That's why the "For Fun" and "For Glory" modes are an exciting and great idea, but tehy are executed horribly wrong.
Sakurai essay in EDGE on appealing to all types of gamers with the new Smash Bros.
- Thread starter Fiktion
- Start date
That's why the "For Fun" and "For Glory" modes are an exciting and great idea, but tehy are executed horribly wrong.
Aaronrules380
Member
Yeah, I kind of hate how people keep ignoring this. And there are a lot of people who like the smash gameplay, but don't have many friends to play it anymore (Because they're older, friends moved away, or because they just aren't good at meeting people). I don't think it's fair to say they should just stick to solo and AI because they don't have the time and patience to get up to par for even lower level online play. I'm not saying they have to win all the time, or even most of the time. But it's a lot more enticing to improve when you can win 1 out of 10 matches from the get go with players who aren't super amazing either, than when you can't win a single match until you've poured countless hours into the game
Maybe if they had made it so you could get out of hit stun after 50-60 frames I would be fine with it, but after 13 frames? it means you can only hit the oponent back before going back to neutral, making the game slower than it has to be
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
Those modes are an awful and terrible idea, the game should just support matchmaking and lobbies.
I don't understand how MK can get online so right while Smash gets it so wrong. And Smash gets single player content and options so right while MK gets it so wrong.
He also made changes to the online mode, made Final Destination variations of stages, and rebalanced characters. It is more like Melee than Brawl was, which is what Sakurai has clearly said is his intention. It might still be closer to Brawl than Melee but none, literally none of the changes will/are designed to "exclude" competitive players or show that "Sakurai outright doesn't want the game to appeal to competitive players."
These are untrue and unreasonable statements. We can talk about what we like and don't like about the latest Smash without being disingenuous.
Lord Phol
Member
I don't disagree that melee is a good game for both casuals and tourney people, or that smash WiiU/3DS shouldn't try to please both groups. It's just that I think some people turned melee into something it wasn't really designed to be, and while it's great that they can enjoy the game in that particular manner I do not think you can fault the developer if the next game doesn't focus on that. The amont of pure hate I've seen from some particular (not all) people is just off putting.
From what has been shown so far it looks like they are trying to make Wii-U smash please both groups (faster than brawl, no tripping, re-balancing, for glory mode etc), but even with all that some people act like Sakurai does nothing but spite them with every new update. The post under me being a prime example.
This post just shows a clear misunderstanding of what the competitive community wants and what Sakurai is doing.
Tripping was the least of Brawls problems, it was probably only removed because it's legitimately bad game design.
Edge grabbing is a good, but minor change and the other edge changes he made have actively made the offstage game worse.
Speeding up the gameplay a small amount doesn't please anyone if the core problems are still there.
If you think FD version of a stage are for competitive players, you obviously know nothing about competitive Smash.
And lmao at him bringing the game closer to melee, because of what? Because it's slightly faster and lacks a mechanic that should never have been there in the first place? The distance smash 4 has crept towards melee is minimal at best, further away at worst.
hahaha, oh wow.
E: slightly misread that, but your opinion is still wrong.
It's only more enticing if you're of the mentality that the only way you can have fun is to win. If the game is fun and you can see yourself getting better each time you play, there's no reason why you shouldn't be having a good time, win or lose.
It took me a few months of losing consistently on GGPO and at my local meetup before I was able to win a ST match. I still had a blast losing because I love the game.
Subtervotion
Member
You're right. Look at miiverse. There are tons of people who want Goku, etc. It's probably hard for the devs to even figure out what they can do to appease fans.
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
You must have missed my post on the last page. What exactly do FD variations have to do with the competitive community? Nobody asked for that or wanted it. The competitive community does not want For Glory mode as-is because it's FD only.
There is a whopping one meaningful change to benefit the competitive community (and edge hopping was limited in tournament rules anyway IIRC), everything else either remains problematic from Brawl and fixes nothing, or is a neutral change that won't matter one way or the other.
Aaronrules380
Member
That's a nice philosophy that unfortunately will never apply to most people.
OmegaSmash
Member
For Glory is the main reason why lots of folks think that Sakurai is ignorant of the competitive community. Battlefield and it's variations are way more popular in tournament play than Final Destination. A lot of people (including me) would rather have a no stage hazard, or a no boss toggle, since we want to enjoy the stage design without distractions.
And even if he did admit that Brawl was tame because of it's "casual" focus, he also notes that Smash still needs to focus on that type of player. Which of course, as seen in this thread, can be taken in a negative way.
