Why do some mechanics get taken out?

[Rodriguez5]

It's annoying how wavedashing is considered a glitch. Think of it this way, Directional air dodge was put in the game, short hop was put in the game, and sliding was put in the game. Thats what a wave dash is... I feel like L-Cancelling should have never been taken out because it makes the characters seem closer together in terms of balance. I've seen bowers win against fox and bowser seemed fast as hell but never seen bowser beat meta in brawl. Thats just a small example, but like one of the early comments said it should have just been expanded on not completely changed.

 

[WastingPenguins]

Isn't this a good argument for not re-adding the aforementioned techs?

If it has zero effect on the dichotomy of competitive players vs casuals, then why do I see nothing but whinging about how removing the techs narrows the skill gap and makes it more difficult to exemplify skill?

There's a missing link here, obviously you think a match outcome is barely effected with or without melee techs, so clearly there is something there being utilized by competitive players that IS demonstrating a wide skill gap. It's not melee techs obviously.

That being said, why again is it so essential those techs be re-implemented? Honestly, the reason it's the same either way is because Brawl uses a different skill set. It rewards reading and adaptation a bit more than melee, and melee rewards technical skill and character choice a bit more than Brawl (though Metaknight withstanding). Both are valued in both games, to a degree.

Brawl has a less physically technical approach, and more of a calculated approach. In this case, less is more.

I like the guitar analogy. A guitar is simple, but what we love is all the things skilled musicians can DO with those 5 strings. There's no camp of people advocating to add 5 more strings to the traditional guitar schemes, or 5 more handles and whammies in order to make it sound good or show that a person is good at playing guitar. People don't complain that the original designer of the guitar is limiting musical choices by the instrument only having a small set of strings.

I addressed this in a previous post. The answer is: Brawl is deep and DOES have a high sklil ladder, but it's less interesting, less exciting and less fun than Melee. Disagree? Well, then you're surely in the minority. How else do you explain the fact that Brawl hasn't achieved half the long-term popularity or competitive success of Melee? How else do you explain that Melee is at MLG and EVO this year and Brawl is not, nor ever will be at an event like that?

It is possible to be absolutely amazing at Brawl, but the kind of play that is required to dominate in that game (camping and defense) is consider to be boring as **** to most of the community, regardless of your personal feelings on the issue. This is obviously a subjective opinion, but it's a very popular opinion, and that's the issue. As I said before, how else do you explain Brawl's relatively lackluster comeptitive scene compared to Melee, a 13-year-old game?

 

[menotyou135]

Simple: A limited experience is an easy experience.

Brawl was designed to be easy in it's nature. To accomplish this, they limited what the player can do, so that new players would pick up the game quicker and have less to learn in order to play.

They developed it so that someone who just picked it up can still do stuff, because nintendo is a company that likes to make sure nobody's feelings are ever hurt. If someone who just picked up the game got destroyed by someone who has been playing for a long time, then their feelings might get hurt.

Nintendo's solution is to punish those who love the franchise and strive to take it as far as it can go, so that those who only end up playing it a few times don't get sad.

That is, and has always been nintendo's design philosophy. Look at Mario party and Mario Kart. Both games are designed so the losing person is rewarded with bonuses, while the winner is punished.

There is nothing inherently wrong with this idea, but is sucks for people who actually care and are passionate about the game. They care more about the occasional player than the person who spends hundreds of hours enjoying their game.

 

[WastingPenguins]

Simple: A limited experience is an easy experience.

Brawl was designed to be easy in it's nature. To accomplish this, they limited what the player can do, so that new players would pick up the game quicker and have less to learn in order to play.

They developed it so that someone who just picked it up can still do stuff, because nintendo is a company that likes to make sure nobody's feelings are ever hurt. If someone who just picked up the game got destroyed by someone who has been playing for a long time, then their feelings might get hurt.

Nintendo's solution is to punish those who love the franchise and strive to take it as far as it can go, so that those who only end up playing it a few times don't get sad.

That is, and has always been nintendo's design philosophy. Look at Mario party and Mario Kart. Both games are designed so the losing person is rewarded with bonuses, while the winner is punished.

There is nothing inherently wrong with this idea, but is sucks for people who actually care and are passionate about the game. They care more about the occasional player than the person who spends hundreds of hours enjoying their game.

Except that they utterly failed at this apparent goal, considering that casual Brawl players get destroyed by pros just as much as ever, as we've discussed over and over. So by dumbing down the game they do nothing for casuals while boring the hell out of pros.

 

[HeroMystic]

Nintendo does care about trying to balance the game at least to a degree where they nail it down fine, idk why people think they treat their game like most of the anime fighters that give no ****s how unbalanced the game is.

Then we end up with Naruto Rev 3 banning 4 characters from comp play and the game is still busted beyond belief. Heck MVC 1&2 were completely unbalanced far worse than anything in smash you could compare and for some reason gets loads of respect anyways despite the horrific balance issues.

