My first real mentor in eSports was this crotchety old guy some of you may know. His name is Carmac. I remember many of my conversations with Carmac, but none of them stuck with me quite like the one we had when I asked him what made a healthy eSport. His answer was approximately this:
"It's not prize money or box sales or stream viewers. An eSport is healthy when it has a steady influx of new players. Players are the life force of eSports."
It seems like such a simple "no duh" thing to say, but it's really amazing how accurately that statement can measure entire gaming communities.
The Smash Bros community, specifically the Super Smash Bros Melee community, is the one that I measured today. It's a community of players that don't have the luxury of clicking "find match" and being paired with an opponent somewhere in the world. When they want to play, they get in their cars and drive. And when they compete, it's shoulder to shoulder with the guys they're trying to beat. And all for what? It sure as hell isn't ladder points. This is a game that came out nearly 14 years ago. A game that was never meant to be played competitively. A game so old that it has outlived the hardware it needs to be played. You wouldn't be wrong to ask "How the hell is anyone even playing it at all?"
And yet here I stood. In a room full of dudes who lugged in their decade old CRT televisions that they probably bought for fifteen bucks at the Goodwill (because where the hell else can you buy a CRT these days?) when it dawns on me. I'm not about to be sitting down next to ten year veterans of the Smash Bros franchise like me. Most these kids were still in diapers when this game came out. Hell, at least one of them probably wasn't even born yet.
Somehow I had fallen through a wormhole or something and I was back in 2003, surrounded by my pimply faced friends, vying for supremacy of my block, or my hall, or my school. But I wasn't back in high school. I was at JJ's Game Lounge, some little hole in the wall in Chatsworth, California, and these kids weren't my friends. They were the exact opposite - sworn enemies, doomed to face my wrath, because I'll be damned if some little shit who's never heard of The Spice Girls is going to beat me in a game I've been practicing for ten years.
And about five minutes later I had just finished getting my ass kicked. And then once more about fifteen minutes after that. 0-2, 0-2 in what will forever be remembered as the worst tournament run of Mr. Bitter's esteemed eSports career.
But I wasn't mad. I was amazed. JJ's Game Lounge is not the mecca of competitive Smash in Southern California. It's the bush league. SoCal's best Smashers were all on the other side of the country, playing in Paragon, a huge, international tournament, watched live by over 50,000 people. And even if the top guys hadn't been traveling, they wouldn't have been at JJ's. They would have been competing at Super Arcade, in Walnut, over 60 miles away.
What I'm getting at is this: I found a pocket of passionate Smash players. None of them were old farts like me. They were all new. They were all young and hungry, and discovering the competitive community for the first time. And I don't think them unique. I don't think JJ's is unique. There's spots just like it all over Southern California. And I believe the same holds true for the rest of the country.
When I take a step back and think about that conversation with Carmac, and the quintessential definition of a healthy eSport, its not DOTA 2 or League of Legends that I think about first. (And no, before you ask, it sure as hell isn't StarCraft either) It's a game you can't play online. A game you can't even play on your new TV. It's Smash Brothers. And I can't wait to play again.
Thats a very interesting (and good) point you bring up about the health of esports. I have some friends in the smash community and I check it out from time to time, but it along with the CS community seems to be quite vibrant over the past year.
Carmac, that wise old man... It's a good point he has there. Unfortunately, it's not like we can have stats about those new players joining each "eSport" game !
Also, I'm getting more and more interested in playing some Smash again. The more I read about it, the more curious I get. And the fact that it's such an unlikely game to become an "eSport" only makes it even more interesting !
Edit: Also, glad to hear from you again MrBitter ! What are you up to these days ? :-)
I have also been getting more interested in checking out competitive smash. I started looking into it when I saw Smash 4 came out but didnt expect that SSBM would still be the preferred eSport
On January 19 2015 19:27 Bacon_Infinity wrote: I have also been getting more interested in checking out competitive smash. I started looking into it when I saw Smash 4 came out but didnt expect that SSBM would still be the preferred eSport
SSBM is superior in almost every way as a competative game. It's faster, deaper, more skillbased, better balanced and has a very established and passionate scene.
On January 19 2015 19:27 Bacon_Infinity wrote: I have also been getting more interested in checking out competitive smash. I started looking into it when I saw Smash 4 came out but didnt expect that SSBM would still be the preferred eSport
As many older games it is less polished, a UI that is more rough around the edges and it has more bugs to abuse. Probably makes for a more competitive game in the same way that BW compares to SC2 for many of the more old school fans.
On January 19 2015 19:27 Bacon_Infinity wrote: I have also been getting more interested in checking out competitive smash. I started looking into it when I saw Smash 4 came out but didnt expect that SSBM would still be the preferred eSport
It's because Melee has a grandfathered-in community that's arguably stronger in America than the other games' communities, and it poisons the well of every other Smash community, even when other communities support them. They've won out through sheer cussed toxicity and ruthlessness.
My verdict is play the games, read the guides, get good, play in tournaments, avoid the community, especially online. Don't mention Sm4sh around Melee fans and don't mention Melee around Sm4sh fans. Most of them are pretty patient and tolerant, but you'll be surprised and frustrated if and when you run into one of the more sneeringly partisan ones. You can make friends with everyone and talk about anything with PM though. Probably the best game for making friends and having a good time. Casuals and fanatics alike. It's kind of getting pushed out of the tournament scene by The Great Satan N though, so get at it while it lasts.
As an addendum, the online community is significantly worse than the in-person community. It may just be that I'm from Minnesota, but I've found that our local scene is like 2/3 nice people, even if they secretly flame people's game choices on r/smashbros.
On January 19 2015 19:27 Bacon_Infinity wrote: I have also been getting more interested in checking out competitive smash. I started looking into it when I saw Smash 4 came out but didnt expect that SSBM would still be the preferred eSport
As many older games it is less polished, a UI that is more rough around the edges and it has more bugs to abuse. Probably makes for a more competitive game in the same way that BW compares to SC2 for many of the more old school fans.
Smash 4 is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more dumbed down than SC2 though.
On January 19 2015 19:27 Bacon_Infinity wrote: I have also been getting more interested in checking out competitive smash. I started looking into it when I saw Smash 4 came out but didnt expect that SSBM would still be the preferred eSport
As many older games it is less polished, a UI that is more rough around the edges and it has more bugs to abuse. Probably makes for a more competitive game in the same way that BW compares to SC2 for many of the more old school fans.
Smash 4 is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more dumbed down than SC2 though.
On January 19 2015 19:27 Bacon_Infinity wrote: I have also been getting more interested in checking out competitive smash. I started looking into it when I saw Smash 4 came out but didnt expect that SSBM would still be the preferred eSport
As many older games it is less polished, a UI that is more rough around the edges and it has more bugs to abuse. Probably makes for a more competitive game in the same way that BW compares to SC2 for many of the more old school fans.
Smash 4 is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more dumbed down than SC2 though.
And it's still better than Brawl is.
Well honestly brawl was almost designed not to be competitive.
On January 19 2015 19:27 Bacon_Infinity wrote: I have also been getting more interested in checking out competitive smash. I started looking into it when I saw Smash 4 came out but didnt expect that SSBM would still be the preferred eSport
As many older games it is less polished, a UI that is more rough around the edges and it has more bugs to abuse. Probably makes for a more competitive game in the same way that BW compares to SC2 for many of the more old school fans.
Smash 4 is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more dumbed down than SC2 though.
While I never played it I would assume it is. After all, Nintendo's target audience is casual gamers, not esports fanatics.
On January 19 2015 19:27 Bacon_Infinity wrote: I have also been getting more interested in checking out competitive smash. I started looking into it when I saw Smash 4 came out but didnt expect that SSBM would still be the preferred eSport
As many older games it is less polished, a UI that is more rough around the edges and it has more bugs to abuse. Probably makes for a more competitive game in the same way that BW compares to SC2 for many of the more old school fans.
Smash 4 is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more dumbed down than SC2 though.
And it's still better than Brawl is.
Well honestly brawl was almost designed not to be competitive.
Not even almost, they added non-optional random tripping to ensure that the game couldn't be played seriously, since there was no way to avoid randomness.
I love melee and watch almost every event but without a melee HD or some kind of port on the wii u the growth will slow down eventually. I know it exist via nintendont but it seem rather obscure atm.
CRTs are the biggest problem to the game at this point. Having an entire setup that take so much space for only 1 game is not a minor inconvenience for many.
It's pretty sad that NoA has no power because I'm sure that there would be a way to make money of a remake that would be "tournament edition". Look at all the work that has been done on 20XX and PM.
On January 20 2015 06:59 scDeluX wrote: It's pretty sad that NoA has no power because I'm sure that there would be a way to make money of a remake that would be "tournament edition". Look at all the work that has been done on 20XX and PM.
If NoA had real power, they'd probably just create a tournament edition of SSB4 with the alterations that have been widely requested by fans.
On January 19 2015 19:27 Bacon_Infinity wrote: I have also been getting more interested in checking out competitive smash. I started looking into it when I saw Smash 4 came out but didnt expect that SSBM would still be the preferred eSport
It's because Melee has a grandfathered-in community that's arguably stronger in America than the other games' communities, and it poisons the well of every other Smash community, even when other communities support them. They've won out through sheer cussed toxicity and ruthlessness.
My verdict is play the games, read the guides, get good, play in tournaments, avoid the community, especially online. Don't mention Sm4sh around Melee fans and don't mention Melee around Sm4sh fans. Most of them are pretty patient and tolerant, but you'll be surprised and frustrated if and when you run into one of the more sneeringly partisan ones. You can make friends with everyone and talk about anything with PM though. Probably the best game for making friends and having a good time. Casuals and fanatics alike. It's kind of getting pushed out of the tournament scene by The Great Satan N though, so get at it while it lasts.
As an addendum, the online community is significantly worse than the in-person community. It may just be that I'm from Minnesota, but I've found that our local scene is like 2/3 nice people, even if they secretly flame people's game choices on r/smashbros.
5/5 pretty cool, i really like that melee players like smash that much, but honestly, in my opinion, they should switch to smash 4 already. I mean its not even a question of which one is ebtter, both are really close and simmilar, even if you think melee is better, but simply because smash 4 is newer it could gather even more attention, its strictly buissness
I'm not even worried about SC2 anymore~ I've accepted it for what it is: a dying game. I'm not basing that on stream views, tournament's unique viewership, etc. Its the fact that we have new NA teams recruiting the same tired old "talent" almost 5 years after its release. You gotta have new blood to keep it going. I'm just sad that SC2 didn't produce it.
i would be interested to hear what you think about the PM scene. SSBM is top dog but here in Sacramento i feel the Project M scene is bigger then the Melee.
On January 20 2015 12:02 [SXG]Phantom wrote: 5/5 pretty cool, i really like that melee players like smash that much, but honestly, in my opinion, they should switch to smash 4 already. I mean its not even a question of which one is ebtter, both are really close and simmilar, even if you think melee is better, but simply because smash 4 is newer it could gather even more attention, its strictly buissness
Interestingly enough, that's how the philosophy is in Japan. They have a strong tendency to support the newest title loyally. This is made much easier by the fact that the Japanese Sm4sh metagame is far more offensive than the Western one, despite the fact that they use a significantly campier stage list. When players perfect rushdown styles before players get campy styles to work, then the metagame naturally becomes more offensive. I had a strong preference for Japanese Brawl VODs for this same reason.
