Support NeoGAF

[LegendofLex]

- The sales that the Wii had are the most important reason that all the Nintendo games made ridiculous numbers.

I don't think this is ultimately the reason why the Nintendo games on Wii sold ridiculous numbers. They didn't even all sell ridiculous numbers - Metroid Prime 3 sold considerably less than the original Metroid Prime; Donkey Kong Country Returns failed to top the original Donkey Kong Country; Twilight Princess's numbers were in line with Ocarina of Time's.

I think the vast library of highly desired Nintendo games are ultimately the reason why the Wii sold ridiculous numbers, actually.

 

[socksfelloff]

Capcom has clearly marketed SFV as an exports product. That's the difference

 

[GametimeUK]

but there are two separate Pikachu characters in Pokken so technically Pikachu appears the most.

If there are 2 separate Pikachu characters is Pokken then it is not the same Pikachu. It would leave the count at 3 each with another Pikachu in 1 game. There is Evil Ryu too anyway.

 

[Coffee Dog]

2vs2 doubles is a popular tournament format. Slow characters are not good there either.

They get even worse when you add items since faster characters can reach those items easier.

The reason slow characters suck in 1v1 is that they suck in Smash in general.

Well, yeah. They weren't meant to be played at that high of a skill level, my point being. They're viable in friendly casual 4 person FFA matches between people that are bad at the game.

The game wasn't meant to be played at that high of a skill level. It wasn't designed to be a competetive fighter and the only way that can be done is if you turn off an enourmous amount of content to play a 1v1 fighter with a fraction of the characters and a fraction of the stages (that is still ultimately dominated by ~5 characters because the game is imbalanced as shit).

 

[phanphare]

also, as I mentioned, for glory mode is a thing. competitive smash is LITERALLY glorified in the newest smash bros title.

lol, I've never thought of it like that. great point.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

This is how you write history books folks.

Take notes.

 

[Oersted]

Street Fighter has had dozens of SKUs since the first game. Smash has had 5.

And I'm pretty sure that Smash 4/SFV are the very first entries which are on the same amount of plattforms available.

Longer time available, more plattforms, more SKUs... and still getting outsold.

 

[Coffee Dog]

sakurai put that "imba as fuck 1v1" version of the game as a primary mode for the online portion of his game

Yeah, and it's still imba as fuck. He obviously isn't making a competitive game. He's just giving you the option to play a wonky ass 1v1 mode in smash with all of the balancing and design problems that entails.

 

[Toxi]

Well, yeah. They weren't meant to be played at that high of a skill level, my point being. They're viable in friendly casual 4 person FFA matches between people that are bad at the game.

Sure, but calling that "balance" is laughable. The game isn't "balanced" around casual play so much as the balance problems are just less noticeable in casual play, like in any other game.

The game wasn't meant to be played at that high of a skill level. It wasn't designed to be a competetive fighter and the only way that can be done is if you turn off an enourmous amount of content to play a 1v1 fighter that is still dominated by ~5 characters.

Again, 2 vs 2 is a popular tournament format.

Also, why do you care so much what the game was "meant" to be played like? Melee isn't designed to be a competitive game, but that doesn't stop it from being a good enough competitive game to have the second largest competitive scene in fighting games 14 years after release.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Street Fighter has had dozens of SKUs since the first game. Smash has had 5.

Smash also came out a decade after SF

 

[Brian_FETO]

wat

Surely you can't be serious. The main mode of the game is still 4 players* (fixed, not 4v4 lol), items and stage hazards

No one is denying that competitive Smash has a scene. The thread topic is talking about competitive scene size in relation to the overall userbase. Thinking that the competitive scene of Smash is the majority is borderline delusional... Not trying to be insulting but come on

They added "For Glory" which is great and acknowledges that part of the fanbase (unless they got it wrong or something, I think people were mad it didn't have platforms) but again, that is a separate thing you opt into

 

[Sheriff_Battlesnake]

i'm sure street fighter v will outsell smash 4, yet the smash 4 competitive community will be larger than street fighter's.