This is what bugs me the most about "for fun" and "for glory". They could have been an amazing way to address this if they had more meat and thought in them. You go to "for glory" and you are presented with and canake lobbies with specif rules with slight variation. The "for fun" mode can have rule settings like "all items" "bomb-ombs only" "poke balls only" etc
You know what your getting into by clicking on either mode and with matchmaking it could still set you up with people of comparable skill levels for either category
Edit:
The issue with this is tag Melee didn't focus on being competitive either but it had that depth there so that both parties can enjoy it. You don't need to lessen its depth to make it more palatable to the casual and really at this point most of competive players aren't even asking for "l canceling", "wave dashing" and all the other more complicated things
And yeah the worst part about these kinds of topics is how heated they get...
Aaronrules380
Member
I agree that that could have been better. And who knows, maybe our input will be heard and they'll patch it at some point
Responses in bold.
Likewise.
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
I think there is a lot of confusion over the use of the word speed in this topic. It's being used to refer to both the pacing of matches and the physical movement speed of the characters.
There
Except from chaingrabs (which is a debatable topic even among "advanced veterans"), this is rarely the case in Melee. Even in the highest sklill levels, there are not really safe or guaranteed big combo strings. A 1-2 hit (maybe -3) might be guaranteed if one doesn't fuck up after an enemies mistake, but not a lot more. The raised knockback with higher damage alone makes this an even smaller issue in Smash. It's by far not a Tekken-like situation where you're being juggled all the time after one mistake.
@Aaronrules: I feel ignored
Melee just needed an in game tutorial about the basic things like DI and L canceling so people would not complain about 0 to Death combos.
If that's what Sakurai was worried about, he could have simply removed L-canceling and wavedashing. He didn't have to radically change everything else.
This.
In response to both. Here's what I've seen. Smash 4 will play more like Melee than Brawl does. This is my observation from what tournament players have said, from what people who have gone hands on with the game have said, what the developers have said, and what I've seen from the gameplay videos.
Sakurai has made many changes, however you may want to minimize them, to the game to remove and address issues people had with Brawl. Whether these issues are specific to competitive players or just issues everyone had with Brawl, their removal/changes/additions will make for a better game.
Sakurai has done nothing to actively discourage Smash fans/competitive players from enjoying this game. Most likely this game is going to be great fun and please the overwhelming majority of people who play it.
There will continue to be a vocal minority who think Sakurai is ruining Smash/doesn't know what he's doing/is trying to exclude a segment of Smash fans.
GameGuru59
Banned
When there are clear consequences to your actions, it makes all players more contentious about their actions before they attack. To me, this is more akin to Smash 64, where attacks were slow enough (for most characters) that you had to consider the time it would take to execute the attack more than you did in Melee. In Smash 64, this made players use the totality of stages to their strategic advantage. Smash 64 battles were more fluid than Melee's because their was an advantage in retreating to fight in a part of the stage that was better suited to your character. In Melee, the speed of the game and the small size of the stages made it next to impossible to retreat (except on Hyrule Temple). While you all may think its boring, it is this interplay between the attack or retreat decision that makes Smash fun to me. The ability to retreat in any real way is non-existant in other fighting games, and Smash is unique to actually allow for it.
The inclusion of some non-overpowered items makes this even more fun and interesting because it rewards a strategic retreat with an advantage. With items on, more variables are inserted, making more decisions necessary: Do I grab the item and use it? Or do I just throw it at the opponent and risk his obtaining it? Or do I try to keep the opponent away from it by hitting him?
While I'm glad Smash has a competitive community, I think they're ignoring huge parts of the game when they play without items on smaller stages. What about including some of the items that aren't overpowered? What about custom stages? I feel the obsession with the fighting mechanics in Smash ignores the huge amount of depth the game has outside of those mechanics. Have you all ever considered the idea that adding so many options to the fighting side of Smash might also hurt the other parts of the game? Smash is also a competitive platformer, and an arena battle game. It's not just a fighter. Its all of these at the same time, and they all have to be balanced to make the game fun for everyone.
Edit for the above: being careful with approaching isn't something that's exclusive to Brawl or missing from Melee I had to consider my options in either and strategically decide the best course of action
It's just that brawl had a lot less options to consider...
Something that always bothers me when somebody says "Sakurai IS making this game more competitive" is that they seem to argue past us. They don't try to argue about our real complaints nor to they typically address then beyond the super nebulous "more competitive please!". I know you're excited for this game and I know you're going to enjoy the heck out of it but please when trying to tell us "you have nothing to worry about! Your complaints are totally addressed!" try to actually address our complaints and argue them!