On January 20 2015 12:02 [SXG]Phantom wrote: 5/5 pretty cool, i really like that melee players like smash that much, but honestly, in my opinion, they should switch to smash 4 already. I mean its not even a question of which one is ebtter, both are really close and simmilar, even if you think melee is better, but simply because smash 4 is newer it could gather even more attention, its strictly buissness
On January 20 2015 12:02 [SXG]Phantom wrote: both are really close and simmilar
No lol. Smash 4 is clearly not a game that is suited for esport and I doubt the hype will survive 1-2 years. Smash 4 at Paragon was boring at hell but the true test is gonna be at apex in 2 weeks. I hope that top 8 is all boring mirror diddy so they might patch him but even then. The game is too slow and there is like no possible real combo. Some char like diddy zss sheik and luigi are clearly way above the rest.
Claiming that Smash 4 and Melee are similar is like claiming that Age of Empires and Starcraft are similar, honestly.
Both can be played and enjoyed and what have you, but beyond being the same sort of game, they have nothing much in common.
Also don't listen to the vocal majority that will hate on whatever game you choose to play. Play what you like, and just bask in the hype of the other games when you have a chance to. I don't like playing Smash4/Brawl but when my friends do in tournament, I'll sit back and enjoy the crowd and root for them. Nothing wrong with that.
Melee players used to be defensive about Melee v Brawl because Brawl nearly killed the Melee scene. Smash 4 didn't make a dent, but still the same kind of debates about which game should be represented at this or that place led to flaming and unnecessary community wars.
Numbers speak for themselves though. At Apex, which is the highest point of the year for Smash, bar EVO, Melee will have 1037 entrants while Smash 4 will have 831.
Nintendo really fucked up by not seizing that opportunity to cater to the competitive fanbase with Smash4, even after missing out on it with Brawl as well.
Also, to anyone who thinks Melee was made to be a party game, any deeper look at the game engine will make you feel otherwise. Things are too polished to it to be a "whatever happens, happens" kind of game. It's actually quite scary how polished it is.
I'm not even worried about SC2 anymore~ I've accepted it for what it is: a dying game. I'm not basing that on stream views, tournament's unique viewership, etc. Its the fact that we have new NA teams recruiting the same tired old "talent" almost 5 years after its release. You gotta have new blood to keep it going. I'm just sad that SC2 didn't produce it.
I wouldn't count SC2 out just yet. It seems to be doing better in Korea, it's just the international scene that doesn't see a lot of top tier talent. With the changes to WCS this year we might see a more thriving international scene. Remember that one DreamHack with only European players? It was super hype despite the lack of Korean talent. I think we can expect something similar this year. LotV is also on the horizon and could be a huge boon to the community as well.
But MrBitter and Carmac are on point. You really need fresh blood. I started watching Melee during Evo 2013 but didn't actually ever play it until Summer 2014 and it was a blast. Now, I have a GC controller and adapter so I can play Melee/PM on PC and also Smash 4 on 3DS. Melee really is an amazing game to both play and watch.
On January 20 2015 12:21 iseefor wrote: i would be interested to hear what you think about the PM scene. SSBM is top dog but here in Sacramento i feel the Project M scene is bigger then the Melee.
I think PM is great. It's the closest thing we've got to a sequel to melee. Unfortunately, until Nintendo decides to change their stance on the game, we'll never see it on big stages. Any organizer that wants to run Smash will want to run melee, and Nintendo's current stance seems to be "we'll shut you down if you also run PM".
Am I the only one who thinks it's kind of a blessing that Nintendo decided to make Sm4sh catered to casual play? We don't want another "Close, but no cigar" competitive game.
If Blizzard, with all their experience in esports, couldn't make a succesful, enjoyable sequel to SC:BW (let's face it, the actively watching SC community is smaller now than it was before SC2:Beta) then I'm not sure Nintendo could've made a succesful "Melee-like" sequel. And in the end, the Melee community seems to be profiting way more from Smash4's success than they're losing to it.
I think people overestimate to what degree developper support is needed to make a succesful competitive game, especially now that e-sports in general is an established paradigm. I know Riot and Valve have made it work, but somehow I feel Nintendo would more likely join the Blizzard group.
I'm personally trash at Melee, just attended my first decent tournament here in Belgium. But the game is so insanely fun to play, improvement is really rewarding and watching the high level games is amazing. To me the entire experience playing the game and around the game reminds me of what I've previously only gotten from Brood War, Quake Live and to a lesser degree CS1.6/CS:GO.
It's fun to see the influx of SC players in to the Melee community. I don't know if it's because of TL's Smash team, but I'm pretty sure a lot of the old BW fans will stick around since the game in its entirety resembles Brood War a lot, albeit in a totally different genre/gameflow.
Obligatory #TenMoreYears and random reddit quote + Show Spoiler +
MeleeLaijin 4 points 12 hours ago I've always said it and it remains true. When you play Melee competitvely, you NEVER QUIT. This game HAS YOU ALL BY THE BALLS. You will again pick up a controller later on in your life. It will never leave your blood. You're trapped. This game is a drug.
I'm not even worried about SC2 anymore~ I've accepted it for what it is: a dying game. I'm not basing that on stream views, tournament's unique viewership, etc. Its the fact that we have new NA teams recruiting the same tired old "talent" almost 5 years after its release. You gotta have new blood to keep it going. I'm just sad that SC2 didn't produce it.
I wouldn't count SC2 out just yet. It seems to be doing better in Korea, it's just the international scene that doesn't see a lot of top tier talent. With the changes to WCS this year we might see a more thriving international scene. Remember that one DreamHack with only European players? It was super hype despite the lack of Korean talent. I think we can expect something similar this year. LotV is also on the horizon and could be a huge boon to the community as well.
But MrBitter and Carmac are on point. You really need fresh blood. I started watching Melee during Evo 2013 but didn't actually ever play it until Summer 2014 and it was a blast. Now, I have a GC controller and adapter so I can play Melee/PM on PC and also Smash 4 on 3DS. Melee really is an amazing game to both play and watch.
Yea also taking to account only NA scene really has that problem, counting sc2 out is stupid as fuck.
Found a very similar place to JJ's near my home in South Jersey called Salty Joystiq. It doesn't have the best players and yet I sometimes get rocked and it's very exciting. The Melee community is so interesting and unique and my god is it a fun time.
When i said meele and s4 are similar i meant it like, they have the same controls, same characters, similar stages. I mean, sure, on meele you do certain combos and stuff, but its is not as different as with sc2 and Bw, in both meele and 4, if you press b, with mario and mario on both games, it will do the exact same thing, whereas bw and sc are way way different, different units, different macro mechanics, different economy, group controls, pathing,etc etc.
So what i meant is that, yeah, maybe on meele theres l cancel and a bunch of other cool stuff, but the core game is not that different, so skill translate very well, and from an spectator point of view (and with this i mean not a super hardcore quasi-pro gamer) the game doesn't look much different.
So, if instead of playing smash, just because is a little better or so they say, they played sm4sh, it could be very benefficial to the scene, first of all, nintendo would support them more, then, since the game just came out a lot of people would say "hey smash 4? thats cool i can check it out" instead of saying "meele? people still play that thing? it was cool but man, grow up". Theres also online, and altough it isn't great, its better than nothing, and in general it has just way more ways to get into it than meele. Like, if i want to play meele i need to get the game, get a gamecube/wii, get a CRT, and some controllers to play a 15 year old game? Maybe you can buy a PC adaptor, but thats not really the game itself For me, as a casual it would simply be better to just go and get a wii u, which then i could use to buy more cool games like zelda or through the e-shop. Just think about it, for someone to get into meele right now, you would have to like it a lot, or get into the scene because of a friend, whereas with sm4sh, getting into the scene would be way way easier, making the scene grow even more than what meele is achieving right now.
Now don't get me wrong, even if im not a hardcore smash esport fan, i like it and im amazed at the fact that the scene is still somewhat healthy even with all these difficulties, but i think, purely as an e-sport buissness perspective, that the scene could grow much much much much more, if they went to sm4ash, even if it is a "worse game".
On January 21 2015 03:54 [SXG]Phantom wrote: When i said meele and s4 are similar i meant it like, they have the same controls, same characters, similar stages. I mean, sure, on meele you do certain combos and stuff, but its is not as different as with sc2 and Bw, in both meele and 4, if you press b, with mario and mario on both games, it will do the exact same thing, whereas bw and sc are way way different, different units, different macro mechanics, different economy, group controls, pathing,etc etc.
So what i meant is that, yeah, maybe on meele theres l cancel and a bunch of other cool stuff, but the core game is not that different, so skill translate very well, and from an spectator point of view (and with this i mean not a super hardcore quasi-pro gamer) the game doesn't look much different.
So, if instead of playing smash, just because is a little better or so they say, they played sm4sh, it could be very benefficial to the scene, first of all, nintendo would support them more, then, since the game just came out a lot of people would say "hey smash 4? thats cool i can check it out" instead of saying "meele? people still play that thing? it was cool but man, grow up". Theres also online, and altough it isn't great, its better than nothing, and in general it has just way more ways to get into it than meele. Like, if i want to play meele i need to get the game, get a gamecube/wii, get a CRT, and some controllers to play a 15 year old game? Maybe you can buy a PC adaptor, but thats not really the game itself For me, as a casual it would simply be better to just go and get a wii u, which then i could use to buy more cool games like zelda or through the e-shop. Just think about it, for someone to get into meele right now, you would have to like it a lot, or get into the scene because of a friend, whereas with sm4sh, getting into the scene would be way way easier, making the scene grow even more than what meele is achieving right now.
Now don't get me wrong, even if im not a hardcore smash esport fan, i like it and im amazed at the fact that the scene is still somewhat healthy even with all these difficulties, but i think, purely as an e-sport buissness perspective, that the scene could grow much much much much more, if they went to sm4ash, even if it is a "worse game".
There's a reason more people signed up for Melee than Smash 4 in Apex this year. From a competative standpoint, Melee is just better in every way. It's funner to play, it's faster, it's better balanced. The scene will grow more from exciting matches, and that's what Melee provides over Brawl and 4. The differences aren't comparable to BW or SC2, since both are very much legit as esports. Smash 4 is not esports viable, Melee is.
Think of it this way. When Sc2 came out, the starcraft scene didn't have to stick with it. If it had proven to be not playable at a competitive level, everyone would have switched back to BW. This is what happened with Brawl. Brawl was hyped up and was supposed to replace the Melee scene, until it came out and most people gave up on it in less than a year and went back to Melee. Smash 4 is very similar to Brawl, more so than it is to Melee. Melee is still far better.
Honestly, as someone who works on the business side of eSports, I do not think investing in Smash 4 makes sense.
The game is too similar to Brawl. Low skill ceiling, little/no advanced tech, slow/floaty characters, super forgiving gameplay...
The game will have no longevity. It's a 2 year title at best.
A downloadable HD re-release of Melee would cement that game a a core esport title for years to come. It would solve all the accessibility problems you just mentioned.
I think the best thing Smash 4 will do for eSports is make more casuals aware of the melee scene.
On January 21 2015 04:01 MrBitter wrote: Honestly, as someone who works on the business side of eSports, I do not think investing in Smash 4 makes sense.
