Topic: PlayStation All Stars: Better than Super Smash Bros Brawl!

[nickmitch]

So, killing trips is obvious, but what would you do to items to "balance" the game more? Other than just turn them off.

On Jeopardy the smartest person wins 99% of the time.

And the 1% was the one time where the computer won.

[Chozo Ghost]

So, killing trips is obvious, but what would you do to items to "balance" the game more? Other than just turn them off.

On Jeopardy the smartest person wins 99% of the time.

And the 1% was the one time where the computer won.

There is some randomness in Jeopardy in the categories and Daily Doubles and how quickly you buzz in. If things are close enough a slightly less smart player could pull ahead because of some luck. But the difference with wheel of fortune and a lot of other game shows is that luck is a much larger factor.

[BlackNMild2k1]

I think its great that Nintendo's games are being used in Tournaments. It reminds me of that movie the Wiz.

? ? ?

[nickmitch]

Ease on down the road!

So, killing trips is obvious, but what would you do to items to "balance" the game more? Other than just turn them off.

On Jeopardy the smartest person wins 99% of the time.

And the 1% was the one time where the computer won.

There is some randomness in Jeopardy in the categories and Daily Doubles and how quickly you buzz in. If things are close enough a slightly less smart player could pull ahead because of some luck. But the difference with wheel of fortune and a lot of other game shows is that luck is a much larger factor.

I was just kidding and referring to the time Watson destroyed Ken Jennings.

[UncleBob]

Wow.  All I have to say is stay away from BoardGameGeek.com's Monopoly forum if you want to debate luck vs. skill...

[Chozo Ghost]

I honestly don't think Ken Jennings is necessarily the best champion Jeopardy ever had. He showed up at a great time because it was just after the show adopted the new rule to allow champions to be on the show over and over again until they were defeated. It used to be that when someone won on the show that was it and they didn't come back the next night. So there were decades and decades (the show started in 1964 according to Wikipedia) where there were champions who MIGHT have went on as long of a winning streak as Ken did, or even longer, but they couldn't because they weren't allowed to. So who really knows?



Oh, and yeah I meant the Fred Savage movie Wizard. I keep getting those two movies mixed up because the names are so similar.

[Morari]

Wow.  All I have to say is stay away from BoardGameGeek.com's Monopoly forum if you want to debate luck vs. skill...

That's true for any of those "toy aisle" type of games. A game that is dictated entirely by dice rolls is no fun. There's no skill nor strategy involved. You might as well set it to auto pilot and come back after a few hours to see who has "won".

[nickmitch]

You still have choices to make. It's not like craps.

[Chozo Ghost]

Monopoly isn't dictated entirely by dice rolls. There are choices to make and risks to take. I'd say its a good 50/50 balance between luck and skill. You can choose to buy properties versus building up existing ones, or whatever.

[that Baby guy]

Reading over pages in this thread is just sad. My summary of the argument:

Most people:

Smash Bros. is meant to be played in one way, and only one way: The way I find most fun. It was designed that way, with my way in mind. Anyone who plays it any other way is playing it wrong.

Ty:

Why not let people play the game the way they want to play the game? If people want to take it to a tournament, why not allow some rules modifications? There's already options to change items and stages, and most people like that. What's wrong with the versatility of control and a game system designed well enough that it holds up in competitions for years?

Since when did it become a big issue for a few people to play a game the way they want to play it? Smash Bros. tournaments literally do nothing to hurt the game. All they want are the options to adjust more of the game, much like how there's time mode, stock mode, stamina mode, item select, character select, and so on and so forth. They want more of that, and they want the game to be as well constructed in execution as Melee was. Find me a Smash Bros. fan who's opposed to that and I'll point a finger at someone who literally must be crazy.

[S-U-P-E-R]

So, killing trips is obvious, but what would you do to items to "balance" the game more? Other than just turn them off.

Well, you know, just retune the character balance a little. I also think the game would benefit a bit from little things like putting the stage select before the character select.

An idea I was playing around with in my head - a tournament mode with items, where items appeared symmetrically or after a visible 5 second clock+shadow or something. I don't know how it'd stand up to super hardcore scrutiny but it seems like a fun way to have items without the I-won-the-lottery factor.

Something for Sony's or some new 'Smash' game to look into?

[nickmitch]

I feel like that would create a sort of king-of-the-hill type battle everytime an item came up. It'd still be like winning the lottery, only you'll be fighting for your ticket.

And the stage select before the character select? I always knew you were a bit crazy. That's seems like something that could easily be an option you could switch on.

[Ceric]

Just briefly reading through this page of responses.  I think it safe to assume that Hungry Hungry Hippos(HHH) is the Ultimate Game because it requires timing and reflexes without leaving your couch.

Since a fighting game can't have the Simplistic Elegance of HHH having tuning options for the game modes would makes for interesting scenarios.  All those crazy rules you and your friends had to enforce on the honor system could be made a reality with Super Tuning!  Gran-Tourismo level of tuning for your fighter.

[Chozo Ghost]

There is also rock em sock em robots. That was the fighting game people played back before there was Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat.

[S-U-P-E-R]

There is also rock em sock em robots. That was the fighting game people played back before there was Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat.

The best game because it's the best balanced

[S-U-P-E-R]

http://shoryuken.com/2011/11/26/sony-smash-bros-screenshots-surface-straight-from-the-developer/

[Mop it up]

Actually Smash Brothers games have dropped in quality ever since the first game.

