I'm still a little confused as to what they're going to be doing with the next one. Is it going to be the same game, on the 3DS + WiiU (possibly compatible), or will they be separate Smash Bros. games?
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Super Smash Bros 64, Melee, and Brawl thread
- Thread starter Porii Sames
- Start date
Are you talking about the same game quality wise? Because as advance as the 3DS is, I don't think it'll be able to handle the same quality as the WiiU.
People where did I say tech skill lol.
I just said skill.
Who cares where the skill is placed, it's just... skill at the game... lol. It takes like a year to become a pro Meta Knight, and like 3+ years to become a pro Fox or Falco, nuff said.
Also I'm setting the bar for Smash 4 to be twice as good as Brawl, which is still setting it pretty low lol. I'm hoping that the game can be casually fun, but can actually retain some competitive depth unlike its predecessor. I'm most excited about the fact that we might actually get a balanced game for once considering Sakurai isn't balancing it anymore.
In terms of quality- The 3DS has more processing power than the GC and has up to 8GB of storage, more than Brawl had, and Brawl used HALF the freaking disc for SSE cutscenes... yeah....
The 3DS version will be perfectly capable of handling anything the WiiU version has, if you tone down the graphics to, say, Melee level of course.
Also calling it right now: Mii for Smash 4.
I just said skill.
Who cares where the skill is placed, it's just... skill at the game... lol. It takes like a year to become a pro Meta Knight, and like 3+ years to become a pro Fox or Falco, nuff said.
Also I'm setting the bar for Smash 4 to be twice as good as Brawl, which is still setting it pretty low lol. I'm hoping that the game can be casually fun, but can actually retain some competitive depth unlike its predecessor. I'm most excited about the fact that we might actually get a balanced game for once considering Sakurai isn't balancing it anymore.
In terms of quality- The 3DS has more processing power than the GC and has up to 8GB of storage, more than Brawl had, and Brawl used HALF the freaking disc for SSE cutscenes... yeah....
The 3DS version will be perfectly capable of handling anything the WiiU version has, if you tone down the graphics to, say, Melee level of course.
Also calling it right now: Mii for Smash 4.
Actually, he is, he's just getting a team of 5 to aid him.
Sakurai did say that he wanted the 3DS version to have the ability to customize so such an idea seems very plausible.
Oh, okay. I mistook you for someone who just placed more emphasis on technical skill, but in actuality you're making an even more contentious point and claiming it to be the objective truth. I see.
Also, Brawl's balance is fairly close to Melee when you consider best to worst, but their spread is a lot different (Instead of one really ridiculous character, they have several, and their low guys are polar opposites in quality, but again, they have several).
You'll be disappointed to hear that Sakurai is directing the product, but it was no surprise because he has directed the entire Smash Bros. series. He's done a fantastic job so far, if all the previous games are any indication of the quality of his games, so I'm really excited.
Don't remind me :(
I sort of kinda disagree with the whole "almost on melee's level of balance." The simple fact that MK exists kinda stabs 57 stakes through that argument. When one character is so much blatantly better than all of the other chars, then there really is no element of balance. At least in melee everything from peach on up had a good chance of beating every char in that sequence.
For me, i would have to say that ssb64 is the most balanced game. The fact that pikachu, fox, kirby, and captain falcon are so close to each other in awsomeness, and mario, yoshi, DK, puff, and ness are so close in middledom, and luigi, link and samus so close in terribleness, and the fact that samus can still beat pika like 25% of the time is good.
BTW, i main fox and puff in n64, marth cfalcon, and ness (for lolz) in melee, and Diddy and MK in brawl.
He actually said that he's not touching the balancing this time around- he realized how bad he is at it.
Contentious? lol
Its sort of hard to argue against that point when you consider how long Melee has had to develop compared to Brawl anyways.
I don't think I've put out my mains in this mess, I'll just do that.
SSB64: Fox
Melee: Ganon
Brawl: Meta Knight
Project M: Ganon, Mario, (upon full release) Meta Knight
Plans for SSB4 Main: Hopefully Meta Knight and (<3) Geno!
I lurvz my MK
Source?
Also, I recommend you look up what contentious means, as that's exactly what your claim of one game taking more skill is.
