Does Sakurai actually care what we (fans) want?

[Kink-Link5]

I'm fairly convinced that a lot of Brawl's faults are a series of unfortunate design choices designed to emphasise different aspects of the game, all of which were handled very poorly. The design choices were intentional, but the effect on the game they had was not.

Yes, even tripping and hitstun canceling had a reason for inclusion beyond "**** you Melee players." Sakurai has said Melee is the most polished game in the series and one of the games he is most proud of. IT had a relenting design schedule, but he is very happy with how the game came out. I highly doubt the changes made in Brawl were specifically to throw stones at the Melee player base, since, surprise surprise, they encompass a lot of Brawl's player base.

 

[Johnknight1]

I agree Kink. I don't think any of Brawl's faults were made to be intentionally bad, but intentionally good... although I don't quite get tripping. Tripping as a result of an attack or getting hit makes sense, and definitely makes sense, whereas random tripping... is just stupid. Making players "trip" while make a sharp turn, trying to dash dance, etc makes sense (although it's stupid sense), whereas random tripping with no pattern is just absolutely ridiculous. It's like that one negative thing you always "fear" happening while playing. Things could be going good... until you trip into an attack. Once such a thing happens to you in a match, you "fear" it. Maybe "fear" isn't the most precise word, but still, I think you get what I am trying to convey.

As for the design, I blame Satoura Iwata for getting Game Arts, and HAL Laboratories for being busy for like 7 years making 3 freaking Kirby games (although they turned out rather great). Game Arts, quite frankly, is not a company that can make competent fighting or platformer games; they can only make decent RPGs well.

Monolith Soft (another Brawl developer) had minimal experience with fighting and platformer games (although they can make great RPGs). Paon (the third Brawl developer) at least can make somewhat good platformers. Even still, only part of the staff at both of those companies helped develop Brawl.

You go back to Smash 64 and Melee, and you constantly see how much HAL Laboratories pushed smash bros forward. You flip up to Brawl, and the only additions were "basic." A story mode, online, stickers, and stage builder. All of these features were "generic," and felt like they had minimal effort. Heck, even modes like Break the Targets and Event Matches were shorter and had "less to do" than Melee. Heck, I'll take Smash 64's 12 character specific Break the Targets stages over Brawl 5 generic Break the Targets stages any day.

Really, that's why I go back to Game Arts failing. Sakurai clearly was as motivated as ever. He added great new characters, had a load of ideas for a story mode, online, graphical design, stage choices, music, and stage builder. However, most of it fell flat on its' face (like how the graphics for characters make them look like "cut outs;" however, the music was successfully amazing!), due to Game Arts being rookies at this (Sakurai and a few other people actually had to train the staff for a few months), Nintendo's heads poorly organizing the Brawl project, and the Wii being just a slightly stronger GameCube with motion controls.

With Smash WiiU and 3DS, we got 2 strong consoles. The 3DS has way more memory than the GameCube, DS, or Wii, and the graphics aren't too far behind the GameCube. With Smash WiiU, we got a console that makes the PS3 and Xbox 360 look weak with huge graphical and processing power. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if the WiiU had 10 times the graphical or processing power of the Wii or GameCube. Plus, these consoles actually support DLC, modern technology, have modern online, and aren't "a blast from the past."

 

[Kink-Link5]

I'm quite sure random tripping was included to add a risk factor to Dashing, along with no shields in initial dash, no Dash canceling, and a much shorter Dash dance distance. One can't trip while walking, and I conjecture that it was done to emphasise the use of walking over dashing as a form of movement. It was the wrong way to do it, but it is effective at deterring dashes overall.

 

[Johnknight1]

If that want people to stop dashing, just don't have dashing!

But yeah, that logic was terribly flawed. What were they trying to do, make the already slowest and stalest smash bros game even more slow and stale, or just make combat in the air just more dominant=???

I think I might have read somewhere random tripping wasn't Sakurai's idea (but don't hold me to it!).

Whatever. I'm just glad Game Arts isn't the primary developer anymore. *prays that HAL Laboratories helping with development (a new Kirby game can wait)*

 

[Youngling]

Can anyone explain what's wrong with a game having a competitive melee like aspect? Casual players can enjoy the game, being perfectly ignorant of advanced techs. Competitive players can enjoy it.

