I don't think having defensive options is a bad thing in Smash Bros.

[RanserSSF4]

I've made a thread similar to this topic months ago. It was a personal question I asked, but I wanted to talk about this topic for a while since Smash 4 on Wii U came out. So lets get started.

I've heard so many people mention that they would rather see a fighting game that's mostly hyper aggressive game (Smash Bros Melee, SF3 3S, Mortal Kombat 9) over an all defensive game (Smash Bros Brawl, USF4, Injustice). After playing Smash 4 for a bit, as well as playing other fighting games for a while, I personally don't think having defensive options is a bad thing. Heck, I've played Injustice since the game came out and it's an all defensive game, despite the patches to fix the balance issues, and yet, it still has a huge competitive scene (Unfornately, it will die down when MKX comes out).

Now before people comment below about the defensive stuff, I'm just going to say that I do agree on two things:

1. Defensive gameplay is not everyone's favorite type of playstyle.
2. Defensive play is definitly not entertaining most of the time, therefore, it can turn off some veterans or newcomers. However, there are some defensive matches that can be entertaining to watch, but it depends on the MU.

Now you might be wondering, what does this have to do with Smash 4?

Here's the thing, Smash 4, as much as I love the game, as of right now, is mostly a defensive type game, where the defensive options are more rewarding than offensive options. The offensive options are definitly there than there was in Brawl. However, the offensive options in Smash 4 are difficult to perform or "useless" to some players due to these common problems with Smash 4:

- Lack of Shieldstun
- Rolls are very hard to punish
- Not all characters have lagless moves for approaching
- Honorable Mention: Lack of movement options (To me, I don't think it's personally needed)

As I mentioned before, while defensive play is boring to watch to most players, it's not a bad thing to have in a smash bros game. However, some players don't like Smash 4 due to how defensive the game can be most of the time.

This is the problem I have. If you make a smash bros game where one playstyle is superior over the other, you have either a game that's hype to watch (Smash Bros Melee) or boring to watch (Smash Bros Brawl). However, in terms of character balance, one superior playstyle can ruin the character roster. In Melee, characters that took advantage of the fast-paced speed, mechanics, and combos are superior over other characters. In Brawl, characters that took advantage of Brawls mechanics and camping play were surperior to others. True, Melee can be campy at times, but today, that barely or never happens. I know many will say gameplay is more important, which I agree, but if you want the gameplay to be perfect, you need to balance the character roster so both can work together.

I feel that, since Smash 4 is compatible with patches, the game could become the most balanced game in the series and possibly the best smash game of all the time. By simply fixing the problems I mentioned above, as well as buffing the weaker characters, the games offensive options would be as strong as it's defensive options. After all, in the last patch, they did buff characters like Ike by making his Fair have an auto-cancel window, whereas before it didn't. They even removed Vectoring and brought back DI, since Vectoring was a huge problem in Smash 3DS. Heck, I even tried out Smooth Lander Heavy Gravity, and it's fun to play and definitly suitable for Melee fans, even though it will get banned for a long time. I really do like Smash 4 a lot, but the offensive options need to be buffed to make it more useful.

Overall, I definitly agree that defensive play isn't fun to watch or to play, having defensive options isn't a bad thing, but most of the community really don't want defensive options in a smash game. If we give our complaints to Nintendo/Sakurai and if they do listen to our feedback, Smash 4 could definitly be the most balanced and best in the series. This will result in Melee and Smash 4 coexisting together in the community much more peacefully. There will still be elitists, but that will, unfornately, continue on for years to come.

So I'm going to leave a question poll for you guys above this post. My question is; What type of Smash game would you rather have?

Go ahead and leave criticism down below, but I do have a feeling this thread will get closed.

P.S. Sorry that I do repeat myself quite a lot. It happens to me a lot lol.

 

[Vkrm]

Defensive play can take you far in melee as well. Honestly I'd say only melee comes close 50/50 with both sides of this being viable.

 

[RanserSSF4]

Defensive play can take you far in melee as well. Honestly I'd say only melee comes close 50/50 with both sides of this being viable.

As I mentioned, and I do agree, Melee does have defensive play/options. the problem I have is that they're not very rewarding to me in Melee since the offensive options are more rewarding. The only characters I know that are good in Melee with good defensive play is Samus, Peach, and Jigglypuff, but that's it.

 

[chipz]

it slows the game down which id consider a bad thing in smash bros.
if they had any intention of making the game more competitive they would release patch notes detailing what was changed, like every developer ever.

 

[RanserSSF4]

it slows the game down which id consider a bad thing in smash bros.
if they had any intention of making the game more competitive they would release patch notes detailing what was changed, like every developer ever.

i definitly agree when it comes to patch notes. I wish nintendo would release patch notes!