The game is too similar to Brawl. Low skill ceiling, little/no advanced tech, slow/floaty characters, super forgiving gameplay...
The game will have no longevity. It's a 2 year title at best.
A downloadable HD re-release of Melee would cement that game a a core esport title for years to come. It would solve all the accessibility problems you just mentioned.
I think the best thing Smash 4 will do for eSports is make more casuals aware of the melee scene.
While I get the sentiment behind this, the game just barely came out. Players thought Starcraft 2 was a shallow game within 3-5 months of it coming out and that it was "figured out" fast because of all the existing players from bw working on it. Melee was a LOT slower years ago because people didn't know about L-Canceling, etc. Heck, there were even things people DID know about but didn't think were useful for years...like wavedashing.
The point being, I think it's far too early to make huge jugements about the game. Most of what made Melee what it is today are the intricacies that were discovered over time, not the initial interpertation of players.
Brawl gets a lot of hate but if a game has a low skill ceiling, then there should be a large number of players eventually hitting that skill ceiling and it should be pretty "rng" on who ends up winning right? But even in Brawl, there are consistent victors and winners at the top level. The game is still developing, even with Smash 4 out and very few people left playing it intensely.
I can understand if you say there's a perception that the skill ceiling is low so there's going to be less interest in the game. But I think history has shown that in general we're all pretty bad judges of what games have a lot of depth once you pass a certain level of complexity in the game.
On January 21 2015 04:01 MrBitter wrote: Honestly, as someone who works on the business side of eSports, I do not think investing in Smash 4 makes sense.
The game is too similar to Brawl. Low skill ceiling, little/no advanced tech, slow/floaty characters, super forgiving gameplay...
The game will have no longevity. It's a 2 year title at best.
A downloadable HD re-release of Melee would cement that game a a core esport title for years to come. It would solve all the accessibility problems you just mentioned.
I think the best thing Smash 4 will do for eSports is make more casuals aware of the melee scene.
While I get the sentiment behind this, the game just barely came out. Players thought Starcraft 2 was a shallow game within 3-5 months of it coming out and that it was "figured out" fast because of all the existing players from bw working on it. Melee was a LOT slower years ago because people didn't know about L-Canceling, etc. Heck, there were even things people DID know about but didn't think were useful for years...like wavedashing.
The point being, I think it's far too early to make huge jugements about the game. Most of what made Melee what it is today are the intricacies that were discovered over time, not the initial interpertation of players.
Brawl gets a lot of hate but if a game has a low skill ceiling, then there should be a large number of players eventually hitting that skill ceiling and it should be pretty "rng" on who ends up winning right? But even in Brawl, there are consistent victors and winners at the top level. The game is still developing, even with Smash 4 out and very few people left playing it intensely.
I can understand if you say there's a perception that the skill ceiling is low so there's going to be less interest in the game. But I think history has shown that in general we're all pretty bad judges of what games have a lot of depth once you pass a certain level of complexity in the game.
edit: quoted the wrong quote
I don't disagree with you in principal, but to come back to the analogy of SC2 and BW, let's ask ourselves this:
Which scene is growing right now? Broodwar is back on TV in Korea for the first time in years. There's a $40k tournament on going right now. New players, teams and leagues are appearing as we speak.
There's a lot to be said for these timeless titles. Smash. BW. CS is another great example. It took a looong time for 1.6 to be dethroned. It outlived many new generations, including all of source. It wasn't until Valve finally caved and said "fine, let's talk to the pros and make the game they want" that CS:GO started gaining traction as an esport.
People are way more fast to discover everything and figure out games than in the 200X years. As other mentionned smash 4 has very few combo and is overall a defensive game. Pick up literally any character and after 1 attack or 1 grab the oponnent can recover. The few exeption of diddy, zss and sheik makes them the top character because of this, they have 1 combo of dthrow --> uair.
Also smash 4 is boring to watch because it does not reward agression like melee does.
On January 21 2015 04:01 MrBitter wrote: Honestly, as someone who works on the business side of eSports, I do not think investing in Smash 4 makes sense.
The game is too similar to Brawl. Low skill ceiling, little/no advanced tech, slow/floaty characters, super forgiving gameplay...
The game will have no longevity. It's a 2 year title at best.
A downloadable HD re-release of Melee would cement that game a a core esport title for years to come. It would solve all the accessibility problems you just mentioned.
I think the best thing Smash 4 will do for eSports is make more casuals aware of the melee scene.
While I get the sentiment behind this, the game just barely came out. Players thought Starcraft 2 was a shallow game within 3-5 months of it coming out and that it was "figured out" fast because of all the existing players from bw working on it. Melee was a LOT slower years ago because people didn't know about L-Canceling, etc. Heck, there were even things people DID know about but didn't think were useful for years...like wavedashing.
The point being, I think it's far too early to make huge jugements about the game. Most of what made Melee what it is today are the intricacies that were discovered over time, not the initial interpertation of players.
Brawl gets a lot of hate but if a game has a low skill ceiling, then there should be a large number of players eventually hitting that skill ceiling and it should be pretty "rng" on who ends up winning right? But even in Brawl, there are consistent victors and winners at the top level. The game is still developing, even with Smash 4 out and very few people left playing it intensely.
I can understand if you say there's a perception that the skill ceiling is low so there's going to be less interest in the game. But I think history has shown that in general we're all pretty bad judges of what games have a lot of depth once you pass a certain level of complexity in the game.
edit: quoted the wrong quote
I don't disagree with you in principal, but to come back to the analogy of SC2 and BW, let's ask ourselves this:
Which scene is growing right now? Broodwar is back on TV in Korea for the first time in years. There's a $40k tournament on going right now. New players, teams and leagues are appearing as we speak.
There's a lot to be said for these timeless titles. Smash. BW. CS is another great example. It took a looong time for 1.6 to be dethroned. It outlived many new generations, including all of source. It wasn't until Valve finally caved and said "fine, let's talk to the pros and make the game they want" that CS:GO started gaining traction as an esport.
SC2 is not dead, and some of us are still here, thank you.
On January 21 2015 04:01 MrBitter wrote: Honestly, as someone who works on the business side of eSports, I do not think investing in Smash 4 makes sense.
The game is too similar to Brawl. Low skill ceiling, little/no advanced tech, slow/floaty characters, super forgiving gameplay...
The game will have no longevity. It's a 2 year title at best.
A downloadable HD re-release of Melee would cement that game a a core esport title for years to come. It would solve all the accessibility problems you just mentioned.
I think the best thing Smash 4 will do for eSports is make more casuals aware of the melee scene.
While I get the sentiment behind this, the game just barely came out. Players thought Starcraft 2 was a shallow game within 3-5 months of it coming out and that it was "figured out" fast because of all the existing players from bw working on it. Melee was a LOT slower years ago because people didn't know about L-Canceling, etc. Heck, there were even things people DID know about but didn't think were useful for years...like wavedashing.
The point being, I think it's far too early to make huge jugements about the game. Most of what made Melee what it is today are the intricacies that were discovered over time, not the initial interpertation of players.
Brawl gets a lot of hate but if a game has a low skill ceiling, then there should be a large number of players eventually hitting that skill ceiling and it should be pretty "rng" on who ends up winning right? But even in Brawl, there are consistent victors and winners at the top level. The game is still developing, even with Smash 4 out and very few people left playing it intensely.
I can understand if you say there's a perception that the skill ceiling is low so there's going to be less interest in the game. But I think history has shown that in general we're all pretty bad judges of what games have a lot of depth once you pass a certain level of complexity in the game.
edit: quoted the wrong quote
I don't disagree with you in principal, but to come back to the analogy of SC2 and BW, let's ask ourselves this:
Which scene is growing right now? Broodwar is back on TV in Korea for the first time in years. There's a $40k tournament on going right now. New players, teams and leagues are appearing as we speak.
There's a lot to be said for these timeless titles. Smash. BW. CS is another great example. It took a looong time for 1.6 to be dethroned. It outlived many new generations, including all of source. It wasn't until Valve finally caved and said "fine, let's talk to the pros and make the game they want" that CS:GO started gaining traction as an esport.
SC2 is not dead, and some of us are still here, thank you.
Hell ya man. i'll be watching sc2 until the day there's not a single pro left
On January 21 2015 04:01 MrBitter wrote: Honestly, as someone who works on the business side of eSports, I do not think investing in Smash 4 makes sense.
The game is too similar to Brawl. Low skill ceiling, little/no advanced tech, slow/floaty characters, super forgiving gameplay...
The game will have no longevity. It's a 2 year title at best.
A downloadable HD re-release of Melee would cement that game a a core esport title for years to come. It would solve all the accessibility problems you just mentioned.
I think the best thing Smash 4 will do for eSports is make more casuals aware of the melee scene.
While I get the sentiment behind this, the game just barely came out. Players thought Starcraft 2 was a shallow game within 3-5 months of it coming out and that it was "figured out" fast because of all the existing players from bw working on it. Melee was a LOT slower years ago because people didn't know about L-Canceling, etc. Heck, there were even things people DID know about but didn't think were useful for years...like wavedashing.
The point being, I think it's far too early to make huge jugements about the game. Most of what made Melee what it is today are the intricacies that were discovered over time, not the initial interpertation of players.
Brawl gets a lot of hate but if a game has a low skill ceiling, then there should be a large number of players eventually hitting that skill ceiling and it should be pretty "rng" on who ends up winning right? But even in Brawl, there are consistent victors and winners at the top level. The game is still developing, even with Smash 4 out and very few people left playing it intensely.
I can understand if you say there's a perception that the skill ceiling is low so there's going to be less interest in the game. But I think history has shown that in general we're all pretty bad judges of what games have a lot of depth once you pass a certain level of complexity in the game.
edit: quoted the wrong quote
I don't disagree with you in principal, but to come back to the analogy of SC2 and BW, let's ask ourselves this:
Which scene is growing right now? Broodwar is back on TV in Korea for the first time in years. There's a $40k tournament on going right now. New players, teams and leagues are appearing as we speak.
There's a lot to be said for these timeless titles. Smash. BW. CS is another great example. It took a looong time for 1.6 to be dethroned. It outlived many new generations, including all of source. It wasn't until Valve finally caved and said "fine, let's talk to the pros and make the game they want" that CS:GO started gaining traction as an esport.
SC2 is not dead, and some of us are still here, thank you.
Hell ya man. i'll be watching sc2 until the day there's not a single pro left
I agree with you guys. SC2 is still here, and to respond to MrBitter, I'd say that the korean scene (which is the one he is referring to) is also slowly coming back to life. We had a good year a PL/GSL last year, and a great year of PL/NSSL/GSL ahead of us !
like bw is still going in korea FIFTEEN years after its release. Asian gamers in general have a sense of "loyalty" to the games they love, in SEA and China you still have many many players playing cs1.6/dota1/wc3 even till today.
SC2 is mostly popular in the foreign scene, where the trend of modern gamers is to quickly discard old games in favor of new hype titles. Hence i dont see LotV lasting 15 years after its release.
On January 21 2015 04:01 MrBitter wrote: Honestly, as someone who works on the business side of eSports, I do not think investing in Smash 4 makes sense.
The game is too similar to Brawl. Low skill ceiling, little/no advanced tech, slow/floaty characters, super forgiving gameplay...
The game will have no longevity. It's a 2 year title at best.