Smashchu, you may be the dumbest poster on these boards

 

[Oasis_S]

Can anyone explain what's wrong with a game having a competitive melee like aspect? Casual players can enjoy the game, being perfectly ignorant of advanced techs. Competitive players can enjoy it.

You just don't understand.

Maybe when you're older...

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

Can anyone explain what's wrong with a game having a competitive melee like aspect? Casual players can enjoy the game, being perfectly ignorant of advanced techs. Competitive players can enjoy it.

Smashchu, you may be the dumbest poster on these boards

I like you.

 

[Ferio_Kun]

Can anyone explain what's wrong with a game having a competitive melee like aspect? Casual players can enjoy the game, being perfectly ignorant of advanced techs. Competitive players can enjoy it.

Smashchu, you may be the dumbest poster on these boards

I think you're mixing stubborn with dumb. Smashchu is by no means of a low intelligence. If you read his posts they are well thought out with great points. People just don't agree with them. So no need to be rude.

To answer your question:

Nothing is wrong with Melee-like aspects except Sakurai apparently doesn't like them. I can understand why he took out some of them, (like wave-dashing for instance) but others leave me scratching my head.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Melee is Sakurai's favourite smash game and one of his most proud creations.

The decisions made in Brawl's design were not by any means justly, purely, or definitively in spite of Melee's own.

 

[SmashChu]

There were a lot of good responses I haven't gotten to. I'll try and do it soon. Right now, low hanging fruit.

I'm fairly convinced that a lot of Brawl's faults are a series of unfortunate design choices designed to emphasise different aspects of the game, all of which were handled very poorly. The design choices were intentional, but the effect on the game they had was not.

Yes, even tripping and hitstun canceling had a reason for inclusion beyond "**** you Melee players." Sakurai has said Melee is the most polished game in the series and one of the games he is most proud of. IT had a relenting design schedule, but he is very happy with how the game came out. I highly doubt the changes made in Brawl were specifically to throw stones at the Melee player base, since, surprise surprise, they encompass a lot of Brawl's player base.

When you look at it objectively, it's hard to see that Brawl did something wrong, or at least what your implying. Not only is it the best selling fighting game ever made and one of the best selling games, it's also one of the most played Wii games and critically acclaimed. I know it was not a favorite as far as competitive Smash goes, but I question if the game did something wrong. At least, looking at the results.

Also, I think you may have misread Sakurai's quote. Go back and look at it again and mind what he says around it.

Can anyone explain what's wrong with a game having a competitive melee like aspect? Casual players can enjoy the game, being perfectly ignorant of advanced techs. Competitive players can enjoy it.

Smashchu, you may be the dumbest poster on these boards

I have written a lot about it in this thread. If you want, I'll repost it or send it in a PM.

 

[Youngling]

Sorry for calling you dumb smashchu, my emotions were getting the best of me.

Anyway, something I'd like to bring up:
Melee players hate on brawl all day, while brawl players would be laughed at if they hated on melee.

You may find this point pointless at first, but think about it. It's generally accepted that melee is a more respected game, from both communities.

 

[SmashChu]

Sorry for calling you dumb smashchu, my emotions were getting the best of me.

Anyway, something I'd like to bring up:
Melee players hate on brawl all day, while brawl players would be laughed at if they hated on melee.

You may find this point pointless at first, but think about it. It's generally accepted that melee is a more respected game, from both communities.

It's all good. I've done it too.

For what you bring up, it's a matter of who are you are talking to. Competitive Smash circles are much smaller than the rest of the fanbase, but are more centralized. Competitive Smash players think very highly of Melee (for many reasons, but it was the game that started the community), so naturally it would be silly, to those people, to say Melee is worse than anything. If you go outside of the competitive community, you'll hear a different story and will probably be able to see both sides of the story.

 

[DerfMidWest]

Yooo what even is this topic?
Does sakurai care what fans think?
A lil' bit.
Not competitive fans tho.
He cares about them casuals.
I used to hate that, but I can't really blame him, they are the majority of the fan base, I'm still gonna be just as happy playing melee once smash4 comes out.