I'm not trying to mindlessly hate on this game and I love smash so much so please when I say "I don't think I will enjoy this game ..." try to remember that (at least for some of us) this comes from a genuine place and a real love for the game
It's just that brawl had a lot less options to consider...
Something that always bothers me when somebody says "Sakurai IS making this game more competitive" is that they seem to argue past us. They don't try to argue about our real complaints nor to they typically address then beyond the super nebulous "more competitive please!". I know you're excited for this game and I know you're going to enjoy the heck out of it but please when trying to tell us "you have nothing to worry about! Your complaints are totally addressed!" try to actually address our complaints and argue them!
I'm not trying to mindlessly hate on this game and I love smash so much so please when I say "I don't think I will enjoy this game ..." try to remember that (at least for some of us) this comes from a genuine place and a real love for the game
I dont want to minimize anything. I dont really care if the games turns out to be Melee 0.7 or Brawl 1.1. I just want a game that I feel is fun.
I want another Brawl+
You do realise that Z-Cancelling in smash 64 removed all end lag from aerials rather than just halving it and that smash 4 is nothing like smash 64, right?
Removing or reducing the length of the animation doesn't make people think about when they use their moves, it just makes each move more likely to actually get used.
I mean smash 4 is the complete opposite of the newer games, in the newer games offense is terrible and defense is overpowered, in smash 64 offense is great and defense is "don't use this or you're going to die"
Have you ever actually watched competitive Smash 64 or are you trying to base this all on your own time with the game?
There are rulesets for items in competitive smash but nobody wants to play with them because what (very) little depth you get from adding the items to the game is overshadowed by all the random bullshit they bring with them.
GameGuru59
Banned
What I'm trying to say is that in Melee, battles were generally held to a much tighter location, where 64 and Brawl (if you made your own stages) tended to have "running battles" where the predator and prey could change multiple times throughout the battle. In Melee, it's like you're both predators- as most fighting games force you to be.
The post wasn't about aerials per-say but about the overall speed of the game (and yes I knew you could "roll out" of a aerial, but you're missing the overall point of the post). Smash 64 overall was slower than Melee, that's the point. Yes I have watched tourney Smash, but I don't see why that should matter. I played plenty of every Smash game, and that's my experience.
Why should every move be "more likely to be used?" Why can't a interplay between retreat or attack exist that takes into account the layout of the stage? Just because you don't like it doesn't make it not a valid design decision.
On random item "bullshit": The same could be said for every card game ever made. Embrace the randomness and learn to play with it.
Yep. That's what I meant in my post on the last page. It should have been made a legitimate part of the game in the sequels. The execution of those techs could have even been made easier for accessibility for all I care.
Smash 64 is completely both players playing as predators though.
The mixture of terrible defense, no air dodging, massive hitstun and large animation cancelling means the game is mostly about trying to land a first hit on the other player and then converting it into a 0-death combo if you can.
Smash 64 is nothing like what you seem to be describing it as.
In my experience it's the opposite. Obviously we're getting into subjective stuff here but Melee is the only the one that gave me a "predator" feeling. Match momentum felt so tangible there and it was constantly switching
Brawl gave me more of elementary school kid chanting "nah nah nah nah boo boo you can't catch me!" feeling from either one or both players
Obviously we're getting into more subjective and personal interpretations though...
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
That's fine. That's what the items are for. Tight, responsive, "very easy and accessible to newbies while having a lot of depth and a high skill ceiling" design should be the foundation for the core gameplay. Crazy-ass items add in that X-factor of randomness and zaniness that casuals enjoy without compromising the solid gameplay fundamentals. Hardcore players can choose to turn this off if they so desire. We can have both!
So if those high level skills in Melee were explicitly taught in-game through tutorials, and if they were more intuitive to do, then the majority of your issues with Melee as a game would vanish? I mean, adding in high-level techniques that are properly documented and easier to do would be very easy to do in Smash 4.0. It's something that most of us pro-competitive gameplay people would love to see in Smash 4.0. It sounds like you're saying that as long as these techniques are properly taught to players, you wouldn't have much of a problem with Smash 4.0 gameplay being more Melee-esque.
Then who cares? What does it matter? This is a thing that bothers the segment of the userbase who want to understand and play the game at deeper and deeper levels. These are some of the game's most dedicated players. Throw 'em a bone in this regard.
