I enjoyed the lack of "combos". There was no need for "quarter-circle forward+punch+kick, back, back, jump+kick, forward, back, kick, taunt. kick, throw controller, contemplate what you're doing with your life, punch" to pull off a fireball. It made it far easier to pick the best character for you since you only needed to master a few simple "combos". Everyone had an Up+B move or a directionless- A move. What made one character grab would also make another character grab. It allowed players to experiment with characters, allowing them to easily determine if they prefer slow-and-heavy or fast-and-light characters.Other games share this simplicity. In Halo, each button had one job. In Mario Kart, you only had to remember which was the gas, which was the brake, which made you drift, and which made you use an item. Heck, Pilotwings had you fly a plane with just an accelerator button, brake button, and d-pad. What Smash Bros. did was apply this "don't overwhelm the player" mentality to the fighting game genre.
foxymetroid its not lack of combos, but more direct moves, while most fighting games require actual remembering and trying alot smash has the moves on 1 button, its a huge strategy leap but i think its not a huge difference for pro players because its: taking the time to do the quarter circle punch that the controller recognizes against; actual proposital input lag
those aren't combos though, a combo would be a string of attacks, which you need to do in order to win most fights. i THINK what you meant was directional inputs but i'm not to sure about that
I mean smash DOES have strings of attacks. It's just you have to be creative and knowledgeable about the game to use them. Combo's aren't bound by button combinations - the only thing limiting your combo potential (in melee anyway) is your own skill and imagination.
Its, like a sandbox style fighting game, where you need to use different moves at different times and percentages, its a really complex game, but yet it feels so simple
It's a good entry fighting game. It's still not great at teaching you fighting game fundamentals and this isn't a bad thing. Smash is really in its own realm so the skills don't translate. Games like Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter are really the only way to enter sadly. For most people those games can seem really intimidating, especially when just looking at them. I can see why people button mash there first few times playing.
4:50 "Unlike several MOBAs where the learning curve will give you a headache" Like...that's legitimately the reason I can't do MOBAs. I tried LoL, I tried Heroes, and I tried Smite and I didn't enjoy any of them, because the learning curve was super high (and the communities can be super toxic). The only exception I guess was Heroes, but even that I didn't have enough fun to keep playing...
Yeah well.. even among mobas heroes is seen like a joke, because its just a shitstorm going on and it doesnt matter how good you are at the game as much as in the other alternatives
Awesome video. Since most of the people you find in the Smash community are people who want to get better at the game (even if they're not tournament players), the fact that Smash is easy to play is severely underrated. Fighting games slowly evolved from easy-to-get games to being too oriented to competitive play that Smash managed to take a step back and capitalize on that by appealing to a whole different audience.
+Fernando Banda You're right. Especially considering that it helps put everything into perspective when you're trying to execute more complicated things like a waveshine for example. You know what foxes reflector does, now add the fact that you can cancel the animation with a jump and if you jump and air dodge immediately you slide. Now if you put those 3 or 4 fundamental things together you have an advanced combo starter with fox.
Playstation All-Stars was basically using Thrill Kill's battle system, believe it or not. Both of them revolve around filling up a meter as you fight and then finishing off your opponents with a one-hit kill attack.
One of the other reasons I think Smash keeps up it's complexity while diversifying from other fighting games is the emphasis on vertical positioning in addition to horizontal. In most fighting games, you can jump, but generally you don't spend very long in the air, and your attacks while jumping are limited. In Smash, not only do characters jump much higher and have slower descents, extra platforms allow them to stay above or below their opponents, and various moves can be targeted up and down to great effect. Do you want to run at them and hit them with a basic attack? Do you want to jump over them and attempt to hit them from above? Or maybe you want to knock them into the air and hit them with a move from below? All decisions that are not nearly as prevalent in standard fighters.
One of the primary reasons why smash bros is so good is because it's one of the only games that can be enjoyed thoroughly as both a casual and competitive game without having either part of it diminish the other.
