User talk:Toomai/Why SSB4 should be good

I'd like to point out the subjective nature of what is considered "best" from each game. For example many casual and brawl players take issue with the many movement options in Melee such as wavedashing and dash dancing, when in fact they've done nothing but add depth and actually meld quite well with many character as well as the basic game engine in general. For all we know Smash 4 could be a combination of what Melee players consider unimportant in Melee and things that we hated in Brawl (like it's lack of the aforementioned movement options).--Brian^{Don't try me!} 05:16, 30 April 2014 (EDT)

"Blah blah blah. Negative negative negative." —|3rian.

C'mon dude, can't you at least try to be a little bit positive about this game? It seems that for the first time, Sakurai and Nintendo are giving the competitive community consideration and are trying to include them as a factor in their decision-making for the new game. They clearly learned from their mistake in Brawl, that ignoring the competitive community and focusing completely on casual players alienates people, and they're moving to fix that mistake this time. It's not very often that a gaming company, let alone Nintendo, does this. I think that should at least count for something. DoctorPain99 10:36, 30 April 2014 (EDT)

Also, @Toomai, I'd say Castlevania 1, 2, and 3 follow this pattern as well, if you're looking for more examples. DoctorPain99 10:39, 30 April 2014 (EDT)

You didn't even address any single one of my points. What you said proves nothing.--Brian^{Don't try me!} 10:50, 30 April 2014 (EDT)

My point is that there is a pattern of games where the first is good, the second is meh, and the third is better than the first, and stating that I believe SSB4 will follow that pattern. I don't really care for going into more depth than that. Toomai Glittershine The Boss 10:57, 30 April 2014 (EDT)

Doesn't my point still stand? "Better" still and always will be a subjective term. Perhaps you should define the standard we should use here for "good."--Brian^{Don't try me!} 10:59, 30 April 2014 (EDT)

My purpose isn't to address your point; it's to address your foul attitude. DoctorPain99 11:02, 30 April 2014 (EDT)

Take the games I used as examples. The internet at large agrees that they follow the pattern of good-okay-best. Toomai Glittershine The Engineer 11:05, 30 April 2014 (EDT)

While "best" is a subjective term differing between people, one cannot deny forms of media that are critically acclaimed. For all intents and purposes, Brawl is the "best" Smash Bros. as the reviews for the game by many sources are on average above Melee's. More critics, on average, prefer Brawl over Melee. Here are two websites that take the average score of game reviews, and on both sites, Brawl is rated higher. [1] [2] Unknown the Hedgehog 11:12, 30 April 2014 (EDT)

A lot of reviews gave Brawl a perfect score. While I certainly consider it a masterpiece, I can't deny that it has flaws, and doesn't deserve that score. Official game reviews often differ greatly from community opinion. I think Toomai was more accurate; the overall opinion of Brawl is mixed, similarly to Zelda 2 and Castlevania 2 (I wouldn't count SMB 2 because the japanese one didn't "change the formula" like the other examples, although I suppose you'd be right about Doki Doki Panic). ♡FirstaLasto♥ 11:39, 30 April 2014 (EDT)

@DP99: That is a still a rather poor response to my statement. If you really want to change my opinion, present me with facts and reason to do so, not bring up how I offended you.

@Toomai: I get your point. I just want to let you know that because of the rather divided opinions (more melee like vs more brawl like) of what people think is optimal for Smash 4, deciding if Smash 4 is truly the best will be quite hard compared to your examples (none of which are fighting games).

@Unknown The Hedgehog: I am looking at the game from a professional competitor's point of a view, more specifically someone who actually understands the game enough to point out significant flaws. Those game review authors don't actually understand the game at that level. Their reviews mean nothing. Quite frankly, Brawl is a rather shoddy product to make a competitive game out of and given how the Smash fanbase has grown largely thanks to the Smash Documentary on Melee as well as Melee making it to EVO, Smash 4 having more Brawl-esqe features than Melee may hurt it more than help it. Just look at reddit and stream views. Melee is certainly the more dominate and popular smash game this day and age.--Brian^{Don't try me!} 13:39, 30 April 2014 (EDT)

"The third game takes the best of both games and puts them together with new stuff. It's the best of the three."

This. This. This.

