Support NeoGAF

[FStop7]

I know this is crazy talk but I think Nintendo should try to poach some talented devs from the DotA 2 and LoL teams in order to develop a Nintendo character themed MOBA with 3DS / Wii U cross play.

 

[Megalosaro]

I really didn't like how fast Melee was, to be honest. All the character animations felt off because it was so fast.

That said, Brawl WAS too slow. There has to be some in between where the game plays fun, but doesn't feel awkward

 

[vicissitudes]

I think people underestimate how much more balanced Brawl is at a low FFA level over Melee. In Melee basically any scrub could pick Fox and C-Stick to victory (in "standard" casual 4-player) and there isn't an equivalent to that in Brawl.

Metaknight is pretty janky in 4-player FFA too. My favorite nights in Brawl were when a new guy from work would come over and play and pick Metaknight, and then be baffled why he was getting thrashed. There was a Snake player like this too (though Snake is better in FFA).

My group always assumed Metaknight was Sakurai's ultimate troll: a character 95% of players would assume is awful but is broken in the specific rule set used in tournaments.

But who cares? If you play competitively you play 1v1 or 2v2. If you're playing FFA you're most likely a casual and balance doesn't matter that much.

 

[Diprosalic]

Nintendo is backwards. Let their games and hardware fail and maybe they will wake up and start giving their fans what they want.

developing a smash for competitive players would be the backwards thing to do.

 

[abstract alien]

I don't think that's what he meant in context of that interview. It's not the same as Mario Kart where patches only affect glitches or whatever, balance patches inevitably involve nerfs and (my interpretation ) he's concerned how certain consumers would respond to that. We as core players expect such things, but what about the rest of SSB's wide audience?

Honestly, the people who don't really know about nerfs or buffs, wouldn't even really notice the differences. The ones who know about them are the ones that put a real dedication into their product, as opposed to those that don't, who just play for casual fun. It's the same as street fighter. Folks get a new set of characters and don't even know some of the others have been altered.

 

[ptown]

The next Smash does not need to have wavedashing or difficult inputs/controls in order to be "competitive".

People will play competitively within whatever is allowed by the game's system.

 

[SatoAilDarko]

couldnt give a crap about how it plays as a "good competitive fighting game"

I watched it because it's smash bros.

I could honestly watch any competitive game no matter how unbalanced it is. We watch because we enjoy human competition. I watched the Evo steam because of how weird smash is. Two characters linked together, knocking people up, but them not hitting the blast line and coming down. If they had included items and four players I would have been even more entertained.

I just watched because of Smash Brothers.

 

[Anbokr]

The next Smash does not need to have wavedashing or difficult inputs/controls in order to be "competitive".

People will play competitively within whatever is allowed by the game's system.

No, people won't. Look at the Brawl competitive scene. It's nonexistant.

 

[Snowden's Secret]

Metaknight has a few moves that hit front and back to get out of FFA related trouble and Snake has even more options to set up damage opportunities while others are distracted fighting each other. That combined with the fact that FFA is mostly just a ton of small 1v1 segments with a few exceptions make those characters pretty great. Things that make them great like their great recoveries and edge guarding also helps tons in FFA. Hell even their smash ball supers are better than a lot of other characters.

Your friends probably only suck with those characters because those characters need some skill to use correctly.

What usually balances things like that is if a player takes an identifiable lead or is clearly a threat, the match shifts from two 1v1 bouts to a single 3v1.

Actually, my playgroup (12ish regular players) is way too small to make sweeping claims like maybe I did above, so allow me to walk those back a bit LOL.

 

[Gilby]

I know this is crazy talk but I think Nintendo should try to poach some talented devs from the DotA 2 and LoL teams in order to develop a Nintendo character themed MOBA with 3DS / Wii U cross play.

Not crazy at all! I've said for a long time now Smash Bros + MOBA = All of my money until I die. It'd be like Awesomenauts, but with better combat.