A few pages back people were talking about how people don't go around 4 stocking each other in melee and stuff as often.
Well, thats because of the different nature of the games...
In brawl you are forced to play a lot safer. There is generally less approaching and more ledgecamping and stuff like that.
In melee you have a lot more freedom and its a lot faster so you can really do a lot more, but if you make a mistake (since its so much faster) you're gonna get punished.
People don't really go around 0-deathing each other in melee all that often, yea its possible, but most combos are escapable (as was said before).
And due to the speed of the game, a mistake offstage means death.
So thats why four stocks are harder to pull off.
It says nothing about the skill gap of either game, both take a TON of skill at higher levels of play, but brawl was designed to be more accessable, and is easier for people to become competitive at (in terms of learning), whereas in melee the crazy amounts of advanced techniques really hinder a lot of new players (as not having a mastery of these techs means you are lacking necessary options).

So yea.

 

[Life]

On the topic title:

Every decision Sakurai makes will anger somebody--so why should he care about the fans (especially given that Smashboards et al is a vocal minority of the fanbase)?

 

[Vkrm]

Reading through this thread kind of sparked this question in my mind, I want to ask you guys and get some perspective. So like, how much control does sakurai have over the games he makes? Modern game dev teams have can have like up to 200 people involved in production. Sakurai being director probably just handles the aesthetics of smash, he probably has little to no knowledge of the actual game mechanics.

 

[Johnknight1]

When you look at it objectively, it's hard to see that Brawl did something wrong, or at least what your implying. Not only is it the best selling fighting game ever made and one of the best selling games, it's also one of the most played Wii games and critically acclaimed.

Yet things like random tripping have been critically panned, and all kinds of long-time smash fans dislike it.

Also, the main reason Brawl outsold Melee is because it was more advertised (heck, nowadays it is advertised still-because it is 30 bucks!), the console it is on has sold about 4 times as many units, and also because of the success Melee built (which is the same reason people bought that over hyped letdown Resident Evil 5 after Resident Evil 4).

So like, how much control does sakurai have over the games he makes? Modern game dev teams have can have like up to 200 people involved in production. Sakurai being director probably just handles the aesthetics of smash, he probably has little to no knowledge of the actual game mechanics.

Sakurai created the series and its' concept, he is creatively in charge of each smash bros. game (thus far), he was the guy in charge of balancing each smash game (he balanced Brawl alone; this time with an experienced Namco Bandai crew he'll have more help), he is the guy that "approves" of things like roster, stage, and gameplay direction choices, he was the guy in charge of making all the original characters, he was in charge of writing and coming up of the concept of the story of smash bros (including the adventure mode; he'll probably do that again), and he is one of the main people in charge of coming up with new concepts.

Again, he is in the creative department, not game development. However, he came up with nearly all of the game mechanics of smash bros.

 

[El Duderino]

When you look at it objectively, it's hard to see that Brawl did something wrong, or at least what your implying. Not only is it the best selling fighting game ever made and one of the best selling games, it's also one of the most played Wii games and critically acclaimed.

It's also without a doubt the most unanimously criticized Smash game in the series history among fans of the franchise. Maybe not out the gate, but after opinions settled and more issues cropped up, they certainly won themselves a broader reaching skeptical undertone moving forward.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

I rarely played Brawl.

But I think it had to do more with having no one that wanted to play it with me, unlike I did with Melee

 

[Vkrm]

That's cause brawl is a boring poopie fest and melly be teh best gaem evar.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

You're pronouncing melee wrong if you seriously think melly is an adequate replacement for it

It's pronounced like: May-Lay

 

[Vkrm]

I know. Not really sure why I typed it that way. I always just called it smash. For me it's like this, smash=melee. Smash 64=super polygon fighter 4 death combo edition. Brawl=Brawl

 

[SmashChu]

Hey, I'm getting to older post.

See, the problem Smashchu is that you're at an extreme as well. "The better players are not the same as the weaker or new players or those that play once and again and those who don't own the game." I don't even see where you're going with that. Of course the better players are different. Is that inherently bad? Smash Bros. is at its core a fighting game, and there's going to be a winner and a loser(s) in every game. The fighting game genre is inherently competitive. One player is always going to be better than the others, and that player is usually going to win. Can you really fault them for that? If everyone's at the same skill level, then it's just luck that determines the winner, and, forgive the comparison, but you might as well be playing Mario Party.

