Will Smash 4 Be Competitive?

[Impmacaque]

Brawl was just about as complex and deep as Melee

'

I've heard this sentiment before and I will never agree with it (I'd go so far to say as it's objectively false). However, it's a dead horse that doesn't need to be beat anymore, so I won't elaborate further.

Back on topic: Smash 4 will be competitive because the smash playerbase would be willing to play it competitively regardless of the state it was released in. That said, this game is not melee and Sakurai has made it clear that he doesn't wish to design another melee-esque title. If you're expecting a melee-level rabbit hole of potential technique and execution, you're looking at the wrong game for it.

A new meta will develop around the intricacies of Smash 4's engine and character roster, but I would expect the trajectory, style, and evolution of that meta to closely resemble Brawl's unless the game is changed from the build we have seen at E3 and played at Best Buys.

 

[The21stSmasher]

Smash 4 will be competitive because the smash playerbase would be willing to play it competitively regardless of the state it was released in. That said, this game is not melee and Sakurai has made it clear that he doesn't wish to design another melee-esque title. If you're expecting a melee-level rabbit hole of potential technique and execution, you're looking at the wrong game for it.

Really?? Since when did he said that?

 

[staindgrey]

'

I've heard this sentiment before and I will never agree with it (I'd go so far to say as it's objectively false). However, it's a dead horse that doesn't need to be beat anymore, so I won't elaborate further.

Agree to disagree. The only way one could argue "objectively" that Melee was more complex would be in its button usage and, alongside that, its need for muscle memory. On that, I'd agree. But Brawl required intimate knowledge of other mechanics and character specific traits just like Melee and 64. It was simply slower and more defensive, which translates to more boring play, which makes it seem less complex.

I'm currently bored at work and felt like saying my piece. Don't mind me.

 

[Impmacaque]

Really?? Since when did he said that?

"However, he has one particularly deep regret: the game's accessibility level. "I had created Smash Bros. to be my response to how hardcore-exclusive the fighting game genre had become over the years," Sakurai said. "But why did I target it so squarely toward people well-versed in videogames, then? That's why I tried to aim for more of a happy medium with Brawl's play balance. There are three Smash Bros. games out now, but even if I ever had a chance at another one, I doubt we'll ever see one that's as geared toward hardcore gamers as Melee was. Melee fans who played deep into the game without any problems might have trouble understanding this, but Melee was just too difficult.""

-Sakurai

Source: http://www.1up.com/news/masahiro-sakurai-reflects-super-smash

 

[EPsilon933]

Really?? Since when did he said that?

A long time ago in an interview, like a year ago. Him and his team basically didn't get weekend nor holidays for most of the 13 months they spent making Melee

 

[Impmacaque]

Agree to disagree. The only way one could argue "objectively" that Melee was more complex would be in its button usage and, alongside that, its need for muscle memory. On that, I'd agree. But Brawl required intimate knowledge of other mechanics and character specific traits just like Melee and 64. It was simply slower and more defensive, which translates to more boring play, which makes it seem less complex.

I'm currently bored at work and felt like saying my piece. Don't mind me.

The flexibility of melee's engine, degree of character control Melee offers a player, and the breadth of its technical mechanics means that Melee players have far more options at every level of play and in every situation versus a comparable battle in Brawl. Statements like "Brawl requires intimate knowledge of other mechanics and character specific traits" is just meaningless fluff and semantics to me. I've followed both the Melee and Brawl scene (and for that matter, the 64 scene) for a very long time, and it's plain as day that Brawl play is much simpler in concept, reality, and in execution than any other game in the smash series.

I'm afraid I can't really take up your offer to agree to disagree here. But again, this is just beating a dead horse so I will not be arguing the point further in this topic since it's a very off-topic argument (and not a constructive one, either).

 

[RODO]

"However, he has one particularly deep regret: the game's accessibility level. "I had created Smash Bros. to be my response to how hardcore-exclusive the fighting game genre had become over the years," Sakurai said. "But why did I target it so squarely toward people well-versed in videogames, then? That's why I tried to aim for more of a happy medium with Brawl's play balance. There are three Smash Bros. games out now, but even if I ever had a chance at another one, I doubt we'll ever see one that's as geared toward hardcore gamers as Melee was. Melee fans who played deep into the game without any problems might have trouble understanding this, but Melee was just too difficult.""

