|
On May 07 2015 01:03 GhandiEAGLE wrote:
Documentary, nostalgia, and accessability. You can suck at Melee and still do awesome things, without being restrictive like MVC3.
In MVC3 you can do cool things really easily, which got me into the game (I got pretty respectable at it, Super Skrull op). However, there's very little expression; everything you do is usually an accident borne from button-mashing. In Melee, if you want to do something or go somewhere, you have the control right there to do it. Jump! Run away! Throw lasers! Movement is legitimately hard in fighting games, except Soul Calibur and Melee, which is why they had such good casual followings.
Movement always felt incredibly awkward to me in soul caliber/3d fighters.
|
Baa?21248 Posts
On May 07 2015 01:02 WaveofShadow wrote:
Yes, definitely the doc.
All I'm trying to say is I think the communities are pretty divided for multitudes of reasons, but to say one game offers more depth/is better than another especially when almost nobody extensively plays/watches both types of game is sort of silly, even if it weren't comparing apples and orange, which I feel it is.
You're biased because you are actually entrenched in the community, so you accord the the differences in details more significance than the vast majority of viewers, who are the main focus of this discussion. The point being made is that to a new/less experienced viewer, Melee is the game of choice from a spectator perspective. It's irrelevant why that is, it simply is. Sponsorship money reflects that.
|
On May 07 2015 01:06 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2015 01:03 GhandiEAGLE wrote:
Documentary, nostalgia, and accessability. You can suck at Melee and still do awesome things, without being restrictive like MVC3.
In MVC3 you can do cool things really easily, which got me into the game (I got pretty respectable at it, Super Skrull op). However, there's very little expression; everything you do is usually an accident borne from button-mashing. In Melee, if you want to do something or go somewhere, you have the control right there to do it. Jump! Run away! Throw lasers! Movement is legitimately hard in fighting games, except Soul Calibur and Melee, which is why they had such good casual followings. This is the point I was going to make. Even if you're shit, you can still have a ton of fun on Melee because you can just do shit rather than getting combo'd in the corner forever. Yes, if you're playing someone who knows what they're doing in Melee, you'll get shit on - but it doesn't feel as terrible in Melee. But a big reason I really like SG is because things feel incredibly responsive and fluid in that game as well. I almost always feel like my character does what I tell it to (except for weird instances where I drop a block or fuck up a combo string - but that more boils down to my discomfort with the genre than anything else).
There's sort of a point here, but if you considered high level mechanics in melee the same as the stuff you try to pull off and fail sometimes at in SG, I think you'd see the comparison is absolutely there. I also disagree about getting shit on in melee feeling 'better.' it always felt the same way to me;that you're completely helpless.
|
On May 07 2015 01:08 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2015 01:02 WaveofShadow wrote:
Yes, definitely the doc.
All I'm trying to say is I think the communities are pretty divided for multitudes of reasons, but to say one game offers more depth/is better than another especially when almost nobody extensively plays/watches both types of game is sort of silly, even if it weren't comparing apples and orange, which I feel it is. You're biased because you are actually entrenched in the community, so you accord the the differences in details more significance than the vast majority of viewers, who are the main focus of this discussion. The point being made is that to a new/less experienced viewer, Melee is the game of choice from a spectator perspective. It's irrelevant why that is, it simply is. Sponsorship money reflects that.
Do you have actual figures comparing SF4 and Melee sponsorship money or are you just running on some assumptions?
|
On May 07 2015 01:08 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2015 01:02 WaveofShadow wrote:
Yes, definitely the doc.
All I'm trying to say is I think the communities are pretty divided for multitudes of reasons, but to say one game offers more depth/is better than another especially when almost nobody extensively plays/watches both types of game is sort of silly, even if it weren't comparing apples and orange, which I feel it is. You're biased because you are actually entrenched in the community, so you accord the the differences in details more significance than the vast majority of viewers, who are the main focus of this discussion. The point being made is that to a new/less experienced viewer, Melee is the game of choice from a spectator perspective. It's irrelevant why that is, it simply is. Sponsorship money reflects that.
It's not irrelevant as to why that is. I'm arguing as to why melee isn't a better more strategic game than other FGs. Visually of course melee is more attractive to the non Fg player, and that's obvious.
|
All these fitin gaems.
I'm going to hang out at Texas Showdown this weekend with friends. Should be fun.
|
On May 07 2015 01:07 WaveofShadow wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2015 01:03 GhandiEAGLE wrote:
Documentary, nostalgia, and accessability. You can suck at Melee and still do awesome things, without being restrictive like MVC3.