Johnknight mentioned a big long list of mechanics that you seem to have accepted as alright, for some reason. Yeah, this is stuff that is already in the game, but it's also mostly stuff that anyone that spends more than 5 minutes playing Smash Bros. can grasp. I'm not understanding how intuitively fleshing out the core mechanics of Smash is such a touchy subject for you.

Here, let me explain it better. I bolded that line because if we don't understand, we'll eventually get into a shouting match.

I say competitive players are on the extreme side of the spectrum because of their skill. These players dedicate a lot of time and energy into the game that other players will not do. They are naturally better as a result. Other players will be worse than they are at the game because they do not dedicate as much time and energy. Some players may not own the game and play it at a friends house. Some will only play when friends come over. Generally, they are playing socially and not for the sake of getting better.

So the competitive players are good and better than most people who play Smash. They are on the far side of the skill spectrum. The problem I mention comes in when they ask for stuff for the next game. Since they are better than other players and pride themselves on that, they tend to ask for things on their side of the spectrum. They want more depth and faster gameplay. The rest of the players are fine with the speed and fine with the amount of options they have. They are happy at their skill level for what the game provides. Before I go farther, let me draw this.

worse better
I---------------------------------------------------------------------------I
^weaker ^Middle strong ^ ^competitive

Most plaayers will be in the middle. The competitive players are on the far side of skill spectrum. So they ask for things at their skill level. They also want the skill to be expanded though making the game harder and more making options. This extends the game for them. The other players ask for more content to extend their time with the game.

I hope this makes more sense. You mentioned that people naturally win, and that is true. But the point is making the jump into the game easier. That was Brawl's goal. I'll end on this. Your Mario Party comparison is what a lot of competitive player feel happened with Brawl. For them, the game needed to be harder to extend their time with it. But they do not see the rest of the spectrum either. To them, their side of the spectrum is the "norm." So to them there is no reason to move the game downward. So they see it as "press A to win," where everyone else sees it as the game is easier to play and less frustrating. You can see it in this quote.

Melee fans who played deep into the game without any problems might have trouble understanding this, but Melee was just too difficult.

I'm happy to hear we are getting on the same page now, appreciating the scope of what Smash's fighting system has to offer. I also agree that too much can be a bad thing when techniques become inaccessible or a juggling act.

Looking at the dedicated Melee fanbase though, there is clearly something to Smash having a little larger tool belt. As a Gannondorf player, I can tell you a thing or two about how devastating even a slight loss of options can be. My main was basically ruined by it, transforming from the deceptively quick countering powerhouse to a slow as molasses turd devoid of any fun. I like Gannondorf in Melee because the game allows me to get creative with him, something that is far less possible with Brawl's limited tool set.

For the sake of freedom of movement, player creativity, and viability of a larger portion of the cast, there should absolutely be more to SSB4's gameplay than Brawl. That is all very possible to achieve without the rote memorization of Melee or throwing the player too many options to handle.

I'm glad we can see each other's side a bit better. I will admit that the question was poised to get you thinking down a set path, but I got to learn something instead. Either way, the discussion moves forward.

As for Ganon, it comes down to balance. Every game is a victim of it. I still find the cast viable in a big free for all or team battle, but it doesn't always work in the competitive scene. Never has. There is always the next game I guess.

Of course, we'll have to agree to disagree. You say the game should add more, and I think it's fine where it is. Different opinions.

It's also without a doubt the most unanimously criticized Smash game in the series history among fans of the franchise. Maybe not out the gate, but after opinions settled and more issues cropped up, they certainly won themselves a broader reaching skeptical undertone moving forward.

It's all who you talk to. If you leave Smashboards, you'll hear more from both sides of the argument and find people who like both and pick on as their favorite. The problem is that Melee vs Brawl debates are dominated by competitive players and it's always an all or nothing. Since competitive players are usually the ones who bring it up and talk about it the most, their views tend to seem like the norm. A lot of people like Brawl. I'd even say more than Melee. But most will find both game to be great in different ways and will play both. Sadly, that doesn't seem to be the case in the competitive circle and there is always a fight about it with no real winner.

 

[smashmanx7]

@smashchu. I think understand what your trying to say competitive players found melee easy because they trained at it, I mean if I were to take my cousin and try to teach an A.T to her I think it would take her a while to get it.