-Sakurai

Source: http://www.1up.com/news/masahiro-sakurai-reflects-super-smash

Didn't he also say that Melee was the best Smash game??

 

[RascalTheCharizard]

"However, he has one particularly deep regret: the game's accessibility level. "I had created Smash Bros. to be my response to how hardcore-exclusive the fighting game genre had become over the years," Sakurai said. "But why did I target it so squarely toward people well-versed in videogames, then? That's why I tried to aim for more of a happy medium with Brawl's play balance. There are three Smash Bros. games out now, but even if I ever had a chance at another one, I doubt we'll ever see one that's as geared toward hardcore gamers as Melee was. Melee fans who played deep into the game without any problems might have trouble understanding this, but Melee was just too difficult.""

-Sakurai

Source: http://www.1up.com/news/masahiro-sakurai-reflects-super-smash

He also says in the same article that Melee is in his opinion the best in the series so far. He may have regretted Melee's difficulty level, but he clearly likes the way it was overall, being "pretty speedy all around and ask[ing] a lot of your coordination skills".

 

[Impmacaque]

Didn't he also say that Melee was the best Smash game??

I'm pretty sure Sakurai has gone on record as saying Melee was the best game he ever created. (I'll check my sources for that before saying it definitively).

However, somehow, he got the notion that casual players did not enjoy Melee due to its "difficulty". In over ten years of Smash I never met anyone who disliked Melee because it was too hard to play. Regardless, Sakurai's belief that melee was too inaccessible for the casual gamer is the reason for the paradigm shift in Smash design that we saw in Brawl.

 

[staindgrey]

The flexibility of melee's engine, degree of character control Melee offers a player, and the breadth of its technical mechanics means that Melee players have far more options at every level of play and in every situation versus a comparable battle in Brawl. Statements like "Brawl requires intimate knowledge of other mechanics and character specific traits" is just meaningless fluff and semantics to me. I've followed both the Melee and Brawl scene (and for that matter, the 64 scene) for a very long time, and it's plain as day that Brawl play is much simpler in concept, reality, and in execution than any other game in the smash series.

I'm afraid I can't really take up your offer to agree to disagree here. But again, this is just beating a dead horse so I will not be arguing the point further in this topic since it's a very off-topic argument (and not a constructive one, either).

A lack of control does not indicate a lack of complexity. I, too, have been a part of the competitive scene for the past two games. Whether or not you take my offer, you aren't objectively correct. That said, you're right. Nothing being said here carries any weight. I'll stop as well.

But I do think we can state with objectivity that Brawl's gameplay was more boring to watch. :D

 

[Espio264]

Wow. I'm not cool enough to sit with the football players or the cheerleaders, and I'm apparently not cool enough to sit with you guys either.

Me and Ivysaur and Mewtwo are gonna go sit with the Marching Band kids. At least they like us.

 

[The21stSmasher]

"However, he has one particularly deep regret: the game's accessibility level. "I had created Smash Bros. to be my response to how hardcore-exclusive the fighting game genre had become over the years," Sakurai said. "But why did I target it so squarely toward people well-versed in videogames, then? That's why I tried to aim for more of a happy medium with Brawl's play balance. There are three Smash Bros. games out now, but even if I ever had a chance at another one, I doubt we'll ever see one that's as geared toward hardcore gamers as Melee was. Melee fans who played deep into the game without any problems might have trouble understanding this, but Melee was just too difficult.""

-Sakurai

A long time ago in an interview, like a year ago. Him and his team basically didn't get weekend nor holidays for most of the 13 months they spent making Melee

W-Wow... To me, it's seems tragic enough that he wouldn't consider making another super-fast fighter such as Melee, yet he admitted that it was the best he ever created... That long ago.

 

[Gunla]

I don't think it's that he wouldn't want to make another Melee-level game... it's that he likely wouldn't be able to.

The work for that game [Melee] was particularly extreme and very rigorous, as noted, with no weekends and crunch time usually often. Given at the point that Sakurai himself is getting arm pains from working on this game, and that making another Melee would mean that level and intensity of work, it is simply too much for one man to handle. If he was able to do it, he'd likely do so eagerly... but he's aged in his years and that level of work is impossible for him now.