 

[Alphahawk]

Fighters, it seems to me, are all about the level of skills the players put into them. I highly doubt when Street Fighter 2 came out initially the developers were counting on players to do crazy frame counting maneuvers and stuff of that nature.

 

[BlackJace]

I have faith Smash 4 will strike a middleground.

 

[guek]

No, people won't. Look at the Brawl competitive scene. It's nonexistant.

Brawl failed competitively for various reasons, none of which involve a lack of wavedashing. Brawl died competitively because

- Virtually no hitstun
- Tripping
- Metaknight
- Metaknight
- METAKNIGHT

A new competitive smash does not require a melee clone. Brawl could have been competitive but it failed to be more due to broken balance and tripping than it did because of its mechanics or speed. Brawl with no tripping and better balance, slightly more hitstun, and ever so slightly faster average movement speed would be enough to make the new smash viable competitively. It really wouldn't take much, imo.

Even Brawl with its glaring faults was played competitively for awhile. They tried to make it work and they failed because the game was inherently broken in very simple ways that will likely be fixed. Tripping is gone. There's no way hitstun can be lowered any more than it already is. As long as they don't screw up balance and take the time to retweak the game speed, it can happen.

 

[Fraeon]

I doubt the hardcore Melee players will ever care about a new smash if it doesn't have the speed, L cancelling, hitstun, and wavedashing: But I still hope the Wii U version will at least try to be a bit more competitive than Brawl was.

It think it honestly just depends whether they think it helps them sell games.

So, probably not.

 

[rohlfinator]

How hard would it be to have "competitive" and "casual" rulesets, similar to how some games have banned characters? Wouldn't a lot of it just be a simple toggle? (turn off tripping, certain OP items, certain unbalanced characters, etc.)

 

[Sir Ilpalazzo]

How hard would it be to have "competitive" and "casual" rulesets, similar to how some games have banned characters? Wouldn't a lot of it just be a simple toggle? (turn off tripping, certain OP items, certain unbalanced characters, etc.)

The developers would have no way of knowing which characters would actually turn out to be the best or OP.

 

[entremet]

Smash is so strange. Not the game, but the situation.

It has a very dedicated hardcore fan base that has keep the game going for years and Nintendo doesn't care, nor does the creator! SMH

I know Pokemon makes more money, but they put way more effort into that in terms of a competitive scene.

 

[Snowden's Secret]

L-canceling is bad game design. There's never a reason to not do it, so it's just extra mandatory button presses. It didn't add anything interesting to the game.

Maybe if there was a drawback (uh... everyone you do it the benefit gets a little worse, or you take 1% damage each time you do it) but otherwise it's a good idea that it's gone.

 

[KittenMaster]

The next Smash does not need to have wavedashing or difficult inputs/controls in order to be "competitive".

People will play competitively within whatever is allowed by the game's system.

There needs to be a sort of skill ceiling, decently balanced mechanics, decent mobility, and moments of vulnerability. Brawl failed at a lot of these things (and deliberately so).

 

[ptown]

No, people won't. Look at the Brawl competitive scene. It's nonexistant.

But I don't want to look at the Brawl competitive scene. It's filled with people who enjoy Brawl mechanics (less options, removed l-cancel, less mobility, floaty campy gameplay, one hit back and forth matches with long periods of inactivity, strange choices with controls such as C-Stick down fast falling, auto edge grabbing on recovery moves nearly eliminating edgeguarding).

In my opinion, it's not a good Smash game, but still people compete within it's limited (compared to Melee) system.

 

[Darryl]

I was watching some streamer playing Smash recently and he had a good point, a game like Smash Bros doesn't need to be built ground-up to be competitive. A fully competitive game is not very interesting. Imagine if the finals today consisted of Fox, Fox, Falco, Falco. I don't think I would've stuck watching it so long. It was interesting because of the unbalance. Ice Climbers had his 1-hit KO throw if lined up perfectly, Jigglypuff has her crazy off-stage antics from being able to fly in the air. Ideally, an interesting Smash would have a small handful of core competitive fighters and an arsenal of characters with quirks and leave it to the player base to find uses for it all. A game like Smash could be a case of competitive player inventiveness rather than quick reflexes and a polished, known strategy.