That being said more depth isn't a bad thing as long as the game is accessible to newcomers and knowing smash it always will be. I think kumaoso created a thread called smashfight lab that would teach newcomers cool techniques if that was implemented this discussion would be moot right. The gap in skill between competitive players and casuals isn't really that big but its still pretty big but keeping or losing options isn't the answer why should we lose one fanbase just to cater to another if people truly want to get better at smash they'll find a way its like playing marvel vs capcom anybody can play it but it rewards people who can play it well

Okay I'm not sure if I Made point or not cause I'm currently watching a movie during the post but here the gist of it the learning curve in smash between casual and competitive should be small but of also should reward the player for learning new things.

 

[Big-Cat]

Back to the Smash Fight Lab, we really should be looking as to how Namco's going about Tekken Tag 2. They're really trying their best to get casuals in and encourage them to give it their all. This new trailer about the online modes is very appealing to me as a semi-newbie to Tekken. Replays to see where I've gone wrong or right or to study matchups. Online training rooms (hopefully supporting sparring partners), nonranking matches, ranking matches, player cards, etc. They're providing very useful resources to new players without compromising the game.

Here's the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnQqxrFV-AE&feature=player_embedded

The way I see it. Depth doesn't scare new players all the time. In fact, if they're shown the options and how to apply it, it can be a very fun experience climbing up.

 

[Kink-Link5]

You can also look at games like BlazBlue for ways to teach the player, newcomer or veteran, about its basic mechanics that may not be very easy to grasp, while offering further teaching tools to get into the more advanced kinds of things. The main difference is that most games develop their mechanics with specific applications in mind, while Smash's metagame is a blank slate with no real elaborate explanation of how to apply certain aspects.

I think we can agree though, that Melee's How to Play covered a lot more bare essentials than Brawl's little demo intro thing. The little stick and buttons showing up on screen is something that I like about how older games were made: They built themselves and their mechanics around the shape, feel, and limitations of a definitive control scheme.

With modern games it's often vary clear that the "safe route" is the way to go, because making a game multi-platform with bland controls is more appealing and sells better. Developers don't care if their game doesn't last, as long as it sells right out of the gate.

The benefit of making a game around a control scheme is that the feel, immersion, level design, pace, AI, and everything else about the game can all fit in comfortably with the controller they're made specifically for. Anyone who has looked into how Brawl's multiple control schemes are handled in the game coding can attest to how they negatively impact the gameplay as a whole on a more fundimental level.

 

[smashmanx7]

Here's the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnQqxrFV-AE&feature=player_embedded

The way I see it. Depth doesn't scare new players all the time. In fact, if they're shown the options and how to apply it, it can be a very fun experience climbing up.

We need this since!!! SO BADLY Namco bandai is developing so id hope this a priority at some point . This just makes me wonder does sakurai actually take feedback fans I mean he did put online but the way it ended up being it seemed Much like an after thought.

 

[SmashChu]

@smashchu. I think understand what your trying to say competitive players found melee easy because they trained at it, I mean if I were to take my cousin and try to teach an A.T to her I think it would take her a while to get it.

That being said more depth isn't a bad thing as long as the game is accessible to newcomers and knowing smash it always will be. I think kumaoso created a thread called smashfight lab that would teach newcomers cool techniques if that was implemented this discussion would be moot right. The gap in skill between competitive players and casuals isn't really that big but its still pretty big but keeping or losing options isn't the answer why should we lose one fanbase just to cater to another if people truly want to get better at smash they'll find a way its like playing marvel vs capcom anybody can play it but it rewards people who can play it well

Okay I'm not sure if I Made point or not cause I'm currently watching a movie during the post but here the gist of it the learning curve in smash between casual and competitive should be small but of also should reward the player for learning new things.

You got the idea. Competitive Smash players put mopre focus on getting better. Everyone else just wants to hop right in. I'm actually going to address Kuma's point in a minute. I'm not for adding more depth as some are asking for. I've said it before, but the game has enough depth for everyone lower on the spectrum to have a good time. Adding more is moving them down and making it harder for them to just jump in.

Basically, accessibility is how quickly players can get into the game. The more stuff you add, the harder it is. Competitive players always crave more options and harder gameplay, but other players don't. That is what Sakurai was talking about in that quote.