 

[JediLink]

As I mentioned, and I do agree, Melee does have defensive play/options. the problem is that they're not very rewarding in Melee since the offensive options are more rewarding. The only characters I know that are good in Melee with good defensive play is Samus, Peach, and Jigglypuff, but that's it.

And Marth. And Sheik. And spacies can totally camp if they want to. The very premise of this thread is flawed - Melee is not "all offense" by any stretch of the imagination. It has by far the best offense/defense balance of the entire series.

 

[RanserSSF4]

And Marth. And Sheik. And spacies can totally camp if they want to. The very premise of this thread is flawed - Melee is not "all offense" by any stretch of the imagination. It has by far the best offense/defense balance of the entire series.

IMO, not really. But, if that's the case, than i'm still baffled that many don't seem to mind that at all in melee, and yet, they hate that in other smash games. Seriously, there are times, i never understand the community. Thanks though for pointing out a flaw in my thread.

 

[MegaMissingno]

IMO, not really. But, if that's the case, than i'm still baffled that many don't seem to mind that at all in melee, and yet, they hate that in other smash games. Seriously, there are times, i never understand the community. Thanks though for pointing out a flaw in my thread.

Because the problem isn't that defense exists. The problem is that defense dominates. Melee is a game where offense and defense are well-balanced. Smash 4 is not.

 

[RanserSSF4]

Because the problem isn't that defense exists. The problem is that defense dominates. Melee is a game where offense and defense are well-balanced. Smash 4 is not.

Once again, IMO, offensive play is much more rewarding than defensive play in Melee. Yes, as the previous posts mentioned, there are some characters that are good at playing defensively. The problem i have is that they're the only ones that take advantage of Melee's defensive options, where most other characters don't.

This is why i personally think defensive play isn't as rewarding as aggressive play in Melee, therefore makes the character balance really unbalanced. Just so you know, i love Melee, definitly my favorite in the series and very fun to watch, but i just feel it's very unbalanced.

In terms of smash 4, i do agree that it's not close to that type of balance, but again, as i mentioned, in case you didn't read my post, that could all change with the right changes in future patches.

 

[SuaveChaser]

A game where both options are equal or at least close to equal would be great. Which is why melee is so loved. Being a agressive player in smash 4 sucks most of the time.

 

[luke_atyeo]

I
1. Defensive gameplay is not everyone's favorite type of playstyle. Sure, some may prefer that over aggressive play, but most don't like it.

If you want a serious discussion that people take seriously, I would avoid blanket statements/assertions such as this. there's no way you could possibly know that the majority of the FGC prefer defensive play over aggressive, (within our smash community the huge overall preference and numbers for melee over brawl would suggest the opposite in fact) unless you have done extensive surveys and research and have recorded data for the majority of fighting game players, which I am going to go out on a limb here and say you haven't. Avoiding making silly conclusions like that (that add no real value to your post) will make your discussions smoother.

 

[Loken]

If you want a serious discussion that people take seriously, I would avoid blanket statements/assertions such as this. there's no way you could possibly know that the majority of the FGC prefer defensive play over aggressive, (within our smash community the huge overall preference and numbers for melee over brawl would suggest the opposite in fact) unless you have done extensive surveys and research and have recorded data for the majority of fighting game players, which I am going to go out on a limb here and say you haven't. Avoiding making silly conclusions like that (that add no real value to your post) will make your discussions smoother.

He didn't though.

 

[luke_atyeo]

sigh

IDefensive gameplay is not everyone's favorite type of playstyle. Sure, some may prefer that over aggressive play, but most don't like it

 

[L9L]

Nice post, OP. Carefully worded to avoid stepping on toes and avoids conclusive statements.

I personally enjoy comparing the differences between the games in the series. I think it's helpful to know where Smash has been and where it's going. Plus it's just fun to compare and debate play styles and mechanics between games.

A new thought to add to the discussion: a friend of mine who is into more traditional fighting game fare likes to compare Melee to Marvel vs. Capcom and Smash 4 to Street Fighter. His rationale is that Marvel rewards a more heavily offensive game, with high damage combos and lots of movement options. Street Fighter rewards a more patient, spacing, and defense oriented approach.

These are obviously generalizations and exceptions do exist in both cases, but to me, it doesn't seem like a terrible way to describe the differences between the two games. Thoughts?

 

[Snowfin]

As I mentioned, and I do agree, Melee does have defensive play/options. the problem is that they're not very rewarding in Melee since the offensive options are more rewarding. The only characters I know that are good in Melee with good defensive play is Samus, Peach, and Jigglypuff, but that's it.