As of December 2015, Super Smash Bros Wii U has sold 4.6 million copies alone. Coupled with the 3DS game, which has sold 7.92 million, Smash 4 will outsell Brawl which was the best selling fighting game of all time at 12.93 million.

It's also interesting to consider how many Wiis were out there. To date, the Wii has shipped 101.63 million units, with 3DS at nearly half of that with 57.94 million, and the Wii U having shipped 12.6.

Really cool looking at it broken down like this. Regardless, Street Fighter V won't touch those kind of numbers.

 

[Spinluck]

What's your favorite item pick up in Street Fighter?

Never mind that, tell me your favorite stage hazards instead...

 

[NoctisVsStar]

Sure, but calling that "balance" is laughable. The game isn't "balanced" around casual play so much as the balance problems are just less noticeable in casual play, like in any other game.


Again, 2 vs 2 is a popular tournament format.

Also, why do you care so much what the game was "meant" to be played like? Melee isn't designed to be a competitive game, but that doesn't stop it from being a good enough competitive game to have the second largest competitive scene in fighting games 14 years after release.

Because Smash is whatever you want it to be, he's not necessarily wrong btw.

 

[Toxi]

Because Smash is whatever you want it to be, he's not necessarily wrong btw.

You do realize that's exactly what I'm arguing, right?

 

[PsychoSoldier]

I often think that the exclusion of Smash or the sneering at it has less to do with any real thoughts about its merit as a competitive game and more with a deep insecurity within many players.

 

[Nightbird]

Who says Nintendo doesn't support the competitive scene?

And more generally, what does Nintendo do to support the Smash community?
This Nintendo employee shared with me an impressive list of a TON of things Nintendo did logistically for Genesis. It ranged from finding and paying for equipment the tournament needed, to getting discounts on items the TOs couldn’t have gotten otherwise, to working through tons of legal red tape to make sure the tournament wouldn’t encounter any trouble with any branding and design involved in the tournament. I wish I could give specifics, because this list actually was impressive.
My question to him was, “Why am I just hearing about this now? If Nintendo supported this tournament so much, how come no one knows?”
His response: “Because it’s not about us, it’s about growing the community.”

https://www.reddit.com/r/smashbros/comments/41qiwf/had_a_conversation_with_a_nintendo_employee_at/

Just because they aren't running around like Capcom and yelling "WE ARE ORGANIZING TOURNAMENTS!!", doesn't mean they don't support the competitive community.

You should read that reddit post as well as the comments, as one tournament organizer chimes in to give additional info

 

[Anth0ny]

I mean, is that wrong?

yes

competitive street fighter players make up less than 1% of the people who buy and play street fighter, same as smash

 

[Vena]

Surely you can't be serious. The main mode of the game is still 4v4, items and stage hazards

4v4 has never been the made mode for Smash, its an off-shoot side mode in Sm4sh on only one version of the game.

Smash has no "main mode" this is malarkey. It can and has been played however the players choose.

The only game Nintendo did their own series for was Splatoon.
Pokémon is done by Pokémon, not Nintendo directly.

Didn't the most recent tournie in Japan get run by Nintendo? The one with Nairo, and right before Bayo and Corrin launched.

 

[Brian_FETO]

4v4 has never been the made mode for Smash, its an off-shoot side mode in Sm4sh on only one version of the game.

My bad, by 4v4 I meant 4 players lol

If people are really going to define the game's intent as being literally anything you want (despite changing to whatever you want being a deviation from the default) then so be it. Sounds like Smash is closer to Dungeons and Dragons than Street Fighter

 

[Sheriff_Battlesnake]

That is because while Smash is whatever you want it to be, apparently competetive players want smash to be an imba as fuck 1v1 fighter with half the game turned off.

International Mountain Bicycle Association?