I know Nintendo cares about general balance. My point is they haven't cared to show it until now. Once a game is shipped out they just ride the waves, and Sakurai has mentioned he knows of the competitive community but that isn't his focus. Which means we're just lucky that our competitive format hasn't been a complete bust out of the gate. It's not until the Smash Invitational that Nintendo has shown any semblance of continuous balancing of the game beyond their own playtests.

 

[menotyou135]

Except that they utterly failed at this apparent goal, considering that casual Brawl players get destroyed by pros just as much as ever, as we've discussed over and over. So by dumbing down the game they do nothing for casuals while boring the hell out of pros.

I never said they succeeded. I just said that it was designed to be easier to understand.

 

[Renji64]

The complaint isn't that that the removal of mechanics make the skill gap between casual and competitive players smaller. The complaint is that it makes the game shallow and uninteresting.

Also, Brawl does not have a more calculated approach. You need to rely more on mind games in Brawl because that's mostly all you have to rely on. That doesn't mean they're more abundant or significant. To put it another way, if you're not a smart player in competitive Brawl, you've got nada. However, you're rewarded far more for being smarter in Melee than you are in Brawl.

This is the best and most factual comment on here.

 

[WastingPenguins]

The complaint isn't that that the removal of mechanics make the skill gap between casual and competitive players smaller. The complaint is that it makes the game shallow and uninteresting.

Also, Brawl does not have a more calculated approach. You need to rely more on mind games in Brawl because that's mostly all you have to rely on. That doesn't mean they're more abundant or significant. To put it another way, if you're not a smart player in competitive Brawl, you've got nada. However, you're rewarded far more for being smarter in Melee than you are in Brawl.

To add to this, I'd say that Brawl is shallow in some respects and deep in other respects. After all, a game that truly lacks depth (tic-tac-toe for example) wouldn't allow for a handful of players to dominate tournaments. The real problem is that the depth in Brawl comes from the most boring, laborious aspects of the game. The best Brawl players excel at camping and defense, and that's why they win repeatedly. It's also why the Brawl competitive scene is relatively small, since fewer competitive players find the campy, slow-paced nature of the game to be fun, exciting or interesting in the least. It might be said that the real "depth" in Brawl is the requirement that pros have a deep well of patience, rather than skill. That's why so many find it just plain boring.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

To add to this, I'd say that Brawl is shallow in some respects and deep in other respects. After all, a game that truly lacks depth (tic-tac-toe for example) wouldn't allow for a handful of players to dominate tournaments. The real problem is that the depth in Brawl comes from the most boring, laborious aspects of the game. The best Brawl players excel at camping and defense, and that's why they win repeatedly. It's also why the Brawl competitive scene is so small, since fewer competitive players find the campy, slow-paced nature of the game to be fun, exciting or interesting in the least. It might be said that the real "depth" in Brawl is the requirement that pros have a deep well of patience, rather than skill. That's why so many find it just plain boring.

To add further to this, even though campy can be fun to play for many, it's really not fun at all to watch. There's no real excitement at all.

 

[WastingPenguins]

For example, take a look at this recent Brawl match between Esam and Ally.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mijuVqioX-4#t=1073

They spend most of the match just staring each other down. Ally camps with dair, Esam camps with thunder jolt. Most approach attempts fail or are punished by power shields and grabs. Even Metaknight, who has some of the best approach options in the game, can't do much to end the stalemate. Offense in this game is so underpowered, and even successful approaches usually lead to a poke and a stage position reset. If you find this fun and interesting, good for you. That is your subjective opinion and it is valid. But the truth is that the majority of competitive players don't find this type of game very interesting, and if pro players aren't having fun then good luck sustaining a healthy competitive scene.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

For example, take a look at this recent Brawl match between Esam and Ally.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mijuVqioX-4#t=1073

They spend most of the match just staring each other down. Ally camps with dair, Esam camps with thunder jolt. Most approach attempts fail or are punished by power shields and grabs. Offense in this game is so underpowered, and even successful approaches usually lead to a poke and a stage position reset. If you find this fun and interesting, good for you. That is your subjective opinion and it is valid. But the truth is that the majority of competitive players don't find this type of game very interesting, and if pro players aren't having fun then good luck sustaining a healthy competitive scene.

This might work in a card game with a very long time limit like Yu-Gi-Oh(and I've had some very fun long duels, butttttttt), this isn't a card game. People, you know, watch? It's the same reason why even the Anime has extremely short duels that spend more time talking than the actual duel, to spice it up. Commentary doesn't help SSB, though. What helps is the immense amount of action.

Brawl, however, does look exciting with 4 people due to it being more chaotic. Even items help in that regard. But 1 on 1 with just characters and stages don't tend to be exciting like Melee and 64(again, to watch. Playing is a lot more fun, though. I can still enjoy playing Brawl, but I only watch stuff like Project M, Game Music Videos(essentially parodies using the cutscenes), or a Let's Play at best. Of course this is subjective, but the lack of exciting matches has hurt the scene in itself. It's not because of Melee purists either(I will say respectively that it sometimes does not help). It really is a Brawl issue specifically. 64 and Melee just don't have this problem.

