On November 22 2018 08:31 andrewlt wrote: Valkyria Chronicles 4 for the Switch looks tempting but I'm debating whether to just get it on the PC for the same price ($29.99). I'm also debating whether to stick to cartridges or buy a 128 Gb card for $19.99.
Resell value vs ease of use and abusing the international e shop. Ease of use and especially lower prices in South Africa and Japan won me over.
On November 19 2018 06:09 Faruko wrote: Do we have a google doc of Switch friend codes? we should add each other for any game, smash is coming so it would be great to fight between TL
Anyone interested in a Discord server? It might be better than a forum for match-making and generally hanging out with the community
Given that Super Smash Bros. Ultimate is going to be similarly slow and casual to Smash 4 and Brawl in terms of moves and controls, with a skill ceiling lower than Smash 64 and much lower than Melee, and given the epic story modes and single-player gameplay, I'm probably currently more hyped to play the one-player mode over the online/ versus mode. I'm expecting SSBU to fall right in the middle of the Smash skill ceiling: Melee >>>> 64 >> SSBU > Smash 4 >> Brawl.
So smash is coming up and I need to get some extra controllers, any recommendations for good 3rd party controllers or is it actually worth it to shell out £50+ for official Nintendo stuff, either pro controller or joy-cons?
On November 23 2018 05:31 Oukka wrote: So smash is coming up and I need to get some extra controllers, any recommendations for good 3rd party controllers or is it actually worth it to shell out £50+ for official Nintendo stuff, either pro controller or joy-cons?
Depending on how competitive you are, the scale seems to be that the more competitive you care to be, the closer to a Melee/ GameCube controller you should get. Pro-controller should be fine for most people, and better than a single joycon. Also, make sure you're playing with whatever controller feels good for you personally!
On November 23 2018 04:45 Faruko wrote: you should go pro, i mean you seem so good at melee you probably going to kick everyones ass on ultimate
As far as competitive play goes, "skill ceiling" is just elitist pedantry. It has very little to do with a game's competitive success.
Pace of play and audience engagement have a lot more to do with the game's competitive livelihood, which is really what the problem with SSB4 and Brawl was: once the games got figured out, competitive matches were glacially slow and relatively uninteresting to watch for the uninitiated viewer compared to Melee and 64. "Skill ceiling" was largely irrelevant.
On November 23 2018 06:02 TheYango wrote: As far as competitive play goes, "skill ceiling" is just elitist pedantry. It has very little to do with a game's competitive success.
Pace of play and audience engagement have a lot more to do with the game's competitive livelihood, which is really what the problem with SSB4 and Brawl was: once the games got figured out, competitive matches were glacially slow and relatively uninteresting to watch for the uninitiated viewer compared to Melee and 64. "Skill ceiling" was largely irrelevant.
I think that all of those things played roles, and I also think it's a legitimate difference (as opposed to "elitist pedantry") that Sakurai has repeatedly said that he prefers Smash as a party game over a competitive game, and that the nuances that gave 64 and Melee higher skill ceilings were accidental and not what he envisioned, which is why they were removed from later Smash games. It's not like skill ceilings don't exist, and higher skill ceilings often incentivize competititors to practice more and play more and appreciate the higher difficulty of the game.
I wasn't judging, per se; it was a simple observation. I was saying that I'm more hyped for the single-player mode because it looks epic, and I'm not personally a fan of the slower, more casual direction that Brawl and Smash 4 (and probably, SSBU) went in. I'm sure those changes appeal to others and that's totally fine. I think SSBU will appeal to a very large audience for a variety of reasons.
On November 23 2018 05:31 Oukka wrote: So smash is coming up and I need to get some extra controllers, any recommendations for good 3rd party controllers or is it actually worth it to shell out £50+ for official Nintendo stuff, either pro controller or joy-cons?
If you're buying stuff specifically for smash, you may want to look into the Smash Gamecube controllers. Over here in the US they're selling for $30/controller and $20 for the adapter.
On November 23 2018 06:02 TheYango wrote: As far as competitive play goes, "skill ceiling" is just elitist pedantry. It has very little to do with a game's competitive success.
Pace of play and audience engagement have a lot more to do with the game's competitive livelihood, which is really what the problem with SSB4 and Brawl was: once the games got figured out, competitive matches were glacially slow and relatively uninteresting to watch for the uninitiated viewer compared to Melee and 64. "Skill ceiling" was largely irrelevant.
Ok, but don't you think that part of the reason that the games were so easily figured out to the point they got slow and boring is that the competitor's options to overcome that deadlock were so heavily limited by the "skill ceiling"? You don't think that part of the reason Melee is so much more engaging and entertaining is that the game provides more options to the players to overcome the boring skill-capped potential of Brawl and 4?
