Topic: Super Smash Bros. for WiiU (& 3DS)

[Stogi]

I would really like to see the character total toned down to 15 maybe 20. Too many characters, while awesome to pit against, really end up taking the time needed to make a flawless fighting game. Mortal Kombat found this out the hard way.

[Louieturkey]

I would really like to see the character total toned down to 15 maybe 20. Too many characters, while awesome to pit against, really end up taking the time needed to make a flawless fighting game. Mortal Kombat found this out the hard way.

Remind me how many characters Melee had.  I believe that number is great.  Plus, it's okay to have a lot of characters as long as the balance is good.  The more you have, the harder it is to balance everything which I guess is the problem with Brawl.  Here's hoping that working with the Tekken people, Sakurai can figure that out this time.

[Evan_B]

I want characters to be done justice- and honestly, if you're making a Nintendo fighting game, shouldn't that be the case? That's what I like about Project M- they're going out of their way to give each character a play style that will make them equal and balanced with one another. The changes they've made arguably do this, but there's still room for improvement.

There is no reason for King Dedede to have a unique moveset while Ganondorf does not. Ganondorf is an iconic character with many moveset options, he shouldn't be a clone of a character whose moves were thought up on the spot. I understand tradition, but a little more effort would be much appreciated.

Clones don't need to have the same animations with different effects- if they had different animations, they wouldn't be clones! How about that. That's why Falco's moves could have had the same effects but with different animations in Brawl and people probably wouldn't have had as much of a problem. But the animations become ingrained with the character and new ones would change the effect of the mover drastically. There's a deep balance between animation and move effect, and that's something I'm not entirely pleased with. But, that's a fighting game for ya.

[Luigi Dude]

I would really like to see the character total toned down to 15 maybe 20. Too many characters, while awesome to pit against, really end up taking the time needed to make a flawless fighting game. Mortal Kombat found this out the hard way.

Remind me how many characters Melee had.  I believe that number is great.  Plus, it's okay to have a lot of characters as long as the balance is good.  The more you have, the harder it is to balance everything which I guess is the problem with Brawl.  Here's hoping that working with the Tekken people, Sakurai can figure that out this time.

Oh here we go again 

The Smash Bros series is a party fighting game where people get to play as Nintendo characters when they're with their friends.  Nobody give a **** how balanced the games are for tournament level play, on Final Destination with the items off.  This is why Brawl is considered by far the best Smash Bros to most people because it has the most characters, end of story.

If I had a choice between a roster of 50 characters that is somewhat unbalanced or a roster of 20 that is balanced, I'd easily take the 50 character roster because it means more Nintendo characters to choose from and more new movesets to use.  This is what 99% of the people who play Smash Bros feel as well because they want more of their favorite characters to choose from.  Removing characters just to please the tournament fanbase who makes up less then 1% of the overall fanbase would basically kill the series and be very stupid to do.

Of course for basic level play which 99% of all people play Smash Bros, Brawl was pretty well balanced which shows roster size doesn't mean much.  I still have yet to meet one of these God tier Meta Knight players because I don't go to tournaments.  Out of my group of friends, I'm one of the best players and I'm a Luigi player, and last time I checked Luigi is considered only Mid tier in Brawl, which shows the tier list means **** for basic play because I beat Meta Knight and Snake players in my group all the time.  Hell, I still kick a lot of ass with Captain Falcon in Brawl as well and he's considered of the worst characters in Brawl, which once again shows the tier list means **** for non-tournament play.

If Sakurai could balance out a 39 characters roster, I don't see him having a problem with a 50 character roster either, especially when he has Tekken people helping out as well.

[TJ Spyke]

I have to agree with Luigi Dude, I don't want a paltry 15-20 characters, nor do I care what tournament players want.

[Stogi]

I'm not a tournament player and my favorite SSB is 64. I don't apply to your logic. While I would love a **** ton of characters to brawl with, the fact of the matter is the game suffers, either directly or indirectly. And I'm not even talking about balance since Link is my favorite character from the first game and he's pretty bad. What I think it is, is the time spent dealing with those extra characters doesn't allow them to experiment with what works and what doesn't, what should be added and what should be thrown out, resulting in a less fun game.

[Ian Sane]

SSB was never meant to be a "serious" fighting game.  I remember when the first game came out and SF and Tekken fans all thumbed their noses at it.  It's a fighting game for people who are not fans of fighting games (kind of like Paper Mario is for RPGs).  If they focused on what the tourney folks wanted they would make it MORE like the other fighting games that the SSB audience was not necessarily interested in in the first place.  If you want to treat fighting games like serious business then go play Virtua Fighter or Street Fighter or King of Fighters.  There are tons of great game series for that.

Of course Nintendo can always just provide options to customize the game for all players.  So if some characters goof up the balance, fine, disable them when you play your tournament.

If Nintendo wanted to make a serious fighting game I don't think they would have come to the conclusion to have Pikachu in it and to have such a streamlined and simple way to execute special moves.  They should go for broke on characters as the various Nintendo IP references are a big part of the fun.