I do agree, as said before, that a major issue with the mechanics is they added in very little into Brawl to replace the old ones. Regardless of which ones you like or not, not putting something new to spice up the game was a painful thing overall. Smash 4 is early in the actual gameplay stages, as we can tell by the demo, but we may get some more fun techniques besides what Brawl has.

 

[LancerStaff]

I still see a ton of people saying "complex = better" when it isn't. Haven't we been over this?

And there's people spiting on the design philosophy that created SSB and Melee in the first place. Like seriously, don't you see the problem with that line of thinking? If you hate "simple" games, you hate SSB. Without that design philosophy, this would just be another fighter with a "traditional" combo system and bland SF-y movesets. You're here because that's exactly what you don't want to play, right?

And lastly, some people liked "techs", some people didn't. Somebody had to bite the bullet. Is it worth being upset over drawing the short straw for this long? You still have Melee tournaments. Your happy accident is still there to play.

 

[Renji64]

I still see a ton of people saying "complex = better" when it isn't. Haven't we been over this?

And there's people spiting on the design philosophy that created SSB and Melee in the first place. Like seriously, don't you see the problem with that line of thinking? If you hate "simple" games, you hate SSB. Without that design philosophy, this would just be another fighter with a "traditional" combo system and bland SF-y movesets. You're here because that's exactly what you don't want to play, right?

And lastly, some people liked "techs", some people didn't. Somebody had to bite the bullet. Is it worth being upset over drawing the short straw for this long? You still have Melee tournaments. Your happy accident is still there to play.

Other people want to enjoy smash 4 besides brawl players you know. If they take the feedback it could be a fun game for everyone.

 

[PCHU]

I still see a ton of people saying "complex = better" when it isn't. Haven't we been over this?

And there's people spiting on the design philosophy that created SSB and Melee in the first place. Like seriously, don't you see the problem with that line of thinking? If you hate "simple" games, you hate SSB. Without that design philosophy, this would just be another fighter with a "traditional" combo system and bland SF-y movesets. You're here because that's exactly what you don't want to play, right?

And lastly, some people liked "techs", some people didn't. Somebody had to bite the bullet. Is it worth being upset over drawing the short straw for this long? You still have Melee tournaments. Your happy accident is still there to play.

I've seen pretty much all of your posts, but not once have I been able to figure where exactly your issue lies.
Everything I can possibly think of has been addressed if not by myself then another member or Sakurai himself in this upcoming division of For Fun and For Glory in addition to altered ledge mechanics.

This is a simple game with surprisingly advanced mechanics.
Even if this game somehow became super technical, its base mechanic of DI allows for actually surviving from attacks that would normally kill and actually having numerous chances to escape a combo than a one-time burst that can be rather easily read (much like the Brawl airdodge).
Regardless of how much you try to narrow it down to it being basic (sure, inputs can be basic, that's fine, but it's not like any techniques in the past have been required for competitive play, and they are much, much easier than some of the crap I've had to pull in BlazBlue/Marvel), it will still have some optional and slightly more complex inputs for those who choose to learn the game (B-reversals, RAR, DACUS, you know -- things that were in Brawl, the simple game).

If your problem is that you want the game to be more simple, then play simply.
Ignore DI, ignore powershielding, ignore teching, ignore attacking OoS.
I don't have a single issue with casual play, and I actually have loads of fun with it -- but I'd like for there to be a bit more for the people that choose to really learn the game, which is why these base mechanics will exist and will most likely continue to exist for all of Smash's life.

I kinda feel like you're calling out a whole bunch of people that want something you won't even be affected by.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

To add to this, I'd say that Brawl is shallow in some respects and deep in other respects. After all, a game that truly lacks depth (tic-tac-toe for example) wouldn't allow for a handful of players to dominate tournaments. The real problem is that the depth in Brawl comes from the most boring, laborious aspects of the game. The best Brawl players excel at camping and defense, and that's why they win repeatedly. It's also why the Brawl competitive scene is relatively small, since fewer competitive players find the campy, slow-paced nature of the game to be fun, exciting or interesting in the least. It might be said that the real "depth" in Brawl is the requirement that pros have a deep well of patience, rather than skill. That's why so many find it just plain boring.

Trela did everything but camp.

(Not saying this is wrong though, just that not every character could afford to camp since someone is going to lose in that and it ends up with people trying to get in on a approach)

aka what Lucario has to do against pretty much most of the cast.

I know Nintendo cares about general balance. My point is they haven't cared to show it until now. Once a game is shipped out they just ride the waves, and Sakurai has mentioned he knows of the competitive community but that isn't his focus. Which means we're just lucky that our competitive format hasn't been a complete bust out of the gate. It's not until the Smash Invitational that Nintendo has shown any semblance of continuous balancing of the game beyond their own playtests.

They clearly have shown in in Brawl they tried to balance and make it closer together, which with some outliers was overall pretty well done.

Capcom outside of Street Fighter has balanced a lot of their fighter pretty horridly. Even UMvC3 has devolved into that trap along with the 0-death combos people keep finding.

