QisTopTier
XisBannedTier
That is some awful game design logic right there.
Please never touch a single multiplayer game as a designer ever. Thank you.
That is some awful game design logic right there.
That is some awful game design logic right there.
Well in Smash 'competitive' players can play without items, 'casuals' can play with them. Easy!
What, you want wins to be distributed at random? Of course the more skilled player is on average going to win the most games.
Protip: Competitive players aren't what made Smash Bros. the success it is today.
The whole point is that if not balanced well enough casual people will get frustrated that the superior players consistently beat them. If the better players ALWAYS got the Smash Ball in Brawl it wouldn't be fun for less skilled players. But by the nature of the design it's somewhat balanced because you never know what hit is going to break the Ball to get the power-up and it constantly moves around and has unique hit behavior that tends to be unpredictable.
That is some awful game design logic right there.
Wins shouldn't be distributed at random. And skilled players should definitely win more games on average. However designing a game that is reliant on skill, without variance, is destined for failure unless the intended demographic is competitive players.
For all we know a super can be hard to pull off (Jigglypuff's down B). From what I read you need to get behind a player to use Sly's special. I think some people are seriously trying to make a mountain out of an ant hill on very little information.
Thank you for bringing this up, I was waiting for someone to. The more competitive players do tend to play without items, including Smash Balls, since Final Smashes tend to be "I win" or "I kill you." With what we know of PASBR and the fact that the super moves are the ONLY way to get points, that's where my concern is.
Wins shouldn't be distributed at random. And skilled players should definitely win more games on average. However designing a game that is reliant on skill, without variance, is destined for failure unless the intended demographic is competitive players.
Wins shouldn't be distributed at random. And skilled players should definitely win more games on average. However designing a game that is reliant on skill, without variance, is destined for failure unless the intended demographic is competitive players.
Protip: If a game can't be decided by who is a superior player, then it's not a good game, but a random one. Playing a game competitively or smarter or more efficiently should be an indicator of something and should denoted by wins....period. You're acting like the entry barrier of this game is going to be high as fuck.
Well at least All Stars can't turn out any worse than how Brawl turned out to be. They have to really fuck up big time for that to happen.
Welp, with that kind of mentality I guess it's no wonder smash community is considered a joke in the fgc and exposed as such. Glad you're not designing the game.
Obviously competitive players don't use it . Melee has dumb randomness in it.Seriously. The Smash Ball was a joke. How can anyone say that mechanic is a proper way to balance out a fighting game?! :lol
Wins shouldn't be distributed at random. And skilled players should definitely win more games on average. However designing a game that is reliant on skill, without variance, is destined for failure unless the intended demographic is competitive players.
It's the next Guilty Gear
Im happy you aren't developing this game or any game. This is just.............
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=467412Love what I'm seeing, would much rather see PlayStation do a bunch of Nintendo games than shooters: Where's my Sackboy Kart Racing series, my Sackboy 3D Platformer Land, my PlayStation Party?
This is a much better concept that focuses on flat-out fun than unoriginal boring "serious" games this gen has taken over.
Question: How do you DIE in this game? I hope there are tons of options including a classic health setting, ability to change damage values, and tons of weapons to pick up and use.
So each character has 24 attacks, and 3 supers.
That is quite alot.
What's your problem then? That was the point and that's certainly a point that can be discussed.
And we then even seem to agree as you also acknowledge that it will probably not sell as much as SSB. And that's what I implied right from the beginning: Ibelieve that you need a ultra-iconic character/franchise to make such a title a huge success. I did never deny that this title is not allowed to exist as a fan service for Sony fans, I even said that I want this game to have a great singleplayer mode (unlike SSB).
Okay, let's put this into perspective then. You're saying that a Playstation fan service game is justifiable. If that's the case then why repeatedly bring up the fact that no Playstation franchise is as popular as Mario or Pokemon? What's that supposed to prove - that Battle Royale won't sell as many copies as SSBB? Probably, but who gives a shit so long as BR makes a profit and gets the brand recognition out there.
I doubt that SSB would have sold this well without these meaningful, well-known Nintendo franchises. I even said that I doubt that it would've been a success with pushing the game only with the Ice Climbers or other lesser known franchises. So when talking about the potential success of this game, it is a valid point indeed, isn't it? We are just talking past each other if you do not want to discuss the relationship of well-known franchises and the potential success of this title, a topic that simply comes up because of the similarities between SSB and All-Star Battle Royale.
So again, I did never ever say that this game will not sell well, that's your interpretation. If you do not like that these things are pointed out I'd recommend staying out of this forum, it's not your decision what shall or what shall not be discussed on here...
Protip: If a game can't be decided by who is a superior player, then it's not a good game, but a random one. Playing a game competitively or smarter or more efficiently should be an indicator of something and should denoted by wins....period. You're acting like the entry barrier of this game is going to be high as fuck.