Brawl was bad because on a foundation level, there were obvious reasons why it wasn't fit to be a competitive game. I swear I remember reading multiple things now about how Sakurai hasn't forgotten those players completely and things like tripping, etc, are all out. I don't think Melee has to be the end-all, idealistic Smash fighting game. I still think it can get better. I've got my hopes that Sakurai will remove the core problems that prohibited Brawl from taking off competitively and we'lll see something just as interesting as Melee pop up. The game doesn't need to be built around the hardcore enthusiast player, they just need to be in the back of the developers mind.

 

[Fraeon]

I was watching some streamer playing Smash recently and he had a good point, a game like Smash Bros doesn't need to be built ground-up to be competitive. A fully competitive game is not very interesting. Imagine if the finals today consisted of Fox, Fox, Falco, Falco. I don't think I would've stuck watching it so long. It was interesting because of the unbalance. Ice Climbers had his 1-hit KO throw if lined up perfectly, Jigglypuff has her crazy off-stage antics from being able to fly in the air. Ideally, an interesting Smash would have a small handful of core competitive fighters and an arsenal of characters with quirks and leave it to the player base to find uses for it all. A game like Smash could be a case of competitive player inventiveness rather than quick reflexes and a polished, known strategy.

That's a pretty crazy interpretation of competitive balance. In reality, a balanced asymmetric game would have the kinds of traits where you'd have characters with vastly different tools having a relatively even playing field. It'd mean that even relatively "bad" characters would still be perfectly viable.

I think out of the ones being played at EVO, KOF13 is the closest one that achieves that... what with everyone having the tools to deplete the others' healthbar from a single touch.

 

[Beef]

UMVC3 now with 139k viewers, so close smash.

 

[Darryl]

That's a pretty crazy interpretation of competitive balance. In reality, a balanced asymmetric game would have the kinds of traits where you'd have characters with vastly different tools having a relatively even playing field. It'd mean that even relatively "bad" characters would still be perfectly viable.

I think out of the ones being played at EVO, KOF13 is the closest one that achieves that... what with everyone having the tools to deplete the others' healthbar from a single touch.

I'm talking about Smash Brothers and creating a compromise between both hardcore and casual players, not creating some fighting game fans wet dream. League of Legends takes compromise like this and is well received by both audiences. Not all characters are balanced at a competitive level in that game. There's lots of quirky characters who are often shocks when they're picked competitively. They aren't useless, they're just not really good unless you've got to have something up your sleeve. The games are more interesting to watch because of things like this, you never know what tactic someone will pull. Ideally, this is a similar balance method Smash should take. They just shouldn't really try at all for most of the characters, they just need a handful that work. All they need to do is prevent another Metaknight situation where there's just one guy at the top.

 

[TreIII]

I have faith Smash 4 will strike a middleground.

All I'm hoping is that Sakurai will take advantage of the fact that he's got people who have worked on the likes of Tekken, Soul Calibur and especially Gundam Vs. working for him on the newest Smash games. These are people who know their shit when it comes to making these types of games as more or less their daily function. Just let them DO THEIR JOB.

I mean, you need not look any further than Gundam Vs. for an example of a game that marries casual-friendly fanservice and competitive-worthy gameplay in a nice mixture that's made the series as successful as it is. The series is consistently the among the most popular games to play in the arcades, because EVERYBODY plays it, from the casual salaryman who just wants to blast Zaku to those hardcore gamers who participate in Premium Dogfight tournaments dedicated to the game.

If Gundam Vs. can do that, I see no reason why Smash can't. Sakurai thinks it has to be a "black-n-white" issue between, casuals or hardcore, when it really doesn't have to be that way.