Please dont spread missinformation about Defense in Melee... thats been done enough already.

One of the strongest defensive options in the game is shining out of shield, which gives fox and falco one of the best defensive options in the game. Having a strong offense doesnt make their defence not amazing.

Every character that has a good dash dance has a great defensive option. Ive gotten so many kills with my doc by dash dancing away from a fox approach, punishing the whiff with the "in" part of the dash dance. Chain throwing him, and then up throw fairing him.

The problem with Smash 4 isnt that it has good defensive options, the problem is that it ONLY encourages defensive play... Melee encouraged both.

Again, nothing against you or anyone, but dont spread misinformation bout melee if u havent played it long enough, or know enough about the game

 

[Loken]

sigh

Yes, you quoted the same statement as before that agrees with your point about players generally preferring aggressive play. I think you are completely misinterpreting his meaning somehow.

 

[luke_atyeo]

I think you are completely misinterpreting my point, I am not saying that players generally prefer aggressive play at all, I am saying that you shouldn't just make an assertion like 'most players like x style' to backup your own point because you have no real way of knowing that assertion is true unless you happen to have spoken to everyone that plays fighting games.
stating unproven opinion as fact is generally a bad way to start a discussion.

 

[Raijinken]

I prefer a balanced approach, largely because not every character is designed for aggression. If every character was designed that way, I'd be completely fine with an aggression-oriented game. But that hasn't happened, and probably won't. Some characters (Robin, Duck Hunt, Dedede, and others) are far harder to design aggressively while still maintaining their notable traits (though it's easy for any Awakening player to say "But my Robin was a Myrmidon", that's beside the point). Kinda like Sakurai's reasoning for keeping Ridley as a giant boss (that's what he's always been, unlike, say, Bowser), staying at least passingly true to a character's feel is important.

 

[Jaedrik]

Once again, IMO-

This is not a matter of opinion. The people above have already pointed out the bare fact that you are wrong.
Melee's balance between 'offense' and 'defense' is great.
Have something I wrote.

Objection 4. Further, it seems that a more defensively oriented game serves to create this desirable play state of constant neutral position. For as one's defensive options increase so too does the ability for one to incur the neutral state from a potentially unfavorable position.

I answer that, a game predisposed to offensiveness is competitive.

For, without a rich and meaningful offense there is no possibility of a rich and meaningful defense. For the two are opposed in that an expansion in the depth of one necessitates an expansion in the depth of the other, since the object of offense is to break defense and the object of defense is to thwart offence. This is most powerfully demonstrated when we observe maneuvers which carry the implication of both offense and defense, that is, an offensive option which shuts down some of the opponent's offensive options, thus thwarting them.

Reply to Objection 4. A defensive option is not truly an option unless it incurs risk, for if it incurred no risk then there be no viable choice other than to constantly use it to neutralize any threat from the opponent. Likewise, the opponent would do the same.

 

[Muro]

no, having defensive options is not bad. having defensive options that are super powerful and easy to use though, is a big problem imo.

 

[HeroMystic]

A thought came to mind, and I'd like to express it to generally everyone here. Since Smash 4 being overly defensive has always been a topic of discussion, I've always pondered over this. This may seem antagonistic, but that isn't my agenda. I'm aiming to make my point clear and concise.

Is the problem with Smash 4 actually with it being dominantly defensive, or it being that it's not fast-paced?

Sounds strange to think about at first, but I'll explain. I've seen various complaints such as aerials being too laggy, rolling being too powerful, shield stun being too low, and so on and so forth. The conclusion to this is the game is too defensive because offense is not rewarded.

But I can point at this and say that DK won because he saw an opportunity to rush down and make an amazing play.
And I can point at this and say that Mario won because he placed a lot of offensive pressure.
Then I can point at this and say we can count this as an offensive maneuver.

Can we really say this game is dominant on defense when we've seen multiple plays like this? Perhaps I'm not seeing something here, but the evidence I see during tournament play says otherwise. Sure, on For Glory, defense wins everything, but that's the case for every fighting game ever because you can read your opponent like a book and dominate them with skill.

So is the lament of Smash 4 really because the game is too defensive, or is just a case where the pace of the game is too slow for such viewers?

 

[Praxis]

The entire issue with this post is that you are approaching it from a faulty premise: that Brawl is all defense and Melee is all offense.

Brawl is skewed in favor of defense, Melee is right smack in the middle. You're literally asking for what Melee already is.

Of good characters, Jigglypuff, Samus, and Young Link naturally are defensive characters (all defense). Falco and Falcon are rushdown characters (all offense primarily). Fox is flexible enough to be played either way (Mew2King is a campy Fox). Sheik and Marth are somewhat balanced and also moderately flexible (simplifying this a lot).