It was already stated it's going to be an "inbetween" and all evidence shown so far suggests that it's true. Hell, some stuff seems to be even taken from the mods. Smash 4 is really looking to be the definitive Smash game, and the only people who are shitting on it are the "genwunners" that won't like any new game that makes their first game any less relevant.

I would also point out that the Smash projection here was mirrored pretty well with Pokemon. Gen 1 was pretty much a prototype in the way Smash 64 was, being really bare bones and full of plain bad programming. Gen 2 was a remarked improvement in pretty much every way, mechanics and content wise, and pretty much liked more than Gen 1 universally (except by the really die hard genwunners). Then Gen 3 came, changed things up, and had decidedly mixed reaction. Then Gen 4 came, really improved upon the new stuff Gen 3 did while fixing the mistakes of Gen 3, as well as did some long needed mechanic changes that greatly benefitted the game (i.e. the physical/special split, which for Smash the equivalent looks to be the ledges fix), leading to overall better reaction while ushering in a golden age of competitive play for Pokemon (though of course a lot of genwunners didn't give Gen 4 a chance, like I expect many Melee players to not give Smash 4 a chance).

So yeah, Smash 4 is gonna be pretty amazing. Omega Tyrant 14:43, 30 April 2014 (EDT)

How come no one is addressing how subjective the term "best" is here? Especially with how split Melee vs Brawl is. It's gonna be incredibly hard to please the majority of the Melee community, much less replace the game's current spot in the limelight. If there's anything you should know about Melee players, they really fucking love to play Melee. It's that special of a game. --Brian^{Don't try me!} 14:57, 30 April 2014 (EDT)

You seem to hate Brawl more than you love Melee, though, and that's what I mean when I say your attitude is poor. If you were more positive and focused on the positive aspects of Melee rather than the negative of Brawl, I think you'd come across to people a lot better. I'm ignoring your points because I can't change your opinion, but I can at least try to make you aware of how I feel you come across. On an unrelated note, I fully agree with Omega Tyrant and think Pokémon Gens 1-4 is another great example. DoctorPain99 15:04, 30 April 2014 (EDT)

You know, I'm getting extremely tired of you bashing on Brawl and Smash 4 just because you think that they aren't going to be competitive worthy, been over a year since you started this too. Just look on the bright side, it seems like Sakurai is going to make Smash 4 a great game for both casual and competitive players. Please have a better more positive attitude other than being a sourpuss about not having what you want young man. Dots (talk) The Medic 15:08, 30 April 2014 (EDT)

@DP99: If you're offended that I hate Brawl, that is of no concern to me. I've told you many times what makes Melee special. Not that you listened. Address me with facts -- cold facts and reasons -- if you want to change my opinions.

@Dots: Same goes for you. You are in no position to demand behavior or opinion changes out of me. --Brian^{Don't try me!} 15:31, 30 April 2014 (EDT)

"How come no one is addressing how subjective the term "best" is here?"

No one? Your opinion is just as valid as the casual player who likes to play Brawl, but it seems as though everybody else's opinions don't matter, other than the competitive players (a minority of the people who play Smash Bros. as a whole, and when you're a company who's selling a game, the majority matters. Or as Sakurai put it the silent majority of people who prefer Brawl over Melee) as the critics' "reviews mean nothing". The reason you aren't going to change your thought is because you've already made up your mind that only the competitive players' opinions matter, and everybody else doesn't matter.

"If there's anything you should know about Melee players, they really fucking love to play Melee. It's that special of a game."

That's fine, fortunately for them I know the perfect game for them: Melee. They can keep playing it if it's that special to them, while everybody else can move on. Unknown the Hedgehog 15:47, 30 April 2014 (EDT)

So, wait, what? What I'm getting from this is an overwhelming attitude of, "Hey, our favorite game series is getting a new installment... Let's hope it sucks!" from some people. So what, I'm supposed to think that The Great Ace Attorney is gonna be terrible, because I loved Trials And Tribulations? No. I want that AND this to blow me out of the water. C'mon people, be optimistic! I think that third games are the best too, by the by (T&T, PL:Lost Future, M+L: Bowsers Inside Story... I could go on).ScoreCounter (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2014 (EDT)

I don't think you guys understand how special a game needs to be to be kept alive for 13 years and still competitively relevant to the eSports community. THIRTEEN YEARS!--Brian^{Don't try me!} 16:11, 30 April 2014 (EDT)