 

[RM8]

Surely you can't be serious. The main mode of the game is still 4v4, items and stage hazards

No one is denying that competitive Smash has a scene. The thread topic is talking about competitive scene size in relation to the overall userbase. Thinking that the competitive scene of Smash is the majority is borderline delusional... Not trying to be insulting but come on

They added "For Glory" which is great and acknowledges that part of the fanbase (unless they got it wrong or something, I think people were mad it didn't have platforms) but again, that is a separate thing you opt into

There's no main mode. Why 4 players with items and all stages? Why not 3v3 with only pokéballs and custom stages? Or 8 players FFA with coins? SSB has a ton of options, and the competitive format is not any less valid or any less arbitrary than 4 players with everything on.

SSB and SF happen to be two of my favourite series, and I'm a competitive player in both. The SSB salt will never cease to amuse me, really.

 

[Coffee Dog]

Sure, but calling that "balance" is laughable.

why? it's balanced around a medium skill level and around a certain style of play. That's balance.

Again, 2 vs 2 is a popular tournament format.

Also, why do you care so much what the game was "meant" to be played like?

characters not being viable in 2v2 is sort of my point. Higher level play renders large amounts of the game non-viable because it's unintentional.

And I'm only bringing up how the game is balanced and designed because it becomes very relevant at high level play. If you're playing Street Fighter, you can take a low tier like Makoto against a high tier like Evil Ryu and have a good ass match.

This is something that's impossible in Smash Bros. You can't play King Dedede against a Shiek who's half asleep at the wheel and expect anything other than a crushing loss. That's because Smash isn't a game meant for competitive play, and it isn't a great competitive game. Which ties into why the Smash community is not regarded as the core audience of the series (which is the thread), because well, they aren't. It's a game that tries to please everyone.

 

[udivision]

yes

competitive street fighter players make up less than 1% of the people who buy and play street fighter, same as smash

Of course, but in terms of marketing it seems like Street Fighter relies a lot more on Tournaments, the FGC, the Capcom Tour and all of that. For some reason I think it would be (even) harder for SFV to have been green-lit without Ono being able tap into and engage with that core. Or maybe I'm just letting the marketing get to me. Overall though, the competitive scene in SF probably matters more to the health of the overall franchise than it does in Smash.

 

[patapuf]

Surely you can't be serious. The main mode of the game is still 4 players* (fixed, not 4v4 lol), items and stage hazards

No one is denying that competitive Smash has a scene. The thread topic is talking about competitive scene size in relation to the overall userbase. Thinking that the competitive scene of Smash is the majority is borderline delusional... Not trying to be insulting but come on

They added "For Glory" which is great and acknowledges that part of the fanbase (unless they got it wrong or something, I think people were mad it didn't have platforms) but again, that is a separate thing you opt into

So many games have "special" rules for competitive play. Even dinosaurs like counterstrike, or quake. Given how important modding is to e-sports, custom rules for competition have been around for games since forever.

There's really no need for the competitive mode to be same as the one for casual play for the game to be great competitively.

Nintendo's balance patches were geared towards 1v1 for glory. The new smash is built for competitive play.

 

[Acerac]

Pikachu and Ryu are in the same amount of games at EVO.

Ryu is lucky he got the nod for Sm4sh.

 

[LordRaptor]

What's your favorite item pick up in Street Fighter?

Never mind that, tell me your favorite stage hazards instead...

Why are you hating on Powerstone?

 

[Gunslinger]

Ryu is lucky he got the nod for Sm4sh.

why?

 

[Zyae]

Until Smash has moments like Evo 2009 Daigo vs Wong, it will never be in the same category as SF in the competitive scene.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD_imYhNoQ4

 

[RM8]

why? it's balanced around a medium skill level and around a certain style of play. That's balance.



characters not being viable in 2v2 is sort of my point. Higher level play renders large amounts of the game non-viable because it's unintentional.

And I'm only bringing up how the game is balanced and designed because it becomes very relevant at high level play. If you're playing Street Fighter, you can take a low tier like Makoto against a high tier like Evil Ryu and have a good ass match.

This is something that's impossible in Smash Bros. You can't play King Dedede against a Shiek who's half asleep at the wheel and expect anything other than a crushing loss. That's because Smash isn't a game meant for competitive play, and it isn't a great competitive game.

There are tons of awful match ups in a ton of competitive fighting games, though. Balance issues are hardly a trait exclusive to SSB within the genre, and in the end USFIV turned out to be quite balanced.