Melee IS this hypothetical balanced game you're asking about.

Project M is maybe a bit more- it's basically Melee, but with more campy characters viable (characters like Link, Mewtwo, etc are viable- they were campy in Melee, but no one used them because they sucked).

The most "all offense" Smash game is Smash 64.

 

[Tagxy]

All smash games have a defensive tilt in terms of their mechanics, which is preferable. Yes even Melee, its certainly not 50/50 and Ive heard as much from its top level players. In terms of defense it goes:

64 > Brawl > Melee
Smash 4 has a defensive tilt as well but its not a significant one.

However the gameplay for each game leans offensive, easy enough to determine since games rarely degenerate to timeouts or one player camping a lead the entire game consistently. This is because the series' primary goal is offensive oriented, remove all stocks from the opponent. The players use the tools (game mechanics) theyre handed to accomplish this goal, and if the games mechanics made it easy to achieve this goal it wouldnt be very deep or interesting. I actually think PM suffers from this the most and is perhaps the best example of why a game with offensive mechanics and an offensive goal has issues, fun as the game can be approaching is generally too straightforward. For that reason its actually preferable for smash mechanics to lean defensive so long as it doesn't make gameplay degenerative, fortunately this is true for every smash game.

 

[Praxis]

All smash games have a defensive tilt in terms of their mechanics, which is preferable. Yes even Melee, its certainly not 50/50 and Ive heard as much from its top level players. In terms of defense it goes:

64 > Brawl > Melee
Smash 4 has a defensive tilt as well but its not a significant one.

However the gameplay for each game leans offensive, easy enough to determine since games rarely degenerate to timeouts or one player camping a lead the entire game consistently. This is because the series' primary goal is offensive oriented, remove all stocks from the opponent. The players use the tools (game mechanics) theyre handed to accomplish this goal, and if the games mechanics made it easy to achieve this goal it wouldnt be very deep or interesting. I actually think PM suffers from this the most and is perhaps the best example of why a game with offensive mechanics and an offensive goal has issues, fun as the game can be approaching is generally too straightforward. For that reason its actually preferable for smash mechanics to lean defensive so long as it doesn't make gameplay degenerative, fortunately this is true for every smash game.

How is 64 the most defensive?

It has the worst shield in the series, no spotdodge, no airdodge, horrible rolls, combos that are completely inescapable and no landing lag with Z cancelling. The only negative part is poor approach options, but you get SO much reward out of getting a hit and have so few defensive options that you almost always want to be in control rather than on the defensive.

 

[RanserSSF4]

Please dont spread missinformation about Defense in Melee... thats been done enough already.

One of the strongest defensive options in the game is shining out of shield, which gives fox and falco one of the best defensive options in the game. Having a strong offense doesnt make their defence not amazing.

Every character that has a good dash dance has a great defensive option. Ive gotten so many kills with my doc by dash dancing away from a fox approach, punishing the whiff with the "in" part of the dash dance. Chain throwing him, and then up throw fairing him.

The problem with Smash 4 isnt that it has good defensive options, the problem is that it ONLY encourages defensive play... Melee encouraged both.

Again, nothing against you or anyone, but dont spread misinformation bout melee if u havent played it long enough, or know enough about the game

I've played Melee since it came out. I didn't know anything about L-cancelling or anything until years after it's release. I just feel that Melee is more of an offensive game than an equal offensive and defensive game. Also, I'm not trying to spread misinformation. I know many will disagree with me, but all I was doing was display my opinion. I guess it's what I said that made it sould like I'm saying facts. If you want me to, I can edit my post to clear it up better.

 

[RanserSSF4]

A thought came to mind, and I'd like to express it to generally everyone here. Since Smash 4 being overly defensive has always been a topic of discussion, I've always pondered over this. This may seem antagonistic, but that isn't my agenda. I'm aiming to make my point clear and concise.

Is the problem with Smash 4 actually with it being dominantly defensive, or it being that it's not fast-paced?

Sounds strange to think about at first, but I'll explain. I've seen various complaints such as aerials being too laggy, rolling being too powerful, shield stun being too low, and so on and so forth. The conclusion to this is the game is too defensive because offense is not rewarded.

But I can point at this and say that DK won because he saw an opportunity to rush down and make an amazing play.
And I can point at this and say that Mario won because he placed a lot of offensive pressure.
Then I can point at this and say we can count this as an offensive maneuver.

Can we really say this game is dominant on defense when we've seen multiple plays like this? Perhaps I'm not seeing something here, but the evidence I see during tournament play says otherwise. Sure, on For Glory, defense wins everything, but that's the case for every fighting game ever because you can read your opponent like a book and dominate them with skill.

