Support NeoGAF

[Huge Succeeded]

Yes, but if your opponent gets knocked away, you have significantly more time to get back on your feet. Besides, I don't see the fact that your opponent has more of a chance to get a shot in at you after you hit him to necessarily be a bad thing.

You're not considering the effects these things has to the game design at large I don't think. And I don't mean to imply that you ought to. but from a competitive player's standpoint there's implications to these mechanical changes that will crop up every single round. Cancelling aerials allowed for some degree of followup from a successful hit. Whether it's a defensive maneuver or offensive, your suite of aerial moves in Melee was always a functional part of your moment to moment moveset and your approach options. When each of these moves has lag, some changes occur - it becomes much less safe to approach in general, because a whiffed aerial practically guarantees punishment and unfortunately offensive approaches also become much more predictable and dangerous to attempt as a result. It becomes nearly impossible to guarantee follow up even at low percentages and there's few 'marathon combo' possibilities in Melee that aren't escapable so while I understand appreciating fewer risks of getting beat the hell up (even though it's very rarely to the same degree as other juggly fighting games) the alternative given in Brawl is that (due to a couple of other factors as well) combos practically don't even exist. Aerials are often simply high risk, low reward momentum stoppers in a 1-on-1 situation. In tandem with Brawl's incredibly beefed up universal defensive options, these things help to contribute to the fact that in a competitive or even non-competitive environment Brawl often boils down to a game that's much more defensive or 'turtly', where projectile characters often shine because they have the tools to do damage and put pressure on people without putting themselves at risk of punishment from vastly less viable offensive approach options, where it's safer to play extremely defensively and avoid an outright fight than it is to take risks and get into the thick of things.

Brawl had one big mistake : tripping.

Other than that, maybe it was more attracting to a different type of individual. But to dismiss those people, to dismiss some of my friends, because it's "objectively" worse?

No. It was worst to you. It was different to me. And for some of my friends, they found Brawl more fun to play.

That's just the way it is.

I don't like when competitive players use reductionary reasoning toward the opinions of casual players because it's a bad look but I don't appreciate when we're on the receiving end either. Tripping is only the most visible of Brawl's foibles and in the grand scheme of things it's not quite even the worst, just the most deliberately against straight play. If tripping was your only significant issue with the game then that's cool. And I understand why you might not be willing to cave on some things with the state of Brawl vs. Melee discussions here being what it is and people antagonizing and attacking one another. but Brawl's general direction was truly limiting to a swath of dedicated Smash players. For a reason, of course, and an understandable one as far as I'm concerned (desiring a more accessible Smash during the Wii and DS era is smart even if I'm salty), but Melee years prior had managed to strike a balance between accessibility and depth that helped to cultivate a following 10+ years strong and the formula could have been made more accessible without neutering offensive play outright. And it's like pulling teeth to communicate that to a lot of players. You might not perceive them as mistakes but Brawl has huge fundamental differences that alter the ebb and flow of the game to the point where it just lost its appeal to some of us.

 

[KuroPyonyo]

They are also making new modes, stages, items and characters (and changed existing characters). All of which have to be balanced again. Everything the Internet has moaned about applies to Brawl which is why the PM team can use it. Smash 4 is a different game and thus has to have its own testing, which doesn't just include balancing, but bugs as well. Again, the PM team has a lot of benefits a real development team just doesn't have like infinite time and no budget constraints.

But its also a gigantic team full of seasoned proffesionals and not some random guys on the internet plus they have working debuggers and tools.
Though I dont think anything usefull will come out of further comparing the two teams. It's just smash4 is to important to fail, the budget must be basicly unlimited since 2011. If this game isn't a success then the wii u is done for.
Also I disagree with brawl is brawl and smash4 is smash4. All the smash games are very similar with only minor mechanical differences.

I'm looking at Brawl as the complete package. So all I'm saying is if they have to replace code with their own code thus removing a feature they clearly don't see that feature as important. Yes, I realise this is a limitation as a result of hacking a game, but who is to say what features are more important than others?

And I already gave an example. Riding around the stage on Wario's bike.

Oh wow, you were actually serious with that wario thing.
This is more a question of balance versus fanservice or something like that.
Though it's hard for me to relate to this kind of thinking.
I'll be honest I dont care about any of the characters in smash, wario might as well be cut, wouldn't bother me at all.
All I want is a fighting game with these special smash mechanics and cool movesets.
And well, there isn't any competition so its either get smash or die.