 

[Fraeon]

I'm talking about Smash Brothers and creating a compromise between both hardcore and casual players, not creating some fighting game fans wet dream. League of Legends takes compromise like this and is well received by both audiences. Not all characters are balanced at a competitive level in that game. There's lots of quirky characters who are often shocks when they're picked competitively. They aren't useless, they're just not really good unless you've got to have something up your sleeve. The games are more interesting to watch because of things like this, you never know what tactic someone will pull. Ideally, this is a similar balance method Smash should take. They just shouldn't really try at all for most of the characters, they just need a handful that work. All they need to do is prevent another Metaknight situation where there's just one guy at the top.

I'm having a hard time understanding the idea that making sure every character is perfectly viable is "less interesting" and something casual players of a game would hate.

But then again, I don't really think Smash needs to cater to the hardcore in any extent. That's not where the money is.

 

[Face it Tiger..]

When's PSAS:Melee clone edition? #Kappa

 

[Hellion]

Psasbr did it for me. Good bye stupid ring out.

 

[Deleted member 13876]

I doubt the hardcore Melee players will ever care about a new smash if it doesn't have the speed, L cancelling, hitstun, and wavedashing: But I still hope the Wii U version will at least try to be a bit more competitive than Brawl was.

Speed and hitstun is all I need to be happy.

 

[Shig]

I'd rather have a competitive successor to Power Stone.

Alternatively, another Power Stone.

Alternative alternatively, Power Stone 1+2 HD Online.


....In a truly just and righteous world, Power Stone would have been the blueprint for approachable fighting games that spawned a thousand imitators, not Smash.

 

[sn00zer]

Speed and hitstun is all I need to be happy.

and no tripping...I love brawl

 

[Boss Doggie]

I'd rather have a competitive successor to Power Stone.

Alternatively, another Power Stone.

Alternative alternatively, Power Stone 1+2 HD Online.


....In a truly just and righteous world, Power Stone would have been the blueprint for approachable fighting games that spawned a thousand imitators, not Smash.

1? Yeah.

2? No. 2 was a terrible step down.

 

[Teknopathetic]

"I'd rather have a competitive successor to Power Stone. "

I dunno about "rather" but I would like a new one.

 

[pants]

Never understood why people try and play smash bros competitively.

 

[hamchan]

I think it's really sad the direction Smash is going after Melee, one of te best games ever made.
There's no reason to dumb the game down and remove depth from the mechanics. The casuals will play the game either way. This is just alienating competitive players with no gain.

 

[Boss Doggie]

Psasbr did it for me. Good bye stupid ring out.

Ringout is a simple concept enough to understand. It didn't hinder anything or tried to put an arbitrary way of counting victories.

I think it's really sad the direction Smash is going after Melee, one of te best games ever made.
There's no reason to dumb the game down and remove depth from the mechanics. The casuals will play the game either way. This is just alienating competitive players with no gain.

Only Brawl suffers from that though. Who knows if it will be the case for 4, especially when Sakurai already admits on Brawl's failings.

 

[Dion Blaster]

1. There is certainly a market for Melee-type games, it was the highest selling game on the gamecube, and barely got outsold by Brawl which was released on a system with 5x the install base.

2. They could just make wave-dashing a button click (or remove it completely), remove tripping and L-canceling, set the speed in between Melee and Brawl, add some hit-stun, and call it a day. Problem solved!

3. Saying we haven't got a proper followup to in in 12 years seems a bit disingenuous considering we have no idea how Smash 4 will turn out. Really we've just had one disappointing game.

 

[Next]

Brawl failed competitively for various reasons, none of which involve a lack of wavedashing. Brawl died competitively because

- Virtually no hitstun
- Tripping
- Metaknight
- Metaknight
- METAKNIGHT

A new competitive smash does not require a melee clone. Brawl could have been competitive but it failed to be more due to broken balance and tripping than it did because of its mechanics or speed. Brawl with no tripping and better balance, slightly more hitstun, and ever so slightly faster average movement speed would be enough to make the new smash viable competitively. It really wouldn't take much, imo.