So is the lament of Smash 4 really because the game is too defensive, or is just a case where the pace of the game is too slow for such viewers?

Finally, someone at the very least understands.

 

[RanserSSF4]

Okay. I'm just going to say this:

I'm not saying every single one of you is wrong. All I'm trying to do is display my opinion on not only Melee, but also the feedback from most of the community regarding the problems of Smash 4 that I agree with.

@ HeroMystic at the very least understands when i read his post.

To me, By simply buffing shieldstun and nerfing rolls, the offensive options would immediatly become better.

The purpose of this thread was about two things:

- Smash 4
- Having defensive options

It was not about Melee, but as soon as I replied to one post regarding Melee, just trying to display my opinion, I already raised an argument. I do realize that I did not made my posts very clear to most of you, since all I was trying to do was give out my opinion.

Pretty much, let me just get to the point:

I did re-edit my OP so it makes more sense about the topic, which again, is regarding patches of Smash 4 and having defensive options isn't a bad thing. I will agree that Melee does have defensive options are rewarding, but I FEEL (My OPINION), that it rewards offensive play more than defensive play.

 

[Raijinken]

Melee may be offense-oriented with "valid" defense, but it isn't balanced for defense to be a favorable option. The top two characters are utterly offense-oriented, regardless of how defense works. Defense-oriented characters can scarcely approach that level of power, Jigglypuff gets by with it because the wall of pain is excellent in a game with terrible recoveries as standard.

The issue isn't whether offense and defense options are valid, because there are certainly valid defense options in Melee, and valid offense options exist in Brawl. The issue is which the game dominantly favors, because that will inherently skew certain character designs towards good or bad. And that results in imbalance.

Imbalance should be avoided, and that alone is why I want a game that is balanced around both styles, not "You have to be aggressive but defense can work to help that aggression."

 

[Icylobster]

I don't think the game is nearly as flawed as some seem to think. I actually think this game is incredibly solid. I think @ HeroMystic is right and that the game has a nice balance of offense and defense.

I think the only thing that has really bothered me is that people can air/spot dodge multiple times without any penalty. If there was more risk, or tougher timings to pull of these maneuvers, or the timing gets harder in multiple succession, then it would be more impressive, rewarding, and create additional hype.

At the end of the day everyone wants a different version of smash catered to their specific interests. I think what this game needs is more map options (turn of hazards) and tweaking to improve low end characters. I am particularly interesting in buffing characters that have moves which are impractical, weak, or too low of risk for its reward. Personally, I wish characters weren't nerfed in the patch so much, but rather characters were improved to compete with the top. I think having Sheik with such terrible kill power is bad from a spectator and player perspective.

 

[RanserSSF4]

I don't think the game is nearly as flawed as some seem to think. I actually think this game is incredibly solid. I think @ HeroMystic is right and that the game has a nice balance of offense and defense.

I think the only thing that has really bothered me is that people can air/spot dodge multiple times without any penalty. If there was more risk, or tougher timings to pull of these maneuvers, or the timing gets harder in multiple succession, then it would be more impressive, rewarding, and create additional hype.

At the end of the day everyone wants a different version of smash catered to their specific interests. I think what this game needs is more map options (turn of hazards) and tweaking to improve low end characters. I am particularly interesting in buffing characters that have moves which are impractical, weak, or too low of risk for its reward. Personally, I wish characters weren't nerfed in the patch so much, but rather characters were improved to compete with the top. I think having Sheik with such terrible kill power is bad from a spectator and player perspective.

I agree when it comes to characters. As much as I would like Diddy to get nerfed, they should buff the weaker characters to make them as good as the best characters. Ganondorf is a good example of this. Has great custom moves, kills very early, deals lots of damage, and las less landing lag on most his air attacks. One of his biggest problems is his grab range. It's one of the wrost in the game IMO, so fix his issues and he will be good

 

[shapular]

Lol, look at all these Melee players trying to pretend Melee is balanced between offense and defense. Melee player logic is so inconsistent. If you ask them why they love Melee they'll say it's because it's fast-paced and aggressive, but if you make a topic like this they'll say Melee is balanced.

How is 64 the most defensive?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiQp5w-9IAE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_L3AVPGsgLY

 

[Morbi]

All smash games have a defensive tilt in terms of their mechanics, which is preferable. Yes even Melee, its certainly not 50/50 and Ive heard as much from its top level players. In terms of defense it goes:

64 > Brawl > Melee
Smash 4 has a defensive tilt as well but its not a significant one.