PS: I'm not saying wario is bad character, I like him in his own games. (like basicly everyone else on the smash rooster)

 

[Guesong]

Yeah, but that's a completely meaningless statement. No shit, If you're invested in anything it can be exciting, people collect stamps after all. People get excited at Brawl, it's still objectively worse than Melee in every measurable way for people who are interested in actually playing the game.

EDIT: Whoops that's not the EDIT button.

Brawl had one big mistake : tripping.

Other than that, maybe it was more attracting to a different type of individual. But to dismiss those people, to dismiss some of my friends, because it's "objectively" worse?

No. It was worst to you. It was different to me. And for some of my friends, they found Brawl more fun to play. The "core" of Smash relies not on what Melee offers and it is fully understandable that alot of people would prefer a different twist on it.

That's just the way it is.

 

[Fmal]

And see, this is condescending bullshit. Melee is not objectively better. And saying anyone who prefers Brawl does so for superficial reasons is really condescending. So I'll put it this way: After playing Brawl, I found less enjoyment in Melee, even when using the exact same character between both games

Is it "condescending" if I ask what it is about a slower, weaker character that makes it more appealing?

Brawl had one big mistake : tripping.

Other than that, maybe it was more attracting to a different type of individual. But to dismiss those people, to dismiss some of my friends, because it's "objectively" worse?

No. It was worst to you. It was different to me. And for some of my friends, they found Brawl more fun to play.

That's just the way it is.

No, Brawl had several big mistakes. Tripping is just the easiest one to point to because it's so obvious.

 

[Anteo]

Brawl had one big mistake : tripping.

Other than that, maybe it was more attracting to a different type of individual. But to dismiss those people, to dismiss some of my friends, because it's "objectively" worse?

No. It was worst to you. It was different to me. And for some of my friends, they found Brawl more fun to play. The "core" of Smash relies not on what Melee offers and it is fully understandable that alot of people would prefer a different twist on it.

That's just the way it is.

Being able to get out of hitstun after 13 frames (or 25 if you decide to use an aerial instead of an air dodge) regardless of your % was another big one, even bigger than tripping imo

 

[Nickle]

They are both fantastic games, but I enjoy Brawl more because the characters are more fun to play as. I don't give a shit about landing lag or wave-canceling or any of that crap, I just want to want to have a few hours of fun with my friends. You could give me 100 reasons why Melee is more competitive then Brawl, and you'd be correct for all of those reasons. But those reasons don't necessarily make Melee more fun.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Stuff like Tripping in Brawl sucked. I'm not going to lie about that.

I think ultimately my biggest problem with Melee is that you needed a completely different skill set between competitive and casual play. Or rather, if you were never involved with competitive play before, but played casually for 100s or 1000s of hours, you'd still get hopelessly destroyed just because there were a ton of tricks that are absolutely never made relevant or apparent in casual play. And for a lot of those tricks, just being aware of them doesn't mean you can actually do them at all. A lot of those tricks aren't intuitive or easy to pull off without a shitload of practice

 

[Phil S.]

I really enjoyed Melee and Brawl. Melee as an overall package with great combat, and Brawl for its great fan service and loads of unlockables. I prefer the character and stage selection of Brawl as well.

Both games rule for various reasons.

 

[Anteo]

They are both fantastic games, but I enjoy Brawl more because the characters are more fun to play as. I don't give a shit about landing lag or wave-canceling or any of that crap, I just want to want to have a few hours of fun with my friends. You could give me 100 reasons why Melee is more competitive then Brawl, and you'd be correct for all of those reasons. But those reasons don't necessarily make Melee more fun.

Did you ever try one of the early Brawl mods? For me and my friends Brawl got old pretty fast, we played Smash 64 since 1999 until the week before I got Brawl (we never touched Melee) and Brawl got old and boring after a few months. Mods like Brawl+ really revived the game for us, it was much more fun having a faster gameplay without all the advance techs (we never used z canceling on 64 either)

 

[Beelzebufo]

They are both fantastic games, but I enjoy Brawl more because the characters are more fun to play as. I don't give a shit about landing lag or wave-canceling or any of that crap, I just want to want to have a few hours of fun with my friends. You could give me 100 reasons why Melee is more competitive then Brawl, and you'd be correct for all of those reasons. But those reasons don't necessarily make Melee more fun.

This is why I'm a huge Project M fan. I like Melees mechanics, but I also love Brawls newcomers.