A downloadable HD re-release of Melee would cement that game a a core esport title for years to come. It would solve all the accessibility problems you just mentioned.
I think the best thing Smash 4 will do for eSports is make more casuals aware of the melee scene.
Esports is not Nintendo's business. They cater to a completely different audience. I agree that Melee is probably a fun game to watch, but the number of viewers and players pale in comparison to Dota 2, LoL, CSGO and probably even SC2.
The fact that you have to play it on a console that is extremely hard to find nowadays doesn't help.
On January 21 2015 04:01 MrBitter wrote: Honestly, as someone who works on the business side of eSports, I do not think investing in Smash 4 makes sense.
The game is too similar to Brawl. Low skill ceiling, little/no advanced tech, slow/floaty characters, super forgiving gameplay...
The game will have no longevity. It's a 2 year title at best.
A downloadable HD re-release of Melee would cement that game a a core esport title for years to come. It would solve all the accessibility problems you just mentioned.
I think the best thing Smash 4 will do for eSports is make more casuals aware of the melee scene.
Esports is not Nintendo's business. They cater to a completely different audience. I agree that Melee is probably a fun game to watch, but the number of viewers and players pale in comparison to Dota 2, LoL, CSGO and probably even SC2.
The fact that you have to play it on a console that is extremely hard to find nowadays doesn't help.
Melee is actually about in line with Sc2 right now, though there are less tournaments. And it's growing, not shrinking like starcraft. I'm not saying it isn't difficult to get into, but it's not as if Gamecubes or Wii's are that hard to find and Melee was the best selling game of all time on the GC so it's pretty common too. CRTs maybe if you don't have a thrift shop near you.
I'm not even worried about SC2 anymore~ I've accepted it for what it is: a dying game. I'm not basing that on stream views, tournament's unique viewership, etc. Its the fact that we have new NA teams recruiting the same tired old "talent" almost 5 years after its release. You gotta have new blood to keep it going. I'm just sad that SC2 didn't produce it.
I wouldn't count SC2 out just yet. It seems to be doing better in Korea, it's just the international scene that doesn't see a lot of top tier talent. With the changes to WCS this year we might see a more thriving international scene. Remember that one DreamHack with only European players? It was super hype despite the lack of Korean talent. I think we can expect something similar this year. LotV is also on the horizon and could be a huge boon to the community as well.
But MrBitter and Carmac are on point. You really need fresh blood. I started watching Melee during Evo 2013 but didn't actually ever play it until Summer 2014 and it was a blast. Now, I have a GC controller and adapter so I can play Melee/PM on PC and also Smash 4 on 3DS. Melee really is an amazing game to both play and watch.
SC2's usage time at PC bangs has been going lower and lower every month. It's actually fallen out of the top 20 rankings now. It seems to be doing worse in Korea if anything, the playerbase is shrinking.
On January 21 2015 04:01 MrBitter wrote: Honestly, as someone who works on the business side of eSports, I do not think investing in Smash 4 makes sense.
The game is too similar to Brawl. Low skill ceiling, little/no advanced tech, slow/floaty characters, super forgiving gameplay...
The game will have no longevity. It's a 2 year title at best.
A downloadable HD re-release of Melee would cement that game a a core esport title for years to come. It would solve all the accessibility problems you just mentioned.
I think the best thing Smash 4 will do for eSports is make more casuals aware of the melee scene.
Esports is not Nintendo's business. They cater to a completely different audience. I agree that Melee is probably a fun game to watch, but the number of viewers and players pale in comparison to Dota 2, LoL, CSGO and probably even SC2.
The fact that you have to play it on a console that is extremely hard to find nowadays doesn't help.
Melee is actually about in line with Sc2 right now, though there are less tournaments. And it's growing, not shrinking like starcraft. I'm not saying it isn't difficult to get into, but it's not as if Gamecubes or Wii's are that hard to find and Melee was the best selling game of all time on the GC so it's pretty common too. CRTs maybe if you don't have a thrift shop near you.
Oh, you can play GC games on Wii. Didn't know that, my bad.
On January 21 2015 04:01 MrBitter wrote: Honestly, as someone who works on the business side of eSports, I do not think investing in Smash 4 makes sense.
The game is too similar to Brawl. Low skill ceiling, little/no advanced tech, slow/floaty characters, super forgiving gameplay...
The game will have no longevity. It's a 2 year title at best.
A downloadable HD re-release of Melee would cement that game a a core esport title for years to come. It would solve all the accessibility problems you just mentioned.
I think the best thing Smash 4 will do for eSports is make more casuals aware of the melee scene.
Esports is not Nintendo's business. They cater to a completely different audience. I agree that Melee is probably a fun game to watch, but the number of viewers and players pale in comparison to Dota 2, LoL, CSGO and probably even SC2.
The fact that you have to play it on a console that is extremely hard to find nowadays doesn't help.
melees in a weird pocket hole where more people play it than watch it
On January 21 2015 04:01 MrBitter wrote: Honestly, as someone who works on the business side of eSports, I do not think investing in Smash 4 makes sense.
The game is too similar to Brawl. Low skill ceiling, little/no advanced tech, slow/floaty characters, super forgiving gameplay...
The game will have no longevity. It's a 2 year title at best.
A downloadable HD re-release of Melee would cement that game a a core esport title for years to come. It would solve all the accessibility problems you just mentioned.
I think the best thing Smash 4 will do for eSports is make more casuals aware of the melee scene.
Esports is not Nintendo's business. They cater to a completely different audience. I agree that Melee is probably a fun game to watch, but the number of viewers and players pale in comparison to Dota 2, LoL, CSGO and probably even SC2.
The fact that you have to play it on a console that is extremely hard to find nowadays doesn't help.
melees in a weird pocket hole where more people play it than watch it
As is normal for most games, watching esports is a relatively new phenomenon.
On January 21 2015 04:01 MrBitter wrote: Honestly, as someone who works on the business side of eSports, I do not think investing in Smash 4 makes sense.
The game is too similar to Brawl. Low skill ceiling, little/no advanced tech, slow/floaty characters, super forgiving gameplay...
The game will have no longevity. It's a 2 year title at best.
A downloadable HD re-release of Melee would cement that game a a core esport title for years to come. It would solve all the accessibility problems you just mentioned.
I think the best thing Smash 4 will do for eSports is make more casuals aware of the melee scene.
Esports is not Nintendo's business. They cater to a completely different audience. I agree that Melee is probably a fun game to watch, but the number of viewers and players pale in comparison to Dota 2, LoL, CSGO and probably even SC2.
The fact that you have to play it on a console that is extremely hard to find nowadays doesn't help.
melees in a weird pocket hole where more people play it than watch it
As is normal for most games, watching esports is a relatively new phenomenon.
i find that only true for fighting games, and even more so for console games which, as maartendq pointed out, melee is. the fighting game community seems to not be the type to regularly watch streams of their game but rather go out to events to play their game a bunch since thats how its traditionally always been run
On January 20 2015 12:02 [SXG]Phantom wrote: 5/5 pretty cool, i really like that melee players like smash that much, but honestly, in my opinion, they should switch to smash 4 already. I mean its not even a question of which one is ebtter, both are really close and simmilar, even if you think melee is better, but simply because smash 4 is newer it could gather even more attention, its strictly buissness
gtfo
if people played melee for "business" the game would have died a decade ago. take that "grow esports" crap back to sc2 boards
On January 20 2015 12:02 [SXG]Phantom wrote: 5/5 pretty cool, i really like that melee players like smash that much, but honestly, in my opinion, they should switch to smash 4 already. I mean its not even a question of which one is ebtter, both are really close and simmilar, even if you think melee is better, but simply because smash 4 is newer it could gather even more attention, its strictly buissness
On January 20 2015 05:37 alukarD wrote: And Melee was designed for a Mario Party game type.
No. It was designed to be an accessible fighting game.
On January 20 2015 12:02 [SXG]Phantom wrote: 5/5 pretty cool, i really like that melee players like smash that much, but honestly, in my opinion, they should switch to smash 4 already. I mean its not even a question of which one is ebtter, both are really close and simmilar, even if you think melee is better, but simply because smash 4 is newer it could gather even more attention, its strictly buissness
Yes, people are gonna stop playing the game that they love because of business.
On January 21 2015 04:01 MrBitter wrote: Honestly, as someone who works on the business side of eSports, I do not think investing in Smash 4 makes sense.
The game is too similar to Brawl. Low skill ceiling, little/no advanced tech, slow/floaty characters, super forgiving gameplay...
The game will have no longevity. It's a 2 year title at best.
A downloadable HD re-release of Melee would cement that game a a core esport title for years to come. It would solve all the accessibility problems you just mentioned.
I think the best thing Smash 4 will do for eSports is make more casuals aware of the melee scene.
Esports is not Nintendo's business. They cater to a completely different audience. I agree that Melee is probably a fun game to watch, but the number of viewers and players pale in comparison to Dota 2, LoL, CSGO and probably even SC2.
The fact that you have to play it on a console that is extremely hard to find nowadays doesn't help.
Melee's viewership is pretty good tbh. Paragon last weekend had 50k+ at times and it is roughly equivalent to like a DH for SC2
Just a heads-up for anyone who enjoys Smash, we have a Smash forum that needs a bit more love. Rest assured, there's lots more Smash content coming from TL on the horizon -- heck, we just got a siiiiiick article written-up about Melee's CSL equivalent.
It's mostly Melee-focused (just like TL in general,) but, hell, Melee is fun to watch, and there're people like me that play exclusively other games
On January 20 2015 12:02 [SXG]Phantom wrote: 5/5 pretty cool, i really like that melee players like smash that much, but honestly, in my opinion, they should switch to smash 4 already. I mean its not even a question of which one is ebtter, both are really close and simmilar, even if you think melee is better, but simply because smash 4 is newer it could gather even more attention, its strictly buissness
Yes, people are gonna stop playing the game that they love because of business.
That's pretty much exactly what happened with Brood War, at least for those players who want to make a living playing video games.
On January 20 2015 05:37 alukarD wrote: And Melee was designed for a Mario Party game type.
No. It was designed to be an accessible fighting game.
On January 20 2015 12:02 [SXG]Phantom wrote: 5/5 pretty cool, i really like that melee players like smash that much, but honestly, in my opinion, they should switch to smash 4 already. I mean its not even a question of which one is ebtter, both are really close and simmilar, even if you think melee is better, but simply because smash 4 is newer it could gather even more attention, its strictly buissness
Yes, people are gonna stop playing the game that they love because of business.
That's pretty much exactly what happened with Brood War, at least for those players who want to make a living playing video games.
Your history is wrong. Non-Korean players never made a living playing BW. And while the BW scene took a hit when SC2 came out, it's really making a come back, with new leagues and teams gaining traction there.
I sometimes read smash articles because I loved the 64 version and the famous documentary, I did not expect at all those kind of "for the greater esports" comments here. Who in hell care of how big your community is? All that matters is that it's big enough for everyone to find interesting opponents without too much trouble.
On January 20 2015 05:37 alukarD wrote: And Melee was designed for a Mario Party game type.
No. It was designed to be an accessible fighting game.
On January 20 2015 12:02 [SXG]Phantom wrote: 5/5 pretty cool, i really like that melee players like smash that much, but honestly, in my opinion, they should switch to smash 4 already. I mean its not even a question of which one is ebtter, both are really close and simmilar, even if you think melee is better, but simply because smash 4 is newer it could gather even more attention, its strictly buissness
Yes, people are gonna stop playing the game that they love because of business.