However the gameplay for each game leans offensive, easy enough to determine since games rarely degenerate to timeouts or one player camping a lead the entire game consistently. This is because the series' primary goal is offensive oriented, remove all stocks from the opponent. The players use the tools (game mechanics) theyre handed to accomplish this goal, and if the games mechanics made it easy to achieve this goal it wouldnt be very deep or interesting. I actually think PM suffers from this the most and is perhaps the best example of why a game with offensive mechanics and an offensive goal has issues, fun as the game can be approaching is generally too straightforward. For that reason its actually preferable for smash mechanics to lean defensive so long as it doesn't make gameplay degenerative, fortunately this is true for every smash game.

I am not necessarily a Brawl or Smash 64 veteran by any stretch of the imagination (nor do I have anything against either game), so I could certainly be wrong; however, based on my empirical knowledge, players would consistently attempt to camp a lead to force an approach because the defensive options were more advantageous. Of course, this rarely lasted the entire game and time-outs were rare(ish) in the case of Brawl. I would argue that the mere attempt that is seemingly present in the vast majority of sets would advocate for predominately defensive games even if the inherent nature of the game is to be aggressive. Basically, I do not find it relevant that the game-play leans offensive based on the "primary goal" when their is a feasible secondary goal. But that is just me sharing a subjective opinion.

 

[Praxis]

Lol, look at all these Melee players trying to pretend Melee is balanced between offense and defense. Melee player logic is so inconsistent. If you ask them why they love Melee they'll say it's because it's fast-paced and aggressive, but if you make a topic like this they'll say Melee is balanced.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiQp5w-9IAE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_L3AVPGsgLY

This isn't inconsistent at all. The biggest complaint Melee players had about Brawl was "too defensive". People like you and OP turn that to "oh Melee players want a game with zero defense" and when they respond with "no we don't, Melee had a good balance" you claim inconsistency.

And for the record, I come from competitive Brawl.

 

[chaosmasterro]

Before brawl and brawl's early years I never really appreciated Melee, but after Project M and then going back to brawl and looking at Smash 4, I was really able to appreciate Melee. I still don't play Melee but I can always enjoy watching some high level gameplay that it can generate. You can really tell that a player really spent time in learning their character from how they performed in Melee and the fact that it's so fast always had you on the edge of your seat. You see people using moves in certain ways that makes you anxious to want to try it at home for yourself so you can shine above the rest but at the same time look flashy. It's almost like watching a match in the World Cup where people train for months/years to put their countries' pride on the line and perform to their very best. It's exciting, you see people doing trick goal shots, or how our goalie, Tim Howard was just a tank.

I'm a fan of Smash just like everyone else in this room, but no one wants to see someone who has been playing a game for a week on the same level playing field as someone who has been playing for a year. In these newer games you can't see someone who has dedicated a large amount of time in this game and see a large skill gap against the lesser skilled player. The options are available to where someone can easily roll around and be near safe when your opponent is on the offense, and that leads to both players doing the same thing which is anti-climatic and no one would want to bother watching a match like that.
Limiting options can generally mean that someone could look at a match-up and just say I don't need to watch this I know what both characters can do and there is nothing new they could do that can appeal to me.

I now understand why people are so against rolling and press for a game with more offensive options to make the game look appealing.

 

[MegaMissingno]

Lol, look at all these Melee players trying to pretend Melee is balanced between offense and defense. Melee player logic is so inconsistent. If you ask them why they love Melee they'll say it's because it's fast-paced and aggressive, but if you make a topic like this they'll say Melee is balanced.

Saying it's an aggressive game isn't the same as saying it's only aggressive. Especially when people are speaking in relative terms and comparing it to Smash 4.

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

A thought came to mind, and I'd like to express it to generally everyone here. Since Smash 4 being overly defensive has always been a topic of discussion, I've always pondered over this. This may seem antagonistic, but that isn't my agenda. I'm aiming to make my point clear and concise.

Is the problem with Smash 4 actually with it being dominantly defensive, or it being that it's not fast-paced?

Sounds strange to think about at first, but I'll explain. I've seen various complaints such as aerials being too laggy, rolling being too powerful, shield stun being too low, and so on and so forth. The conclusion to this is the game is too defensive because offense is not rewarded.

But I can point at this and say that DK won because he saw an opportunity to rush down and make an amazing play.
And I can point at this and say that Mario won because he placed a lot of offensive pressure.
Then I can point at this and say we can count this as an offensive maneuver.

Can we really say this game is dominant on defense when we've seen multiple plays like this? Perhaps I'm not seeing something here, but the evidence I see during tournament play says otherwise. Sure, on For Glory, defense wins everything, but that's the case for every fighting game ever because you can read your opponent like a book and dominate them with skill.