[S-U-P-E-R]

 
Having a lot of characters vs having reasonable game balance is a false dichotomy, please drop it (see; SF4, UMVC3, Tekken). Also it's been made clear that there's going to be more characters anyway. What is actually going to determine the character balance depends on how the development process is handled - how much playtesting is gonna get done? Who are they going to bring in to do it?
 
I want the game to be balanced so it will be fun for a long time. Brawl was not fun for a long time.
 

SSB was never meant to be a "serious" fighting game.  I remember when the first game came out and SF and Tekken fans all thumbed their noses at it.

Did you know people felt the same way about the Marvel series before it picked up steam and became maybe the most beloved tournament fighter of all time?
 

Oh here we go again 

The Smash Bros series is a party fighting game where people get to play as Nintendo characters when they're with their friends.  Nobody give a **** how balanced the games are for tournament level play, on Final Destination with the items off.  This is why Brawl is considered by far the best Smash Bros to most people because it has the most characters, end of story.

If I had a choice between a roster of 50 characters that is somewhat unbalanced or a roster of 20 that is balanced, I'd easily take the 50 character roster because it means more Nintendo characters to choose from and more new movesets to use.  This is what 99% of the people who play Smash Bros feel as well because they want more of their favorite characters to choose from.  Removing characters just to please the tournament fanbase who makes up less then 1% of the overall fanbase would basically kill the series and be very stupid to do.

Of course for basic level play which 99% of all people play Smash Bros, Brawl was pretty well balanced which shows roster size doesn't mean much.

I just kind of want to annoyingly nitpick this post to death. People care about balance, Brawl is unbalanced, people like Melee better, [citation needed] for 99%, nobody actually wants less characters because that is not a solution to game balance problems.
 

Out of my group of friends, I'm one of the best players and I'm a Luigi player, and last time I checked Luigi is considered only Mid tier in Brawl, which shows the tier list means **** for basic play because I beat Meta Knight and Snake players in my group all the time.  Hell, I still kick a lot of ass with Captain Falcon in Brawl as well and he's considered of the worst characters in Brawl, which once again shows the tier list means **** for non-tournament play.

No it only means your friends are garbage

[TJ Spyke]

Brawl was fun for a long time, it's STILL fun. And Brawl is pretty balances, 99% of people won't notice subtle things. And when I hear people say characters like Meta Knight are too strong, I laugh at them. A good player will win on skill, a good player can take someone that are consider "low tier" (I have to question who makes these tiers and what makes them thing they are the authority) can beat a similar skilled player that has a high tier character.

[tendoboy1984]

Brawl was fun for a long time, it's STILL fun. And Brawl is pretty balances, 99% of people won't notice subtle things. And when I hear people say characters like Meta Knight are too strong, I laugh at them. A good player will win on skill, a good player can take someone that are consider "low tier" (I have to question who makes these tiers and what makes them thing they are the authority) can beat a similar skilled player that has a high tier character.

A skilled player can be good at any character. It has nothing to do with "tiers", only skill (and sometimes luck).

[S-U-P-E-R]

Brawl was fun for a long time, it's STILL fun. And Brawl is pretty balances, 99% of people won't notice subtle things. And when I hear people say characters like Meta Knight are too strong, I laugh at them.

The people I play casually with are all good at games, and playing a terrible character will only result in ass-beatings. Please realize that this isn't just something that happens in a tournament environment. It does make players move on to better games, though.
 

A good player will win on skill, a good player can take someone that are consider "low tier" (I have to question who makes these tiers and what makes them thing they are the authority) can beat a similar skilled player that has a high tier character.

No, this is wrong. I don't know what further evidence you need than consistent tournament domination.
 

A skilled player can be good at any character. It has nothing to do with "tiers", only skill (and sometimes luck).

You can be "good" at any character, but it's noooooo good when you master Ganon and find out you've only scaled a molehill.

[TJ Spyke]

Tournament selection just results because those people are afraid to try someone not so popular. Skills of the player will trump character selection, plain and simple. Most people don't care about the tournament environment or what those players think. People will still have fun, and them picking "good" characters won't make them any less likely to lose since it all comes down to skill (with a little bit of luck based on the stage and items, though that is an ESSENTIAL part of the Smash games).

[S-U-P-E-R]

Tournament selection just results because those people are afraid to try someone not so popular. Skills of the player will trump character selection, plain and simple. Most people don't care about the tournament environment or what those players think. People will still have fun, and them picking "good" characters won't make them any less likely to lose since it all comes down to skill (with a little bit of luck based on the stage and items, though that is an ESSENTIAL part of the Smash games).

So by that logic, if there were a joke character whose moves only did 1% damage and it moved like a garbage truck in quicksand, he'd still have a fair shot in a match with whatever other character, between two good players? That's effectively what you're arguing.