That's pretty much exactly what happened with Brood War, at least for those players who want to make a living playing video games.
the "esports" situations of brood war and fighting games are years, countries, and cultures apart. you cant compare them at all.
the people who think that people should just switch to smash 4 are clueless about the history of the smash community. they already went through this bullshit with MLG and they certainly dont need it again.
On January 20 2015 18:34 RaGe wrote: And in the end, the Melee community seems to be profiting way more from Smash4's success than they're losing to it.
Can't say that right now, we have to wait. Melee's numbers improved a lot even before Smash 4. It profited late from Brawl when people finally got fed up with it and switched to Melee even though Brawl introduced them to Smash. (Too bad we never really got that with BW/SC2. I guess it's easier on consoles.)
On January 20 2015 18:34 RaGe wrote:It's fun to see the influx of SC players in to the Melee community. I don't know if it's because of TL's Smash team, but I'm pretty sure a lot of the old BW fans will stick around since the game in its entirety resembles Brood War a lot, albeit in a totally different genre/gameflow.
Yeah, I noticed that before as well. But it's sad that there isn't much going on in the Melee section.
And what needs to be mentioned: The documentary brought a lot of people into the scene which was nice.
Of course, there are lots of growing pains with the new documentary generation, especially among those who saw the documentary and think they know everything... but we don't have any of those people on TL, do we? ^_^
On January 24 2015 04:35 ]343[ wrote: Of course, there are lots of growing pains with the new documentary generation, especially among those who saw the documentary and think they know everything... but we don't have any of those people on TL, do we? ^_^
On January 24 2015 04:35 ]343[ wrote: Of course, there are lots of growing pains with the new documentary generation, especially among those who saw the documentary and think they know everything... but we don't have any of those people on TL, do we? ^_^
I at least know you aren't one since you regularly posted in the Melee thread as well, before the documentary even existed
Also, it's a shame that that other guy isn't posting in the Smash section. Currently forgot his name but he is part of the Twitch staff these days and promoted Melee there.
On January 24 2015 04:35 ]343[ wrote: Of course, there are lots of growing pains with the new documentary generation, especially among those who saw the documentary and think they know everything... but we don't have any of those people on TL, do we? ^_^
I at least know you aren't one since you regularly posted in the Melee thread as well, before the documentary even existed
Also, it's a shame that that other guy isn't posting in the Smash section. Currently forgot his name but he is part of the Twitch staff these days and promoted Melee there.
That's Atrioc, I think.
@OP: I started 10 months ago. The start was brutal, when even wavedashing or L-cancelling wasn't second nature and perplexing. However, by learning from people better than I am and going to locals occasionally, it's definitely leveled up my game. Not amazing or even decent by any means, but I am loving the progression that I am seeing. Seeing people do movement options and tech skill that seemed godly at the time now seems standard for me. The game is a lot more fun to play now as well!
Yeah, Atrioc doesn't post on TL much anymore He was the MSL writing team lead immediately before I started covering MSL! I met him at some Norcal tourneys but didn't get to talk to him much
On January 24 2015 04:35 ]343[ wrote: Of course, there are lots of growing pains with the new documentary generation, especially among those who saw the documentary and think they know everything... but we don't have any of those people on TL, do we? ^_^
I at least know you aren't one since you regularly posted in the Melee thread as well, before the documentary even existed
Also, it's a shame that that other guy isn't posting in the Smash section. Currently forgot his name but he is part of the Twitch staff these days and promoted Melee there.
That's Atrioc, I think.
@OP: I started 10 months ago. The start was brutal, when even wavedashing or L-cancelling wasn't second nature and perplexing. However, by learning from people better than I am and going to locals occasionally, it's definitely leveled up my game. Not amazing or even decent by any means, but I am loving the progression that I am seeing. Seeing people do movement options and tech skill that seemed godly at the time now seems standard for me. The game is a lot more fun to play now as well!
Yep, exactly, thanks. I knew the name started with an "A". I already reprimanded him but it didn't compel him to post more
You know a game has done it right when you have fun losing which leads to improving, eventually.
On January 19 2015 19:27 Bacon_Infinity wrote: I have also been getting more interested in checking out competitive smash. I started looking into it when I saw Smash 4 came out but didnt expect that SSBM would still be the preferred eSport
SSBM is superior in almost every way as a competative game. It's faster, deaper, more skillbased, better balanced and has a very established and passionate scene.
Gonna have to step in and defend smash 4 here. Melee is a good game and is huge (and I would agree that it's a better spectator game due to its style), but Smash 4 is showing a lot of promise as well. There are 1024 apex entrants for melee, but also over 800 for smash 4. If you were to not count melee's entrants this year at apex, smash 4 this year would be the biggest smash tournament ever. Since this is the first smash 4 tournament, it could either decrease or increase next year -- we can't count it out. Also notable to say is that although the smash community is very passionate, the average smasher is not very knowledgable about the various games (which is understandable -- not many people know about both BW and SC2). This means that a lot of melee players haven't even tried or considered playing Smash 4 (I know a lot of people in person who are like this -- I would also add that there seems to be a strong effect of nostalgia or novelty in playing a game that's so figured out and so old, similar to the appeal of BW to young gamers in Korea), or are not playing Smash 4 due to a lot of misconceptions and misinformation, or are simply waiting to see how it fares before thinking of trying it out.
Arguable. Not all competitive games have to be faster.
Deeper... very very arguable. There's a lot less options in melee than in smash 4 to consider when trying to outplay your opponent. It's true in melee there's a lot of movement options and dancing between players and that will allow the better player to bait and punish, but there's also a lot of parts that are shallower or where the difference between lower level and higher level just isn't that big (edgeguarding for example is often very easy and simple in melee -- it's often a guaranteed kill as long as you know how to position and react, where as in Smash 4 there is a lot more to consider such as whether to stay on the stage and keep the small positional advantage of stage control or to try the riskier-but-higher-reward act of pursuing your opponent off stage which will allow only players with truly superior decision making to profit and grab a quick kill). In any case, there's a lot of room for argument and neither game clearly has more depth (especially since it depends what kind of depth you want).
More skill based? If you mean technical skill, sure.
Better balanced? Ok this one is 100% not true. The balance in melee (and brawl) is bad. Smash 4 blows it out of the water. The balance is so bad that many would agree with certain characters being objectively better than others because weak characters have absolutely *no* strengths. For example, Kirby, Pichu, Ness, and Bowser are so terrible that in the SBR's tier list they are in the "Unplayable Tier", and another fourth of the cast is in "very situational tier".
In Smash 4, everyone has both interesting strengths and weaknesses since they paid more attention on design and balance, except for a few exceptions where someone is a solid all around character or slightly lacking in either strengths or weaknesses (diddy, shiek, pikachu, but future patches or metagame development are still possible). In Smash 4, literally every character is seeing competitive play, even if rare. Every character has been seeing high placements in tournaments of the regional level or higher. There's no indication that Smash 4's balance will become anywhere as bad as melee. Smash 4's balance is amazing so far, and the character design is very well thought out and each character is more true to his/her games.
On January 19 2015 19:27 Bacon_Infinity wrote: I have also been getting more interested in checking out competitive smash. I started looking into it when I saw Smash 4 came out but didnt expect that SSBM would still be the preferred eSport
SSBM is superior in almost every way as a competative game. It's faster, deaper, more skillbased, better balanced and has a very established and passionate scene.
There's a lot of movement options and dancing between players and that will allow the better player to bait and punish
you really are downplaying smash 4's current lack of an ground game, the only great technique of real importance known right now is pivoting.
im also entirely confused why smash 4 people call the melee edgeguard game "guaranteed kills", which actually come down to 1. what character you're playing 2. whether the edgeguarder is doing the edgeguarding right 3. whether the edgeguardee is doing recovery positioning right 4. the correct selected option (usually in the most optimal form of sweetspoting + teching + DI) 5. execution, based on pressing the right inputs at the right time in the right position
not all that different from smash 4! the edgeguard metagame in melee has been hashed out through the years, most significantly after 2008. just because we see that 5 gods can edgeguard to perfection doesnt mean the edgeguarding = guaranteed kill.
On January 19 2015 19:27 Bacon_Infinity wrote: I have also been getting more interested in checking out competitive smash. I started looking into it when I saw Smash 4 came out but didnt expect that SSBM would still be the preferred eSport
SSBM is superior in almost every way as a competative game. It's faster, deaper, more skillbased, better balanced and has a very established and passionate scene.
There's a lot of movement options and dancing between players and that will allow the better player to bait and punish
you really are downplaying smash 4's current lack of an ground game, the only great technique of real importance known right now is pivoting.
im also entirely confused why smash 4 people call the melee edgeguard game "guaranteed kills", which actually come down to 1. what character you're playing 2. whether the edgeguarder is doing the edgeguarding right 3. whether the edgeguardee is doing recovery positioning right 4. the correct selected option (usually in the most optimal form of sweetspoting + teching + DI) 5. execution, based on pressing the right inputs at the right time in the right position
not all that different from smash 4! the edgeguard metagame in melee has been hashed out through the years, most significantly after 2008. just because we see that 5 gods can edgeguard to perfection doesnt mean the edgeguarding = guaranteed kill.
Oops. Rereading my post, sorry I did go right from mentioning smash 4 to talking about movement options, fixed now. I meant that *melee* has a lot of movement options and dancing between players.
It is impressive, and true not everyone can do that, but after seeing it so many times it just isnt very... exciting to me? I won't deny it doesn't take skill, but a lot of it is you just practice it, where as I'm more interested in Smash 4's edgeguarding because there are more possibilities and options and risks to consider, and that makes it more impressive to me when I see someone get a kill (and if they don't, they still rack up a lot of damage due to having stage advantage). Even I can get a lot of kills edgeguarding, in general edgeguarding is just easy in melee. I play netplay on a keyboard and even so i'm able to get a kill pretty much every time they're launched off, despite me not even practicing or having a controller.
In melee you can mixup your recoveries a bit, and even the best players don't read them right all the time, but I want actual "depth", not just positioning/reaction/tech skill. For example in Smash 4, it's harder to get the kill (which I understand can be more boring as a spectator if you want fast paced action) because recoveries in general are a lot easier and the recoverer can attack back or air dodge. I like this because if an edgeguarder goes deep and actually gets a kill, it is impressive because he made the correct guess or read the opponent right but if he messes up he may lose stage control, where as in Melee it's more about when and how the recoverer recovers (fox up B high or low, or fox side B, or maybe air dodge, or maybe shine to delay falling before using one of those options). It may also be due to the high number of Foxes / and the nature of the recoveries (telegraphed, especially firefox) of the top tier characters, as well as there just being less characters in melee that makes it feel old to me.
I hope that makes some sense? X) I guess I'm saying I like the larger focus on reading and the more improvisation and room for error of Smash 4's edgeguarding, because the edgeguarder has higher risk than in melee and more chances to mess up, and due to the much lower gravity players can afford to attack more off stage. It's more unpredictable, whereas I've seen every possibility in melee. Launching someone back off the stage and denying recovery in melee usually requires just one read, where as in Smash 4 if you want to keep them from touching the stage there are times you have to make multiple reads.