 

[Lord Phol]

I'm not sure I agree with his sentiment that all games have to be enjoyable by every kind of person. I do however agree that smash should be a game that's fun to play for alot of people, which is what's it's always been designed to be.

I suck at fighting games, I would love to be good at them but I just can't. I tried getting into MvC3 but got my ass handed to me over and over until i said "Nope, just going to enjoy seeing others play it instead". While I am a bit sad that I can't enjoy it for myself I wouldn't want them to design their next game with me in mind if it ruins the game for those that like it now.

I kind of feel like the hardcore melee fans want to make the game into something that it's not, and that I can't agree with. For the record I do not think brawl is perfect nor do I dislike meele, but the new smash game is looking really promising so far.

TLDR: Don't agree that all games have to be "casual" friendly, but smash has always been designed to be fun for all kinds of people and I do not think it should be turned into something it is not.

 

[Fmal]

Stuff like Tripping in Brawl sucked. I'm not going to lie about that.

I think ultimately my biggest problem with Melee is that you needed a completely different skill set between competitive and casual play. Or rather, if you were never involved with competitive play before, but played casually for 100s or 1000s of hours, you'd still get hopelessly destroyed just because there were a ton of tricks that are absolutely never made relevant or apparent in casual play. And for a lot of those tricks, just being aware of them doesn't mean you can actually do them at all. A lot of those tricks aren't intuitive or easy to pull off without a shitload of practice

This sounds like you saying "I dislike Melee because to be good at it you need time and practice." You understand why people might find that point of view objectionable, right?

And I disagree that you need "completely different skill sets" to play casually/competitively. The only reason I started playing Melee seriously is because a friend of a friend who played in tournaments started playing casuals with us and would dumpster us with his off-characters. We lost a lot, but that's how it should go when someone who is very good at a game plays against someone who isn't.

I'm not sure I agree with his sentiment that all games have to be enjoyable by every kind of person. I do however agree that smash should be a game that's fun to play for alot of people, which is what's it's always been designed to be.

I suck at fighting games, I would love to be good at them but I just can't. I tried getting into MvC3 but got my ass handed to me over and over until i said "Nope, just going to enjoy seeing others play it instead". While I am a bit sad that I can't enjoy it for myself I wouldn't want them to design their next game with me in mind if it ruins the game for those that like it now.

I kind of feel like the hardcore melee fans want to make the game into something that it's not, and that I can't agree with. For the record I do not think brawl is perfect or anything, but the new smash game is looking really promising so far.

TLDR: Don't agree that all games have to be "casual" friendly, but smash has always been designed to be fun for all kinds of people and I do not think it should be turned into something it is not.

Melee is arguably the game in the series that's most accessible to most people because underneath all the weird esoteric competitive stuff, there's still a Smash Brothers game. If you only play smash to goof around there's basically no difference (aside from characters and stages) between Melee, Brawl, or 64.

 

[Anteo]

Stuff like Tripping in Brawl sucked. I'm not going to lie about that.

I think ultimately my biggest problem with Melee is that you needed a completely different skill set between competitive and casual play. Or rather, if you were never involved with competitive play before, but played casually for 100s or 1000s of hours, you'd still get hopelessly destroyed just because there were a ton of tricks that are absolutely never made relevant or apparent in casual play. And for a lot of those tricks, just being aware of them doesn't mean you can actually do them at all. A lot of those tricks aren't intuitive or easy to pull off without a shitload of practice

So basically, the game is fine as long as you never meet and play one competitive player?

 

[The Great Gonzales]

-Alright, this one is the big one I don't understand. Since when has smash ever had marathon combos, except from in smash 64? The Smash series gives you plenty of opportunity to get out of combos with every single hit by using SDI, DI and teching properly, the period between air dodges is also very tiny and they're quite powerful with certain characters when played at a high level. But the game actually having a combo system adds so many meaningful choices to the game that I'm baffled that you can enjoy the "let's constantly poke each other to death" style in Brawl because it makes each individual attack matter less, it means you don't need to worry about getting punished for just throwing a move out (which you were apparently against earlier) or bad positioning because at most you're just going to eat a minor amount of damage and then air dodge out of it rather than actually be at a real deficit in damage, stock or positioning.

