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)