This video is focused on how Smash differs from other fighting games, but a related topic is how it differs from other platformers, too. One of the biggest examples is how it reacts to analog directional control completely differently than its contemporaries. Instead of using the stick as a way of navigating in 360° environment (and necessitating the game be designed in around it), Smash treats the stick as a control pad except with two levels of velocity. It's still based in 2D, with very clear 4-directonal attack input vectors, but the analog doesn't go to waste because it allows a fluid way to hit harder or softer depending on the scenario. You could represent this on a digital input with an extra button input, and in fact Brawl and SSB4 support it, but not with the same ease of use. In a way, even Smash's mechanics contribute to nostalgia. The gameplay is more reminiscent of the NES/SNES days than those of the N64 and beyond - 2D platforming, the control stick being used as a shorthand for the double-tapping used to dash in the game's most direct predecessor, Kirby Super Star. Even with original characters like the first design docs called for, the language of the game would still be heavily based in sprite-based games. Compare the evolution of Super Mario World to Super Mario 64, where the entire design was completely overhauled for the new scenario, such that it wasn't until recently that the 2D and 3D sides of Mario started to merge styles again in the Galaxy games.
K2JMan Wow yeah this is an incredible point. It's like these were my thoughts when making this, but you took the words out of my mouth :) Great stuff, thanks for your input!
Hey man, another video about game design that I really like. But if I may say, the 5th reason I would rather call it Depth than Complexity. Depth is the number of meaningful choices players can make in order to solve the problem. Complexity is the number of rules that players have to know in order to understand the mechanic. So I'd say that SSB has a lot of Depth to become better at the game while not being too Complex for beginners to get started.
Very excellent video! I think you did a fine job of explaining your ideas and making it different from the one recently released by Super Smash Academy. One of the big differences Smash has from other Fighters (by far my favorite one) is similar to one you mentioned: You talked mostly about the Platforms and Stages being designed in more of a platformer style game, but this can be said about the fighting as well. Most fighting games use what's called Relative Direction, which makes it so that you're always facing your opponent, even if you move away from them. Super Smash Bros. incorporates what's called Absolute Direction, which allows you to look any way you want. The stages are made as platforms to accommodate for this, as opposed to other games that might just give you a Zoomed in Final Destination. In addition to that, Absolute Direction is more welcoming to a large group of people. Imagine playing 4 players in a game like Street Fighter. That just wouldn't really work because of relative direction. As a result, Smash is more welcoming to being played like a Party Fighting Game than other Fighting games (which isn't a bad thing). Super great video, keep up the awesome!
You are precisely what's wrong with the Smash community It's okay if you prefer to play with items off, but don't act act all disgusted or offended at the mere mention of items
funny enough i feel like ever since i was 5 years old playing melee at a new year's eve party in 2001, i haven't stopped wanting to go deeper in this game. unfortunately it has almost no competitive support from nintendo so i didn't find out about competitive scene until 2014. sad.
I've never been able to get into watching competitive Melee, honestly. I respect the game and its players, but I'm more of a Smash 4 man myself. I've never been interested in sports at all, but watching Smash 4 tournaments made me realize how sports fans feel. I don't think I'll ever forget watching Nairo finally stop the seemingly invincible ZeRo's 50+ tournament streak. God, that was such a good match!
i think smash playing as intended is fuckin amazing and designed well. it also functions well as a sport/competitive fighter it has evolved into something quite amazing
CORRECTION, Smash Wii U has more people playing it at EVO this year, and nation wide it's got bigger tournaments now then Melee with only a few exceptions.
+atlaspressed All year long Melee has more tournaments and more players at those tournaments as well as high spectator counts. EVO is literally the only exception for player participation.
+atlaspressed Plus, many people who participated at EVO Smash 4 were not professional Smash 4 players, but competitors of other fighting games who signed up for the hell of it
Honestly, your voice and writing style blend together so damn well. I've been binging a ton of your stuff lately, and I'm pretty impressed by how you not only sound calm and relaxed, but passionate about the subject at hand. That's a tricky combo to nail there, and you've got it down. Great work man
One thing I think smash does completely different from other fighters that is often overlooked is how the combo system works. In a game like Street Fighter, you have specific button combinations and timings to do a limited amout of combos, like comboing 2 specific moves that were made to combo into each other and only trigger after the first part of a combo. In smash, however, you're given a base set of simple moves and can create your own combos by combining them together. This creates really cool and satisfying moments where you craft a combo midgame, and also creates variety where one move can transfer into a bunch of other ones that can lead into infinite possibilities.