Back to the Smash Fight Lab, we really should be looking as to how Namco's going about Tekken Tag 2. They're really trying their best to get casuals in and encourage them to give it their all. This new trailer about the online modes is very appealing to me as a semi-newbie to Tekken. Replays to see where I've gone wrong or right or to study matchups. Online training rooms (hopefully supporting sparring partners), nonranking matches, ranking matches, player cards, etc. They're providing very useful resources to new players without compromising the game.

Here's the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnQqxrFV-AE&feature=player_embedded

The way I see it. Depth doesn't scare new players all the time. In fact, if they're shown the options and how to apply it, it can be a very fun experience climbing up.

Don’t teach pigs to sing; it wastes your time and annoys hell out of the pig

The thing you are missing is desire. The reason competitive players are good is because they want to be good. Most players don's aspire to be much better. They are happy where they are. Again, the game is just simple fun for them.

This is why the Smash Lab wont help. Players don't want to be taught. Video games are an escape. Some players will want to just jump in and play. Players are opposed to tutorials. What I'm getting at is you can't bring in players lower on the spectrum by making a tutorial. They'll only walk away. They don't want the tutorial, they want a simple fun game they can play with friends. To capture the so called casuals, you have to make a simple game that anyone can jump right into. Low hanging fruit. This idea is trying to teach pigs how to sing.

 

[flyinfilipino]

Your Mario Party comparison is what a lot of competitive player feel happened with Brawl. For them, the game needed to be harder to extend their time with it. But they do not see the rest of the spectrum either. To them, their side of the spectrum is the "norm." So to them there is no reason to move the game downward. So they see it as "press A to win," where everyone else sees it as the game is easier to play and less frustrating. You can see it in this quote.

Melee fans who played deep into the game without any problems might have trouble understanding this, but Melee was just too difficult.

You see, Smashchu, the problem I have with most of your arguments is that you try and make it seem like the "sides" of this debate are clear-cut and defined. I just don't think that's the case.

(I also feel that the "Brawl vs. Melee" debate is just completely muddled up now, but that's another story.)

I feel like 90% (and this is really just a very rough estimate) of the people that bought and contributed to the sales of Super Smash Bros. Brawl really have no idea what's going on and just play Smash every so often because it's Smash and it's fun to fight with Nintendo characters. These are the real "casual" players. And by "casual", I really mean "casual", and not "anti-'competitive'". As for the other 10% (again, a really rough estimate), this comprises people that frequent message boards like this one. And yes, that includes you, me, and basically everyone that talks about this subject. We're all "competitive" players. We joined these message boards to talk about our enjoyment of the game and share information about the game, which contributes to us usually just being better at the game by that virtue than the average "casual" player. Basically, if you're bothering to take part in this "debate" in general, you know something about advanced Smash, and that something (no matter how small) automatically makes you better than 90% of the people that bought Brawl.

And now my main point is that of this 10% comprised of "competitive" players, I think only about 1% (another arbitrary number) are really in favor of making the game "harder" as you like to say, for the sake of making it harder. This is something that you seem to attribute to all "competitive" players, but I really don't think it's the case. As it's been reiterated many times in this thread, "depth" does not equal "harder", and most "competitive" players do not want more "depth" to make it "harder" for casual players. Nor do they only play the game for the sake of getting better at it (or to "pride" themselves on their skills).

So to end, I'm of the opinion that 90% of people that bought Brawl do not care about this "debate" (which is why I feel that it's mostly pointless) (but also because there's no right or wrong) and are fine with the game because they are truly "casual". The real "Brawl vs. Melee" debate is mostly argued amongst the other 10%, people that are, for the most part, educated in advanced Smash and just have differing opinions on what they want in the next game. It's not some great, entire-fandom-encompassing debate. And the reason the Mario Party comparison keeps coming up is...never mind, I'll just finish by saying that there's always two sides to an argument/debate and one doesn't keep going on forever with just one side shouting about it.


And as an addendum, SmashChu, since I really do want to know how you truly feel about the subject, what kind of Smash player would you consider yourself?

 

[Kink-Link5]

I still want to know what competitive players smashchu has ever spoken with that have said they want the game to be harder. He's dodged the question several, at least dozens of times.

 

[Okmaiwolf13]

I think he might just hear what the fans have to say and then just take it into consideration

 

[SmashChu]

I still want to know what competitive players smashchu has ever spoken with that have said they want the game to be harder. He's dodged the question several, at least dozens of times.