I've clipped the first three things, but I'll say this regarding my indifference to certain mechanics: you're right, if I'm indifferent to it harms other levels of play, then yes, it should be removed. But the question you asked was "Do people prefer Brawl prefer it on a mechanical level though? or just because it has more content?...Like, do you enjoy being able to trip?" I was trying to say that, yes, there are mechanical changes in Brawl that I liked, and that some of the much-maligned changes didn't bother me. It's not just because Brawl has more content that I like it better. I wasn't trying to comment on its competitive viability.

Perhaps competitive play in Brawl tends to devolve into "let's poke each other to death," but you seem to be assuming that that's how the game always ends up getting played. In my (casual) experience, the matches I play in Brawl are just as aggressive as they were in Melee. They're not camp-fests, or little hit-an-run matches.

As for combos, you're right, Smash has never been one of the biggest offenders - it's one of the reasons I like it so much. But I also like that air dodging always gives you (or your opponent) the chance to slip out of a bad situation and instantly turn the tables. It makes it more exciting for me. And I don't think the gap between air dodges is "very tiny;" once you get a feel for the timing, it's not that difficult to get a hit in on someone after a dodge.

[Bolding this part because it seems to be the real source of conflict here] Again, I acknowledge that these are real problems for competitive Smash. But a lot of people here are saying that these are problems full stop, i.e., they're problems for everyone, not just competitive players. All I'm trying to do is say that some people can have legitimate reasons to prefer the changes made in Brawl.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Is it "condescending" if I ask what it is about a slower, weaker character that makes it more appealing?



No, Brawl had several big mistakes. Tripping is just the easiest one to point to because it's so obvious.

I preferred the slower, floatier gameplay of brawl to melee. It felt more fun and I actually like the matches last longer because it means there are more chances to turn things around and it allows me to get more out of a single match. These things might not be better for competitive play, but for how I like to play they suited me better.

Here's the thing, competitive play and casual play don't have to be mutually exclusive, but things that make a game more competitive can have a negative impact on casual play and vice versa. Sometimes a tradeoff has to be made. I love a certain degree of randomness, because it's fun to laugh off an unlucky loss or taunt my opponent after a lucky win. Yeah it can be frustrating at times, but when there isn't anything at stake I kind of like the random craziness.

 

[Glass Rebel]

The guy in that video was trying to do a dash dance because supposedly it might have been in a newer build the treehouse guys have been playing (and he's part of the treehouse) but what's actually shown in that video isn't a dash dance, it's a failed attempt at one because you literally can't do it.

In Brawl, dash dancing was sort of there but the window for it was ridiculously small. You could only DD in place, you couldn't perform wider dash dances (as in dash forward a few inches and then dash back that same distance vs dashing forward and back immediately). That on top of random tripping made it useless.

We won't know if they added it or listened to any feedback from E3 post-E3 build until the game comes out. Until then, it's a good idea to assume it's not in the game because that's what the public build shows us.

Thanks for the clarification, it looked like dance dashing to me but I wasn't sure.

 

[GameGuru59]

And you're missing the point about extra landing lag. The fact that you "have to be more judicious about using aerials" is the problem. Removing an entire avenue of offense slows the game down and adds nothing in return.

It makes the game more strategic. Which is interesting to me, maybe not to you...

 

[Anura]

I'm not sure I agree with his sentiment that all games have to be enjoyable by every kind of person. I do however agree that smash should be a game that's fun to play for alot of people, which is what's it's always been designed to be.

I suck at fighting games, I would love to be good at them but I just can't. I tried getting into MvC3 but got my ass handed to me over and over until i said "Nope, just going to enjoy seeing others play it instead". While I am a bit sad that I can't enjoy it for myself I wouldn't want them to design their next game with me in mind if it ruins the game for those that like it now.

I kind of feel like the hardcore melee fans want to make the game into something that it's not, and that I can't agree with. For the record I do not think brawl is perfect or anything, but the new smash game is looking really promising so far.

TLDR: Don't agree that all games have to be "casual" friendly, but smash has always been designed to be fun for all kinds of people and I do not think it should be turned into something it is not.

But once upon a time smash was made so both sides could love it. Once upon a time being both competively deep and an awesome party game WAS smash and it was great. The thing is neither of these things is mutually exclusive but some people seem to think they are and the other side is neglected because of it

 

[Devil]

Stuff like Tripping in Brawl sucked. I'm not going to lie about that.