In MVC3 you can do cool things really easily, which got me into the game (I got pretty respectable at it, Super Skrull op). However, there's very little expression; everything you do is usually an accident borne from button-mashing. In Melee, if you want to do something or go somewhere, you have the control right there to do it. Jump! Run away! Throw lasers! Movement is legitimately hard in fighting games, except Soul Calibur and Melee, which is why they had such good casual followings. Movement always felt incredibly awkward to me in soul caliber/3d fighters.
Soul Calibur to an extent, but you can't really get cornered. The option to run away is, while terrible, present.
Also, I'd speak for Skullgirls, but I can't. You know, not owning it and all.
|
On May 07 2015 01:08 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2015 01:02 WaveofShadow wrote:
Yes, definitely the doc.
All I'm trying to say is I think the communities are pretty divided for multitudes of reasons, but to say one game offers more depth/is better than another especially when almost nobody extensively plays/watches both types of game is sort of silly, even if it weren't comparing apples and orange, which I feel it is. You're biased because you are actually entrenched in the community, so you accord the the differences in details more significance than the vast majority of viewers, who are the main focus of this discussion. The point being made is that to a new/less experienced viewer, Melee is the game of choice from a spectator perspective. It's irrelevant why that is, it simply is. Sponsorship money reflects that.
If you have articles about this I'd be interested to see them since they clash with my own experience. I personally have played a crapton of Melee but prefer to watch SF4, and that's also true for most of the inexperienced/new viewers I know.
This page is the sort of thing I find when I try to search for that information myself, and at face value it looks like Melee actually trails SF4 and MvC3.
|
Baa?21248 Posts
On May 07 2015 01:09 AlterKot wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2015 01:08 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On May 07 2015 01:02 WaveofShadow wrote:
Yes, definitely the doc.
All I'm trying to say is I think the communities are pretty divided for multitudes of reasons, but to say one game offers more depth/is better than another especially when almost nobody extensively plays/watches both types of game is sort of silly, even if it weren't comparing apples and orange, which I feel it is. You're biased because you are actually entrenched in the community, so you accord the the differences in details more significance than the vast majority of viewers, who are the main focus of this discussion. The point being made is that to a new/less experienced viewer, Melee is the game of choice from a spectator perspective. It's irrelevant why that is, it simply is. Sponsorship money reflects that. Do you have actual figures comparing SF4 and Melee sponsorship money or are you just running on some assumptions?
Just look at the sponsors - Smash has people like Alliance, C9, TSM. EG is, afaik, the only tier 1 sponsor for other fighting games. I can't think of any other sponsors that are comparable to these in scale.
On May 07 2015 01:11 WaveofShadow wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2015 01:08 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On May 07 2015 01:02 WaveofShadow wrote:
Yes, definitely the doc.
All I'm trying to say is I think the communities are pretty divided for multitudes of reasons, but to say one game offers more depth/is better than another especially when almost nobody extensively plays/watches both types of game is sort of silly, even if it weren't comparing apples and orange, which I feel it is. You're biased because you are actually entrenched in the community, so you accord the the differences in details more significance than the vast majority of viewers, who are the main focus of this discussion. The point being made is that to a new/less experienced viewer, Melee is the game of choice from a spectator perspective. It's irrelevant why that is, it simply is. Sponsorship money reflects that. It's not irrelevant as to why that is. I'm arguing as to why melee isn't a better more strategic game than other FGs. Visually of course melee is more attractive to the non Fg player, and that's obvious.
I had no comments at all on what's more "strategic" and "better" game. I've been around long enough to know that's a conversation that doesn't go anywhere. The original statement:
On May 07 2015 00:39 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2015 00:35 WaveofShadow wrote:
Also most fighting game players/watchers love their games and their games alone, so to say other games pale in comparison to melee is likely just bias on the part of the viewer. No i don't think that's true at all. Just look at empirical evidence - Melee is the most watched fighting game in the world right now by a significant and growing margin, and is where all the ESPORTS money is flowing towards.
You may have intended to discuss the inherent merit of the games, but your post was about -watching-, so the "visually of course melee is more attractive to the non Fg player, and that's obvious" point is all I was saying.
On May 07 2015 01:15 Seuss wrote:This page is the sort of thing I find when I try to search for that information myself, and at face value it looks like Melee actually trails SF4 and MvC3.