I am aware of the meaning- but really if people know what they're talking about it shouldn't be contentious at all. I do get that Smogon isn't exactly the most competitive Smash place to expect said knowledge of the competitive side of the games like on Smashboards, though :/
I can't find the actual Iwata asks, but here's the main article on it:
http://www.andriasang.com/e/blog/2011/06/09/iwata_asks_smash_bros/
I can't find the actual Iwata asks, but here's the main article on it:
http://www.andriasang.com/e/blog/2011/06/09/iwata_asks_smash_bros/
However, different aspects of skill overlap with each other. The purpose of technical skill is to open up more options. Because of the additional options, you become less predictable, and there are more opportunities to alter the current condition of the match. By removing the technical aspect as much as Brawl has, options are removed, people become more predictable, and wasteful "time sinks" are formed. To put it another way, Rock-Paper-Scissors becomes more competitive when you get to throw more hands. It's all interconnected.
I think that the next game should be similar to n64, with more chars, stags, and options obviously, much better graphics, but the actual gameplay needs to be similar. You see, anyone can pick up and play n64 and have fun with it, but there is enough tech skill/combo potential/spacing requirements so that its also makes a great competitive game. The only thing wrong with it is that it doesn't really have enough chars/stages. Well, that can be fixed.
So long as the hitstun/shieldstun isn't as ridiculous and they re-implement L-cancelling, I'm for this.
I definitely agree. You can have impressive graphics and still make it simple enough to follow what's going on on the screen. I hope the next version adopts more of the simplicity of the N64 version and less of the "AMAG TOO MANY SPLOSIONS WHERE IS MY CHAR??" of Brawl.
This has nothing to do with Smogon/Smashboards at all. I agree with you insofar as I believe Melee is a better competitive game than Brawl (I think the word "skillful" is too ill-defined to have any place in this sort of discussion though), but saying that it is flat-out more skillful without any justification is pretty clearly contentious.UltiMario said:
Do you mean "throw more hands" as in "the game now has five options instead of three," or just "we are now playing a first-to-X set"? The former implies that complexity is equivalent to depth, which is false. The latter seems unrelated to your point.capefeather said:
I think people generally give tech skill way too much credit in these kinds of arguments. I do agree that games generally have execution barriers for good reason, but it's more telling to interpret this as "a well-designed competitive game has an execution barrier that is entirely incidental of the game's tactical and strategic elements." Melee has high gravity that varies between characters, restricted defensive air options, very free ground movement and relatively "low health." So, to accommodate this, players need to be able to control their characters deftly and offensively in a way that just so happens to require considerable technical ability. This is all super cool and proves that (L-Cancelling aside) most of Melee's tech skill requirements are underpinned by legitimate competitive decisions (if not depth). But why not skip the middleman and jump straight to talking about the decisions themselves? Instead of saying "Melee is better because it requires much higher execution, which, by the way, opens up for strategic options X Y and Z," why not just say "Melee is better because of strategic options X Y and Z"? Who really cares, at all, that Melee forces you to press buttons really fast or whatever, so long as its actual depth is present and intact? I don't think it's very difficult to construct a persuasive argument in favor of Melee being a superior competitive game to Brawl, completely sans any discussion of the game's execution barrier.
My point was merely that technical skill and "psychological skill" (or whatever people were getting at) aren't mutually exclusive. No one aspect of a competitive game defines how "deep" or how "broad" it is. That's all.
Agree with the hit/sheied stun thing totally. And by l-cancling, you mean the half-lag cancel from melee or the full lag one from n64?
Hmm. Good question. Depends on the kind of knockback most moves get IMO. If moves moves hit you further like in Brawl, full l-cancelling might be interesting to help with follow ups. If moves keep you a little closer, though, getting-rid of half the lag from aerials would more than suffice for combos.
I don't think that L-cancel is really a good or bad thing. Melee's L-cancel just means that lag from aerials is about half that of aerials in Brawl on average. Brawl has cancelling methods of its own, anyway.
They could just correctly balance the landing lag of aerial normals.
I honestly think that z-canceling in original is a bit broken, especially when you combine it with the hit/sheild stun. that makes 0-death inescabable under certain conditions provided the foe doesn't have the best DI in existence.
Also, i think the game that would be best for all players would be one that:
1. Is easy to pick-up-and-play.
2. Requires tech skill to become brilliant, but not to become great.
3. The learning curve is steady until a certain point where it skyrockets (sepearating pros from scum like us).
4. Resembles brawl in diversity, but is nothing like it in actual gameplay.
Also, i think the game that would be best for all players would be one that:
1. Is easy to pick-up-and-play.
2. Requires tech skill to become brilliant, but not to become great.
3. The learning curve is steady until a certain point where it skyrockets (sepearating pros from scum like us).
4. Resembles brawl in diversity, but is nothing like it in actual gameplay.