+ThePsychicTrainer YEAH that's a great point! It's not about memorizing button combos, but thinking on the fly and trying to stack a sweet combo in real time
This a great vid and no hate but I think you forgot to mention the openness of smash and how combos aren't specific button presses but instead fan made
How does a breakdown of the ways in which Smash differs from traditional fighting games leave out the fact that you can have 4 fighters (or 8) going at it simultaneously? Or did I just miss something?
Does anybody else find Super Smash Bros 3DS boring? I've bought it twice and sold it twice. Every game mode pretty much just feels like the same thing. The Gamecube version had Adventure mode and the specific challenges to add some fresh dynamics to it instead of literally only doing what is shown in this video, the usual fighting.
Fantastic analysis on the greatest "party fighter" ever. Smash is so different I can barely consider it a fighting game! There's no HP, no death, no damned combo buttons to remember. The physics might be wonky sometimes but they are pretty sharp and the times they are goofy it's hilarious and still a good gaming moment.
+Daniel Payne (Rayan Stiger) Goddamn how do people not understand there can be more than just one type of fighting game on the market? Smash is the best fighting game on the planet because it IS both a party game and a competitive game. Just because it doesn't use every other fighting game style on the planet doesnt mean it isnt a fighting game, that just makes it unique. And better in my opinion.
I love smash bros because every game has so much competitive depth that even one mistake at a high level of play could be the momentum the opponent needs to win the game, set or even tournament
Is it just me or has Ultimate regressed somewhat content-wise? The older titles (I skipped the WiiU one tbf) had a real story mode, challenges, mini games... all that I miss in Ultimate.
There's still a crap ton of content but I mean what do you expect? They brought back every single character and are adding more and when it comes to developing a fighting game, the balancing is easily the hardest/most time consuming part of the game. Ultimate still has a story mode, challenges and mini games.
@@AldenBunagCDAD Yes, it does have a story mode, but compared to the mode in Brawl it is lackluster in my opinion. Just stringing together fights with various minor effects doesn't really constitute a story. And then there's the shall we say flat storytelling. If I recall correctly there are only three to four cutscenes through which the story is told. I still like what they did but I would have preferred less characters and more to do with them than vice versa.
PS All-Stars confusing? i get that it's nowhere near as good as Smash, but literally all it is is raising your meter up to earn a kill move and then hit R2 when the time is right. Higher number = bigger kill move with 3 being the max. That shouldn't be that difficult to understand especially when there are tutorials on it in the game
+Voice of Reason....Most of the Time Yeah, I think just when I saw it the first time, it was not nearly as intuitive as Smash. But to be fair, I haven't had extensive play time with it.
I think the best thing Super Smash ever used has to be the story mode option. The Subspace embassy takes a creative turn for the game by explaining certain key aspects of characters in that world while showing off some "What if" interactions with certain characters. Sure its a cheap way to unlock EVERY character in the game if you know how, but who doesn't love a good story? Fast foward to Super Smash for Wii U and 3Ds and the game loses some aspects; their story mode was just interesting and better than the classic mode! Course what made it better is that you can smash with WAY more players, and they added certain characters that should be in the spotlight (thou there were TOOO many Fire Emblem characters AM I RIGHT?!?)