Doing so won't have a significant impact on the causal level, because as you said it yourself, they "really aren't looking that deeply into those types of things". They won't even notice because they're already having too much fun running around and doing Smashy things.
This is possible in Melee, and it can be possible in a Smash 4.0 game that embraces competitive gameplay.
Bit of a strawman argument there. This is the nature of online gaming, and a game that has decent matchmaking will place you with players of a similar skill level. Besides, if you play with items on, you'll always be guaranteed to random out a few wins here and there even if you're terrible.
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UokDVGLC48s
(Of course part of that is just the fact it's Isai, so....)
Pretty sure that just proved his point...
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
I wasn't disagreeing with him, I was posting an example for the other poster that was disagreeing.
And also, Isai so good goddamn.
GameGuru59
Banned
You're constantly a predator on stages like the Pokemon Stage, Great Fox, Mario's Stage, and Hyrule Castle in 64? In the 64, you could gain an advantage depending on you character if you were in a different part of a stage. Kirby could fly away from tornadoes easily on the castle, while Link was at a distinct disadvantage there. Agile characters were better off comboing people of the back of the Great Fox's tail, and in-between the buildings on Pokemon. If you had a high percent deficit, you could use those places to quickly damage your opponent and even the match out (alternatively, you could get killed off them!). I've found the stages in Smash since to be much less based around this attack-retreat interplay- which is why I love the stage creator so much in Brawl.
Yes.
Smash 64 doesn't have any the attack-retreat stuff you describe when played at the highest level, the game completely favours someone going in and getting a hit.
Brawl has the attack-retreat stuff because the fame completely favours defense instead of offense, there's no balance there and you get an incredibly boring competitive game.
What you're going on about can definitely be said at a casual level, but the things that people are complaining about is that they're dumbing the games down at a higher level which frustrates other people because then the people who've already got what they want either don't care or outright dismiss concerns that the competitive community has.
I guess I'm going to ignore the crap out of those people and enjoy the game on my own terms. Even going by the short time I played it at SDCC, the Wii U version is already a heckuva lot more fun than Brawl
I think he's putting a little too much emphasis on trying to separate it from traditional fighting games. Smash from the beginning was not like regular fighters and that's the great thing about it. And I also see no reason why having more depth in games for players who want it, for example Pokemon, Mario Kart, etc, effects the overall enjoyment of the game. There will always be some type of skill gap.
GameGuru59
Banned
Well, you can't just post a vid of Isai totally beating someone's ass. Look at how both players strategically use the stage in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H4D3vpCpOg
Yes it does, look at the way Isai plays on the video I just posted. It's not about blocking and dodging, it's about positioning yourself on the stage where you have an advantage.
Lol his specials are nothing compared to his crazy high priority standard attacks.
Some of his specials leave him vulnerable and casuals will often die using them incorrectly.
What?
What do you mean by predator and pray? I think you are thinking about the neutral game where both players are trying to get in the other guy zone but not get caught in the process. That exist in all 3 games, in 64 as soon as you get int you can potentially get a stock lead. In Melee you can get high% damage. In brawl you can get one hit and then run away, the thing is that the neutral game sometimes looks short in Melee but it doesnt mean it isnt there. If you watch a high level match you can see when the players are dash dancing around getting it and out to get a hit and start a combo
Also, in competitive Brawl, the "predator" was always the guy losing, as the other guy didnt have any reason to aproach due to the defensive nature of the game "Why risk aproaching when I'm winning, I'll just defend and run and abuse the overpowered defesive mechanics"
True. In casual game MK was far from overpowered. Obviously that's because most casuals cant understand what makes him good, I know I didnt undestand it either. Also, dat nado
GameGuru59
Banned
Whatever you want to call it. That aspect of the game was better in 64 than in Melee or Brawl because 64 had better "trap" areas where you could be punished if you weren't careful. This existed in only a few Melee stages (Pokemon Stadium and Hyrule Temple sort-of) due to the game's insistence on half the stages either being walk-off's or having excessive permeable platforms.
Brawl was the same way. However, in Brawl you could build those types of areas with the stage builder, which greatly improved Brawl in my opinion. The ability for Brawl players to constantly play defense could also be overcome with careful stage design in the stage builder. My friends and I played on custom stages 90% of the time in Brawl because it was just a better game that way.
Not being able to airdodge during hitstun is huge.
Well, I recognize my mistake here.
Tripping wasn't the only mistake with Brawl. Somebody mentionned the air-dodging-out-after-13-frames, and I agree. If you can air dodge out of recovery with no penalty, then what's the point of having recovery frames larger than 13f at all. Though to be perfectly honest, I would have never known that if not for the Internet, and my friends don't know of it either. Sakurai probably knew. Or maybe he didn't. Either way, I agree it's dumb and it's detrimental to more serious play.