And I do agree that it's not hugely different from Smash 4, since Smash 4 shares a lot of melee-esque elements (you can't rely on snapping the edge all the time due to vulnerability in 4, etc). Instead of arguing Smash 4 is superior to melee [ in edgeguarding], I'd rather like to say that Smash 4 and Melee are similar in a lot of ways, and Melee isn't much better if at all, just different. (Though I prefer 4).
On January 19 2015 19:27 Bacon_Infinity wrote: I have also been getting more interested in checking out competitive smash. I started looking into it when I saw Smash 4 came out but didnt expect that SSBM would still be the preferred eSport
SSBM is superior in almost every way as a competative game. It's faster, deaper, more skillbased, better balanced and has a very established and passionate scene.
There's a lot of movement options and dancing between players and that will allow the better player to bait and punish
you really are downplaying smash 4's current lack of an ground game, the only great technique of real importance known right now is pivoting.
im also entirely confused why smash 4 people call the melee edgeguard game "guaranteed kills", which actually come down to 1. what character you're playing 2. whether the edgeguarder is doing the edgeguarding right 3. whether the edgeguardee is doing recovery positioning right 4. the correct selected option (usually in the most optimal form of sweetspoting + teching + DI) 5. execution, based on pressing the right inputs at the right time in the right position
not all that different from smash 4! the edgeguard metagame in melee has been hashed out through the years, most significantly after 2008. just because we see that 5 gods can edgeguard to perfection doesnt mean the edgeguarding = guaranteed kill.
Oops. Rereading my post, sorry I did go right from mentioning smash 4 to talking about movement options, fixed now. I meant that *melee* has a lot of movement options and dancing between players.
It is impressive, and true not everyone can do that, but after seeing it so many times it just isnt very... exciting to me? I won't deny it doesn't take skill, but a lot of it is you just practice it, where as I'm more interested in Smash 4's edgeguarding because there are more possibilities and options and risks to consider, and that makes it more impressive to me when I see someone get a kill (and if they don't, they still rack up a lot of damage due to having stage advantage). Even I can get a lot of kills edgeguarding, in general edgeguarding is just easy in melee. I play netplay on a keyboard and even so i'm able to get a kill pretty much every time they're launched off, despite me not even practicing or having a controller.
In melee you can mixup your recoveries a bit, and even the best players don't read them right all the time, but I want actual "depth", not just positioning/reaction/tech skill. For example in Smash 4, it's harder to get the kill (which I understand can be more boring as a spectator if you want fast paced action) because recoveries in general are a lot easier and the recoverer can attack back or air dodge. I like this because if an edgeguarder goes deep and actually gets a kill, it is impressive because he made the correct guess or read the opponent right but if he messes up he may lose stage control, where as in Melee it's more about when and how the recoverer recovers (fox up B high or low, or fox side B, or maybe air dodge, or maybe shine to delay falling before using one of those options). It may also be due to the high number of Foxes / and the nature of the recoveries (telegraphed, especially firefox) of the top tier characters, as well as there just being less characters in melee that makes it feel old to me.
I hope that makes some sense? X) I guess I'm saying I like the larger focus on reading and the more improvisation and room for error of Smash 4's edgeguarding, because the edgeguarder has higher risk than in melee and more chances to mess up, and due to the much lower gravity players can afford to attack more off stage. It's more unpredictable, whereas I've seen every possibility in melee. Launching someone back off the stage and denying recovery in melee usually requires just one read, where as in Smash 4 if you want to keep them from touching the stage there are times you have to make multiple reads.
And I do agree that it's not hugely different from Smash 4, since Smash 4 shares a lot of melee-esque elements (you can't rely on snapping the edge all the time due to vulnerability in 4, etc). Instead of arguing Smash 4 is superior to melee [ in edgeguarding], I'd rather like to say that Smash 4 and Melee are similar in a lot of ways, and Melee isn't much better if at all, just different. (Though I prefer 4).
im not sure why you bring netplay experience into it when you really cant judge any smash game at all from netplay. the only somewhat acceptable frame buffers are 0 or 1 and that rarely happens.
and actually from what i've seen and played of smash 4 its much much better to not cede stage control versus going out below the stage
On January 19 2015 19:27 Bacon_Infinity wrote: I have also been getting more interested in checking out competitive smash. I started looking into it when I saw Smash 4 came out but didnt expect that SSBM would still be the preferred eSport
SSBM is superior in almost every way as a competative game. It's faster, deaper, more skillbased, better balanced and has a very established and passionate scene.
There's a lot of movement options and dancing between players and that will allow the better player to bait and punish
you really are downplaying smash 4's current lack of an ground game, the only great technique of real importance known right now is pivoting.
im also entirely confused why smash 4 people call the melee edgeguard game "guaranteed kills", which actually come down to 1. what character you're playing 2. whether the edgeguarder is doing the edgeguarding right 3. whether the edgeguardee is doing recovery positioning right 4. the correct selected option (usually in the most optimal form of sweetspoting + teching + DI) 5. execution, based on pressing the right inputs at the right time in the right position
not all that different from smash 4! the edgeguard metagame in melee has been hashed out through the years, most significantly after 2008. just because we see that 5 gods can edgeguard to perfection doesnt mean the edgeguarding = guaranteed kill.
Oops. Rereading my post, sorry I did go right from mentioning smash 4 to talking about movement options, fixed now. I meant that *melee* has a lot of movement options and dancing between players.
It is impressive, and true not everyone can do that, but after seeing it so many times it just isnt very... exciting to me? I won't deny it doesn't take skill, but a lot of it is you just practice it, where as I'm more interested in Smash 4's edgeguarding because there are more possibilities and options and risks to consider, and that makes it more impressive to me when I see someone get a kill (and if they don't, they still rack up a lot of damage due to having stage advantage). Even I can get a lot of kills edgeguarding, in general edgeguarding is just easy in melee. I play netplay on a keyboard and even so i'm able to get a kill pretty much every time they're launched off, despite me not even practicing or having a controller.
In melee you can mixup your recoveries a bit, and even the best players don't read them right all the time, but I want actual "depth", not just positioning/reaction/tech skill. For example in Smash 4, it's harder to get the kill (which I understand can be more boring as a spectator if you want fast paced action) because recoveries in general are a lot easier and the recoverer can attack back or air dodge. I like this because if an edgeguarder goes deep and actually gets a kill, it is impressive because he made the correct guess or read the opponent right but if he messes up he may lose stage control, where as in Melee it's more about when and how the recoverer recovers (fox up B high or low, or fox side B, or maybe air dodge, or maybe shine to delay falling before using one of those options). It may also be due to the high number of Foxes / and the nature of the recoveries (telegraphed, especially firefox) of the top tier characters, as well as there just being less characters in melee that makes it feel old to me.
I hope that makes some sense? X) I guess I'm saying I like the larger focus on reading and the more improvisation and room for error of Smash 4's edgeguarding, because the edgeguarder has higher risk than in melee and more chances to mess up, and due to the much lower gravity players can afford to attack more off stage. It's more unpredictable, whereas I've seen every possibility in melee. Launching someone back off the stage and denying recovery in melee usually requires just one read, where as in Smash 4 if you want to keep them from touching the stage there are times you have to make multiple reads.
And I do agree that it's not hugely different from Smash 4, since Smash 4 shares a lot of melee-esque elements (you can't rely on snapping the edge all the time due to vulnerability in 4, etc). Instead of arguing Smash 4 is superior to melee [ in edgeguarding], I'd rather like to say that Smash 4 and Melee are similar in a lot of ways, and Melee isn't much better if at all, just different. (Though I prefer 4).
im not sure why you bring netplay experience into it when you really cant judge any smash game at all from netplay. the only somewhat acceptable frame buffers are 0 or 1 and that rarely happens.
and actually from what i've seen and played of smash 4 its much much better to not cede stage control versus going out below the stage
I was just trying to say how easy edgeguarding in melee is (I've played melee for a long time on the actual console) even on suboptimal controls, so I don't find it interesting enough (impressive enough) when I watch pros edgeguard. Even easier with a GC controller + CRT.
Right, thing is I don't mind that, because if someone decides to go deep (and risk losing stage control) it's more exciting because it's rarer/risky, and only occasionally/rarely will they grab a kill. I prefer that over melee where quick or easy kills are very frequent and you are dead more than not if launched far off stage, it's just more varied and I prefer that "pyramid" structure over "inverse pyramid" (pyramid = uncommon edgeguard kills, commonly successfully regaining stage control but not without taking lots of damage)
On January 19 2015 19:27 Bacon_Infinity wrote: I have also been getting more interested in checking out competitive smash. I started looking into it when I saw Smash 4 came out but didnt expect that SSBM would still be the preferred eSport
SSBM is superior in almost every way as a competative game. It's faster, deaper, more skillbased, better balanced and has a very established and passionate scene.
There's a lot of movement options and dancing between players and that will allow the better player to bait and punish
you really are downplaying smash 4's current lack of an ground game, the only great technique of real importance known right now is pivoting.
im also entirely confused why smash 4 people call the melee edgeguard game "guaranteed kills", which actually come down to 1. what character you're playing 2. whether the edgeguarder is doing the edgeguarding right 3. whether the edgeguardee is doing recovery positioning right 4. the correct selected option (usually in the most optimal form of sweetspoting + teching + DI) 5. execution, based on pressing the right inputs at the right time in the right position
not all that different from smash 4! the edgeguard metagame in melee has been hashed out through the years, most significantly after 2008. just because we see that 5 gods can edgeguard to perfection doesnt mean the edgeguarding = guaranteed kill.
Oops. Rereading my post, sorry I did go right from mentioning smash 4 to talking about movement options, fixed now. I meant that *melee* has a lot of movement options and dancing between players.
It is impressive, and true not everyone can do that, but after seeing it so many times it just isnt very... exciting to me? I won't deny it doesn't take skill, but a lot of it is you just practice it, where as I'm more interested in Smash 4's edgeguarding because there are more possibilities and options and risks to consider, and that makes it more impressive to me when I see someone get a kill (and if they don't, they still rack up a lot of damage due to having stage advantage). Even I can get a lot of kills edgeguarding, in general edgeguarding is just easy in melee. I play netplay on a keyboard and even so i'm able to get a kill pretty much every time they're launched off, despite me not even practicing or having a controller.
In melee you can mixup your recoveries a bit, and even the best players don't read them right all the time, but I want actual "depth", not just positioning/reaction/tech skill. For example in Smash 4, it's harder to get the kill (which I understand can be more boring as a spectator if you want fast paced action) because recoveries in general are a lot easier and the recoverer can attack back or air dodge. I like this because if an edgeguarder goes deep and actually gets a kill, it is impressive because he made the correct guess or read the opponent right but if he messes up he may lose stage control, where as in Melee it's more about when and how the recoverer recovers (fox up B high or low, or fox side B, or maybe air dodge, or maybe shine to delay falling before using one of those options). It may also be due to the high number of Foxes / and the nature of the recoveries (telegraphed, especially firefox) of the top tier characters, as well as there just being less characters in melee that makes it feel old to me.
I hope that makes some sense? X) I guess I'm saying I like the larger focus on reading and the more improvisation and room for error of Smash 4's edgeguarding, because the edgeguarder has higher risk than in melee and more chances to mess up, and due to the much lower gravity players can afford to attack more off stage. It's more unpredictable, whereas I've seen every possibility in melee. Launching someone back off the stage and denying recovery in melee usually requires just one read, where as in Smash 4 if you want to keep them from touching the stage there are times you have to make multiple reads.