Welp, with that kind of mentality I guess it's no wonder smash community is considered a joke in the fgc and exposed as such. Glad you're not designing the game.
Im happy you aren't developing this game or any game. This is just.............
You are sounding pretty derp here. It doesnt matter what the game is designed as. Putting a more skilled player in a pool of lesser skilled players will always come out with the skilled player on top. If this isn't true then the game is just simply random as fuck and there is no skill factor period. There is no way to measure if you are getting better. There will never be any advanced tricks and so on.
YOU CAN NOT USE SMASH AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. That game is one of the worst fucking offenders of skill mattering over lala fun timez anyone can win*
I understand that and which is why I remain skeptical of the implementation of the system where the primary method of getting AP balls is how much better you are than your opponent.They are not "designing a game reliant on skill".
In the interviews they clearly state that it is deliberately made as approachable as possible, only with the added depth that the competitive scene has come to expect of these games.
Let's not directly assume the worst, shall we?
I see what his point is, it just seems worded oddly.
Basically, stuff like final smashes in brawl are unbalanced as hell. Some characters are insanely good(Super Sonic), some suck horribly(Peach), and there's the element of actually hitting/breaking the ball that naturally makes it easier for super mobile characters to snatch. For casual play, that doesn't matter too much. People go crazy when the orb appears and it's fun to see who breaks it. For competitive play it sucks and needs to be disabled.
SSB has a lot of randomness with the items. You may get lucky and a hammer will fall right where you are. You may get unlucky and attack right when a bomb falls, killing yourself. For competitive play, ALL of these elements are taken out so there is no randomness and the better player wins.
His point is that with PSASBR(lol), the supers are the underlying score mechanic. Meaning, if a character has an incredibly easy to land super that gets kills, they're going to win a lot. If a character has really bad/extremely hard to land in comparison ones, they won't win much. If a level 1 super for a specific character is killing everyone, it won't be very fun for casual OR competitive play, since it can't be disabled when it's the only way to score.
However, there may be a lot of customization and match types allowing you to disable them, but that isn't something shown yet. The stuff about supers is obviously speculation, and it could be a great idea in theory, but it can easily be messed up. So I'm not saying it's good/bad here, too early for it.
I wish I could stress how completely irrelevant this is. StarCraft was never designed to be an ESPORT.Except Smash Bros was never designed to be a competitive fighter.
2 Buttons? WTF.Doesn't the Wii only have like 2 buttons? Surely this game will make use of the PS3's control scheme, to make a more interesting experience.
And good players, as a rule, should always win.
That is some awful game design logic right there.
What, you want wins to be distributed at random? Of course the more skilled player is on average going to win the most games.
I was quite optimistic, but the battle system has me super worried. Killing only with super moves seems terrible to me. Surely if you can only KO with supers and you have no health bar, then all supers must be a OHK, with the only difference between the 'level' being how many people you can hit at once and how easy it is to hit with it. I can see this being particularly troublesome for 1v1 and will mean if you land a bunch of combos, not get hit once, miss your super then you're both exactly even. Having some members of the fighting game community on the team does help alleviate my fears, but I have to see more and maybe play the game before I can decide whether this mechanic is awful or not.
Doesn't the Wii only have like 2 buttons? Surely this game will make use of the PS3's control scheme, to make a more interesting experience.
Nate or won't play/buy
it needs more colour imo.
Protip: Competitive players aren't what made Smash Bros. the success it is today.
Doesn't the Wii only have like 2 buttons? Surely this game will make use of the PS3's control scheme, to make a more interesting experience.
Yes it is a skill actually... The more skilled player shouldn't win 100% of the time. But the person who PLAYED BETTER should win 99.9% of the time.He was answering someone that said 'All', not 'Most'.
And yes, there is no fun to a multiplayer game that has no random element and the best player always wins. It's no fun for anyone. The win is 100% certain for the best player and the loss is 100% certain for the worse player. Obviously the best player should win most of the time. It seems odd to me that this thread is full of people pouring hype on a game that rips off a Nintendo franchise, yet are simultaneously against one of the main features of most Nintendo multiplayer titles.
Even competitive games like Street Fighter have random elements. Or is guessing the right wake up attack pure skill now?
I think it'd be really awesome if he like when in front of the screen like that Killzone dude and started shooting people up with a grenade launcher or something.So Snake's level 3(if in)
controlling a gekko maybe?
hmm.
Each button on the ground = 12 attacks
each button in the air = 12 attacks
then the 3 supers
Except Smash Bros was never designed to be a competitive fighter.
Going to be hard to top.I think it'd be really awesome if he like when in front of the screen like that Killzone dude and started shooting people up with a grenade launcher or something.
stuff.