When playing Smash, I prefer playing in a large stage rather than a small one because it gives me space to move around and allow me to attack from afar. That's why I just like to just get rid of my enemies from afar(and why I prefer going as a sniper. But not the sniper in TF2. I can't cover myself because I like too move around)
My only problem with smash bros is that you have friends who think they're competitive players and whenever you go to they only play omega stages with no items, which gets **boring**
Smash Bros. doesn't have *complexity*, it has *DEPTH*. Complexity will only make a game more confusing, adding more mechanics and things for the player to think about; depth, on the other hand, will make a game more...thoughful, adding more choices and easy, intuitive mechanics. I'd say more, but Extra Credits did a video one this topic and they're better than I'll ever be: ua-cam.com/video/jVL4st0blGU/v-deo.html (Depth vs Complexity - Why More Features Don't Make a Better Game - Extra Credits)
I think the habit of Smash players to treat items like some carnal sin is a real fucking shame. They add complexity to the battles, changing the way individual fighters act in limited ways. They require different strategies to evade the effects. They allow players to control the battlefield by placing hazards that may restrict an enemy's options - or catch them off guard to devastating effect. Items are fucking great, and anyone who insists otherwise is narrow-minded and stuck in formulaic thinking.
Items can be fun in a public setting where everyone is just playing for fun, even 1v1 for fun. But they aren't good for a competitive setting man. They favor faster characters for one thing, they are 100% luck based as well. If players could control how they are used more (sort of like how custom equipment helps) I'd see them as better and would bet people would be more ok with em.
I disagree. They're an integral part of the game. If you're only good at playing the game with them off, then you're not actually competing on your skill at playing the whole game, including juggling the other choices the game puts into your hands. You're competing on your skill at one narrow facet of the game. It causes major over-specialization. In real world competitions, skill matters less than you'd expect. If two MMA fighters are roughly equally skilled, then the match comes down to intrinsic details about each fighter, rather than the fighters' skills. Having a longer reach or faster reactions can ensure your victory. But really, it can come down to luck, and capitalizing on the opportunities luck presents you. If your opponent jabs at you, but his foot slips slightly so he ends up off balance, that's a lucky break for you, and capitalizing on it properly could easily win you the match. Items really aren't 100% luck based, with the exception of pokeballs. You still need skill in order to use the item properly, and knowing how the item's mechanics interact with your character and the opponent is a requirement for high level of play. While it is random what items will spawn, that's still not luck based, because it means that you need to be able to react quickly and think on your feet. And while items may favor faster characters, the difference is made up for quite a bit since items can spawn anywhere on the stage. And not getting the item can sometimes be a benefit - the home-run bat is powerful, but difficult to capitalize on due to the massive wind-up, for example. The fan is fast, but light hitting, and is best used against opponents who shield a lot. Throwing items has other uses, but a skilled enough player can dodge - or catch - thrown items. Having the item, even for something like the hammer, is not an instant-win ticket. It's just another tool that you need to be skilled at using. Adding items can radically change the strategies used by the players. It forces them to be more adaptable, and to make choices based on more than memorizing attack frames and i-frames. Items make the game better. Period. And the game is meant to be played with them on. Period.
In MMA fights people aren't gonna be throwing a loaded gun towards one person randomly and then a glow stick towards the other person randomly. Smash has plenty of natural luck in it actually and people can find that exciting easily; Peach might pull out 2 bombs, 1 stitch face, and a Mr. Saturn in one match, or she might pull only normal stuff when she could really use a break in a bad match. Luigi might get 3 misfires back to back, Mr. Game & Watch might pull a 9 3 times in a single game. That stuff can be pretty awesome to see, in fact it is a lot more hype generating to see that type of "crazy" happen than just someone getting lucky and having a baseball bat spawn on them by luck and they end up winning for that reason. Also, it is more than just pokeballs that have luck: the smart bomb you tossed at someone just felt like not going off and they toss it back at and it goes off then of course, the hammer that was picked up felt like losing its head and now said hammer person is tossed off a cliff as their foe laughs and picks up an item that will dish out 30% and has high knockback when and if they can get back. Someone managed to get 2 of the dragoon pieces and another person has one, that one person with one ends up smacked 50x in a roll with