 

[LancerStaff]

Other people want to enjoy smash 4 besides brawl players you know. If they take the feedback it could be a fun game for everyone.

That's kinda... Impossible, knowing the SSB fanbase. We barely agree on a ruleset and tiers.

I've seen pretty much all of your posts, but not once have I been able to figure where exactly your issue lies.
Everything I can possibly think of has been addressed if not by myself then another member or Sakurai himself in this upcoming division of For Fun and For Glory in addition to altered ledge mechanics.

This is a simple game with surprisingly advanced mechanics.
Even if this game somehow became super technical, its base mechanic of DI allows for actually surviving from attacks that would normally kill and actually having numerous chances to escape a combo than a one-time burst that can be rather easily read (much like the Brawl airdodge).
Regardless of how much you try to narrow it down to it being basic (sure, inputs can be basic, that's fine, but it's not like any techniques in the past have been required for competitive play, and they are much, much easier than some of the crap I've had to pull in BlazBlue/Marvel), it will still have some optional and slightly more complex inputs for those who choose to learn the game (B-reversals, RAR, DACUS, you know -- things that were in Brawl, the simple game).

If your problem is that you want the game to be more simple, then play simply.
Ignore DI, ignore powershielding, ignore teching, ignore attacking OoS.
I don't have a single issue with casual play, and I actually have loads of fun with it -- but I'd like for there to be a bit more for the people that choose to really learn the game, which is why these base mechanics will exist and will most likely continue to exist for all of Smash's life.

I kinda feel like you're calling out a whole bunch of people that want something you won't even be affected by.

I'm a competitive player, understand? I honestly don't directly care about 'techs' and the related, and if they get into SSB4 or not. (When I say directly, I mean I care about it's effect on character balance and defense and offense balance, but not how it changes approaches or anything like that.) I just think it's narrowminded to think that we should just toss 'techs' in when practically all of them were accidental. Sakurai has a vision of what SSB should be, and people think they know how to make a better game. They don't. They know how to make a game they like better. And I find that those who think that SSB, an overly simple series, should be complex are hypocritical. They're here because it's simpler then things like SF and Tekken.

I want to play at high levels. I want to win. I'll master complex imputs and mechanics to achieve that win. But I won't complain should they be removed. I simply don't care. I just want to see a balanced game.

And like I've said, "techs" directly effect all levels of play due to online battles and player interaction. If it's significant enough, it'll trickle down much like Snaking did, and these people are asking for pretty significant things. Ergo, if Sakurai feels like keeping the casual side happy, he'll remove these things because they make the simple game more complex.

 

[WastingPenguins]

I honestly think that calling Smash inherently simpler than a game like Tekken betrays a pretty narrow idea of what depth and complexity means. Though they aren't really directly comparable, the ability to move freely in Smash Bros. adds layers of complexity that just don't exist in a traditional 2D fighter. Nobody is clamoring for difficult INPUTS, they're clamoring for more movement OPTIONS. Nobody cares if those options are easy or hard to input, so long as they're available.

 

[PCHU]

I just think it's narrowminded to think that we should just toss 'techs' in when practically all of them were accidental. Sakurai has a vision of what SSB should be, and people think they know how to make a better game. They don't. They know how to make a game they like better. And I find that those who think that SSB, an overly simple series, should be complex are hypocritical. They're here because it's simpler then things like SF and Tekken.

I want to play at high levels. I want to win. I'll master complex imputs and mechanics to achieve that win. But I won't complain should they be removed. I simply don't care. I just want to see a balanced game.

And like I've said, "techs" directly effect all levels of play due to online battles and player interaction. If it's significant enough, it'll trickle down much like Snaking did, and these people are asking for pretty significant things. Ergo, if Sakurai feels like keeping the casual side happy, he'll remove these things because they make the simple game more complex.

The problem here is that we're not asking for accidental techs, we're asking for things that were purposely implemented into the game (we don't even ask for 64-tier canceling, we just want lower landing lag in general -- if it came in the form of l-canceling, that'd be cool, too).
Not to mention that SSB, the "overly simple series", has had many techniques, again, none of which are required to play at a competitive level (even Melee Fox mains can get away with just uthrow uair over and over again).

Snaking is different because Mario Kart is a racing game, not a fighting game.
If I had a technique that gave me 0-deaths almost guaranteed regardless of hit confirm, I would have the equivalent of snaking.
There is no single technique in the history of Smash that has given an absolute advantage to every aspect of a character to the level that snaking does -- DACUS, RAR, B-reversal, zap jump, item-dashing, none of that has gone so far; even laser/jab locking required setup (and apparently, it still exists in the demo build of Smash 4).

If Brawl was your cup of tea, I'm sure you've realized that it actually is tech-heavy, but there isn't much that you can consistently apply to further your playstyle, whereas in Melee, you could.
I would like to be able to have multiple options for approaching.
That's what I want.
Nothing we've asked for thus far has come close to the level snaking has; even the infamous wavedashing and l-canceling only go so far; the victory comes from application.
You said yourself that you don't mind learning techniques to become a competent player -- that's the spirit.
I just don't see why you think that casual player vs. competitive player will always be the situation; heck, in MK8, I stay away from /v/'s races because I know I haven't practiced the game enough to compete at their level (but then again, I don't even own the game).
This is why For Fun and For Glory exist.
If you went to a tournament but your only goal was to just kinda breeze along, shouldn't you expect some losses?