I think of SC2 and how quickly it flamed out as the pros all figured out their death-ball armies compared to Brood War, which is still alive and kicking, with it's higher "skill ceiling" allowing more creativity, and thus higher entertainment value.
I mean, I don't totally disregard your point either. You can compare DOTA2 and LoL and see that a higher skill ceiling doesn't always result in higher popularity. Although anecdotally, it seems that LoL is beginning its slow death while DOTA's popularity is remaining fairly consistent. But for a while there LoL seemed to be winning that battle, primarily due to brighter colours and better clarity of the action happening on screen (and much better production value and properly trained casters).
i think Melee players/fans being etilist and pedantric was a bigger reason, you could not even try to like brawl or 4 before a full army of maniacs come in full force to tell you that it's a shit game
I mean, on a competitive level they weren't wrong... Melee is the far superior competitive game over the others and I can't take any argument against that too seriously. The more you level the playing field by limiting what a player can achieve in-game, the more boring the game typically becomes.
As a non-pro, I love that the games are accessible to me and I can play at a competent level, but if I were a pro I would probably be pretty passionate about my feelings. That all said, as a casual competitive player with no hopes or dreams of ever competing in a real tournament, I loved 4. However, Brawl was pretty shitty, if only because of the tripping "mechanic."
And it's not because I blame tripping for my being bad at the game. Win or lose, I just want as fair an experience as possible, and a random element that may or may not occur, with 0 predictability really grinds my gears.
On November 23 2018 06:58 Nemireck wrote: Ok, but don't you think that part of the reason that the games were so easily figured out to the point they got slow and boring is that the competitor's options to overcome that deadlock were so heavily limited by the "skill ceiling"?
A game being "figured out" does not automatically mean it's slow. Melee's more "figured out" now after a decade and a half than Brawl was 6 months after release, but competitive Brawl matches were already a snoozefest even when the game wasn't "figured out" yet.
On November 23 2018 06:58 Nemireck wrote: You don't think that part of the reason Melee is so much more engaging and entertaining is that the game provides more options to the players to overcome the boring skill-capped potential of Brawl and 4?
No, because almost all of those things are nearly invisible to the spectator. A spectator doesn't see the game from an intellectual standpoint in terms of what options a player has, a spectator only sees the game as it is on the screen.
On November 23 2018 06:58 Nemireck wrote: Ok, but don't you think that part of the reason that the games were so easily figured out to the point they got slow and boring is that the competitor's options to overcome that deadlock were so heavily limited by the "skill ceiling"?
A game being "figured out" does not automatically mean it's slow. Melee's more "figured out" now after a decade and a half than Brawl was 6 months after release, but competitive Brawl matches were already a snoozefest even when the game wasn't "figured out" yet.
My argument wasn't that any game gets boring once it's been "figured out". My argument was that lower-skill-cap games get boring faster than higher-skill cap games. My examples were SC2 vs Brood War, and SSBrawl vs Melee. I used DotA vs LoL as an example where it's not a concrete rule, because many factors are involved in the success of an eSport.
On November 23 2018 06:58 Nemireck wrote: You don't think that part of the reason Melee is so much more engaging and entertaining is that the game provides more options to the players to overcome the boring skill-capped potential of Brawl and 4?
No, because almost all of those things are nearly invisible to the spectator. A spectator doesn't see the game from an intellectual standpoint in terms of what options a player has, a spectator only sees the game as it is on the screen.
Except that those options are visible to the spectator in the form of a more entertaining product. While the specifics may be invisible to the viewer, the on-screen product is better because of the additional options provided to those players.
I haven't played a Mega Man game in ages... I just bought Mega Man 11 for the Switch and it's amazing! Also, I just blindly started the game on the hardest difficulty (superhero mode) without trying an easier version, and I'm blown away at how reasonably hard the game is. It's very challenging and unforgiving, but also very addicting and rewarding. Definitely worth the buy if you want a sharp, strategic sidescroller/ platformer! Also, I far prefer playing console games on televisions rather than handheld modes, so I've been somewhat resistant to playing my bigger Switch games (Mario, Zelda, etc.) in portable mode, but Mega Man 11 is perfect for handheld mode!
@melee discussion: The main reason I prefer melee over any other Smash is how movement feels. It's less erratic than Smash1 and movement in brawl is just awfully slow and wobbly. It's a lot better in 4, but it still feels slower and more laggy than SSBM. And that goes for both playing it casually as well as optimized movement.
Like sure, it's cool that all the tech-heavy stuff plays a role in melee and that you can learn a dozen optimizations and can work in 4 inputs/second, but the main reason I like it is that even the base movement is precise and fast. And most advanced stuff minimizes your lags and time in which you aren't in control while not limiting your options.
EPT