That being said, Smash 4 will likely have a mid-level competitive community at the least. The good changes are already received well by the community and the ugly is getting a makeover in the final stages of development.

 

[Impmacaque]

It really is a tragedy.

Imagine, for a moment, a world where the next Smash were a true Melee sequel. It had sharp movement and all the staple techniques and intricacies of previous Smash games (proper DI, SHFFL, etc.), plus some new ones added in. It had a big, new 50+ character roster where every character was balanced around being independently viable without items.

What would happen to the Smash community? Everyone from the 64 players to the Brawl players would purchase this new game, because it's Smash, of course. But a tournament scene the likes of which we'd never seen would evolve around this new game. We'd be able to dive into the game knowing that it had the depth and potential to last us another ten years. How great would that be? The casual players would play and enjoy smash because, well, it's smash... But the rest of us would be having the time of our lives forming a new community and scene around a truly worthy title.

Though I know this is untrue, It seems at times like the only person who doesn't want a melee sequel is Sakurai. A lot of us old melee players just want to go back to those old days where we had a game that was like a technical sandbox - where you just knew there was more to discover and that you'd never quite master it all.

Anyways, I'm just being a bitter old smash player, so I'll stop wish listing things that are impossibilities. It's just a shame to me, I guess.

 

[Ogre_Deity_Link]

Anyways, I'm just being a bitter old smash player, so I'll stop wish listing things that are impossibilities. It's just a shame to me, I guess.

"Get off of mah lawn!"

Sorry, couldn't resist, what with you calling yourself an old smash player.

 

[Ulevo]

Agree to disagree. The only way one could argue "objectively" that Melee was more complex would be in its button usage and, alongside that, its need for muscle memory. On that, I'd agree. But Brawl required intimate knowledge of other mechanics and character specific traits just like Melee and 64. It was simply slower and more defensive, which translates to more boring play, which makes it seem less complex.

I'm currently bored at work and felt like saying my piece. Don't mind me.

Hopping on the train of agreeing to disagree, because I think he's right. It's not a matter of Brawl and Melee being different. Melee simply has more. Those things you attribute to as complex button usage have implications. They are mechanics that have extensive depth associated with them, not as just things you press, and there's simply a lot more of them to know, learn, and use in Melee than Brawl has.

 

[Impmacaque]

"Get off of mah lawn!"

Sorry, couldn't resist, what with you calling yourself an old smash player.

Hey man, you're looking pretty old yourself judging from your join date. We should set up a local bingo night somewhere where we can all trash talk the youngins who don't know how good everything used to be!

 

[Ogre_Deity_Link]

Hey man, you're looking pretty old yourself judging from your join date. We should set up a local bingo night somewhere where we can all trash talk the youngins who don't know how good everything used to be!

Back in my day, we didn't have your fancy cel-shading! We had blocky polygons and less than 20 characters! You should count yourselves as lucky that you have your (possible) 51 characters!

 

[The21stSmasher]

It really is a tragedy.

Imagine, for a moment, a world where the next Smash were a true Melee sequel. It had sharp movement and all the staple techniques and intricacies of previous Smash games (proper DI, SHFFL, etc.), plus some new ones added in. It had a big, new 50+ character roster where every character was balanced around being independently viable without items.

What would happen to the Smash community? Everyone from the 64 players to the Brawl players would purchase this new game, because it's Smash, of course. But a tournament scene the likes of which we'd never seen would evolve around this new game. We'd be able to dive into the game knowing that it had the depth and potential to last us another ten years. How great would that be? The casual players would play and enjoy smash because, well, it's smash... But the rest of us would be having the time of our lives forming a new community and scene around a truly worthy title.

Though I know this is untrue, It seems at times like the only person who doesn't want a melee sequel is Sakurai. A lot of us old melee players just want to go back to those old days where we had a game that was like a technical sandbox - where you just knew there was more to discover and that you'd never quite master it all.

Anyways, I'm just being a bitter old smash player, so I'll stop wish listing things that are impossibilities. It's just a shame to me, I guess.