 

[LancerStaff]

I honestly think that calling Smash inherently simpler than a game like Tekken betrays a pretty narrow idea of what depth and complexity means. Though they aren't really directly comparable, the ability to move freely in Smash Bros. adds layers of complexity that just don't exist in a traditional 2D fighter. Nobody is clamoring for difficult INPUTS, they're clamoring for more movement OPTIONS. Nobody cares if those options are easy or hard to input, so long as they're available.

More movement options make the game more complex, because now there's more unpredictablity.

The problem here is that we're not asking for accidental techs, we're asking for things that were purposely implemented into the game (we don't even ask for 64-tier canceling, we just want lower landing lag in general -- if it came in the form of l-canceling, that'd be cool, too).
Not to mention that SSB, the "overly simple series", has had many techniques, again, none of which are required to play at a competitive level (even Melee Fox mains can get away with just uthrow uair over and over again).

Snaking is different because Mario Kart is a racing game, not a fighting game.
If I had a technique that gave me 0-deaths almost guaranteed regardless of hit confirm, I would have the equivalent of snaking.
There is no single technique in the history of Smash that has given an absolute advantage to every aspect of a character to the level that snaking does -- DACUS, RAR, B-reversal, zap jump, item-dashing, none of that has gone so far; even laser/jab locking required setup (and apparently, it still exists in the demo build of Smash 4).

If Brawl was your cup of tea, I'm sure you've realized that it actually is tech-heavy, but there isn't much that you can consistently apply to further your playstyle, whereas in Melee, you could.
I would like to be able to have multiple options for approaching.
That's what I want.
Nothing we've asked for thus far has come close to the level snaking has; even the infamous wavedashing and l-canceling only go so far; the victory comes from application.
You said yourself that you don't mind learning techniques to become a competent player -- that's the spirit.
I just don't see why you think that casual player vs. competitive player will always be the situation; heck, in MK8, I stay away from /v/'s races because I know I haven't practiced the game enough to compete at their level (but then again, I don't even own the game).
This is why For Fun and For Glory exist.
If you went to a tournament but your only goal was to just kinda breeze along, shouldn't you expect some losses?

A correction, SSB is the series that's supposed to be simple. Every game thus far has had significant glitches that could be used and abused. I'm not necessarily talking to you when I say this, but SSB is still fun without these unnecessary 'techs.' Less landing lag is something I'm not against, because it changes the casual side as much as more lag.

So Snaking can be cut just because it makes a bigger difference? How much of a change is too much? I think any change can be considered too much. And how is MK supposed to appeal to those that liked it? It doesn't, because they're not the intended audience. If a glitch is discovered in a game that attracts an unintended audience, should it be kept?

Multiple options for approaching? You're wanting things to be more complex then they need to be. And most people prefer to have the game focused on the intended gameplay, not secret 'techniques.'

 

[Kamiko]

People need to stop mixing up depth and complexity in here.

Complexity refers to the amount of individal mechanics and techniques a game has. The options those things give the players is depth. Complexity ONLY includes purely objective qualities. Anything player created, such as spacing-related mindgames, is depth.

Please keep their differences in mind.

 

[LancerStaff]

People need to stop mixing up depth and complexity in here.

Complexity refers to the amount of individal mechanics and techniques a game has. The options those things give the players is depth. Complexity ONLY includes purely objective qualities. Anything player created, such as spacing-related mindgames, is depth.

Please their differences in mind.

No, not really. This depth makes playing at higher levels more complicated.

 

[Kamiko]

No, not really. This depth makes playing at higher levels more complicated.

The ability to move freely is the most depth any single game mechanic will likely ever supply. Are you saying that moving makes playing the game complicated?

 

[PCHU]

More movement options make the game more complex, because now there's more unpredictablity.



A correction, SSB is the series that's supposed to be simple. Every game thus far has had significant glitches that could be used and abused. I'm not necessarily talking to you when I say this, but SSB is still fun without these unnecessary 'techs.' Less landing lag is something I'm not against, because it changes the casual side as much as more lag.

So Snaking can be cut just because it makes a bigger difference? How much of a change is too much? I think any change can be considered too much. And how is MK supposed to appeal to those that liked it? It doesn't, because they're not the intended audience. If a glitch is discovered in a game that attracts an unintended audience, should it be kept?

Multiple options for approaching? You're wanting things to be more complex then they need to be. And most people prefer to have the game focused on the intended gameplay, not secret 'techniques.'

I kinda feel like you ignored huge portions of my posts, but I suppose that's okay.

As I said before (and I listed these!), these mechanics people want back were put in on purpose -- they weren't glitches at all.
Granted, there are some I'm not so sure about (DACUS, b-reversals, etc), but they weren't game-breaking in the least bit.
The only true glitch that even came close to Snaking was Metaknight's ICG, which is banned from tournaments anyway.