If it seems like I'm dodging, I'm not. I don't respond to everything.

As for who, you can see it all over this forum and with other competitive players in RL. They want the game to have more depth which means making a harder game (as I have already described. If need be, I can pull up what I wrote).

 

[Vkrm]

People who buy the game, train their fingers, and learn the match-ups should be better than those who don't. Thats how its supposed to be. I thought that's how everybody felt about videogames but smashchu disagrees it seems.

 

[El Duderino]

As for Ganon, it comes down to balance. Every game is a victim of it. I still find the cast viable in a big free for all or team battle, but it doesn't always work in the competitive scene. Never has. There is always the next game I guess.

This really isn't an issue exclusive to the Dorf, it's a crippling reason why Brawl overall has a less viable cast. If you look at the majority of mid to slow attacking characters in Brawl, they suffer from lacking ideal setup and spacing tools to capitalize on their intended strengths. Also thanks to Brawl's powershielding, these heavier hitters leave the already more vulnerable attacks wide open to be cut right through. It's incredibly damaging when you consider moves like forward and down tilts that are necessary to keep quicker characters at bay now have a huge risk attached.

That is why with only a few exceptions of characters that have something to exploit, the majority of mid to heavy set characters fall on the lower half of Brawls tier list. It's also a good argument for why this next smash could use a little bigger tool belt. The less quick the character, the more they are at a disadvantage in a fighting game with an emphasis on mobility. They need better means to read, respond, and punish their more agile opponents. Melee's advanced techniques, for all their accessibility faults, did precisely that. To achieve better balence, Brawl really needed an additional something to the same effect.

It's all who you talk to. If you leave Smashboards, you'll hear more from both sides of the argument and find people who like both and pick on as their favorite. The problem is that Melee vs Brawl debates are dominated by competitive players and it's always an all or nothing.

I'm not talking about preference here. I'm talking about the high likelyhood of a Smash fan playing Brawl and walking away with something to be crtical of. For all that we disagree on with Brawl, the blatant pitfalls like tripping, MK's dominance, or the failed goal to improve the overall balance are things we largely agree on. Yes, Brawl sold a good amount, but given commonly conflicted opinions on the game, it's clearly not infallible.

 

[kataklysm336]

As for who, you can see it all over this forum and with other competitive players in RL. They want the game to have more depth which means making a harder game (as I have already described. If need be, I can pull up what I wrote).

Says you. The problem is you think that depth=harder, and it doesn't. You have said multiple times that the deeper the game, the harder it is for new players to "jump right in".

What does that mean? "Jump right in"? Are you saying that if the game is harder to reach a high level of play that the casual players will be turned off by it? But isn't that what makes them casual players and not competitive ones, the lack of desire to reach a higher level? I don't think competitive players go around 3 stocking newbies all day, and for the most part casual players and competitive player stick to their respective crowds and have fun regardless.

As someone has already said, Melee was my favorite game before I knew about wavedashing. Even when I figured out what it was, I couldn't execute it properly. But I didn't care, as a casual player I was only interested in playing with my favorite nintendo characters and beating my friends for bragging rights. Advanced techniques and the depth of Melee never turned me off too it.

So I must ask, who has said that depth=harder? Sure plenty of people have argued for depth, but pretty much everyone agrees that that doesn't mean make the game harder. Everyone except you, of course. How does adding depth at a higher level of play discourage players who don't play at that level and never care to?


Sidenote: lol that you think special moves in SF4 are "really hard to pull off unless you have played the game for a long time." I could do them all after owning it for about 20 minutes, and I had never played an SF game in my life.

 

[smashmanx7]

Depth everyone keeps talking about "depth" what type depth are you referring to more options by that I think you mean more A.T but lets say there is things like thisof the learning curve between casual and hardcore is too large then accessibility is thrown out the window you don't see alot of people buying street fighter4 because it'll be fun at parties and everyonecan pull of sick combos outta nowhere I play street fighter and main Balrog your telling me a casual player can pull these off if they can I may start crying because it took me a month to be able to pull of Every combo successfully .

We know people don't play smash competitively and just for fun as long as this depth doesn't hurt smashes core demographic the casuals then we'll fine but if it does then we need something like fight lab. I just don't want a street fighter smash where hardcore rules the domain but I know that won't happen . Somehow I feel as if I wasn't that clear but that's probably because of how late it is
.