Furthermore, you suggest Smash tournament players bandwagon on Metaknight just because he's popular, not because he's too good. Then why doesn't this happen in other fighting games?

[TJ Spyke]

It does happen in other fighting games, as you have even said.

And way to user hyperbole. No characters are anywhere near that bad in Brawl.

[S-U-P-E-R]

It does happen in other fighting games, as you have even said.

Where? When? Top players don't bandwagon on single characters in relatively balanced games (SF4, MVC3, Tekken). They will on certain characters if they ARE substantially better than the rest (like in Brawl, or the top dozen or so MVC2 characters).

And way to user hyperbole. No characters are anywhere near that bad in Brawl.

How bad would a character have to be to not have a shot, then? Tell me.

[Stogi]

Jeez...I knew this would happen but I wrote it anyways.

I'm just going to say one last thing before I bail out of this thread for good: I also want all the characters unlocked from the get-go.

[nickmitch]

Wasn't there a fighting game with a joke character modeled to look like Ken and Ryu?

[TJ Spyke]

Wasn't there a fighting game with a joke character modeled to look like Ken and Ryu?

Yes, the character of Dan Hibiki. He was introduced in Street Fighter Alpha. He was basically Capcom's response to SNK making a character similar to Ryu and Ken in Art of Fighting named Ryo. So Capcom responded by taking Ryo's art design and tweaking it, then making the character weak (like his fireball going about 2 feet before evaporating).

[tendoboy1984]

Wasn't there a fighting game with a joke character modeled to look like Ken and Ryu?

Yes, the character of Dan Hibiki. He was introduced in Street Fighter Alpha. He was basically Capcom's response to SNK making a character similar to Ryu and Ken in Art of Fighting named Ryo. So Capcom responded by taking Ryo's art design and tweaking it, then making the character weak (like his fireball going about 2 feet before evaporating).

Isn't that considered theft? Couldn't SNK and Capcom sue each other for tweaking an existing character from another game?

[Caterkiller]

I just want lots of characters and balance. I played often competitively and casually. Casually, items on or off, free for all or 1vs1 I don't worry about balance too much cause I know my opponent won't or can't exploit certain characters.

But I like to play competively as well and there is nothing worse than literally being stuck in another characters infinite or chain grab because Sakurais gang didn't test the game enough or care enough to remove exploits like that.

Still I love Brawl way more than Melee. All I ask is can we have a fun party game where characters don't have OVERWHELMINGLY huge advantages over others? Slight advantages and disadvantages are one thing, but when one characters win ratio is 80/20 over another at high level play you know something is wrong.

[Sarail]

As I hold small Smash tourneys fairly often here at my apartment, I really want tons of characters with lots of balance.

It is possible to have your cake and eat it, too, folks.

[S-U-P-E-R]

Jeez...I knew this would happen but I wrote it anyways.

I'm just going to say one last thing before I bail out of this thread for good: I also want all the characters unlocked from the get-go.

You could be a master troll if you meant to be

Yeah, all the characters should be unlocked. It's a pain in the ass when someone doesn't have save data at game night.
 
Capcom lost their case against SNK in court, so making a parody character was a their hilarious backup plan. Dan Hibiki is even funnier when you realize he has Ryo's body and Robert's head

[S-U-P-E-R]

As I hold small Smash tourneys fairly often here at my apartment, I really want tons of characters with lots of balance.

It is possible to have your cake and eat it, too, folks.

I just want lots of characters and balance. I played often competitively and casually. Casually, items on or off, free for all or 1vs1 I don't worry about balance too much cause I know my opponent won't or can't exploit certain characters.

But I like to play competively as well and there is nothing worse than literally being stuck in another characters infinite or chain grab because Sakurais gang didn't test the game enough or care enough to remove exploits like that.

Still I love Brawl way more than Melee. All I ask is can we have a fun party game where characters don't have OVERWHELMINGLY huge advantages over others? Slight advantages and disadvantages are one thing, but when one characters win ratio is 80/20 over another at high level play you know something is wrong.

These posts. This this this this a thousand times over!

[TJ Spyke]

Wasn't there a fighting game with a joke character modeled to look like Ken and Ryu?

Yes, the character of Dan Hibiki. He was introduced in Street Fighter Alpha. He was basically Capcom's response to SNK making a character similar to Ryu and Ken in Art of Fighting named Ryo. So Capcom responded by taking Ryo's art design and tweaking it, then making the character weak (like his fireball going about 2 feet before evaporating).

Isn't that considered theft? Couldn't SNK and Capcom sue each other for tweaking an existing character from another game?

They didn't literally just steal them, they just made them similar. Think of it like Fei Long being based on Bruce Lee but different enough to avoid a lawsuit. Capcom and SNK were both good sports about it and liked taking jabs at each other.

[S-U-P-E-R]

I don't know if you could call it sporting to file suit, lose, and then make a parody character. Their relationship clearly got better by the time they started making crossover games, though. I always thought it would have been incredibly funny if SNK made Dan the strongest character in SvC Chaos...