You say that you think any change is too much -- why then are you fine with the continual limitation of players' options?
As for the intended audience, Mario Kart and Super Smash Brothers don't bring people in with glitches.
I have no idea how you could have such a warped perspective, but people enjoy games for the gameplay -- glitches don't reel people in.
On the very likely chance I misinterpreted that, lemme also say this:
People who snaked also play MK8.
They may not be the intended audience, but they still play MK8 because they like the game, much like a lot of the people here.
However, that's not the focus of this post.

Yes, I would like multiple options for approaching.
You know, like the options SSB had in the iterations past (is RAR even that bad?).
It appears that -you- want Smash to be something it can never be due to all the mechanics I listed in my last post.
These mechanics (DI, knockback scaling, powershielding, ledge canceling, and more) are part of the intended gameplay because they were implemented by the people making this game and I'm pretty dang sure Sakurai himself gave them the green light, else these would've been removed long ago.
And you know what?
The game is still fun with these mechanics, and truth be told, these are part of what differentiates Smash from other fighting games as I've mentioned before.

For your next post, I challenge you to give me a solid reason why these basic mechanics implemented by Sakurai are bad.

No, not really. This depth makes playing at higher levels more complicated.

What
It's almost as if people have to work to be good nowadays

All of this has been addressed before, but I guess I'll say it again.
You take out the techs and, basically, you get Brawl -- the casual player still gets stomped, but like Ulevo said, it just takes longer because you've stripped the game of pace and the (optional) ability to further mix up your movement/offensive options.

Edit: I'm not even proud of this post.
It just looks ugly without sources, but I'm tired of typing out all of the examples when they've been brought up by other users as well as myself on numerous occasions.

 

[Kamiko]

You take out the techs and, basically, you get Brawl -- the casual player still gets stomped, but like Ulevo said, it just takes longer because you've stripped the game of pace and the (optional) ability to further mix up your movement/offensive options.

Brawl was sluggish all around, I don't think the lack of Melee's techniques had much to do with its slow pacing.

 

[PCHU]

Brawl was sluggish all around, I don't think the lack of Melee's techniques had much to do with its slow pacing.

Yeah, that was sloppy reasoning on my part and there wasn't really a purpose for adding that.

I genuinely wanted to say more with this post (both this one and the previous one), but I'm too freaking tired to.
Not to mention most of what I have to say has already been said in some form or fashion.

 

[LancerStaff]

The ability to move freely is the most depth any single game mechanic will likely ever supply. Are you saying that moving makes playing the game complicated?

Talk about assumptions. I ment that it'd make things more complex then it needs to be. We already have movement, does it really need to be more complex?

I kinda feel like you ignored huge portions of my posts, but I suppose that's okay.

As I said before (and I listed these!), these mechanics people want back were put in on purpose -- they weren't glitches at all.
Granted, there are some I'm not so sure about (DACUS, b-reversals, etc), but they weren't game-breaking in the least bit.
The only true glitch that even came close to Snaking was Metaknight's ICG, which is banned from tournaments anyway.

You say that you think any change is too much -- why then are you fine with the continual limitation of players' options?
As for the intended audience, Mario Kart and Super Smash Brothers don't bring people in with glitches.
I have no idea how you could have such a warped perspective, but people enjoy games for the gameplay -- glitches don't reel people in.
On the very likely chance I misinterpreted that, lemme also say this:
People who snaked also play MK8.
They may not be the intended audience, but they still play MK8 because they like the game, much like a lot of the people here.
However, that's not the focus of this post.

Yes, I would like multiple options for approaching.
You know, like the options SSB had in the iterations past (is RAR even that bad?).
It appears that -you- want Smash to be something it can never be due to all the mechanics I listed in my last post.
These mechanics (DI, knockback scaling, powershielding, ledge canceling, and more) are part of the intended gameplay because they were implemented by the people making this game and I'm pretty dang sure Sakurai himself gave them the green light, else these would've been removed long ago.
And you know what?
The game is still fun with these mechanics, and truth be told, these are part of what differentiates Smash from other fighting games as I've mentioned before.

For your next post, I challenge you to give me a solid reason why these basic mechanics implemented by Sakurai are bad.



What
It's almost as if people have to work to be good nowadays

All of this has been addressed before, but I guess I'll say it again.
You take out the techs and, basically, you get Brawl -- the casual player still gets stomped, but like Ulevo said, it just takes longer because you've stripped the game of pace and the (optional) ability to further mix up your movement/offensive options.

No, the only thing we can safely say was intentional was L-canceling. The only other thing Sakurai has commented on was Wavedashing, and that he found it and left it in. He did not make it or even knew how it'd effect the game.

How much change to a game because of a glitch is too much? It's an opinion. Some games keep them, some kill them. And there are people in this very topic who won't even consider this game unless it's more like Melee, and even more who'll never even look at the game. Snakers are still playing? Some. Most of them are raging at Nintendo for pulling their only game with online Snaking. Many didn't even give Wii the time of the day, much less 8.

