I argue that smash 4 is a pretty slow pace. There's a reason its played at 2 stocks vs 4, which is because the advantage in smash 4 is usually placed on the defending/recovering player. Edgeguards are rare, because the defender almost always has far more tools that eclipse the attacker. Not that this is awful, but it isn't conducive to exciting matches.
The 2 stock format is because of the new ledge mechanics and the larger blast zones, which I have no doubt were intentionally added in so that the game
could be 2 stock. You know how other Fighters out there usually have 2 life bars? Stocks are the equivalent of life bars, and I think Sakurai & crew decided to, in a way, emulate that format, only with a Smash twist to it.
I'd also argue that previous Smash games put the advantage in the edgegame in the edgeguarder's hands because you can abuse i-frames from regrabs, and oftentimes all you have to do is just grab the edge so that the opponent can't. Smash 4 evened it out and therefore requires more effort to efficiently edgeguard, and I think that's why we're not seeing many edgeguards just yet: we're still figuring it out. It's something we're not used to, so we're not fully efficient with it.
You can even apply this to Melee with the kind of edgeguards we see today. Surely you've noticed how much more flamboyant & skill-testing they are as opposed to even just 5 years ago. Games evolve over time, so we're gonna see this new edgegame do such -- or, at least, hopefully we will. I do think that people are often TOO conservative right now, going so far as to just stand there doing nothing, not even SHFFing to catch opponents' get-up options. If we keep doing this, then we're never going to get anywhere.
Furthermore, I don't think anyone is qualified to say the direction smash should be taking. At least none of us here. But from the competitive standpoint, a game that is inferior to a predecessor (again, this is from the competitive standpoint only) is a failure. So I, and many other players, esp those that have been playing Melee for years, have a disdain for smash 4 because it is a failure in the aspect that matters to us most.
Like I said, I understand the desire for more a more technical metagame, and believe me, I wouldn't mind having one, but the way the series started out is unarguably an indication that the series is supposed to strike a balance between casual & competitive play. That's why I think something along the lines of Smash 4 is the ideal route for the series to take, even if I would enjoy a more competitive one.
And it's for that some reason that many of us don't understand why people would play smash4 competitively, and attempt to dissuade you from doing so.
This contradicts what you said just after this, which is "Not that others can't enjoy it, and if you do, good on you." If that's how you feel, then why would you care if people play Smash 4 competitively, and more importantly, why would you try to stop them from doing such? All that's going to accomplish is tension in the community, and I know this for a fact because we've already seen it happen. Countless times.
Personally, I don't care what people say. But I've been called a Melee autist more than once, and that does annoy me. I downright hate playing smash 4, as much as brawl, because it feels like a facsimile of a game that I love. I can play smash 4 casually, with my friends, and win 10 straight, and I don't enjoy it. Not that others can't enjoy it, and if you do, good on you.
Name-calling is absolutely unacceptable under any circumstance, and I feel for you there. As for not enjoying Smash 4, that's fine. Personal taste is everything, and if a fighting game that's not super technical isn't up your alley, then there's nothing wrong with choosing not to play it. I don't hold anything against anyone that doesn't enjoy Smash 4; I just hate when people try to kill it off competitively as if it's somehow causing active harm to them and taking away from Melee. Like... it's a ****ing video game. Chill out, fam. (Not directing this at you, per se, just speaking in general).
The point I'm making here is mainly that most everyone on this site looks at these games from a competitive standpoint. And by that perspective, smash 4 is a failure to many of us. Not because "it isn't melee" or because we're "autists" but because from the perspective of what we play these games most for, it's a failure.
I think Melee is the underlying reason, whether people want to admit it or not. If Melee were to have mechanically been like Smash 4, there would still be a competitive scene, I guarantee you; we would still have this site, we would still have tournaments, and we would still have hype. In all reality, the only thing we
wouldn't have are the civil wars that have broke out.
And people say that Melee was too much for a party fighter, but I have to say I totally disagree. Melee was one of, if not the most successful GameCube game to ever release. If Nintendo kept the feel of that game, I think smash would be just as successful as it is today. This is a feeling shared within the melee community, evidenced by Melee's success in its time. This is what makes the community hate brawl/smash 4 (besides that brawl almost killed competitive smash), is that the direction they've taken seems like a senseless and deliberate shooting down of the competitive elements. Smash 4 most of all, because Nintendo is pushing it as a good competitive game, when it's inferior in that regard to melee.
Melee was only played as a party game in its day because of the appeal of being able to play as your favorite Nintendo characters in 4 player free-for-alls. Without that, I doubt it would have had the financial success that it did (the same goes for the rest of the series, too). That doesn't change the fact that it inherently has a higher skill floor, though, which is a negative thing from a party standpoint. Just because something
can be played casually doesn't mean that it's casual-friendly. For example, the Bayonetta games can be played casually due to the Easy-Automatic mode they have, but does that mean that casual gamers are going to flock to them and love them? Of course not, because they're not casual games and they were never meant to be.
Melee is a technical beast, which is great for competitive (and, again, I love it for that), but bad for casual, and that's why I say it failed from a party game perspective. Even back when I was a kid, I noticed that it felt harder to play than the original game (because it is), and the only reason I kept playing it was because the frame rate was higher, the visuals were better, the roster was larger, there were extra specials & throws, more stages were available, and the chaos was higher with lots more items.
Back then, if you had given me the choice between Melee & Brawl, I would have chosen Brawl, and not just because it had many of the same aforementioned features, but because it was a more casual-oriented game -- if they, for whatever reason, had the same roster, stages, and items, I still would have preferred Brawl. That's changed now, of course (and even back when Brawl came out, I was older and realized that it was
too casual for Smash
, being on the opposite end of the spectrum from Melee), but I think that's a pretty good case for why I say Melee ultimately went too far in the competitive direction.
Regards to all. This isn't meant to be a firestarter, just an honest perspective on the issue.
The same here, of course.