no luck to have him drop the last piece, but the person with 2 of them 2 times with a jab combo and they just lose both of theirs and now might have to dodge an attack that kills at 20% or so and when it is ready to fire after the i-frames and animation passes hits on frame 1 or so. Oh and it doesn't matter if the items spawning is random and you just need to "react on your feet." If someone is playing Ganondorf and has 120% and the person they are fighting is Sonic chances are that unless that heart container that just spawned lands right near or next to Ganondorf's feet the Sonic player isn't gonna let them get that heart easily on Smashvile and Ganondorf is gonna be pretty poed that Sonic's small 40% was easily healed and Sonic is just gonna go back to waiting on items to spawn that will make it easy for him to kill Ganondorf while he keep on struggling to hit Sonic with anything for the next 8 minutes cause Sonic doesn't have to approach now that he can just wait for free weapons and stuff to spawn and get to them a whole lot easier than Ganondorf can. Really if you think Sonic's strategy is gonna change so much just with items on I have to laugh. I'm sorry but Sonic is still gonna be running around trying to overwhelm somoene with speed and punishing whatever are the smallest errors someone makes, but now he can pick up a knife as well and get to game changers easier than anyone else! Also, high level smash play as it is now is all about capitalizing on the opportunities presented towards you and thinking on your feet in general. These games are on purpose attempted to be designed to be easy to pick up and not complex at all to play. Now, how much they have been able to do that varies by title but that is the idea behind them. Do you think that Jigglypuff getting a rest off on someone, or Ness landing PKT2 on someone just happens? No the player is seeing you make mistakes and is figuring out how to punish the other for it, they are being more adaptable to the things going on than. The more adaptable a person (and their character, but at equal play it is the person) are is directly equal to the amount of success they have at higher level play. Someone who rolls 500 times in a match or throws out Mario's usmash/dsmash 500 times in a roll blindly (and usually after rolling cause why not?) is at some point gonna start to get punished for it or attempted to get punished for it when a good player sees that no matter how good Mario's usmash/dsmash can be. In fact chances are the pro people would still be pros even with items turned on because they are good at adapting at the game in the 1st place. Oh and the game is meant to be played however the people playing it at the time want it to be played. That is the point of there being things like stamina matches, giant matches, light gravity, super sudden death, and so on. The idea of the game is to be flexible as possible with how you play it with others no matter if it is competitive or casual after all. Really what do you have against the idea that a bunch of people don't want to deal with items in the form of play they like and just happen to be one of the majority of the group they are in at the moment in time?
I enjoy Smash for the strictly AI tournaments I have on my 3DS- what I do is assign different characters I "ship" into teams, and have teams compete for "OTP". Samus and Megaman currently hold that record, not only because they fight well together, but also because they have their own adorable pose whenever they emerge victorious. :)
The thing about Melee and Smash 4, and why I think most people love one or the other, comes down to something I heard from a friend: Smash4 is about the neutral game, Melee is about the punishes. Think about it: Melee has crazy, read- and reaction-dependent combos, plus a brutal edgeguarding system, which leads to super hype games that could go either way from any point. Smash4 has a design I can definitely respect, but the combination of the extremely hard-to-punish shields and airdodges, plus the extreme difficulty of real edgeguarding given the trash ledge mechanics, means that it comes down much more to the stray-hit neutral game. Which game you prefer depends on your playstyle.
Dark Souls also breaks the mold. Not just by reintroducing the old harder difficulty, but by 1) making your experience also be currency, by 2) making death matter for online play, NPC interaction, item drops, and whether your experience is lost or not, and 3) feeling much more realistic than in other games. There's time to cast spells, it actually has a cost, and it doesn't do the same damage across the board. Your character is adept at all weapons used but definitely not a master, you attach rather slowly and more straightforward, as if you were kinda taught how to use weapons but not taught tactics... and if I die it almost always feel like it's my fault
i don't like the fact that nintendo went on to give the 4th installment 'omega' mode or whats it called i mean i can live without items to be used (still sucks though) but just a flat plate to battle? i mean we do have final destination. so why?
+Kill Jack Yeah, I mean they made them with competitive players in mind, so they can have a bit more variety in the stages, but they are pretty bland to me. At least you don't have to play on them if you dont want to.
