Came back in here to see if the chaos has died down a bit. NOPE.
Guys, I understand how derisive comparisons to SSB might be getting incredibly annoying, but you many of you are seriously approaching every single bit of criticism as if the validity of those concerns are automatically going make All Stars a terrible game. It's also leading many of you to dismiss SSB as anything but a great game. This is just one man's opinion, but having literally
devoted years to playing both melee and brawl against other competitive players, I find it sad that you have to get defensive to the point where you feel the need to mock a brilliant game.
But maybe as someone who played smash competitively, I can lay out the potential problems with All Star's system from a fight scene point of view.
First off, it's important to note that this game, like smash, is going to be one hell of a fucking bitch to balance. This comes with the territory though. I don't think you guys appreciate how much more balanced Brawl is over Melee (excluding MK of course), but I don't expect anyone who hasn't played them on a competitive level to "get" that. Consider how stage layout has a monumental layout on how fights play out. Couple that with potentially having more than 2 players on the screen, the random aspect of items, the impact larger stages have on the use of projectile attacks, and the fact that victories should not be based solely on combos. That last point is incredibly important, and I'll tell you why it's true, and why it makes the fighting mechanics worrisome.
As I was saying, proper use of stage layout is vital. Why? Because differing stage layouts suddenly incorporates varying degrees of platforming skill into each match. Well duh, but why is this important to limiting combos? Because unlike flat plane 2D fighters, fighting games of this nature view
evasion as an incredibly important and valuable skill. This is related to avoiding being edge guarded as well as simply avoiding being killed.
But here's the problem. The reason combos should not be the basis of skill is because it would make the game much more shallow at higher levels of play. In a flat plane 2D fighter, combos are your bread and butter because you have no other option to win. You're not going anywhere, your opponent will always be right in front of you, and you have to get their bar down in order to win. The purpose of those games is it "catch" your opponent and them punish them for it by taking away large chunks of their life bar. Compare this with smash. In SSB, stages are comparatively immense, platforming skill gives you a method of avoiding combat until you find a strategic position, and winning is not a determined by hit points. For this reason, combos are relatively short (yes, I'm omitting infinites and if you can't figure out why, I suggest you think a little harder) because the game wants to give you as many opportunities to run away as possible so that you still have a realistic shot of winning even if you're carrying a high damage percentage. A player with 100% damage facing an opponent with 10% damage is at a distinct disadvantage, yes, but the game mechanics still provide amble opportunity for the handicapped player to win based on strategic positioning and attack and defense that is entirely based on skill.
Now lets compare this with what I find worrisome about how All Stars functions as a fighter. Here are my problems with the system neatly laid out for you to disagree with
- The game discourages tactical evasion. The player that does not participate head on is at a distinct disadvantage because they are less likely to score points. This makes the game considerably less interesting because it narrows the different types of play styles that are viable. It forces players to engage opponents similarly to what you would expect to see in a flat 2D fighter, which is a damn shame. One of the reasons smash is so amazing is because of the high variety of strategies that can be employed among the different characters. The evasion mechanic allows for mind games, distraction techniques, and intelligent use of level layout.
I do believe all of those things will be present in All Stars, but I think the game mechanics will make them less important and outright discourage a lot of the interesting types of play you see in Smash.
- They've said that All Stars will incorporate longer combos, and frankly I think that's a huge mistake. Yes, the more skilled player should have the advantage, but the way this game seems to work, the handicap becomes increasingly larger as the game progresses. This makes the possibility of a comeback much smaller, which frankly makes the game less interesting. Longer combos mean that the competitiveness of the disadvantaged player falls at a much quicker rate, and with the end goal of winning relying entirely on landing those combos in order to get supers, it's going to snowball. Once a player starts winning, the other player's chance of winning deteriorates
because the game is dependent on filling bars. Compare that with Smash where your ability to land a kill
always remains constant. There's also the fact that being on the receiving end of attacks lowers your own bar, exasperating the issue.
- There is no automatic reset to zero after deaths. While this wont matter in 1v1 matches, consider 4 player FFAs or 2v2s. Let's say you have players A, B, C, and D in a FFA. Player A builds up their super bar and kills player B. Meanwhile, player C and D exchange blows and fill their bars but do not land a kill. When player B respawns,
they start their new life at a distinct disadvantage against players C and D. Compare this to Smash where the newly revived player B would have an edge over all the other players for a short period of time due to being fresh at 0% and the other players having incurred damage. However, I might be wrong about this gripe if player B retained their bar meter entirely after death, but I don't think that's the case (and please correct me if it is).
- People have pointed out that smash balls are unbalanced. Very true! They were! I love playing with them on for fun, but it's the truth. That's why they were optional and usually turned off in competitive tournaments. But this game is designed to have no ability to turn off supers. Imagine not having the choice to turn off smash balls in brawl. Suddenly it becomes a much less competitive game due to the inherent imbalance of supers. This game is designed with that mindset. It's going to be hard enough to balance character movesets in a game like this. Trust me.
But balancing supers??? No way man. Game over. I no longer see how this game can be taken seriously on a competitive level.
All of these concerns lead me to seriously doubt the competitive viability of All Stars.
Ok, now for the end of rant disclaimer. I want you guys to realize that
I'm trying to be as respectful as possible. Please at least give me some credit for that. I'm not saying this game is just a clone of smash that shouldn't exist or that Sony should be sued or any of that nonsense. I'm merely comparing it to SSB because
that's the obvious thing to do. This is because SSB is the game with which it holds the largest amount of similarities,
so comparisons are natural. I haven't played this game so
I understand that I might be 100% completely off base. If you feel like I am, please correct me! But please be polite about it. I don't know everything about this game and I could have very easily misunderstood its fighting mechanics, so I urge to set me straight if you find an error in assessment. Lastly, I want to say that
I am not saying this game wont be enjoyable. It's just that the last few pages have been comparing it with SSB on a competitive level and I wanted to chime in having been a long time competitive SSB player.