And I do agree that it's not hugely different from Smash 4, since Smash 4 shares a lot of melee-esque elements (you can't rely on snapping the edge all the time due to vulnerability in 4, etc). Instead of arguing Smash 4 is superior to melee [ in edgeguarding], I'd rather like to say that Smash 4 and Melee are similar in a lot of ways, and Melee isn't much better if at all, just different. (Though I prefer 4).
im not sure why you bring netplay experience into it when you really cant judge any smash game at all from netplay. the only somewhat acceptable frame buffers are 0 or 1 and that rarely happens.
and actually from what i've seen and played of smash 4 its much much better to not cede stage control versus going out below the stage
I was just trying to say how easy edgeguarding in melee is (I've played melee for a long time on the actual console) even on suboptimal controls, so I don't find it interesting enough (impressive enough) when I watch pros edgeguard. Even easier with a GC controller + CRT.
Right, thing is I don't mind that, because if someone decides to go deep (and risk losing stage control) it's more exciting because it's rarer/risky, and only occasionally/rarely will they grab a kill. I prefer that over melee where quick or easy kills are very frequent and you are dead more than not if launched far off stage, it's just more varied and I prefer that "pyramid" structure over "inverse pyramid" (pyramid = uncommon edgeguard kills, commonly successfully regaining stage control but not without taking lots of damage)
You underestimate how hard it is to edgeguard good players who recover well. The differences in the offstage game in melee are subtle angle/positioning/timing things which make a huge difference but are hard to identify when you're watching the edgeguarder respond perfectly. All you see is "got edgeguarded". You don't see the 90 other players in the top 100 who would have chosen an inferior flowchart.
The result of an edgeguard/recovery attempt is always going to be 1 or 0, but there are a million degrees of room for improvement on either side of it, despite how deceptively simple it looks.
On January 19 2015 19:27 Bacon_Infinity wrote: I have also been getting more interested in checking out competitive smash. I started looking into it when I saw Smash 4 came out but didnt expect that SSBM would still be the preferred eSport
SSBM is superior in almost every way as a competative game. It's faster, deaper, more skillbased, better balanced and has a very established and passionate scene.
There's a lot of movement options and dancing between players and that will allow the better player to bait and punish
you really are downplaying smash 4's current lack of an ground game, the only great technique of real importance known right now is pivoting.
im also entirely confused why smash 4 people call the melee edgeguard game "guaranteed kills", which actually come down to 1. what character you're playing 2. whether the edgeguarder is doing the edgeguarding right 3. whether the edgeguardee is doing recovery positioning right 4. the correct selected option (usually in the most optimal form of sweetspoting + teching + DI) 5. execution, based on pressing the right inputs at the right time in the right position
not all that different from smash 4! the edgeguard metagame in melee has been hashed out through the years, most significantly after 2008. just because we see that 5 gods can edgeguard to perfection doesnt mean the edgeguarding = guaranteed kill.
Oops. Rereading my post, sorry I did go right from mentioning smash 4 to talking about movement options, fixed now. I meant that *melee* has a lot of movement options and dancing between players.
It is impressive, and true not everyone can do that, but after seeing it so many times it just isnt very... exciting to me? I won't deny it doesn't take skill, but a lot of it is you just practice it, where as I'm more interested in Smash 4's edgeguarding because there are more possibilities and options and risks to consider, and that makes it more impressive to me when I see someone get a kill (and if they don't, they still rack up a lot of damage due to having stage advantage). Even I can get a lot of kills edgeguarding, in general edgeguarding is just easy in melee. I play netplay on a keyboard and even so i'm able to get a kill pretty much every time they're launched off, despite me not even practicing or having a controller.
In melee you can mixup your recoveries a bit, and even the best players don't read them right all the time, but I want actual "depth", not just positioning/reaction/tech skill. For example in Smash 4, it's harder to get the kill (which I understand can be more boring as a spectator if you want fast paced action) because recoveries in general are a lot easier and the recoverer can attack back or air dodge. I like this because if an edgeguarder goes deep and actually gets a kill, it is impressive because he made the correct guess or read the opponent right but if he messes up he may lose stage control, where as in Melee it's more about when and how the recoverer recovers (fox up B high or low, or fox side B, or maybe air dodge, or maybe shine to delay falling before using one of those options). It may also be due to the high number of Foxes / and the nature of the recoveries (telegraphed, especially firefox) of the top tier characters, as well as there just being less characters in melee that makes it feel old to me.
I hope that makes some sense? X) I guess I'm saying I like the larger focus on reading and the more improvisation and room for error of Smash 4's edgeguarding, because the edgeguarder has higher risk than in melee and more chances to mess up, and due to the much lower gravity players can afford to attack more off stage. It's more unpredictable, whereas I've seen every possibility in melee. Launching someone back off the stage and denying recovery in melee usually requires just one read, where as in Smash 4 if you want to keep them from touching the stage there are times you have to make multiple reads.
And I do agree that it's not hugely different from Smash 4, since Smash 4 shares a lot of melee-esque elements (you can't rely on snapping the edge all the time due to vulnerability in 4, etc). Instead of arguing Smash 4 is superior to melee [ in edgeguarding], I'd rather like to say that Smash 4 and Melee are similar in a lot of ways, and Melee isn't much better if at all, just different. (Though I prefer 4).
im not sure why you bring netplay experience into it when you really cant judge any smash game at all from netplay. the only somewhat acceptable frame buffers are 0 or 1 and that rarely happens.
and actually from what i've seen and played of smash 4 its much much better to not cede stage control versus going out below the stage
I was just trying to say how easy edgeguarding in melee is (I've played melee for a long time on the actual console) even on suboptimal controls, so I don't find it interesting enough (impressive enough) when I watch pros edgeguard. Even easier with a GC controller + CRT.
Right, thing is I don't mind that, because if someone decides to go deep (and risk losing stage control) it's more exciting because it's rarer/risky, and only occasionally/rarely will they grab a kill. I prefer that over melee where quick or easy kills are very frequent and you are dead more than not if launched far off stage, it's just more varied and I prefer that "pyramid" structure over "inverse pyramid" (pyramid = uncommon edgeguard kills, commonly successfully regaining stage control but not without taking lots of damage)
You underestimate how hard it is to edgeguard good players who recover well. The differences in the offstage game in melee are subtle angle/positioning/timing things which make a huge difference but are hard to identify when you're watching the edgeguarder respond perfectly. All you see is "got edgeguarded". You don't see the 90 other players in the top 100 who would have chosen an inferior flowchart.
The result of an edgeguard/recovery attempt is always going to be 1 or 0, but there are a million degrees of room for improvement on either side of it, despite how deceptively simple it looks.
You can say that even more so with Smash 4 then since it's even harder to get a kill no? As both a spectator and a player, I would have to disagree and say it's not as deep as you're saying it is. Hard maybe, but not deep. It's more about positioning, timing, reaction, and execution than it is reading or responding to multiple actions on the spot to launch them back off. You learn the right or best positions on stages in certain MUs (there aren't many due to such a small viable cast) and you go to them when the opponent is at X position off stage. If all his options are crossed off, you react and get the kill. If only some of his options are crossed off, you usually have to read one move at most (the Up B or air dodge). Due to the low amountn of options the opponent even has, it's either you need to move to predict him going for the option you didn't cover, or you predicting he's going to assume you will do that.
There are subtleties sure, but edgeguarding in melee still is in general much easier and simple than it is in Smash 4 where the recoverer has a lot more options to get back (more time in the air, ability to attack back, ability to airdodge freely). I prefer there being a bigger gap between players who can't get kills off stage and those who do risk going off stage and secure a kill. Not to mention all the MUs in melee where being launched off virtually is usually a free kill because the recoverer doesn't have multiple options like a character such as fox usually does, or due to a character like Marth having great edgeguards via fsmash/shieldbreak.
On January 19 2015 19:27 Bacon_Infinity wrote: I have also been getting more interested in checking out competitive smash. I started looking into it when I saw Smash 4 came out but didnt expect that SSBM would still be the preferred eSport
SSBM is superior in almost every way as a competative game. It's faster, deaper, more skillbased, better balanced and has a very established and passionate scene.
There's a lot of movement options and dancing between players and that will allow the better player to bait and punish
you really are downplaying smash 4's current lack of an ground game, the only great technique of real importance known right now is pivoting.
im also entirely confused why smash 4 people call the melee edgeguard game "guaranteed kills", which actually come down to 1. what character you're playing 2. whether the edgeguarder is doing the edgeguarding right 3. whether the edgeguardee is doing recovery positioning right 4. the correct selected option (usually in the most optimal form of sweetspoting + teching + DI) 5. execution, based on pressing the right inputs at the right time in the right position
not all that different from smash 4! the edgeguard metagame in melee has been hashed out through the years, most significantly after 2008. just because we see that 5 gods can edgeguard to perfection doesnt mean the edgeguarding = guaranteed kill.
Oops. Rereading my post, sorry I did go right from mentioning smash 4 to talking about movement options, fixed now. I meant that *melee* has a lot of movement options and dancing between players.
It is impressive, and true not everyone can do that, but after seeing it so many times it just isnt very... exciting to me? I won't deny it doesn't take skill, but a lot of it is you just practice it, where as I'm more interested in Smash 4's edgeguarding because there are more possibilities and options and risks to consider, and that makes it more impressive to me when I see someone get a kill (and if they don't, they still rack up a lot of damage due to having stage advantage). Even I can get a lot of kills edgeguarding, in general edgeguarding is just easy in melee. I play netplay on a keyboard and even so i'm able to get a kill pretty much every time they're launched off, despite me not even practicing or having a controller.
In melee you can mixup your recoveries a bit, and even the best players don't read them right all the time, but I want actual "depth", not just positioning/reaction/tech skill. For example in Smash 4, it's harder to get the kill (which I understand can be more boring as a spectator if you want fast paced action) because recoveries in general are a lot easier and the recoverer can attack back or air dodge. I like this because if an edgeguarder goes deep and actually gets a kill, it is impressive because he made the correct guess or read the opponent right but if he messes up he may lose stage control, where as in Melee it's more about when and how the recoverer recovers (fox up B high or low, or fox side B, or maybe air dodge, or maybe shine to delay falling before using one of those options). It may also be due to the high number of Foxes / and the nature of the recoveries (telegraphed, especially firefox) of the top tier characters, as well as there just being less characters in melee that makes it feel old to me.
I hope that makes some sense? X) I guess I'm saying I like the larger focus on reading and the more improvisation and room for error of Smash 4's edgeguarding, because the edgeguarder has higher risk than in melee and more chances to mess up, and due to the much lower gravity players can afford to attack more off stage. It's more unpredictable, whereas I've seen every possibility in melee. Launching someone back off the stage and denying recovery in melee usually requires just one read, where as in Smash 4 if you want to keep them from touching the stage there are times you have to make multiple reads.