I like, that Smash is so easy to learn. You can still achieve something just by pressing random buttons, even for a 4 year old. There are no button combinations, you have to learn, just a few basic techniques, and most of them aren't even important. If you can jump, some strong attack, some damaging attack and up special, there is not much you really should learn anymore. You should rather learn how to chain your basic actions in a meaningful way together. There are almost no prebuilt combo attacks, you have to learn, which will make you much better. There are only combos built out of about 20 basic attacks, that are almost the same for every character. And it's still possible to get really good at it, especially in Melee or Project M and mods based on it.
For a while I was kinda turned off to the series due to my friends being kind of obnoxious competitive players of the game while I was in highschool, but I'm getting back into it a little more nowadays. I tend to main Link most of the time when I play it, though when Brawl was out, I recall enjoying Snake as well (His attacks felt the most satisfying to me in a game where the momentum and kinetic flow of attacks felt really off.). The thing that I always enjoyed was the easy pick up and play element to it. I remember even playing Melee on my own a lot when I was younger. I didn't feel like I needed other people to play against, I just set up some bots and had a good time, or went to one of two single player modes. It was just so immediately engaging and fun as both a party game and something to screw around with on my own terms. I think that's why I'm a little weary of the active competitive scene. The rules and stipulations surrounding it just don't appeal to me, and I remember some of my friends being obnoxious blowhards who insisted on playing with competitive play rules every match. (It also doesn't help that one of them fucked up my 3DS analog nub when I let them borrow it to play over lunch.)
Great video. I really love Smash Bros. When the N64 version first came out me and a friend of mine (who were just kids by then) got the game and we used to go to his house to play smash all night with his brothers almost every week for some time. We kept going to his house from time to time until it sort of became a tradition of ours. We grew up playing the game and as the different versions of smash came out it felt as if the game was growing up with us, so it's a franchise that's deep in my heart. To this day, though I unfortunately haven't had the chance to get a Wii U in which to play the last Smash, and we've separated a lot because of college and stuff, every time my friend comes to town we meet up to play the last version of smash (which my friend has). I've lost a lot of practice, but I still haven't met in the present anybody who can beat me at Smash except for my friend (even online)... and though I will admit that he's always been better than me, I'm still pretty much the only person I know who can beat him as well. Damn good times!
Battletoads is a beat 'em up game, not a fighting game... Unless you play Co-op with a second player... then it definitely becomes a fighting game against your partner!
.....I don't know. The thing about fighting games is that players compete directly, so in many cases if a newbie is getting frustrated it might not be because of a steep learning curve, but simply because their opponent is on a higher point of a smooth learning curve. Because there are very few uncertain factors and the players are almost entirely in control of experience, the player with more skill or game knowledge is going to have an intrinsic advantage. When you give players control over the games flow the players that understand more of the game are naturally going to have an advantage in direct competition. And since most fighting games tend to have a lot to learn this creates the illusion of a high skill floor and/or a steep learning curve. Let me explain it like this. If two people are learning how to play your game at the exact same rate, but one for whatever reason is more skilled or knowledgeable, when will the less skilled player catch up? Assuming there are no other variables or outstanding imbalances, the answer will be when both players have reached the skill ceiling. In many cases new players will be improving at a significant rate, but they don't feel like it because their improvements are almost never enough to surpass better players and they rarely ever translate into immediate success. This is gonna sound pretty harsh, but if new players aren't frustrated playing against better players in one on one games, that means the game either has a low skill ceiling, gives very little actual control and agency to the players, or someone is being an abnormally good sport. Many games don't give players much agency and/or don't have a very high skill ceiling, at least when compared to modern fighting games. I think this is why gamers are taken back by games that do have high skill ceilings and smooth learning curves. It doesn't take much of a skill gap to make someone feel overwhelmed. Most fighting games aren't designed to punish players for taking it slow and learning at their own pace. Better players do so naturally out of the desire to win. Even if the worse player manages to catch up, there isn't anything stopping the better player from labbing to pull ahead again. In this way the players drive each other to get better and game gives them a lot of room grow. This is actually why I think games like Street Fighter and Smash actually have steeper learning curves than most other fighters. It's very easy for players to plateau at certain points in their progression, the process of applying new skills requires much more conscious effort, and learning new skills often doesn't have the same immediate payoff as using familiar tactics. The upside is that it's harder for newbies to get dominated, but as I said before, this is a natural consequence of skill based competition. The reason some players are willing to look past difficult execution and repetitive gameplay is because their progress is more tangible and meaningful.