Even Brawl with its glaring faults was played competitively for awhile. They tried to make it work and they failed because the game was inherently broken in very simple ways that will likely be fixed. Tripping is gone. There's no way hitstun can be lowered any more than it already is. As long as they don't screw up balance and take the time to retweak the game speed, it can happen.

No, people won't. Look at the Brawl competitive scene. It's nonexistant.

why are you talking like it died? lol

 

[Darryl]

I'm having a hard time understanding the idea that making sure every character is perfectly viable is "less interesting" and something casual players of a game would hate.

But then again, I don't really think Smash needs to cater to the hardcore in any extent. That's not where the money is.

I'm not saying that characters shouldn't be viable at all. I'm saying some should be more obviously useful than others. Some characters should be much more radical and situational, their use more controversial. That makes for interesting gameplay. It creates an underdog situation. Maybe you saw today how Ice Climbers went trending on Twitter. Many of the newer players turning in probably thought they were completely useless and found that gameplay interesting. They aren't a balanced character, they got a quirk (two-player mechanic with a complex grab mechanic) that shakes up gameplay. When they can't pull that off, they're pretty bad. If this were a balanced game, that would've been removed.

Instead of potentially crippling the game with balance issues or reining in on some of the more complicated character traits to keep the characters all relatively equal or easy to adjust via patches, they should simplify it. Keep the chaos intact for the casual players by creating characters for them. Focus on a smaller cast of characters to be more balanced for hardcore players. This isn't the a fantasy scenario but it's a realistic way they could create a game that attracts a wide audience and keeps the game competitive, and also keeps it interesting at a competitive level.

Never understood why people try and play smash bros competitively.

People play Mario 64 competitively, lol

 

[ParenegadeM]

Can't Sony just copy Super Smash Bros gameplay and go from there?

 

[Next]

Never understood why people try and play smash bros competitively.

to compete, in smash bros.

 

[Deleted member 13876]

and no tripping...I love brawl

That should really go without saying.

 

[Revven]

Never understood why people try and play smash bros competitively.

Maybe if you actually watched it... you'd understand?

 

[Deleted member 13876]

to compete, in smash bros.

Best answer you're going to get to such a question.

 

[nullref]

I'm not sure Nintendo has the mindset to support a competitive game, and I'm not sure the success of Smash Bros. can be separated from Nintendo fan service.

 

[ffdgh]

Can't Sony just copy Super Smash Bros gameplay and go from there?

They could but I think some like the current system better. Sony needs to find a way to perfect it.

 

[Dion Blaster]

But then again, I don't really think Smash needs to cater to the hardcore in any extent. That's not where the money is.

This is complete bullshit. Melee barely sold less than Brawl on a system with 1/5 the install base. I'm not saying that making it more competitive will noticeably improve sales, but it won't hurt AND the game will be much more appreciated long-term, which is what Nintendo is all about. Their games have longevity.

 

[Revven]

I don't get Sakurai either. It's almost like he gave too much attention to most of the people that claim the competitive Smash players are "elitist" and crap like that. Or the complaints about wavedashing being a glitch and "cheap", you know common things casuals say about things they don't and never will understand.

Like, I hope for Smash 4 he does find a good balance, really, but I'm not optimistic because of how burned I was from Brawl. A lot of the Melee scene feel the exact same way, just as skeptical but curious about it.

 

[Fraeon]

This is complete bullshit. Melee barely sold less than Brawl on a system with 1/5 the install base. I'm not saying that making it more competitive will noticeably improve sales, but it won't hurt AND the game will be much more appreciated long-term, which is what Nintendo is all about. Their games have longevity.

The bolded is exactly what I'm saying. It's the least important thing for Nintendo with their titles, really.

 

[Boss Doggie]

3. Saying we haven't got a proper followup to in in 12 years seems a bit disingenuous considering we have no idea how Smash 4 will turn out. Really we've just had one disappointing game.

This really.