So is the lament of Smash 4 really because the game is too defensive, or is just a case where the pace of the game is too slow for such viewers?

I think in a way, the speed of actions relative to human reaction time can make a game more defensively- or offensively-oriented. In Brawl, at least a few characters theoretically have the ability to combo. But this almost never happens. Why? Because catching a foe with the next attack in sequence while they're still in inescapable hitstun requires frame-perfect precision that humans just don't have and CPUs are too stupid to use. You would literally have to calculate the trajectory they're going to take within the first few frames after their launch so you can manoeuvre yourself so that your next hitbox will end up where they're going to be as they get launched there. You can't feasibly land a hit and make your next move when your mind registers that you actually hit.

How is 64 the most defensive?

It has the worst shield in the series, no spotdodge, no airdodge, horrible rolls, combos that are completely inescapable and no landing lag with Z cancelling. The only negative part is poor approach options, but you get SO much reward out of getting a hit and have so few defensive options that you almost always want to be in control rather than on the defensive.

Interestingly, a game can become more defensive rather than less when the power of offence increases too much. There is a point where defence is your best option because making a single mistake on attempted offence will cost you the game, and in a platform fighter it is almost inherently easier to defend than to approach. At the same time, the opposite can hold true as well. Even if every move has an insane frame advantage on block and the frame data of dodge manoeuvres is terrible, a game of "keep away" can still become the most reliably advantageous playstyle because attempting to approach can just as easily lead to the aggressor dying as it can the defender.

If the situational advantage from succeeding in approaching and landing a hit is insufficient, balance becomes skewed towards defence. If the situational disadvantage from failing your approach and having a hit landed on you as a result is too great, balance again becomes skewed towards defence. Brawl has the former problem; 64 the latter. For a game to balance towards offence, approach has to be reasonably reliable and have sufficient reward. That is, a person who successfully defends must not get an immediately greater advantage than the aggressor was gambling for. A successful defence needs to lead to less follow-up from the defender than the attacker would get from a successful offence. In Smash 64, it appears from my limited experience to be just as possible for a failed approach to lead to a stock loss for the attacker as it is for a successful approach to lead to a stock loss for the defender.

 

[shapular]

This isn't inconsistent at all. The biggest complaint Melee players had about Brawl was "too defensive". People like you and OP turn that to "oh Melee players want a game with zero defense" and when they respond with "no we don't, Melee had a good balance" you claim inconsistency.

And for the record, I come from competitive Brawl.

It is inconsistent though. It's not about what Melee players say about Brawl, it's about what they say about their own game. I see this inconsistency everywhere. You can't deny that Melee is skewed towards offense when so much crap is safe on shield. The only reason anyone playing a viable character in Melee should get shieldgrabbed is because they messed up or because they were stupid and approached with an unsafe move. Fox and Falco can theoretically camp, mainly because they're straight up better than everybody else, but you don't typically see it in top-level play because they get so much more out of their unpunishable approaches.

In Smash 4, there's an actual possibility of getting shieldgrabbed, which makes Melee players think, "oh, I might get punished for approaching, guess I gotta camp", instead of actually trying to be smart about approaching when they can't rely on a safe option like a crutch.

And yes, I've known you as a Brawl player for years, which is why I was surprised when I found out you turned into a Melee-you-know-what.

 

[HeroMystic]

I'd like to take a stab at deciphering what Offense/Defense is in a fighting game, because I feel it's being misrepresented as "how much reward you get out of them", which isn't actually the case. What makes a game offensive or defensive, relies solely how the neutral game, an advantaged state, and how a disadvantaged state works.

The Neutral State is when all players are able to do whatever they want. Each character has equal control.
The Advantaged State is when a player gains more control of the game than his opponent.
The Disadvantaged State is when a player has less control of the game than his opponent.

Lets look at MvC3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NprKyDzgrD4

A lot of people would say "Hyper-aggressive" right out of the gate due to the massive amounts of combos and "touch to death" kills, but that isn't looking at the whole story. Particularly, what are a player's options when he blocks, and what are a player's options when attacking?

Well, if you're blocking in UMvC3, your option is to either keep blocking, or use advancing guard to give you some space. Advancing Guard is a great option to stop offense, but it simply returns the game to a neutral state. If you're the attacker, you're dealing chip damage, and have the option to do high attacks, low attacks, cross-ups, and grabs. As such, the attacker has more control than the defender. Essentially, it's the attacker's game to lose by making a mistake. The defender can only defend until the block-string ends. This is why defenders will often use DPs and projectiles (both defensive by nature) to retain their control of the game. Guarding and blocking attacks are a disadvantage by nature, that's why UMvC3 is offense-oriented.