Why can't Smash ever be a 'tech'-less game? It's not physically impossible. Those things you just mentioned? They're mechanics. The line between 'tech,' or glitch, and mechanic is determined by the whimsy of the developer.

You're jumping to conclusions again. I specificly said I'm not outright against them, but I do understand why they're removed. They're an unintentional part of the game, and the developers likely see them as distractions and flaws.

Now we're back to pace? Heh. Offensive isn't better then defensive. MKW compared to MK8 is the perfect example. Item spam wins MKW, plain and simple. Whereas MK8 slows things down by removing many offensive items and frequently gives players of all positions junk. Toning down offense made more room for skill. MK8 is widely considered to be the best game to date, by players of all skill levels. Striping down offense made practically all players happy.

 

[Kamiko]

Talk about assumptions. I ment that it'd make things more complex then it needs to be. We already have movement, does it really need to be more complex?

I didn't assume anything, you literally said that depth makes things complex. So I brought up moving, which is extremely simple, and applied your statement to it.

 

[LancerStaff]

I didn't assume anything, you literally said that depth makes things complex. So I brought up moving, which is extremely simple, and applied your statement to it.

My logic is that unintentional additions that add complexity don't need to exist.

 

[Kamiko]

My logic is that unintentional additions that add complexity don't need to exist.

I agree with that, but I wasn't refering to unintentional things in particular. I was making a general statement because both sides of the argument keep mixing the two terms around.

 

[PCHU]

Talk about assumptions. I ment that it'd make things more complex then it needs to be. We already have movement, does it really need to be more complex?



No, the only thing we can safely say was intentional was L-canceling. The only other thing Sakurai has commented on was Wavedashing, and that he found it and left it in. He did not make it or even knew how it'd effect the game.

How much change to a game because of a glitch is too much? It's an opinion. Some games keep them, some kill them. And there are people in this very topic who won't even consider this game unless it's more like Melee, and even more who'll never even look at the game. Snakers are still playing? Some. Most of them are raging at Nintendo for pulling their only game with online Snaking. Many didn't even give Wii the time of the day, much less 8.

Why can't Smash ever be a 'tech'-less game? It's not physically impossible. Those things you just mentioned? They're mechanics. The line between 'tech,' or glitch, and mechanic is determined by the whimsy of the developer.

You're jumping to conclusions again. I specificly said I'm not outright against them, but I do understand why they're removed. They're an unintentional part of the game, and the developers likely see them as distractions and flaws.

Now we're back to pace? Heh. Offensive isn't better then defensive. MKW compared to MK8 is the perfect example. Item spam wins MKW, plain and simple. Whereas MK8 slows things down by removing many offensive items and frequently gives players of all positions junk. Toning down offense made more room for skill. MK8 is widely considered to be the best game to date, by players of all skill levels. Striping down offense made practically all players happy.

I've got a bunch to say about MK8, but I'll cut it short:
It's fun, it's replayable, but it has issues with item distribution and they could've brought back some better courses (in my opinion).
Also, Mario Kart offense is DRASTICALLY different from Smash offense.
I don't understand why you keep coming back to Mario Kart, although I admit it's an unforgettably fun series.

You're against techniques but you'll play the game anyway; I gathered that much.
As far as unintentional goes, some of the mechanics tie in with certain techniques which is why I spoke about them the way I did.
Would you consider foxtrotting a mechanic or a technique? (it's in demo build of Smash 4)
How about dashdancing? Brawl dashdancing?
And what of crouching to cancel dash? That was removed from Melee to Brawl.
You can still shield to cancel it, but that's still limiting our options; at what point does an intended mechanic become an unnecessary technique?
If someone plopped Smash 4 into my lap right now and they had added absolutely NOTHING but the ability to cancel dash with crouch, I'd be content because I have more control over my character and I can use that to further my playstyle.

Ledge canceling, RAR, usmash/utilt from dash, usmash/utilt/aerial OoS...
There are tons of mechanics/techniques out there -- do you have an issue against these things which give us more options?

 

[Kamiko]

I've got a bunch to say about MK8, but I'll cut it short:
It's fun, it's replayable, but it has issues with item distribution and they could've brought back some better courses (in my opinion).
Also, Mario Kart offense is DRASTICALLY different from Smash offense.
I don't understand why you keep coming back to Mario Kart, although I admit it's an unforgettably fun series.

I think he's using snaking and firehopping as examples of techniques that don't actually add anything to the game, and then lumping all other techniques in with them. At least that's what I'm getting out of it, because I don't see any other way Mario Kart would apply to this conversation. I could be wrong though.

 

[PCHU]

I think he's using snaking and firehopping as examples of techniques that don't actually add anything to the game, and then lumping all other techniques in with them. At least that's what I'm getting out of it, because I don't see any other way Mario Kart would apply to this conversation. I could be wrong though.