I think ultimately my biggest problem with Melee is that you needed a completely different skill set between competitive and casual play. Or rather, if you were never involved with competitive play before, but played casually for 100s or 1000s of hours, you'd still get hopelessly destroyed just because there were a ton of tricks that are absolutely never made relevant or apparent in casual play. And for a lot of those tricks, just being aware of them doesn't mean you can actually do them at all. A lot of those tricks aren't intuitive or easy to pull off without a shitload of practice

That's naturally because those "tricks" were not intended to be used in the way they were used, even though the developers might have known of their existence. That's also why a lot of people here (including me) have always proposed to include those "glitches" from Melee into the sequels but as a legitimate "technique". That's what happened in Street Fighter and other games of the genre. To keep it accessible, the devs could even make their execution easier or even needless. If everyone on a higher level is going to use Lag-Cancels, why not just erase the need to press a button for less lag and just decrease it by default to have a faster paced, more exciting game? Instead, they decided to even increase the default (without any cancelling) lag even more.

They should have included these things and make them easier to execute. Erase barriers to include everyone. Don't erase the whole idea do exclude anyone (to falsely call it "more accessible").

SF4 even has trials nowadays to teach people the possibilities that open up once you know how to use certain cancels and follow up combos. Things which may have been a glitch once but enriched the gameplay were taken into the games. That's how it is supposed to be.

 

[Partition]

Why can't they just give us a 'fast mode' like 150mm in Mario Kart for instance, smh

 

[Anteo]

I preferred the slower, floatier gameplay of brawl to melee. It felt more fun and I actually like the matches last longer because it means there are more chances to turn things around and it allows me to get more out of a single match. These things might not be better for competitive play, but for how I like to play they suited me better.

Here's the thing, competitive play and casual play don't have to be mutually exclusive, but things that make a game more competitive can have a negative impact on casual play and vice versa. Sometimes a tradeoff has to be made. I love a certain degree of randomness, because it's fun to laugh off an unlucky loss or taunt my opponent after a lucky win. Yeah it can be frustrating at times, but when there isn't anything at stake I kind of like the random craziness.

Actually, one of the reasons some guys proposed and tried a 1 stock format for competitive Brawl was because most of the time the player that got the early lead would have a guaranteed win (I remember they even had stats, it was like over 75% chances of winning after taking the first stock iirc), unlike Melee were while you still have a huge advantage, the faster pace of the game can help to turn matches around in seconds.

 

[Fmal]

It makes the game more strategic. Which is interesting to me, maybe not to you...

How does it make it more strategic?

 

[Aaronrules380]

This sounds like you saying "I dislike Melee because to be good at it you need time and practice." You understand why people might find that point of view objectionable, right?

And I disagree that you need "completely different skill sets" to play casually/competitively. The only reason I started playing Melee seriously is because a friend of a friend who played in tournaments started playing casuals with us and would dumpster us with his off-characters. We lost a lot, but that's how it should go when someone who is very good at a game plays against someone who isn't.

And for some people that's fine. But most people aren't going to have that reaction, believe it or not. I'm not saying I have a problem with needing time and practice. I have a problem when time and practice are second to a bunch of skills that are neither taught nor intuitive.

 

[Anura]

It makes the game more strategic. Which is interesting to me, maybe not to you...

As someone who has tried to learn both I can just say the Brawl is so much LESS strategic

 

[Huge Succeeded]

It makes the game more strategic. Which is interesting to me, maybe not to you...

No, it doesn't make the game more strategic. As I explained in my earlier post, it makes both approach and offensive options more predictable, with few actual benefits to the flow of the match. Cancelling actually allows for more strategy the way I see it as it allows for follow-up, through defensive maneuvers, spacing mindgames, or continued offense - none of which precludes the opponents ability to react in kind if they can read the other player well enough.

Combos in smash are such a unique thing. Few of them are guaranteed and most can be DI away from and thus requires both the comboer and the comboed to react and be engaged

^^^

And for some people that's fine. But most people aren't going to have that reaction, believe it or not. I'm not saying I have a problem with needing time and practice. I have a problem when time and practice are second to a bunch of skills that are neither taught nor intuitive.

I agree. That's why I had been hoping that Smash 4 would retain some of Melee's functions but make them simpler. Automate L-cancelling (no landing lag on hit or when landing at just the right time) to remove an arbitrary input barrier while rewarding skill. Remove consecutive wavedashing but retain directional air dodges and wavelanding. Etc. Keeping only what's intuitive so that players can naturally develop their skills without having to consult the internet so much.