The one bad thing about smash is its community. Players who play it competitively might look down on folks who just wanna have fun. This happens especially between players new to the competitive envoirment. I personally think that smash is a game made for everyone, and i love to play some casual chaos party with friends while i also go to tournaments to kick asses.
My problem with smash is, that it does not have enough substance to entertain and challenge me for as long as traditional fighters do. As a game it's great, but in the view of a fighting game players it's weak. unprecise controls, horrible balancing, wack neutral game and bad modes
Regarding controls I think it's fair to say Soul Calibur/Edge did a lot of that first. But yeah, that's just nerdy nitpicking and either game is awesome regardless
Soul Calibur is fairly easy to get into, but not nearly as easy as Smash. There are still combos in SC but not as much as other fighting games. Dead or Alive is kind of the same way.
Though that is certainly true about SC, I meant more about the "command attacks", where special moves are direction + button rather than your standard 2D fighter button and movement combinations.
smash is fun as hack also because it has more cheese mechanics which makes the games way more enjoyable and exciting this is the poblem what traditional fighting games have particually if you have healthbar
U mentioned items in a positive way. Didn't think it was possible to say something good about them. Team first thing to do before playing smash is disabling items.
I think part of what helped make it great was when it was being designed it wasn't being designed as a Nintendo character fighting game, it was a unique fighting game being developed and the characters were added on top of it later.
+MegaSuperab The video is on Smash 64. And the first 4 elements appear in Smash 64 first. The complexity was taken up a notch in Melee, so that's why I started talking about the future of the franchise
there is no: tick throws, 50 50s mic ups, frame traps, there is no ark types, no OTGs, no overheads or crossups. these are the basic ideas of a fighting game. to call super smash brothers a fighter is like saying beat them ups like final fight is a fighter because of combos. smash is a game with fighting elements. But it is a party game in heart. Melee might be an exception because of all moves being active on frame one but still smash is not a fighter
I think of the smash bros % system as a sort of 'last hit' situation. You can do lots and lots of damage, but you have to deal that last hit flashy finisher to end the game.
![[SSBU] Jumping is Overpowered](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/BmcpWL4FEp8/mqdefault.jpg)
I enjoyed the lack of "combos". There was no need for "quarter-circle forward+punch+kick, back, back, jump+kick, forward, back, kick, taunt. kick, throw controller, contemplate what you're doing with your life, punch" to pull off a fireball. It made it far easier to pick the best character for you since you only needed to master a few simple "combos". Everyone had an Up+B move or a directionless- A move. What made one character grab would also make another character grab. It allowed players to experiment with characters, allowing them to easily determine if they prefer slow-and-heavy or fast-and-light characters.Other games share this simplicity. In Halo, each button had one job. In Mario Kart, you only had to remember which was the gas, which was the brake, which made you drift, and which made you use an item. Heck, Pilotwings had you fly a plane with just an accelerator button, brake button, and d-pad. What Smash Bros. did was apply this "don't overwhelm the player" mentality to the fighting game genre.
foxymetroid its not lack of combos, but more direct moves, while most fighting games require actual remembering and trying alot smash has the moves on 1 button, its a huge strategy leap but i think its not a huge difference for pro players because its: taking the time to do the quarter circle punch that the controller recognizes against; actual proposital input lag
those aren't combos though, a combo would be a string of attacks, which you need to do in order to win most fights. i THINK what you meant was directional inputs but i'm not to sure about that
I mean smash DOES have strings of attacks. It's just you have to be creative and knowledgeable about the game to use them. Combo's aren't bound by button combinations - the only thing limiting your combo potential (in melee anyway) is your own skill and imagination.