I can see that.
MK8's cool and all, and flame hopping is actually fun ('cause who doesn't like bouncing all over the place), but I feel like MK Wii had more memorable tracks (there's a reason people pick Moo Moo Meadow), not to mention the drift system felt nicer to me.
I don't mind outside drifting, but dang, flying all over the place with an inside drifting bike...it felt so good.
Not to mention there were no coins (and most definitely no coins as items; that screws me over infinitely more than the fake item boxes did).

Also, speaking of removed mechanics, it seems like I'm almost always drifting (due to the new system), so why not keep the wheelie?

 

[Kamiko]

I can see that.
MK8's cool and all, and flame hopping is actually fun ('cause who doesn't like bouncing all over the place), but I feel like MK Wii had more memorable tracks (there's a reason people pick Moo Moo Meadow), not to mention the drift system felt nicer to me.
I don't mind outside drifting, but dang, flying all over the place with an inside drifting bike...it felt so good.
Not to mention there were no coins (and most definitely no coins as items; that screws me over infinitely more than the fake item boxes did).

Also, speaking of removed mechanics, it seems like I'm almost always drifting (due to the new system), so why not keep the wheelie?

I can't say I've paid much attention to the names of drifting types, but I've noticed two distinct drifting styles in 8, so it might just be whatever parts you're using. I think that video LancerStaff linked to earlier in the thread mentioned something about it.

Although this isn't really the place to talk about Mario Kart. Why do all the best people to talk to about other games always seem to gather on Smashboards? I wish the Zelda community could be as good as this place.

 

[RODO]

How much more simple does the game have to get? Most traditional fighters have complicated imputs just to do regular attacks and combos and not everyone even use the same imput for abilities. Heck some fighters won't even show you some of the moves you can do.

In smash, however, every character has the same imputs. No complicated imputs required just hold a direction and press a button. Even dash dancing is starting to be considered complicated by some and all you are doing is literally just running back and forth. That is an advanced tech in smash believe it or not. Sounds pretty laughable compared to other fighters.

 

[Kamiko]

Dash dancing counts as advanced?

 

[Toon612Link]

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.

Sakurai want's to make it so when switching thru character to character you can just simply understand how they work without practice, Sakurai said he took things out because melee was to complex and hard for the younger audience to grasp... Which makes no sense because the game is rated T for teen and teenagers are suppose to know how to play something more complex then mario bros.

 

[WastingPenguins]

More movement options make the game more complex, because now there's more unpredictablity.



A correction, SSB is the series that's supposed to be simple. Every game thus far has had significant glitches that could be used and abused. I'm not necessarily talking to you when I say this, but SSB is still fun without these unnecessary 'techs.' Less landing lag is something I'm not against, because it changes the casual side as much as more lag.

You're not exactly wrong that adding in movement and gameplay options makes the game more complex. The problem is, how do we decide how much complexity is too much? Shield-grabbing is a technique that combines two game mechanics, and I've met plenty of casual players who don't even realize it's possible. Shouldn't we take that out, if Smash is supposed to be simple? Fast-falling is a mechanic that increases your movement options in the air. Shouldn't we take that out for simplicity's sake? What about the ability to charge smash attacks? That wasn't in the original N64 game, so it's making the game more complex -- oh no! And don't even get me started on teching.

My point is that we're really at an impasse if we're just using subjective opinion to decide which options are too complex, and how many options are too many. Experienced players can use techniques like the ones I've listed here to totally trash casual players, even without anything more advanced. But for some reason you're not advocating the removal of all of those. So apparently you're not making a principled stand against complexity at all! You're simply arguing for your own pet idea of where to draw the line.

 

[EPsilon933]

Why would anyone ever say a Smash Bros game is too complex? It's the easiest to learn fighting game ever (except divekick, if that counts). You have 2 attack buttons, a jump button, a shield button, and a grab button (which is a combo of shield and normal attack). That's only 4 or 5 buttons to learn. Every character has only 19 attacks. There are no quarter circle, half circle, full circle, dragon punch motions, charge motions, and double those motions needed to do basic attacks. This game is VERY playable on a gamepad. Other fighting games are too complex to play on one. This game is super intuitive because all combos are links and the game is about movement rather than move set. Any idiot can learn this game

 

[ChikoLad]

Why would anyone ever say a Smash Bros game is too complex? It's the easiest to learn fighting game ever (except divekick, if that counts). You have 2 attack buttons, a jump button, a shield button, and a grab button (which is a combo of shield and normal attack). That's only 4 or 5 buttons to learn. Every character has only 19 attacks. There are no quarter circle, half circle, full circle, dragon punch motions, charge motions, and double those motions needed to do basic attacks. This game is VERY playable on a gamepad. Other fighting games are too complex to play on one. This game is super intuitive because all combos are links and the game is about movement rather than move set. Any idiot can learn this game

The GamePad is just as good for inherently more complex fighting games (e.g. Tekken Tag Tournament 2).

But yeah, the simplicity of Smash is it's greatest strength. It's simplicity gives it it's own sort of depth.

 

[Renji64]

I want smash 4 to be fun to play and fun to watch kinda like melee is but ._. i guess that is bad i should want more slow paced standing around stalling matches for hype instead.