Just as with BW and LoL, we're long past the point where prize money is the driving source of revenue for players and sponsors.
|
Fine. If nobody else wants it tonight when we play you can have it.
|
On May 07 2015 00:45 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2015 00:35 WaveofShadow wrote:On May 07 2015 00:30 jcarlsoniv wrote:On May 06 2015 23:38 Scip wrote:On May 06 2015 23:35 Sufficiency wrote:
One of the most annoying thing about Smash for me is % dependent combos. But isn't that like, the coolest thing? I wonder if I'm the only one who feels this way, as a person who has never played fighters, every fighting game seems to pale in comparison with Melee. Nah, I'm with you. I think this is the case for so many people because everyone played melee at a younger age when it came out, whether more competitively or casually, so it's easier to relate to and see what's going on than a typical fighter. Also most fighting game players/watchers love their games and their games alone, so to say other games pale in comparison to melee is likely just bias on the part of the viewer. Don't get me wrong, I love watching other fighting games as well. But for a lot of generic fighting games, the flow goes from Neutral Game into combos and damage, draining a bunch of your life. When your life hits 0, you ded. There is so much more to it in Smash. Neutral leads into punishes leads into ledge guards. Smash DI allows you to live through attacks that should have killed you. Regular DI changes how each approach ends up. It is very easy to self destruct if you fuck up (something completely absent in other fighters). Mobility and stage size/design opens up so many avenues to play. I know I probably simplify traditional fighters because I don't know all of the little nuances. But in comparison, Smash feels so much less restrictive and fluid than a traditional fighter.
I'd argue that you can fuck up way harder in these "combo" games since whiffing a move or dropping a hitstun on a dangerous-on-block move opens you to much harsher punishment by your own explanation.
|
On May 07 2015 01:15 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2015 01:09 AlterKot wrote:On May 07 2015 01:08 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On May 07 2015 01:02 WaveofShadow wrote:
Yes, definitely the doc.
All I'm trying to say is I think the communities are pretty divided for multitudes of reasons, but to say one game offers more depth/is better than another especially when almost nobody extensively plays/watches both types of game is sort of silly, even if it weren't comparing apples and orange, which I feel it is. You're biased because you are actually entrenched in the community, so you accord the the differences in details more significance than the vast majority of viewers, who are the main focus of this discussion. The point being made is that to a new/less experienced viewer, Melee is the game of choice from a spectator perspective. It's irrelevant why that is, it simply is. Sponsorship money reflects that. Do you have actual figures comparing SF4 and Melee sponsorship money or are you just running on some assumptions? Just look at the sponsors - Smash has people like Alliance, C9, TSM. EG is, afaik, the only tier 1 sponsor for other fighting games. I can't think of any other sponsors that are comparable to these in scale. Show nested quote +On May 07 2015 01:11 WaveofShadow wrote:On May 07 2015 01:08 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On May 07 2015 01:02 WaveofShadow wrote:
Yes, definitely the doc.
All I'm trying to say is I think the communities are pretty divided for multitudes of reasons, but to say one game offers more depth/is better than another especially when almost nobody extensively plays/watches both types of game is sort of silly, even if it weren't comparing apples and orange, which I feel it is. You're biased because you are actually entrenched in the community, so you accord the the differences in details more significance than the vast majority of viewers, who are the main focus of this discussion. The point being made is that to a new/less experienced viewer, Melee is the game of choice from a spectator perspective. It's irrelevant why that is, it simply is. Sponsorship money reflects that. It's not irrelevant as to why that is. I'm arguing as to why melee isn't a better more strategic game than other FGs. Visually of course melee is more attractive to the non Fg player, and that's obvious. I had no comments at all on what's more "strategic" and "better" game. I've been around long enough to know that's a conversation that doesn't go anywhere. The original statement: Show nested quote +On May 07 2015 00:39 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On May 07 2015 00:35 WaveofShadow wrote:
Also most fighting game players/watchers love their games and their games alone, so to say other games pale in comparison to melee is likely just bias on the part of the viewer. No i don't think that's true at all. Just look at empirical evidence - Melee is the most watched fighting game in the world right now by a significant and growing margin, and is where all the ESPORTS money is flowing towards. You may have intended to discuss the inherent merit of the games, but your post was about -watching-, so the "visually of course melee is more attractive to the non Fg player, and that's obvious" point is all I was saying. Show nested quote +On May 07 2015 01:15 Seuss wrote:This page is the sort of thing I find when I try to search for that information myself, and at face value it looks like Melee actually trails SF4 and MvC3. Just as with BW and LoL, we're long past the point where prize money is the driving source of revenue for players and sponsors.
I wasn't talking about viewers specifically when I said 'those who say other games pale in comparison to melee' but I see how you thought I was.
|
On May 07 2015 01:15 Seuss wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2015 01:08 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On May 07 2015 01:02 WaveofShadow wrote:
Yes, definitely the doc.