And I do agree that it's not hugely different from Smash 4, since Smash 4 shares a lot of melee-esque elements (you can't rely on snapping the edge all the time due to vulnerability in 4, etc). Instead of arguing Smash 4 is superior to melee [ in edgeguarding], I'd rather like to say that Smash 4 and Melee are similar in a lot of ways, and Melee isn't much better if at all, just different. (Though I prefer 4).
im not sure why you bring netplay experience into it when you really cant judge any smash game at all from netplay. the only somewhat acceptable frame buffers are 0 or 1 and that rarely happens.
and actually from what i've seen and played of smash 4 its much much better to not cede stage control versus going out below the stage
I was just trying to say how easy edgeguarding in melee is (I've played melee for a long time on the actual console) even on suboptimal controls, so I don't find it interesting enough (impressive enough) when I watch pros edgeguard. Even easier with a GC controller + CRT.
Right, thing is I don't mind that, because if someone decides to go deep (and risk losing stage control) it's more exciting because it's rarer/risky, and only occasionally/rarely will they grab a kill. I prefer that over melee where quick or easy kills are very frequent and you are dead more than not if launched far off stage, it's just more varied and I prefer that "pyramid" structure over "inverse pyramid" (pyramid = uncommon edgeguard kills, commonly successfully regaining stage control but not without taking lots of damage)
You underestimate how hard it is to edgeguard good players who recover well. The differences in the offstage game in melee are subtle angle/positioning/timing things which make a huge difference but are hard to identify when you're watching the edgeguarder respond perfectly. All you see is "got edgeguarded". You don't see the 90 other players in the top 100 who would have chosen an inferior flowchart.
The result of an edgeguard/recovery attempt is always going to be 1 or 0, but there are a million degrees of room for improvement on either side of it, despite how deceptively simple it looks.
You can say that even more so with Smash 4 then since it's even harder to get a kill no? As both a spectator and a player, I would have to disagree and say it's not as deep as you're saying it is. Hard maybe, but not deep. It's more about positioning, timing, reaction, and execution than it is reading or responding to multiple actions on the spot to launch them back off. You learn the right or best positions on stages in certain MUs (there aren't many due to such a small viable cast) and you go to them when the opponent is at X position off stage. If all his options are crossed off, you react and get the kill. If only some of his options are crossed off, you usually have to read one move at most (the Up B or air dodge). Due to the low amountn of options the opponent even has, it's either you need to move to predict him going for the option you didn't cover, or you predicting he's going to assume you will do that.
There are subtleties sure, but edgeguarding in melee still is in general much easier and simple than it is in Smash 4 where the recoverer has a lot more options to get back (more time in the air, ability to attack back, ability to airdodge freely). I prefer there being a bigger gap between players who can't get kills off stage and those who do risk going off stage and secure a kill. Not to mention all the MUs in melee where being launched off virtually is usually a free kill because the recoverer doesn't have multiple options like a character such as fox usually does, or due to a character like Marth having great edgeguards via fsmash/shieldbreak.
Marth's shieldbreak is not a great edgeguard. It can punish them landing on stage with Up-B lag, but that shouldn't happen unless the edgeguarder has committed to a position that can't punish that in time (unlikely. Up-B on stage is one of the worst possible choices in most cases). Edgeguarding in Melee is definitely about reading. Sometimes when an opponent is recovering, he is not in a position that grants him many options, but in many other cases, a recovering character has enough options that 1 plan cannot cover all of them. Consider the "Ledgeguarding vs. Illusion" section of Kadano's Marth Guide. This is a very specific subset of Melee edgeguarding situations, but it has much variation.
This is more opinion, but because stocks are more fragile in Melee, you encounter high tension in off-the-stage situations because either player is at risk of death. The player getting edgeguarded can even make a sick reversal, like in the ending of this match:
On January 19 2015 19:27 Bacon_Infinity wrote: I have also been getting more interested in checking out competitive smash. I started looking into it when I saw Smash 4 came out but didnt expect that SSBM would still be the preferred eSport
SSBM is superior in almost every way as a competative game. It's faster, deaper, more skillbased, better balanced and has a very established and passionate scene.
There's a lot of movement options and dancing between players and that will allow the better player to bait and punish
you really are downplaying smash 4's current lack of an ground game, the only great technique of real importance known right now is pivoting.
im also entirely confused why smash 4 people call the melee edgeguard game "guaranteed kills", which actually come down to 1. what character you're playing 2. whether the edgeguarder is doing the edgeguarding right 3. whether the edgeguardee is doing recovery positioning right 4. the correct selected option (usually in the most optimal form of sweetspoting + teching + DI) 5. execution, based on pressing the right inputs at the right time in the right position
not all that different from smash 4! the edgeguard metagame in melee has been hashed out through the years, most significantly after 2008. just because we see that 5 gods can edgeguard to perfection doesnt mean the edgeguarding = guaranteed kill.
Oops. Rereading my post, sorry I did go right from mentioning smash 4 to talking about movement options, fixed now. I meant that *melee* has a lot of movement options and dancing between players.
It is impressive, and true not everyone can do that, but after seeing it so many times it just isnt very... exciting to me? I won't deny it doesn't take skill, but a lot of it is you just practice it, where as I'm more interested in Smash 4's edgeguarding because there are more possibilities and options and risks to consider, and that makes it more impressive to me when I see someone get a kill (and if they don't, they still rack up a lot of damage due to having stage advantage). Even I can get a lot of kills edgeguarding, in general edgeguarding is just easy in melee. I play netplay on a keyboard and even so i'm able to get a kill pretty much every time they're launched off, despite me not even practicing or having a controller.
In melee you can mixup your recoveries a bit, and even the best players don't read them right all the time, but I want actual "depth", not just positioning/reaction/tech skill. For example in Smash 4, it's harder to get the kill (which I understand can be more boring as a spectator if you want fast paced action) because recoveries in general are a lot easier and the recoverer can attack back or air dodge. I like this because if an edgeguarder goes deep and actually gets a kill, it is impressive because he made the correct guess or read the opponent right but if he messes up he may lose stage control, where as in Melee it's more about when and how the recoverer recovers (fox up B high or low, or fox side B, or maybe air dodge, or maybe shine to delay falling before using one of those options). It may also be due to the high number of Foxes / and the nature of the recoveries (telegraphed, especially firefox) of the top tier characters, as well as there just being less characters in melee that makes it feel old to me.
I hope that makes some sense? X) I guess I'm saying I like the larger focus on reading and the more improvisation and room for error of Smash 4's edgeguarding, because the edgeguarder has higher risk than in melee and more chances to mess up, and due to the much lower gravity players can afford to attack more off stage. It's more unpredictable, whereas I've seen every possibility in melee. Launching someone back off the stage and denying recovery in melee usually requires just one read, where as in Smash 4 if you want to keep them from touching the stage there are times you have to make multiple reads.
And I do agree that it's not hugely different from Smash 4, since Smash 4 shares a lot of melee-esque elements (you can't rely on snapping the edge all the time due to vulnerability in 4, etc). Instead of arguing Smash 4 is superior to melee [ in edgeguarding], I'd rather like to say that Smash 4 and Melee are similar in a lot of ways, and Melee isn't much better if at all, just different. (Though I prefer 4).
im not sure why you bring netplay experience into it when you really cant judge any smash game at all from netplay. the only somewhat acceptable frame buffers are 0 or 1 and that rarely happens.
and actually from what i've seen and played of smash 4 its much much better to not cede stage control versus going out below the stage
I was just trying to say how easy edgeguarding in melee is (I've played melee for a long time on the actual console) even on suboptimal controls, so I don't find it interesting enough (impressive enough) when I watch pros edgeguard. Even easier with a GC controller + CRT.
Right, thing is I don't mind that, because if someone decides to go deep (and risk losing stage control) it's more exciting because it's rarer/risky, and only occasionally/rarely will they grab a kill. I prefer that over melee where quick or easy kills are very frequent and you are dead more than not if launched far off stage, it's just more varied and I prefer that "pyramid" structure over "inverse pyramid" (pyramid = uncommon edgeguard kills, commonly successfully regaining stage control but not without taking lots of damage)
You underestimate how hard it is to edgeguard good players who recover well. The differences in the offstage game in melee are subtle angle/positioning/timing things which make a huge difference but are hard to identify when you're watching the edgeguarder respond perfectly. All you see is "got edgeguarded". You don't see the 90 other players in the top 100 who would have chosen an inferior flowchart.
The result of an edgeguard/recovery attempt is always going to be 1 or 0, but there are a million degrees of room for improvement on either side of it, despite how deceptively simple it looks.
You can say that even more so with Smash 4 then since it's even harder to get a kill no? As both a spectator and a player, I would have to disagree and say it's not as deep as you're saying it is. Hard maybe, but not deep. It's more about positioning, timing, reaction, and execution than it is reading or responding to multiple actions on the spot to launch them back off. You learn the right or best positions on stages in certain MUs (there aren't many due to such a small viable cast) and you go to them when the opponent is at X position off stage. If all his options are crossed off, you react and get the kill. If only some of his options are crossed off, you usually have to read one move at most (the Up B or air dodge). Due to the low amountn of options the opponent even has, it's either you need to move to predict him going for the option you didn't cover, or you predicting he's going to assume you will do that.
There are subtleties sure, but edgeguarding in melee still is in general much easier and simple than it is in Smash 4 where the recoverer has a lot more options to get back (more time in the air, ability to attack back, ability to airdodge freely). I prefer there being a bigger gap between players who can't get kills off stage and those who do risk going off stage and secure a kill. Not to mention all the MUs in melee where being launched off virtually is usually a free kill because the recoverer doesn't have multiple options like a character such as fox usually does, or due to a character like Marth having great edgeguards via fsmash/shieldbreak.
not sure why you bring up marth's fsmash is an subpar edgeguard as its heavily based on timing/spacing and on top of that easily techable. and shieldbreak is an incredibly matchup situational edgeguard.
edgeguarding in melee is easier because its actually a subgame of melee where as in smash 4 it doesnt even exist, you just let him get on ledge. against good players you actually get punished for trying to hit him offstage which is pretty much like it is in all the other smashes. you can say edgeguarding is easier in melee, but why does that make the game shallower as opposed to deeper?
I'm so surprised that this has devolved into a convo about which game has harder edge guard mechanics...
That said, I think you guys are arguing about it backwards:
If edge guarding in melee is easier than in other games, it's not because of some mechanic that makes it easier to get kills.
It's because of how fucking hard it is to recover correctly. Smash 4 recovery is quite easy. Up+B, and you velcro right to the stage. Smash 4 has completely eliminated the need to learn how to sweet spot, and as a result, difficult things like perfectly spacing your recovery, or ledge-teching edge guards cease to be factors in the conversation.
It's not a question of edge guarding in melee being easy. it's an issue of recovering in melee being hard.
On January 27 2015 07:27 MrBitter wrote: I'm so surprised that this has devolved into a convo about which game has harder edge guard mechanics...
That said, I think you guys are arguing about it backwards:
If edge guarding in melee is easier than in other games, it's not because of some mechanic that makes it easier to get kills.
It's because of how fucking hard it is to recover correctly. Smash 4 recovery is quite easy. Up+B, and you velcro right to the stage. Smash 4 has completely eliminated the need to learn how to sweet spot, and as a result, difficult things like perfectly spacing your recovery, or ledge-teching edge guards cease to be factors in the conversation.
It's not a question of edge guarding in melee being easy. it's an issue of recovering in melee being hard.
EPT
He was the MSL writing team lead immediately before I started covering MSL! I met him at some Norcal tourneys but didn't get to talk to him much 