Well said, my friend. Well said... And that's one of the reasons why Melee's still alive and going today, even though the game is old.

 

[EverythingSmash]

How do you figure? I don't claim to have any numbers or anything, but just watching general footage, characters still seem super floaty. All the physics still seem Brawl-inspired.


Sure... just not in the same way Melee was. Chess is competitive, but it is also supremely painful to watch. #FreeMelee

The game se

The physics are nowhere near Melee. Take a good look at Sakurai's Megaman match or other footage. They're pretty close to brawl's.

You clearly did not play a lot of brawl.

 

[Cassio]

I think he said melee was the smoothest game, not the best game. But he also said smash 4 felt the best one hes made so far, and has indicated he wanted a better balance in any case.

Hopping on the train of agreeing to disagree, because I think he's right. It's not a matter of Brawl and Melee being different. Melee simply has more. Those things you attribute to as complex button usage have implications. They are mechanics that have extensive depth associated with them, not as just things you press, and there's simply a lot more of them to know, learn, and use in Melee than Brawl has.

Adding game mechanics is in a sense, pseudo-depth. Is Rock Paper Scissors less complex than Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock? In terms of its game mechanics and knowledge yes, but some people dont really care for this so long as theres required three layers of yomi that RPS has. Expand that to RPS-25 or RPS-100 (yes they exist) and suddenly it seems less attractive for certain crowds that favor the depth in player interactions instead.

 

[batistabus]

Will Smash 4 be competitive? Of course it will.

Will the scene still be strong in 10+ years? That's the real question.

 

[Ulevo]

I think he said melee was the smoothest game, not the best game. But he also said smash 4 felt the best one hes made so far, and has indicated he wanted a better balance in any case.

Adding game mechanics is in a sense, pseudo-depth. Is Rock Paper Scissors less complex than Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock? In terms of its game mechanics and knowledge yes, but some people dont really care for this so long as theres required three layers of yomi that RPS has. Expand that to RPS-25 or RPS-100 (yes they exist) and suddenly it seems less attractive for certain crowds that favor the depth in player interactions instead.

The premise of your comparison is flawed because in rock paper scissors, the only value one of those choices has is to counter one other option. That's how the game is designed, so the amount of choices added doesn't affect the depth of decision making. Choices are very linear by design. The choices that the mechanics give you in Smash are not linear, but exponential in function. By doing something as simple as giving characters the ability to crouch out of a run for example, you increase the options that player has for approaches substantially, rather than simply changing how they approach. When you remove a function like this, you simplify the way characters can approach, making the game less deep. This is just one of many examples that trend this way.

 

[Cassio]

The premise of your comparison is flawed because in rock paper scissors, the only value one of those choices has is to counter one other option. That's how the game is designed, so the amount of choices added doesn't affect the depth of decision making. Choices are very linear by design. The choices that the mechanics give you in Smash are not linear, but exponential in function. By doing something as simple as giving characters the ability to crouch out of a run for example, you increase the options that player has for approaches substantially, rather than simply changing how they approach. When you remove a function like this, you simplify the way characters can approach, making the game less deep. This is just one of many examples that trend this way.

Hmm, while I think personal analysis is fine, it's pretty clear this wasnt rigorous. Only annoying because of the previously stated strong judgements associated with the analysis. Granted this isnt isolated.

It doesnt matter how many options a single mechanic adds the result is the same regardless. RPS variations with more options do more than counter one extra option since youd have to know the winner of each interaction of choices. The same is true for smash as well (anything truly competitive really). However, while it is correct to think there is more complexity to these interactions since each option is not necessarily as rewarding as the other (consider that each option has a different value based on whether or not its chosen), this is also a tangent. In depth player interaction only requires three yomi layers; a reliable option (rock), a counter to that option (paper), a counter to the counter (scissors), and finally a counter to the counter's counter that may also be the original reliable options (rock). As it's probably clear now, once you create this loop, yomi can reach layers 4 through infinite with this simple format. Its possible to add additional mechanics (spock, lizard, lava, whatever) but it's not essential. If people want to test their skill and knowledge in knowing that spock beats rock, paper, lava, gun, etc. there's certainly depth in understanding the game and its techniques but it does not add depth to how the players themselves think or interact with each other that couldnt exist otherwise with three layers of yomi. In any case, heres a reference to yomi's three layers.

http://www.sirlin.net/articles/yomi-layer-3-knowing-the-mind-of-the-opponent.html

 

[CRASHiC]

Ulevo you are confusing potential options with actual options.