And that's awesome! Now, let's hope 4 lasts just as long, if not longer! Put it this way, ONE, it's a new game, regardless. and TWO... at least Smash Players don't have to panic about the game not being localized. Think of peeps like me who play Ace Attorney and other niche series (as well), what with GK2 being held to ransom and DD being English and digi-only, not to mention the already refreshed panic over the new games. ScoreCounter (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2014 (EDT)

Fine then Brian, if competitive Melee players and you think Melee will be your universal game for the rest of your lives, stay with it then. Everybody else, the casual and even the competitive Brawl players are happy to move on to Smash 4. Dots (talk) The Star Fox 16:25, 30 April 2014 (EDT)

That's fine Dots, it will be like nothing has even changed. --Brian^{Don't try me!} 16:34, 30 April 2014 (EDT)

Just don't be surprised if almost nobody is going to play Melee anymore in the future. Dots (talk) The EarthBound 16:44, 30 April 2014 (EDT)

What do you mean? As long as the Melee community loves Melee the way it does now, it will never die. Might I remind people said the same shit you just said when Brawl came out? Has Melee died? Hell no, bitch.--Brian^{Don't try me!} 16:50, 30 April 2014 (EDT)

What I meant about "almost nobody" means only the competitive Melee community will be playing the game in the future which consists of a few thousands of players or so. In comparison, millions of others will be focused on other newer games. Dots (talk) The Sandvich 16:57, 30 April 2014 (EDT)

ScoreCounter really makes a nice point, and is what makes Melee players' general reaction to Smash 4 most baffling to me. Who really wants to keep playing the same exact game, with the same shitty roster (Melee's roster is so damn bad) and stages (BF clones anyone?), fighting Fox half the time and fighting a few other characters the other 45% of the time, with no more new content whatsoever, when there's the option for a new game in the series that can improve on all of that shit? And why the hell wouldn't you want to be part of a even bigger tournament scene that is going to attract much more new players? Is wavedashing really that important to you that it doesn't matter how solid the game's mechanics are, how much more balanced the cast is, how much better character and stage variety there is, and how much more content overall the game has, that you won't consider playing it over Melee (even when it could get sponsored by Nintendo, leading to competitively playing paying off more than it ever could)? Why can't there be a definitive Smash game that we all primarily play? Why do you have to stubbornly stick to Melee no matter what else comes? Why the hell are you thinking "oh no it's going to kill Melee!" instead of "there's finally a new game, I hope it's really good and gets an even bigger tournament scene"? Are you guys that completely unable to adapt to anything that is the slightest bit different?

"I don't think you guys understand how special a game needs to be to be kept alive for 13 years and still competitively relevant to the eSports community. THIRTEEN YEARS!"

Because Smash as it is an amazing game that could remain competitively relevant, and there has only been one sequel to Melee in that time that had mixed competitive reception? Melee lasted that long not because it's some super special egg, but because the series' concept itself makes such an amazing game, that Melee executed solidly enough while there lacked a decidedly good update. If Brawl didn't have the problems it had, I guarantee you that Melee would have only stuck around as a niche scene like Smash 64 or as throwback events, and wouldn't have ever sniffed EVO or MLG again.

Ultimately, "Super Smash Bros." makes the game special, not "Melee". Omega Tyrant 17:48, 30 April 2014 (EDT)

You. Don't. Understand. "Super Smash Bros" is a just a bunch of icons and models from your childhood that were put in a giant sandbox. Who cares they were given "Smash attacks" or "Tilts" or "Specials." Big deal, Marvel did the same thing with comic book characters. "Melee" is a game revolving around precise, fluid, crisp, and free flowing movement. The amount of precise movement you can do in Melee is incredible. There is an indescribable satisfaction of being able to fully control a character like that. That movement opens up so many gameplay options and keeps the game dynamic and interesting. We're not playing the same thing every time. With that many options and movement, situations are always different and this is what keeps me hooked. You asked yourself why people aren't bored after 13 years. This is why. It's different experience each smash fest. I know combos look the same, but I assure you the situations and setups for those are subtly but significantly different. You know how the neutral game works right? You get a first hit because you tricked them in some manner. But people haven't fallen for the same tricks for 13 years. Each trick is slightly different. Precise movement remember? Being slightly too close or far away changes everything. And even so, with DI, you have to get creative with your combos at high level play. Improvising is fun.