 

[JoeInky]

It makes the game more strategic. Which is interesting to me, maybe not to you...

Wait, how does making defense the one best option above all others make the game strategic.

 

[BGBW]

But its also a gigantic team full of seasoned proffesionals and not some random guys on the internet plus they have working debuggers and tools.
Though I dont think anything usefull will come out of further comparing the two teams. It's just smash4 is to important to fail, the budget must be basicly unlimited since 2011. If this game isn't a success then the wii u is done for.
Also I disagree with brawl is brawl and smash4 is smash4. All the smash games are very similar with only minor mechanical differences.

Oh wow, you were actually serious with that wario thing.
This is more a question of balance versus fanservice or something like that.
Though it's hard for me to relate to this kind of thinking.
I'll be honest I dont care about any of the characters in smash, wario might as well be cut, wouldn't bother me at all.
All I want is a fighting game with these special smash mechanics and cool movesets.
And well, there isn't any competition so its either get smash or die.

PS: I'm not saying wario is bad character, I like him in his own games. (like basicly everyone else on the smash rooster)

Of course I was serious about the Wario's bike.

Well then, this seems to have come down to what one considers important. I find the Nintendo side of things the more important element of Smash so anything that detracts from that will be seen as a negative in my books. Sakurai is great for this which is why I feel Smash is safe in his hands.

I guess that's why you see them as very similar, because if you ignore all the content they probably do seem similar from a base engine point of view. But for me Smash 4 has introduced a lot of new things I'm looking forward to trying out and it has addressed problem I've had with Brawl (most of which are nothing to do with the mechanics)

 

[Anura]

And for some people that's fine. But most people aren't going to have that reaction, believe it or not. I'm not saying I have a problem with needing time and practice. I have a problem when time and practice are second to a bunch of skills that are neither taught nor intuitive.

I actually agree with this. It's not a problem that needs to exist with Smash mind you but it is one of the bigger ones in Melee

 

[BGBW]

Why can't they just give us a 'fast mode' like 150mm in Mario Kart for instance, smh

You mean like Fast Brawl?

 

[Nickle]

Did you ever try one of the early Brawl mods? For me and my friends Brawl got old pretty fast, we played Smash 64 since 1999 until the week before I got Brawl (we never touched Melee) and Brawl got old and boring after a few months. Mods like Brawl+ really revived the game for us, it was much more fun having a faster gameplay without all the advance techs (we never used z canceling on 64 either)

This is why I'm a huge Project M fan. I like Melees mechanics, but I also love Brawls newcomers.

I've only played Project M (after putting over 300 hours into Brawl), and I enjoy it very much. Some of the move changes are annoying (Lucas's charge, Toon Link's slower downward stab, the removal of Snake's rocket launcher forward smash), but the new moves and characters make up for that. I like Project M because it gives more replay value to Brawl, not because it just makes the game more like Melee.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Actually, one of the reasons some guys proposed and tried a 1 stock format for competitive Brawl was because most of the time the player that got the early lead would have a guaranteed win (I remember they even had stats, it was like over 75% chances of winning after taking the first stock iirc), unlike Melee were while you still have a huge advantage, the faster pace of the game can help to turn matches around in seconds.

The thing is some things like this are true on a competitive level where people are analysing a game down to its smallest details, but not a casual level where people really aren't looking that deeply into those types of things

 

[Popnbake]

This means NOTHING. At the time of Brawls release the gaming journalists were still completely ignorant to the games mechanics & system in general. Heck I remember so gaming websites giving it a perfect 10/10 which of course is a fucking joke.

Heck even NOW gaming journalist are like "It's inbetween Brawl & Melee" which it totally fucking isn't. It's actually worse than Brawl in a lot of ways because of how shitty the dashes are & the god awful recovery on everything. The game is going to be a boring turtle fest upon release.

If they can turn Diablo 3 around (which got the same high praise at release despite being horrible late game) then I would like to think the same can happen to Smash 4.

As stated earlier in this thread Sakurai is open to balance patches and Nintendo seems focused on showing the competitive side of Smash with hosted tournaments.

It's a small chance of course with Sakurai's belief on what the competitive scene is but it can happen.

However if Smash 4 is again a disappointment you can't consider Sakurai an idiot over it.

They have Amiibos to promote now and with the Wii U's less than spectacular install base, they need Smash 4 to be as accessible as possible.