Let's talk about a game with movement options with more breadth than Melee's, Arcana Heart 3. Arcana Heart, outside of your normal movement has air dashes and its own air homing system and certain characters and Arcanas have their own additional movement options. Certainly a sytem like this would see a wealth of creativity and health because of the numerous options given to players, right?

The truth is the game is rigid in design and approach despite these numerous options because the approach options are so strong that it limits the defending characters options. When you give one charterer a new option, you are potentially devaluing their other options and reducing their opponents. To be clear I am not talking about roster balance but simply the viable choices (not the sheer amount of choices) available to players at a given moment. Its difficult to talk about without going into matchup specificis, but I'm sure you can think of multiple examples in melee where one charecters options severely limit another's in a particular matchup. Ice Climbers are perhaps the most obvious example.

 

[Ulevo]

Hmm, while I think personal analysis is fine, it's pretty clear this wasnt rigorous. Only annoying because of the previously stated strong judgements associated with the analysis. Granted this isnt isolated.

It doesnt matter how many options a single mechanic adds the result is the same regardless. RPS variations with more options do more than counter one extra option since youd have to know the winner of each interaction of choices. The same is true for smash as well (anything truly competitive really). However, while it is correct to think there is more complexity to these interactions since each option is not necessarily as rewarding as the other (consider that each option has a different value based on whether or not its chosen), this is also a tangent. In depth player interaction only requires three yomi layers; a reliable option (rock), a counter to that option (paper), a counter to the counter (scissors), and finally a counter to the counter's counter that may also be the original reliable options (rock). As it's probably clear now, once you create this loop, yomi can reach layers 4 through infinite with this simple format. Its possible to add additional mechanics (spock, lizard, lava, whatever) but it's not essential. If people want to test their skill and knowledge in knowing that spock beats rock, paper, lava, gun, etc. there's certainly depth in understanding the game and its techniques but it does not add depth to how the players themselves think or interact with each other that couldnt exist otherwise with three layers of yomi. In any case, heres a reference to yomi's three layers.

http://www.sirlin.net/articles/yomi-layer-3-knowing-the-mind-of-the-opponent.html

The problem with concepts like yomi is that they occur due to the rigidity of the system, especially in traditional fighters where things like movement options are limited by comparison. While there are instances like this in Smash for sure, such as when a character techs, this trend isn't completely over reaching. Smash is a game with essentially full autonomy to your character, and as I mentioned and alluded to earlier, the game isn't as simple as having one solid option with a plethora of circling counter options. I don't agree with this.

Ulevo you are confusing potential options with actual options.

Let's talk about a game with movement options with more breadth than Melee's, Arcana Heart 3. Arcana Heart, outside of your normal movement has air dashes and its own air homing system and certain characters and Arcanas have their own additional movement options. Certainly a sytem like this would see a wealth of creativity and health because of the numerous options given to players, right?

The truth is the game is rigid in design and approach despite these numerous options because the approach options are so strong that it limits the defending characters options. When you give one charterer a new option, you are potentially devaluing their other options and reducing their opponents. To be clear I am not talking about roster balance but simply the viable choices (not the sheer amount of choices) available to players at a given moment. Its difficult to talk about without going into matchup specificis, but I'm sure you can think of multiple examples in melee where one charecters options severely limit another's in a particular matchup. Ice Climbers are perhaps the most obvious example.

I don't speak for Arcana Heart because quite frankly I'm ignorant to the franchise, but like you mentioned, just because Arcana Heart has 'potential options' doesn't mean they are relevant ones, and by extension it doesn't mean it has really 'more' than Melee within this context.

I understand what you're trying to tell me, particularly with the Ice Climber example. But I assure you I'm not confusing depth for empty or perceived depth in this case. What makes Smash so complicated is that because of its king of the hill style and near full autonomy to the character, there is not usually one or two objectively correct decisions to any one given situation. Even if you can perceive a situation as having it that way, the doors that open following the 'wrong' call might lead to bigger rewards than the initial one, two, three or four moves that preceded it, resulting in a net gain. Traditional fighters are much more linear in this regard and are easier to calculate and predict. Smash is not, and is unique in this regard.