As you said, tripping was, however, the most obvious and visible. As such, when I play with my friends, it's always a roar of rage (or laughter) when one trips randomly. No pattern, no foreseeing of it, just random. A move made by Sakurai to bring it closer to a party game, well intentioned, but ill executed. I'm sure we are all glad that's gone from Smash 4.
You say Brawl's direction was a swath toward some of the more dedicated, tournament-style players. I understand the sentiment. I know it can be frustrating. As I said, I'm not a tourney-going type of guy. I do think I'm quite good at the game, however, and with Smash 4 (hopefully) featuring a robust online mode, I'm really excited to be able to test my skills against fellows Smashers around the world.
I just don't believe that Melee did everything right and as it should. As the on-going debate proves, Smash can come in flavors that caters to different people. Fast paced. Slower paced. More floaty. Less floaty. The "core" of Smash, as I briefly explained in a earlier post, resides, in my honest opinion, in its unique form of combat, one-of-a-kind victory conditions, and ease of access.. Some might beg to differ, but I really think these are three things that make Smash...well, Smash.
Now, to go back to the original post in the topic. It's fine to be resentful (well....to an extend) because you did not get what you looked for in Brawl. However, I read his words and I'm full of confidence. I agree. Despite what people may say, I do not think Sakurai has lost it just yet. He wants a middle point, he wants to please every Smash fan. The E3 build of Sm4sh was a old stable build. I still remember the E3 Brawl demo, where GimpyFish spent hours on it and found some kind of new technique. That technique never made it to final build. Alot of what people currently dislike about it might just never make it to release, and if they bothered to take note on fan feedback like they did, I'm sure it wasn't just to create false hype, but of genuine concern to make the best game for both worlds, as both veterans and excited youngsters would be part of an event like E3.
The ebb and flow of the game may change will change once more. It's a party/fighting game. It will change. Like Street Fighter II and III were radically different, with new concepts and techniques incorporated (or removed like parry). Like Mortal Kombat 9 and X looks to be different, with 3 stances per characters for more matchup options and a revised system. To a point, the tourney competitor that plays those types of games plays them because of loves them, but also because he accepts there will be changes, some for the worst, some for the best.
In that regard, the words Sakurai says only inspire the best hopes in me. It will be a new Smash experience that will, hopefully, please Melee and Brawl fans alike, and I could not be more excited, this close to launch, about the prospect of playing it with everyone here and online.
The majority will enjoy it, as they did Brawl.
But a majority of the competitive community will likely be disappointed. Based off what I've played at least. Who knows, perhaps it can change.
Sakurai could probably appeal to both scenes if he wanted to, but he seems to see a bunch of things that we cannot and is enforcing these mechanics now. I've made my peace with it though, this is what Smash is now. No use in crying about it over 10yrs later, getting too old to care.
Project M > Melee gameplay wise btw. I see Smash for more than just its competitive side now though.
As far as we know, doesn't Smash 4 have to bear the brunt of selling Amiibo's for the foreseeable future?
Nintendo doesn't have any other game that uses them as extensively as Smash does (from what we've seen so far), so I wonder if the fact that Smash 4 has to also sell a bunch of toys to kids might affect the direction of the game.
Granted, I don't think it'd be that huge of an influence, but at the very least it's probably another reason to avoid making the game "less accessible."
Nintendo doesn't have any other game that uses them as extensively as Smash does (from what we've seen so far), so I wonder if the fact that Smash 4 has to also sell a bunch of toys to kids might affect the direction of the game.
Granted, I don't think it'd be that huge of an influence, but at the very least it's probably another reason to avoid making the game "less accessible."
They've already confirmed Mario Party 10, Captain Toad's Treasure Trackers and Mario Kart 8 will make use of them.
A lot of things have changed since Melee, and each Smash has had to take on different burdens. I like to think that has in someway influenced the direction of the series.
Sakurai should just incorporate a Turbo mode with Melee mechanics. Since it would be out of spite he would make it a $10 DLC add on. It would probably need to be rebalanced heavily since some characters would get fucked over hard lol. That will never happen anyway.
Lol @ people calling Sakurai san a bad game designer now or an idiot. Stay salty as hell over a +10yr old game that is still here for you to play. Sakurai has a fucking awesome résumé. Some fans need to get over themselves, it really isn't that serious guys.