All I'm trying to say is I think the communities are pretty divided for multitudes of reasons, but to say one game offers more depth/is better than another especially when almost nobody extensively plays/watches both types of game is sort of silly, even if it weren't comparing apples and orange, which I feel it is. You're biased because you are actually entrenched in the community, so you accord the the differences in details more significance than the vast majority of viewers, who are the main focus of this discussion. The point being made is that to a new/less experienced viewer, Melee is the game of choice from a spectator perspective. It's irrelevant why that is, it simply is. Sponsorship money reflects that. If you have articles about this I'd be interested to see them since they clash with my own experience. I personally have played a crapton of Melee but prefer to watch SF4, and that's also true for most of the inexperienced/new viewers I know. This page is the sort of thing I find when I try to search for that information myself, and at face value it looks like Melee actually trails SF4 and MvC3.
This fascinates me a little because it sort of flies in the face of everything I've experienced. Why is this the case for you?
|
On May 07 2015 01:16 Alaric wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2015 00:45 jcarlsoniv wrote:On May 07 2015 00:35 WaveofShadow wrote:On May 07 2015 00:30 jcarlsoniv wrote:On May 06 2015 23:38 Scip wrote:On May 06 2015 23:35 Sufficiency wrote:
One of the most annoying thing about Smash for me is % dependent combos. But isn't that like, the coolest thing? I wonder if I'm the only one who feels this way, as a person who has never played fighters, every fighting game seems to pale in comparison with Melee. Nah, I'm with you. I think this is the case for so many people because everyone played melee at a younger age when it came out, whether more competitively or casually, so it's easier to relate to and see what's going on than a typical fighter. Also most fighting game players/watchers love their games and their games alone, so to say other games pale in comparison to melee is likely just bias on the part of the viewer. Don't get me wrong, I love watching other fighting games as well. But for a lot of generic fighting games, the flow goes from Neutral Game into combos and damage, draining a bunch of your life. When your life hits 0, you ded. There is so much more to it in Smash. Neutral leads into punishes leads into ledge guards. Smash DI allows you to live through attacks that should have killed you. Regular DI changes how each approach ends up. It is very easy to self destruct if you fuck up (something completely absent in other fighters). Mobility and stage size/design opens up so many avenues to play. I know I probably simplify traditional fighters because I don't know all of the little nuances. But in comparison, Smash feels so much less restrictive and fluid than a traditional fighter. I'd argue that you can fuck up way harder in these "combo" games since whiffing a move or dropping a hitstun on a dangerous-on-block move opens you to much harsher punishment by your own explanation.
I don't disagree, and I don't see where I contradict that thought lol.
But that's what I kind of dislike about traditional fighting games. There are comparatively very few situations in Smash where you're sitting there watching your opponent beat on you for X amount of time without being able to do anything about it unless your opponent fucks up. Even in situations that are technically chains (in which a lot of them require the aggressor to act within a certain % range), you're able to DI and do something.
A lot of Smash revolves around DI and how you react to getting hit.
|
United States47024 Posts
On May 07 2015 01:15 Seuss wrote:This page is the sort of thing I find when I try to search for that information myself, and at face value it looks like Melee actually trails SF4 and MvC3.
That's a ridiculously lopsided comparison because Evo isn't even close to Smash's biggest event of the year and in general the payout for Smash is dispersed over many more smaller events that happen more frequently than SF4's or MvC3's.
If you compare the total amount of tournament prize money each year from those 3 games, Smash is pretty close to SF4's and is way more when you consider that half of SF4's money comes from Capcom Cup, which is from the developer themselves (Nintendo is not as invested in Esports and so doesn't do the same for Smash--it'd be like saying DotA 2 was bigger than LoL in 2011 just because of The International). MvC3 doesn't even come anywhere close.
|
I think Alaric is comparing an SD in melee to dropping a combo or fucking up in SG which is sort of odd.
|
On May 07 2015 01:24 WaveofShadow wrote:
I think Alaric is comparing an SD in melee to dropping a combo or fucking up in SG which is sort of odd.
Oh...yeah that's a terrible comparison.
If you fuck up in SG, you can easily be punished, putting your opponent ahead.
If you SD in Smash, you don't get punished, per se, you just fall behind because you killed yourself.
|
I was replying to this in particular Soniv:
It is very easy to self destruct if you fuck up (something completely absent in other fighters).
Unless by "self-destruct" you meant stocking yourself even from 0% (I mean, whiffing can mean you die in 100-0 games but we agreed that this isn't the best design around, although it can make for extremely clutch and tense matches).
|
On May 07 2015 01:26 Alaric wrote:I was replying to this in particular Soniv: Show nested quote + It is very easy to self destruct if you fuck up (something completely absent in other fighters). Unless by "self-destruct" you meant stocking yourself even from 0% (I mean, whiffing can mean you die in 100-0 games but we agreed that this isn't the best design around, although it can make for extremely clutch and tense matches).
Yes, SD = killing yourself off ledge.
|
Alaric you're playing tonight right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