I guess the tl;dr of this is that while I definitely subscribe to a lot of what Sirlin mentions, I think Smash in particular is quite an outlier exception to specific concepts he teaches. Or at least something that bends the mold more than others.

 

[Shaya]

I feel like Sirlin's philosophies are ever so slightly outdated in the current social media revenue direction competitive video gaming is going in.

It's hard to say "we shouldn't do this as its the way the game was intended" when appeasing thousands of users on a stream is going to be a lot more worthwhile than letting Meta Knight plank the ledge for free. Or any other thing. And it's likely going to be a bigger decider in what keeps smash 4 going big and strong more so than us trying to adhere to ideals that have been conflicting with us from the beginning and only continue to escalate as time goes on.

 

[DefenseTech]

I think there is money to be made for Nintendo in focusing on the competitive side for Smash 4.

They're bringing back Gamecube controllers with the adapter and I don't see the majority of casual players
feeling the need to purchase it.

Money. Made.

Bringing back the GC controller is about as much focus as we can expect

 

[Cassio]

Shaya I agree, even Sirlin himself has changed up some views hes had. That said I also don't follow Sirlin's words as Gospel, but I do like his analysis here.

The problem with concepts like yomi is that they occur due to the rigidity of the system, especially in traditional fighters where things like movement options are limited by comparison. While there are instances like this in Smash for sure, such as when a character techs, this trend isn't completely over reaching. Smash is a game with essentially full autonomy to your character, and as I mentioned and alluded to earlier, the game isn't as simple as having one solid option with a plethora of circling counter options. I don't agree with this.

Well Sirlin's analysis had a point in its simplicity. If infinite layers of yomi can be achieved after 3, then certainly games with more complex systems and counter-options are also capable of this if his simple example can. The value in Sirlin's analysis is in its broad application, it takes away "the game" leaving the raw interaction that occurs between two opponents on a mental level and can be applied to almost anything competitive. Theres still more to be said on risk-reward and intangible outcomes, and it doesnt encompass all mental aspects of a game, but the depth that occurs from player interaction does not need a complex set of options.

 

[Malkior7]

why wouldn't it be competitive? realistically as long as there is competitive players there is a competitive game.

 

[Unbias]

It will be competitive but it won't last as long as Melee IMO.

 

[Shaya]

It will be competitive but it won't last as long as Melee IMO.

Melee probably would not last as long as Smash 64 either.

 

[HeroMystic]

That says more about the Smash community than it does casuals, as its also rampant here.

I've been part of a lot of communities, I've flickered back and forth, I've run small local tournies for various games, ran a moderate size state wide Brawl tournament, participated in online tournaments, went to a Magic GP, helped out as volunteer staff at Civil War 5, participated in a lot of online and spectator communities.

While a disdain for defensive play from spectators is certainly not uncommon, I've never seen players insulted for this playstyle like I have in Smash. I was in the room when Chrig G took the stage at Civil War to unveil Morgana/Doom and the crowd went insane. On the same token, Hungrybox (Jigglypuff) and Aramada (Peach) GF at Apex receive widespread disdain, I recall hearing the phase "I hope we never have a Peach Jigglypuff grand final again." You see players directly insulted for defensive playstyles in this community. There is a huge stigma attached to it.

I think a lot of this has to deal with how Smash is played and how much sway the competitive community has.

When I see camping in UMvC3, I still see a constant engagement between both characters. A lot of this has to deal with the limited space and movement within the game, and while Chris G loves zoning, there's an inevitable point where he gets touched and there is a certain excitement to see how long Chris G's Morrigan can last before she gets dropped. After that the camping game essentially gets neutered.

In Smash games it's very different. Movement is much more free, and the stages are bigger. This causes longer spans of time where direct engagements is lost, as the characters can literally run away and has to be chased down. This is pretty sour, but what makes it worse is how you win the game: taking stocks. As the aggressor eventually defeats the Zoner, all that happens the pattern is reset, with the Zoner back at 0% damage and the struggle continues.