 

[NeonZ]

-Landing lag isn't mainly about the first aerial you land, it lets you extend combos which are where a lot of the depth in smash comes from. I would go into how it massively over emphasizes the game being defensive but that has more to do with how shields worked so I didn't mention it.

Personally, I think the emphasis on combos was a large part of what quickly killed fighting games as a mainstream genre in the 90s, so their absence in Smash isn't only neutral, it's actually welcome to me.

Brawl actually fails in the sense that it still allows combos thanks to badly programmed or designed things like chain grabbing - although this likely won't bother most players at all since they won't run into it. Still, they're actually seemingly fixing that in the new Smash.

 

[JoeInky]

Why can't they just give us a 'fast mode' like 150mm in Mario Kart for instance, smh

Doesn't actually fix any of the problems.

 

[Fmal]

And for some people that's fine. But most people aren't going to have that reaction, believe it or not. I'm not saying I have a problem with needing time and practice. I have a problem when time and practice are second to a bunch of skills that are neither taught nor intuitive.

Isn't that kind of cool though? That you can spend 1000 hours on a game, "master" it, and then realize that there's even more stuff for you to learn and practice?

 

[Anteo]

I've only played Project M (after putting over 300 hours into Brawl), and I enjoy it very much. Some of the move changes are annoying (Lucas's charge, Toon Link's slower downward stab, the removal of Snake's rocket launcher forward smash), but the new moves and characters make up for that. I like Project M because it gives more replay value to Brawl, not because it just makes the game more like Melee.

Even though it is an old dead mod, I totally recomend you trying Brawl+ if you can. It is a faster brawl that stills wants to be brawl (so no l canceling, no wavedashing, etc). It was one of my favorites mods ever.

 

[Anura]

The thing is some things like this are true on a competitive level where people are analysing a game down to its smallest details, but not a casual level where people really aren't looking that deeply into those types of things

I dunno... Even when I still just played smash casually that was the thing that bugged me the most and was immediately noticeable

 

[Huge Succeeded]

Even though it is an old dead mod, I totally recomend you trying Brawl+ if you can. It is a faster brawl that stills wants to be brawl (so no l canceling, no wavedashing, etc). It was one of my favorites mods ever.

It's not dead, it's complete! and very good. As is Brawl -, which does less to deliberately balance the game and more to make it more zany and chaotic

 

[chaosblade]

I kind of feel like the hardcore melee fans want to make the game into something that it's not, and that I can't agree with.

I don't think anybody wants that. People want the game to appeal to everyone including competitive players. Sakurai outright doesn't want the game to appeal to competitive players regardless of the impact or lack thereof on more casual Smash players. As such, competitive players (and those who sympathize with them) are not happy with that decision because they are essentially being needlessly excluded.

 

[Fmal]

Personally, I think the emphasis on combos was a large part of what quickly killed fighting games as a mainstream genre in the 90s, so their absence in Smash isn't only neutral, it's actually welcome to me.

Brawl actually fails in the sense that it still allows combos thanks to badly programmed or designed things like chain grabbing - although this likely won't bother most players at all since they won't run into it. Still, they're actually seemingly fixing that in the new Smash.

Fighting Games are more popular now than they've basically ever been, and all of the major games are at least a little combo-centric.

I'd argue that the 90's collapse happened because the market got saturated and people stopped caring, not because a now-fundamental part of the genre was discovered.

 

[Anteo]

It's not dead, it's complete! and very good. As is Brawl -, which does less to deliberately balance the game and more to make it more zany and chaotic

The last release of brawl+ was really bad for the balance of the game. Reducing the blastzones in an attempt to make matches faster was the worst. They should have made it a 2 stock format instead. Too bad we will never get a new update
And Brawl- is just cray

 

[Acerac]

Honestly Project M seems to be the only Brawl mod that carries on the true spirit of Melee. At least that's how it feels like to me.

As a sidenote, every time a Melee player complains about Project M's balance, I become horribly upset.

 

[Anura]

Combos in smash are such a unique thing. Few of them are guaranteed and most can be DI away from and thus requires both the comboer and the comboed to react and be engaged

 

[Anteo]

Honestly Project M seems to be the only Brawl mod that carries on the true spirit of Melee. At least that's how it feels like to me.

As a sidenote, every time a Melee player complains about Project M's balance, I become horribly upset.

It's not like they are wrong, the P:M team is adressing most of the issues for the 3.5 release.

 

[Sheroking]

It becomes more apparent as you embrace online modes that a skill gap can frustrate inexperienced players into quitting.