The first game was brilliant.  The second great, but had some flaws...mostly because the design didn't really improve much over the first game in features.  Finally, Brawl was just not fun.  Story mode is horrible, and the multiplayer was chaotic, but didn't feel as refined as in Melee...which was a letdown to me from the first.

Yes, the first game is the most basic, but it also feels the best.  It just gets it right.

This is exactly it for me. I liked Brawl at first, but the more I played it, the more flaws I discovered, and now I can no longer stand the game. Melee is still my favourite of the three mostly due to the content, though the first game has the best style and pacing.

To me Brawl feels like Sakurai lost his original vision from the first game. It's just so different. I'd like the next game to be more like the original, but considering that Sakurai is still involved, I'm not even going to bother hoping that it will turn out to be a competent game.

[Spak-Spang]

What I realized about the Smash Brothers franchise is that the additions they added didn't always enhance the gameplay...but actually hindered it somewhat.

Why I think the first is better goes back to how much fun my friends had with that game compared to the sequels.   The first game was the go to multiplayer game if we weren't playing Perfect Dark.  I liked Bomberman, but it didn't hold the appeal.  The levels were simple, but worked.  They didn't feel like there was too much movement or unfair traps...and overall enjoyable to play.  The speed of the game was slower which allowed for players to take in the action easier.  Let's face it all the smash brothers games could get chaotic, but the speed and simplicity of the first allowed it to be reasonable for all players, beginners and experts, which just made it more fun.

Melee comes out and really takes the formula and adds alot of depth to the game.  Adding more throws, shield control, reversals, characters, items, everything just got bigger...but overall it felt like the same game.  So why isn't this the go to game for Smash Brothers...for many it is.  But for me, the speed and overall chaos of items and level design killed the experience.  My friends still enjoyed playing the game, but often I found myself cursing the fighting system, and just played against people randomly hitting buttons winning.  This game suffered from adding too much stuff without properly balancing and thinking about the changes and how it effects the players.

To me if Melee had better level design, item balance, and most importantly the speed of the original with some of the other enhancements it would have been better.

Finally, Brawl just continued the add more...but the chaos of Melee was already too much.  Now stage hazards, even more items, assist trophies, pokemon, everything made the otherall experience worse...and its because the sum of all the additions made it worse than better. 

Sometimes it is  good to keep things simple.  That doesn't mean you don't add new things, but you are careful with them.  All 3 of the Smash games are still better than any other Smash clone game out there, the formula of King of the Hill gameplay just works for this type of game.  So despite the complaints, I still feel the series is better than anything else outthere.

[ThePerm]

if only they could release a compilation game called multi-player brilliance. Smash Bros. Goldeneye, Bomberman, Soul Calibur, mario kart, wii sports. You would never have to get up to change the disc, and you would go through less menus then virtual console.

[Stogi]

I always thought Melee was the better game, but I have more fun with the original.

[Spak-Spang]

Stogi:  You know technically I would agree with you...but that more fun has to count for something.

[ThePerm]

yeah, i only rented the first smash bros, it was fun, but only played it briefly with my brother. The general consensus at the time was it was a not serious fighting game genre entry. However, when Melee came out it seemed much much more serious of a game and we just played it non stop for months.

[Adrock]

I like the additions and refinements to the gameplay introduced in Melee. It gave the series more depth without being complicated. Brawl didn't add much to the formula. It was mostly just Melee masquerading as a new game except you spent far more time fighting the stage hazards. I would go as far as to say that most of the new stages in Brawl were flat-out fucking awful. It went from "Let me throw you into Charmander" to "Oh Jesus Christ on a crutch, Palkia is mirroring the stage again... and now I'm dead."

That said, I'd like to see the development team strip down some of the mayhem and go back to the basics of the original or even Melee where the stage hazards weren't so intrusive. They spiced up the stages but the focus was still on fighting. The game was still chaotic and random and fun when the stages weren't so meddlesome.

And by the way, I hate vertically scrolling stages. I didn't think it was possible to make a bad Jungle Beat stage but Sakurai and co pulled it off.

Anyway, my hope for this Sony Smash Bros-esque game is that it aspires to be more than Smash Bros with Kratos and Nathan Drake. I he my doubts which is why I can't seem to care about this game despite it being further along than the next Smash Bros. game.

[Spak-Spang]

Adrock:  True.  I think if you take all the fighting enhancements of Melee.  Then strip away some of the assist trophies and Pokemon, and slow the speed down to where it is more of a dance than a sprint, I think you would have the perfect Smash game.

Sure the levels need to be done right.  Melee had good levels, but remember some of the Melee levels were chaotic and not played as much...I don't know why they created more like that in Brawl.  I guess they really wanted variety...but it was awful variety.

[Caterkiller]

I love playing Smash Bros in a tourny style, people who don't even consider than an option for people like me are just greedy but heads.

Melee was just too fast for me, way to fast I could not enjoy it after a while. Brawl slowed things down which made it much more playable for me, much like the first, but I later found some characters had amazing advantages over others. Sakurai adjusting the character atributes all his own is the result of that, the a-hole.

As many characters as they can get in is great, especially if real clones like ganondorf can get a more unique moveset. Stages that are wacky and flatter stages with a few platforms are great! Everything can't be off the wall nuts. If we got 50 stages in the next game I would love for 10 of them to be fairly flat with an extra plat form here or there with very little stage interaction. I don't mind new items or anything of that nature since that can be toned down as little or as much as one wants.