It's inevitably the same thing? Then why are you so upset over the changes?

Skill snowballs in Brawl too. What do you think accruing a lead is? It's a snowball.


It isn't about how competitive players stack up against newbies or casuals. It's never been about that. They'll get ***** regardless. Where these changes affect players is in the competitive environment, with competitive players. And it make it less enjoyable for these players.

If being beaten faster or slower is better is an opinion, not a fact. If you think it is, prove it..

I'm not going to argue you on something that is intuitively obvious.

 

[HeroMystic]

Lower the technical skill gap, not applicational skill gap.

This is like changing a Test format from Fill In the Blank to Multiple Choice. The people who has studied more will get more answers correct and the one who has not will still fail. The failure won't be as daunting, but it's still a failure.

In other words, you haven't said anything that changes the overall point of my argument to his post.

Mechanically, Brawl is more fair to casuals. Let's say it's Maro vs Mario in both games. Melee won't even be a fight, while in Brawl the lesser player has a chance.

As a person who has actually mained Mario in Brawl, not really.

 

[PCHU]

Oh yeah. At least when they get their *** kicked in Melee it appears as though it's because they got out played, not out-gayed. You know what casuals really think when you beat them in Brawl? "Wow, that's really cheap." You know what they think when they lose in Melee? "Wow, you're really good at this."

This.
I've gotten called cheap and gotten complained against numerous times in Brawl, and I'm not a campy player in the least bit.
I'll hop into the middle of a FFA and attack whoever's nearest, and people still whine that I'm playing cheap.
Granted, I main MK and Kirby, but it doesn't matter who I choose after that, people will find something to complain about.

In Melee?
None of this; people understand that you're skilled and that you've clearly taken time to become the better player.
Even so, flat-out rushdown with all the techs in the world won't stop a DK from getting a grab from a read and turning that into quite possibly a 0%-death with few, if any techs.

I don't really know what happened to where peoples' mindsets changed.
In all honesty, I can't recall a single time before the past few months where someone genuinely complained about techs creating too much of a barrier besides Sakurai himself.
I don't mean to attack anyone, but it's seriously confusing to see this stuff just now pop up considering I used to be a very active member.

 

[WastingPenguins]

Mechanically, Brawl is more fair to casuals. Let's say it's Maro vs Mario in both games. Melee won't even be a fight, while in Brawl the lesser player has a chance.

Removing the technical options from Brawl really didn't do much to level the playing field for newcomers. Don't believe me? Observe that just like Melee, a handful of top players have dominated Brawl tournaments. If the skill ladder wasn't as tall, then more players would reach the top and the results for national tournaments would be more scattered. But actually, worse players get wrecked in Brawl about as bad as they get wrecked in Melee. It's just that the kind of play that's required to become a top player in Brawl isn't half as interesting, exciting or fun as in Melee. Disagree? Well, then you're in the minority for sure. After all, Melee has achieved popularity and competitive success that Brawl couldn't have dreamed of.

TLDR: By making Smash 4 a slower, more defense-focused game, you're doing nothing to help casuals compete (or arguably even to have more fun, considering how popular Melee was with casuals), while alienating and boring more serious competitive players. You gain nothing.

 

[thrillagorilla]

No, you misunderstood. I presented the 'tier wars' as evidence that many casuals can't stand competitive play and things associated with it, such as 'techniques.' I am not arguing that adding 'techniques' would upset a majority, but that adding them would cause unwanted attention to what's generally perceived as a negative part of the game. Would Nintendo do this when a struggling system depends on the game? They need the most sales they can get, and they're not getting them by appealing to the 1% that'll buy the game anyway. 1/100 hardcores not interested in the new game because of a few missing glitches they liked? That's nothing compared to 1/100 casuals not wanting a 'broken' game.

No, you tried to change the subject and ignore the fact I analysed the data you said supported your claim that a majority of casual players hate ATs and proved your assertion incorrect. THEN you tried to change your claim and divert attention away from the fact your claim was not supported by the evidence you provided. I would be more than happy to address these latest points you have made, but only after...

1) You admit you were wrong

or...

2) You prove to me how the data you provided proved your point in spite of my analysis showing it doesn't.

Get past this, and I am more than happy to continue this conversation. If not, stop posting.