I've tried to get friends into fighting games and they have zero patience for the hours and hours of losing and practice you have to endure to even become a lower intermediate player. I fully understand why Smash Brothers, which is traditionally way more successful than any other fighting game franchise ever, has to be made to keep the learning curve low and let new players have fun playing the game.

My only hope was that they didn't gimp the game as badly as they gimped Brawl, and Sakurai at least knows that there had to be a balance somewhere between the two.

 

[watershed]

I don't think anybody wants that. People want the game to appeal to everyone including competitive players. Sakurai outright doesn't want the game to appeal to competitive players regardless of the impact or lack thereof on more casual Smash players. As such, competitive players (and those who sympathize with them) are not happy with that decision because they are essentially being needlessly excluded.

And you're getting this from Sakurai saying he is trying to correct some of what people didn't like about Brawl? He is actually bringing the game closer to Melee but somehow that means "Sakurai outright doesn't want the game to appeal to competitive players"?

Clearly For Glory mode, with no items, Final Destination stages, and more in depth stat tracking is for competitive players. Many of the changes, including removing tripping, fixing edge grabbing, speeding up the gameplay, and including Final Destination variations are designed for players who play competitively.

So much of what Sakurai is changing in Smash 4 is a response to the flaws identified by competitive gamers and yet you think competitive players are "essentially being needlessly excluded"? Does that make any sense?

 

[Anteo]

It becomes more apparent as you embrace online modes that a skill gap can frustrate inexperienced players into quitting.

I've tried to get friends into fighting games and they have zero patience for the hours and hours of losing and practice you have to endure to even become a lower intermediate player. I fully understand why Smash Brothers, which is traditionally way more successful than any other fighting game franchise ever, has to be developed to avoid that entirely.

My only hope was that they didn't gimp the game as badly as they gimped Brawl, and Sakurai at least knows that there had to be a balance somewhere between the two.

This is a valid concern, both sides of the game (competitive/casual) are mostly fine as long as they dont meet. Casual players can get turn off pretty easily after watching/experiencing a match vs a highly skilled foe.

In any case, in this age and day of online games. You either do what sakurai is doing, or make 2 different games (or gamemodes) and split the audience.

 

[Ragingnight]

That's an absurdly uncharitable reading of what I said. I've no objection to taking a few licks after making a mistake. What I don't like is being trapped in an endless barrage of attacks.

In what game is it "endless". The combo they do to you is the same type of combo you can do to them.

The only game with TOD really is marvel. So are you just complaining about marvel? No other big fighter has TOD and even then its never endless (minus tac infinites)

 

[chaosblade]

And you're getting this from Sakurai saying he is trying to correct some of what people didn't like about Brawl? He is actually bringing the game closer to Melee but somehow that means "Sakurai outright doesn't want the game to appeal to competitive players"?

Clearly For Glory mode, with no items, Final Destination stages, and more in depth stat tracking is for competitive players. Many of the changes, including removing tripping, fixing edge grabbing, speeding up the gameplay, and including Final Destination variations are designed for players who play competitively.

So much of what Sakurai is changing in Smash 4 is a response to the flaws identified by competitive gamers and yet you think competitive players are "essentially being needlessly excluded"? Does that make any sense?

No competitive Smash player wants For Glory mode. It's like Sakurai saw the Fox only, etc meme and acted like he was catering to those players. The only thing I've seen that actually improves the game for competitive play so far is fixing ledge invincibility, the rest are basically irrelevant since many of the problems from Brawl still exist (outlined several times in this thread already).

 

[Anura]

And you're getting this from Sakurai saying he is trying to correct some of what people didn't like about Brawl? He is actually bringing the game closer to Melee but somehow that means "Sakurai outright doesn't want the game to appeal to competitive players"?

Clearly For Glory mode, with no items, Final Destination stages, and more in depth stat tracking is for competitive players. Many of the changes, including removing tripping, fixing edge grabbing, speeding up the gameplay, and including Final Destination variations are designed for players who play competitively.

So much of what Sakurai is changing in Smash 4 is a response to the flaws identified by competitive gamers and yet you think competitive players are "essentially being needlessly excluded"? Does that make any sense?

He only addressed edge grabbing and game speed (Tripping isn't even worth considering as appealing to the tourney crowd as nobody liked it) the vast majority of the complaints have been ignored and are almost unchanged from brawl. It's not even close to Melee at all