Then add the fact that the Smash community has dictated their own rules for years. So much so that stages getting banned is caused by enough community uproar. When the playerbase feels they have that much empowerment, those typical restrictions when formulating an opinion is gone.

 

[CRASHiC]

I feel a lot of that though is getting addressed in the far more reserved stage list we have been taken to lately. This is no longer the days of Pokefloats.

 

[NekuShikazu]

A lot of people adapted to Melee (opinion and not statistic ). I started with Melee and I liked it, but I also liked Brawl because it brings new mechanics that a player has to adapt to (which is usually normal for another game in a series). I predict Smash 4 will be competitive, but it'll take awhile for some to adjust to whatever Sakurai brings.

 

[Anomalus]

The only way one could argue "objectively" that Melee was more complex would be in its button usage and, alongside that, its need for muscle memory.

Nah.

I can play in a Brawl-like style with some particular matchups and choices in Melee, but the converse is not true, that is, Brawl ⊂ Melee. If Melee - Brawl contains at least one nontrivial mechanic, then Melee is more complex than Brawl.

That argument actually fails because Brawl ⊄ Melee (which doesn't mean Brawl is as complex as Melee, besides complexity isn't even explicitly defined), but it's clear that we can in fact speak objectively about such and similar things, I just doubt that most people would be honest enough to agree upon a set of definitions, premises and a formalization.

 

[NekuShikazu]

Nah.

I can play in a Brawl-like style with some particular matchups and choices in Melee, but the converse is not true, that is, Brawl ⊂ Melee. If Melee - Brawl contains at least one nontrivial mechanic, then Melee is more complex than Brawl.

That argument actually fails because Brawl ⊄ Melee (which doesn't mean Brawl is as complex as Melee, besides complexity isn't even explicitly defined), but it's clear that we can in fact speak objectively about such and similar things, I just doubt that most people would be honest enough to agree upon a set of definitions, premises and a formalization.

This was so amazing, I don't even understand what you said. Curses you super smart competitive players...

 

[ItsRainingGravy]

http://smashboards.com/threads/smash-4-3ds-damage-percentage-thread-character-moveset-videos.358689/

Videos posted by VGBootCamp. Shows the character's movesets, damage percentages, and physics in a controlled environment (training room vs sandbag) instead of a hectic free-for-all 4 player match with items on.

Regardless of the similarities it has with Melee or Brawl, the competitive community is in the minority when it comes to making these games. It is a game that is simply meant to be fun. Everyone has their own opinion of what "fun" is, though. So obviously, not everyone is going to be pleased with how this game looks...especially if they judge it based on the previous games in the series, rather than treating it as its own game.

For me, the fact that Sakurai is even considering the minority (competitive players) and doing more to try to balance the game so that it can appeal to both casual and competitive players, that alone gives me more hope for this game than I had with Brawl. From both what I have seen and have played first hand with Smash 4, no, it ISN'T perfect. But it isn't supposed to be, and I shouldn't let my expectations get so high. Neither Melee nor PM are perfect to me, either. What IS true, however, is that the game looks and feels FUN to me; as opposed to Brawl. So while it didn't feel perfect, it looked and felt faster than Brawl, and had true combos in comparison to Brawl. Brawl wasn't fun to me. But Melee, PM, and Smash 4 all feel fun to me. Those three games can be quite different from eachother, but each of them appeals to me in their own unique way.

Will this game be competitive? Yes. Will it be the same sort of competitive scene that Melee players are familiar with and love? No. This will turn some players away, though it will attract far more players in contrast, and it will have its own scene. This applies to most fighting games though, and not just Smash. Different games will appeal to different people. The huge following that Smash Brothers has, alone, has already decided that this game will indeed be competitive. Will everyone hop on board though? No. And, I don't really care. This game looks fun to me, and that's all that matters to me.

I enjoy things for what they are, rather than despise them for what they are not.

 

[Ogre_Deity_Link]

Can someone explain what the hell some of you people consider 'depth' to me? I see the word thrown around so much it's lost its meaning to me.

 

[Calibrate]

If it was released instead of Brawl, then no. But since melee was released so long ago, I think it will start getting way less attention now. Sadly.