 

[Vkrm]

I think the comands for sf are easy if you play on anything other than the xbox controller. It's the combination of inputs that makes the game complex, same as smash.

 

[DerfMidWest]

Oh boy a whole month?
I spent a god damn year on melee Fox and still can't consistently do every AT.
I love that about melee.
There is always more to learn.
More depth.

It separates casuals from competitive players, yes, but that doesn't discourage casuals from playing the game. You don't need to dumb a game down for people to enjoy it on a casual level.
I enjoy many traditional fighters that are played competitively at a casual level. The games have tons of depth to them, but that doesn't make them any less fun for me when I'm playing casually.

Part of the reason I play melee is because I like to improve. I enjoy putting in time, learning to be more technically consistent, and seeing results. But that isn't why I play. I play because I like the game. Its fun for me. No other game has ever made me want to go out of my way to improve like melee does. Another part is that I like the community. Melee tournaments are boss.
Main point: depth has no effect on casual players.

Skill gap is an important thing to competitive games, btw. You can't have everybody being pro, or else it isn't competitive. I like that I need to put years in to get to higher level in melee. It keeps me motivated to improve.

Also it doesn't matter how anybody thinks the next smash game should end up, because we're all going to be dissappointed. It won't be melee. Or brawl. It will be whatever Sakurai thinks casual gamers want.

 

[smashmanx7]

http://iplaywinner.com/balrog-sf4

Have you ever played street fighter online against a good Cody .most combos are easy but a majority are hard especially under pressure.

So that's what people mean by depth okay well it does add alot replay value so it fine by me

 

[Johnknight1]

Honestly, seeing a major league pitcher throw a 85 mile per hour curve-ball doesn't discourage me from throwing a baseball. However, seeing a major league pitcher throw 60 miles per hour makes me laugh (and to a certain extent, want to pitch), because I know even I can throw a curve-ball about 10 miles per hour faster than that!

So the competitive players are good and better than most people who play Smash. They want more depth and faster gameplay. The rest of the players are fine with the speed and fine with the amount of options they have. They are happy at their skill level for what the game provides. Before I go farther, let me draw this.

Bold is the controversial part that is quite frankly wrong. This isn't a "competitive" exclusive thing, but something that nearly everyone wants. In fact, back in the pre-Brawl days, the people who wanted the most new gameplay options in my experiences were the most casual smash fans. They want new things to try out.

Melee fans who played deep into the game without any problems might have trouble understanding this, but Melee was just too difficult.

This is a bit more complex than you make it. Obviously, Sakurai worked too hard on Melee (120 hours a week; that's 5 straight days of work). There was also more new content added in Melee than we'll get from Smash WiiU, Smash 3DS, Brawl, and Smash 6 combined. Oh, and that was the biggest roster size increase we'll ever get in smash. As for gameplay, there were some things that were too difficult; like Fox's short hop, SHLF, Ness' recovery, and other such things.

I still want to know what competitive players smashchu has ever spoken with that have said they want the game to be harder. He's dodged the question several, at least dozens of times.

I remembering reading people's thoughts on Namco Bandai being the Smash WiiU and 3DS developers on the NorCal Melee Facebook group, and quite frankly, most of the people stated basically what Sakurai stated. They didn't mention words like "easier" or "harder" but more engaging, deeper, and offensive friendly. Some people sounded a little too like Sakurai, actually. I read Lucien's desires for Smash WiiU and 3DS, and it was exactly what Sakurai said; he wanted a new game to experience, dig into, and enjoy.

 

[flyinfilipino]

As for who, you can see it all over this forum and with other competitive players in RL. They want the game to have more depth which means making a harder game (as I have already described. If need be, I can pull up what I wrote).

If you mean the post where you say that "depth" = harder because...it just is, then no, you don't need to do that. It's been stated over and over that even Brawl already has more gameplay nuances than you give it credit for that can be intuitively expanded upon to make a better gameplay experience for everyone (including casual players). And "most importantly", these subtle changes do not have to make it "harder" for new players to jump in, and do not have to make the game "harder" as you know it.

If you're against "depth" just because you feel that it is a term or concept that only "competitive" players use and can wrap their heads around, then just say so.