We have seen lower tier characters making surprise appearances and winning important matches, like ESAM's Samus spanking Larry Lurr's Luigi.

 

[Disaster Nebraska]

Because competitive SF players actually go along with the updated games and adjust their skills to account for new systems instead of crying about how Smash sucks because it isn't Melee.

 

[BennyBlanco]

Smash Bros at its core is a party game.

 

[Toxi]

It seems like there are two arguments in this thread.

One is about development and marketing and is pretty simple: Smash isn't marketed as a competitive game and the competitive community isn't important to their sales strategy. Street Fighter V is developed and marketed as a competitive game and the competitive community is a major part of their sales strategy.

The other is about actual quality as a competitive game. Melee still being played 14 years later with a tournament scene dwarfing newer fighting games should speak for itself. Whether you like it or not, Melee (And Smash 4) appeals to a relatively large and dedicated competitive audience.

 

[DrROBschiz]

2vs2 doubles is a popular tournament format. Slow characters are not good there either.

They get even worse when you add items since faster characters can reach those items easier.

The reason slow characters suck in 1v1 is that they suck in Smash in general.

Dude i dunno. Ive seen some sick Charizard, DK, Bowser players out there.

They are better in smash 4 than any previous game in the series

 

[Coffee Dog]

There are tons of awful match ups in a ton of competitive fighting games, though. Balance issues are hardly a trait exclusive to SSB within the genre, and in the end USFIV turned out to be quite balanced.

It's not that there are balance issues, it's that there are so many in Smash that they mean that you lock out more of the game than you actually play. That does not strike me as a game that is intentionally competitive, and if it is, it strikes me as doing an absolutely terrible job at it.

It seems like there are two arguments in this thread.

One is about development and marketing and is pretty simple: Smash isn't marketed as a competitive game and the competitive community isn't important to their sales strategy. Street Fighter V is developed and marketed as a competitive game and the competitive community is a major part of their sales strategy.

The other is about actual quality as a competitive game. Melee still being played 14 years later with a tournament scene dwarfing newer fighting games should speak for itself. Whether you like it or not, Melee (And Smash 4) appeals to a relatively large and dedicated competitive audience.

Those two arguments tie into one another, though; Smash isn't marketed as a competitive game because it isn't developed or designed to be one. It makes bare minimum concessions in order to facilitate the unintentional competitive community but goes no further.

 

[RuneFactoryFanboy]

Because it's pretty clear that Smash isn't designed to be that way. You can play it that way by turning a lot of stuff off, but that should be telling as to what the core audience is.

Street Fighter out of the box is a 1 vs 1, zero variable game.

 

[Brian_FETO]

There's no main mode. Why 4 players with items and all stages? Why not 3v3 with only pokéballs and custom stages? Or 8 players FFA with coins? SSB has a ton of options, and the competitive format is not any less valid or any less arbitrary than 4 players with everything on.

SSB and SF happen to be two of my favourite series, and I'm a competitive player in both. The SSB salt will never cease to amuse me, really.

Really not understanding the persecution complex here.

No one is attacking/denying competitive SSB play? Out of the what, 12 million SSB4 sales how many do you think play by tournament standards?

Street Fighter does not do huge numbers, it gathers them gradually over many releases, with only the devoted players continually buying the updates to stay with it as time goes on. Because of the lesser sales, and the intended nature of play, the percentage of SF players interested in the tournament standards competitive aspect is higher.

Smash Bros sells a ton and is a flagship franchise for Nintendo, with majority of people buying because it has all of their favorite characters and is an established good time locally with friends. If the tournament rules players were not interested in the game, it would still sell many millions of copies. That percentage of course could change as now streaming is huge and its easier than ever to get involved in the community, but as it stands that's how it's been

SSB players should be proud that they literally created something the developers didn't intend, eventually getting recognized in SSB4, rather than being offended when it's brought up

Sorry if this was too "salty"

 

[FUNKNOWN iXi]

You do realize that's exactly what I'm arguing, right?