Smash as a whole is opposite of this. We have a lot of defense tools, but what makes Smash defense-oriented isn't shielding, rolling, projectiles, etc. Rather, it's the ability to use free movement. The ability to efficiently run away will forever place Smash as a defense-oriented game. Everything else on top of that is just icing on the cake (or salt to the wound in some people's eyes).

What makes Melee different is defensive options as a whole are actually quite bad. If you want to play defense, running away is your only real option, and the majority of characters are limited by the stage in this case.


EDIT:

I think in a way, the speed of actions relative to human reaction time can make a game more defensively- or offensively-oriented. In Brawl, at least a few characters theoretically have the ability to combo. But this almost never happens. Why? Because catching a foe with the next attack in sequence while they're still in inescapable hitstun requires frame-perfect precision that humans just don't have and CPUs are too stupid to use. You would literally have to calculate the trajectory they're going to take within the first few frames after their launch so you can manoeuvre yourself so that your next hitbox will end up where they're going to be as they get launched there. You can't feasibly land a hit and make your next move when your mind registers that you actually hit.

I totally agree, which is why I hypothesize advocates against Smash 4 are against it due to the pacing of the game, not the actual playstyle of it.

There's something about games and long-winded aggression that excites viewers. They enjoy that "stuff is happening" and it gets them hyped for more gameplay, which is why Melee has lasted for so long and Project: M has an incredible fanbase. The unfortunate part about this is the opposite(defense) mean you want to avoid trading hits during footsies and is often lamented because of the direct lack of aggressive action.

It's much like how people prefer to only watch highlights of sport events while enthusiasts prefer watching the whole thing and then analyzing it with friends (Boxing is a prime example). Sports often have a lot of technical application that viewers often don't understand until they sit down and learn about the game.

 

[RanserSSF4]

I'd like to take a stab at deciphering what Offense/Defense is in a fighting game, because I feel it's being misrepresented as "how much reward you get out of them", which isn't actually the case. What makes a game offensive or defensive, relies solely how the neutral game, an advantaged state, and how a disadvantaged state works.

The Neutral State is when all players are able to do whatever they want. Each character has equal control.
The Advantaged State is when a player gains more control of the game than his opponent.
The Disadvantaged State is when a player has less control of the game than his opponent.

Lets look at MvC3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NprKyDzgrD4

A lot of people would say "Hyper-aggressive" right out of the gate due to the massive amounts of combos and "touch to death" kills, but that isn't looking at the whole story. Particularly, what are a player's options when he blocks, and what are a player's options when attacking?

Well, if you're blocking in UMvC3, your option is to either keep blocking, or use advancing guard to give you some space. Advancing Guard is a great option to stop offense, but it simply returns the game to a neutral state. If you're the attacker, you're dealing chip damage, and have the option to do high attacks, low attacks, cross-ups, and grabs. As such, the attacker has more control than the defender. Essentially, it's the attacker's game to lose by making a mistake. The defender can only defend until the block-string ends. This is why defenders will often use DPs and projectiles (both defensive by nature) to retain their control of the game. Guarding and blocking attacks are a disadvantage by nature, that's why UMvC3 is offense-oriented.

Smash as a whole is opposite of this. We have a lot of defense tools, but what makes Smash defense-oriented isn't shielding, rolling, projectiles, etc. Rather, it's the ability to use free movement. The ability to efficiently run away will forever place Smash as a defense-oriented game. Everything else on top of that is just icing on the cake (or salt to the wound in some people's eyes).

What makes Melee different is defensive options as a whole are actually quite bad. If you want to play defense, running away is your only real option, and the majority of characters are limited by the stage in this case.

I know for a fact that Chris G, who is now participating in Smash 4 tournaments, has always played defensively in UMvC3 tournaments using the team of Morrigan/Doctor Doom/Vergil. I remember it made fans get bored of it very quickly and therefore thought the game was dead, but it isn't, after what happened at EVO 2014

 

[JediLink]

It is inconsistent though. It's not about what Melee players say about Brawl, it's about what they say about their own game. I see this inconsistency everywhere. You can't deny that Melee is skewed towards offense when so much crap is safe on shield. The only reason anyone playing a viable character in Melee should get shieldgrabbed is because they messed up or because they were stupid and approached with an unsafe move.

Uh, isn't this universally true? Yes, if you get shield grabbed, it means you messed up. Maybe or you didn't space your attack right, or you used something unsafe. How is that any different from Brawl or Smash 4?

And yes, I've known you as a Brawl player for years, which is why I was surprised when I found out you turned into a Melee-you-know-what.