It's not so much as wavedashing alone, so much as how great that specific technique compliments the already precise movement found in the basic engine. Wavedashing itself actually compliments many character designs in Melee. And in a seemingly perfect manner too. Marth's wavedash matches the length of tipper as well as the length of his dash dance. Falco's wavedash gives exactly the right distance needed to make shine a pressure tool. Point is, for quite a few characters, their wavedashes complement their character strengths very aptly. Marth's character strengths lie in using his movement to stay a fixed distance (which is matchup dependent) from his opponents and at that distance, he has the better punishment in the matchup. Falco's strengths lie not in his movement, but his ability to keep opponents trapped in a single place and so long as he keeps them there, he wins.

Speaking the character roster in Melee, percentage wise, yes more than half of the characters are shit and poorly designed. However the 7 top characters actually have very good designs marked by very significant strengths that are counter balanced by significant weaknesses; for each character, there is a winning situation that leads to guaranteed victory, but also an equally deadly, losing situation the character has no outs to. I would say 6 of them, Falco, Sheik, Marth, Puff, Peach, and Falcon are balanced designs. Fox's character trait of having the best movement in the game, offsets his weaknesses to the point where he's a bit better than the other 6, but not to a point where he's unbeatable.

I'll again use Marth and Falco to demonstrate this. Like I said earlier Marth has incredible movement and range. He needs to put himself at a distance where he can stay safe and hit people hard. From his distance he can convert into extended juggles and combos best. Or at that distance he can opt for single hits, since they also hit hardest at that distance. Quite aptly he has all the movement and range to find that position and get to it easily. However, Marth's damage output is very low if he isn't at the right distance and is vulnerable to crouch canceling. He has very few options to escape when he is a above a grounded opponent. He's also weak to projectiles and is very susceptible to momentum shifts. Should Marth fail to maintain that winning position and lose his footing, he will have a very tough time getting it back or even resetting to neutral. Even bigger weaknesses are the fact that Marth has a recovery with a path he can't alter significantly. He also has a notoriously poor out of shield game from behind and the worst of them all, his medium weight makes him laughably easy to combo and kill.

Falco's strengths lie in the fact that he has the best combos and pressure in the game. Yes Falco's shine is better at combo'ing that Fox's. It keeps you above Falco so he can continue hitting you. (Fox's shine is reset oriented, only hit confirming into single, strong hits.) However Falco is a slow character with rather poor movement options compared to Marth, Fox, or Falcon. Also unlike his brother Fox, Falco cannot win that many mixups outside laser spacing because of this aforementioned lack of movement options. Short wavedash, short dash dance, and slow running speed means he can't kite anything and then run back to punish. Falco also has limited anti air options, since he lacks Fox's dash dance. And finally if Falco mistimes his pressure and lets people go, he cannot escape the ensuing punishment. He also has what might be the worse recovery in the game, generally ensuring whatever punishment he got kills him.

The Street Fighter esqe design of characters with significant strengths balanced by significant weaknesses was generally well done in Melee (at least among the tournament viable characters) and adds to that thrill I tried to describe in the first 2 paragraphs. It's such a shame we'll never see these designs re-implemented in newer games. (Seriously

I won't deny that Melee has significant flaws. Yes, there could have been more characters with designs just like the top 7. Yes, we could have had a stage list with at least 7 neutrals and more than 1 counterpick. I'll take this time to address your BF clone issue. At mid to high level play, these stages become BF clones only superficially. Marth's best stage in most matchups is Yoshi's, but his worse stage is dreamland. The different platform heights and the length of the stage and blastlines all cause significant gameplay differences. Remember how I said how movement defines Melee? That is why. Marth can control significantly more space on Yoshi's than Dreamland. Fox has more room and platforms to abuse his movement and stay safe on Dreamland, whereas on Fountain, his movement is much less safe and therefore much less significant.

But even so, for a game deemed to be "Nintendo's Perfect Little Accident," 7 relatively balanced characters with arguably the most movement of any fighting game in the world, Melee did more than just "solidly enough." Indeed what makes Melee amazing are the things that separate from the rest of the series, not the elements or primitive engine shared with the rest of the games. --Brian^{Don't try me!} 19:26, 30 April 2014 (EDT)