You can't reason with people who are set in their one way line of viewing a situation. 64 and Melee prove you can have a very accessible and fun game with lots of competitive depth, but here we are in 2016 arguing about the same points for many years.

 

[Revven]

It's not that there are balance issues, it's that there are so many in Smash that they mean that you lock out more of the game than you actually play. That does not strike me as a game that is intentionally competitive, and if it is, it strikes me as doing an absolutely terrible job at it.

I think you're grossly exaggerating how many characters get "locked out" in Smash 4. Melee, sure, but the former is not really that dire in character count in tournament play.

 

[DrROBschiz]

It's not that there are balance issues, it's that there are so many in Smash that they mean that you lock out more of the game than you actually play. That does not strike me as a game that is intentionally competitive, and if it is, it strikes me as doing an absolutely terrible job at it.

Smash 4 is the most balanced entry in the series to date

And we dont even know how deep the meta game goes yet since there are 55 characters and new shit is being figured out all time

 

[Gunslinger]

Smash Bros at its core is a party game.

I agree it was never made with competition in mind IMO.

 

[RM8]

It's not that there are balance issues, it's that there are so many in Smash that they mean that you lock out more of the game than you actually play. That does not strike me as a game that is intentionally competitive, and if it is, it strikes me as doing an absolutely terrible job at it.

So Marvel games aren't competitive games, then? They don't exactly shine because of their balance. MvC2 has a ton of useless characters, that make SSB4 Dedede look viable in comparison.

 

[Neoxon]

Smash is a casual game that can be played competitively.

Street Fighter is a competitive game that can be played casually.

 

[GhostOfSparta305]

Smash is a casual party game at its core
Street Fighter is a competitive game at its core

/thread

Always found it interesting how most people who swear by "competitive" Smash won't even touch a real 1v1 fighting game.

 

[Gravy Boat]

It's like comparing Hearthstone to MTG.

I don't get this comparison, Hearthstone has had a competitive scene since it's beginnings.

I would just imagine that Street Fighter has a bigger competitive scene than smash? As to why that is, I don't know. It's been around for much longer for 1, and it's always marketed as a competitive game so it's just got that kind of vibe to it. Where as smash, while it can and is played competitively, I think the number of people who play it competitively compared to the total user base is much smaller than Street Fighter.

Street Fighter would probably die if its competitive scene disappeared over night, Smash would carry on like nothing happened.

 

[DrROBschiz]

I agree it was never made with competition in mind IMO.

At yet several design features in smash 4 now cater to its discovered and supported competitive nature

Maybe it didnt start as a competitive game but it is now considered a staple of its design as of Smash 4

 

[Gunslinger]

Smash is a casual game that can be played competitively.

Street Fighter is a competitive game that can be played casually.

Good analogy I agree.

 

[Ogodei]

2vs2 doubles is a popular tournament format. Slow characters are not good there either.

They get even worse when you add items since faster characters can reach those items easier.

The reason slow characters suck in 1v1 is that they suck in Smash in general.

I main a few slow-ish to slow characters (Ike, Dedede, and Bowser, alongside Kirby and Pac-Man), and i tend to mostly play in 4p free for all where I can be competitive in the matches, for fun or for glory style. The heavy hits mean you can bat cleanup there, while your foes are distracted by others, though top-level players would still smoke me for sure, it's not like 1v1 where i fall apart with these people.

 

[Coffee Dog]

I think you're grossly exaggerating how many characters get "locked out" in Smash 4. Melee, sure, but the former is not really that dire in character count in tournament play.

Smash 4 is the most balanced entry in the series to date

And we dont even know how deep the meta game goes yet since there are 55 characters and new shit is being figured out all time

You can't use the majority of the tier list in high level tournaments. That's what I mean.

Megaman is right in the middle of the list, and you can't dream of seeing that guy in a major tournament like Evo, let alone the 20+ characters below him.

 

[Maxrunner]

You can't use the majority of the tier list in high level tournaments. That's what I mean.

Megaman is right in the middle of the list, and you can't dream of seeing that guy in a major tournament like Evo, let alone the 20+ characters below him.

Why not?