Its, like a sandbox style fighting game, where you need to use different moves at different times and percentages, its a really complex game, but yet it feels so simple
It's a good entry fighting game. It's still not great at teaching you fighting game fundamentals and this isn't a bad thing. Smash is really in its own realm so the skills don't translate. Games like Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter are really the only way to enter sadly. For most people those games can seem really intimidating, especially when just looking at them. I can see why people button mash there first few times playing.
I think I get a bit too competitive when playing smash
fight me
Non Johns 1v1 me mate
nnid is nonjohns bro
Non Johns nah, I meant irl
unless you live where i do its not happening man
4:50 "Unlike several MOBAs where the learning curve will give you a headache"
Like...that's legitimately the reason I can't do MOBAs. I tried LoL, I tried Heroes, and I tried Smite and I didn't enjoy any of them, because the learning curve was super high (and the communities can be super toxic). The only exception I guess was Heroes, but even that I didn't have enough fun to keep playing...
Yeah well.. even among mobas heroes is seen like a joke, because its just a shitstorm going on and it doesnt matter how good you are at the game as much as in the other alternatives
Heroes is easy but sucks everything else makes me wanna pull my hair out to learn and still... sucks. Smite is pretty okay though.
I got into Vain Glory without too much trouble, but I also didn't get deep into the roster.
League and its community is cancer. Avoid at all costs.
@@ATthemusician league is good, not the community though. I would say dont start just because of the community
Only shooting stars break the mold though ?
All that glitters is Gooo-o-ooold
snomaN Gaming What a legend!
SSB is a shooting star in game design :)
OXO Gravy I was about to comment that but check to make sure i didn't copy anyone
super smash mouth bros
snomaN's Mold Breaker!
snomaN breaks the mold!
He can earthquake a levitating foe
Awesome video. Since most of the people you find in the Smash community are people who want to get better at the game (even if they're not tournament players), the fact that Smash is easy to play is severely underrated. Fighting games slowly evolved from easy-to-get games to being too oriented to competitive play that Smash managed to take a step back and capitalize on that by appealing to a whole different audience.
+Fernando Banda Yeah that's like my favorite part! It can be whatever you want it to be casual, or competitive
+Fernando Banda You're right. Especially considering that it helps put everything into perspective when you're trying to execute more complicated things like a waveshine for example. You know what foxes reflector does, now add the fact that you can cancel the animation with a jump and if you jump and air dodge immediately you slide. Now if you put those 3 or 4 fundamental things together you have an advanced combo starter with fox.
Br?
lol m2k
i knew it
feelsbadman
Playstation All-Stars was basically using Thrill Kill's battle system, believe it or not.
Both of them revolve around filling up a meter as you fight and then finishing off your opponents with a one-hit kill attack.
Easy to learn, hard to master. That´s the key!
One of the other reasons I think Smash keeps up it's complexity while diversifying from other fighting games is the emphasis on vertical positioning in addition to horizontal. In most fighting games, you can jump, but generally you don't spend very long in the air, and your attacks while jumping are limited. In Smash, not only do characters jump much higher and have slower descents, extra platforms allow them to stay above or below their opponents, and various moves can be targeted up and down to great effect. Do you want to run at them and hit them with a basic attack? Do you want to jump over them and attempt to hit them from above? Or maybe you want to knock them into the air and hit them with a move from below? All decisions that are not nearly as prevalent in standard fighters.
MonarKay Yes absolutely. It feels much more like an arena than just a 2d plane
One of the primary reasons why smash bros is so good is because it's one of the only games that can be enjoyed thoroughly as both a casual and competitive game without having either part of it diminish the other.
+Raprat Yes exactly, I love that about it
This video is focused on how Smash differs from other fighting games, but a related topic is how it differs from other platformers, too. One of the biggest examples is how it reacts to analog directional control completely differently than its contemporaries. Instead of using the stick as a way of navigating in 360° environment (and necessitating the game be designed in around it), Smash treats the stick as a control pad except with two levels of velocity. It's still based in 2D, with very clear 4-directonal attack input vectors, but the analog doesn't go to waste because it allows a fluid way to hit harder or softer depending on the scenario. You could represent this on a digital input with an extra button input, and in fact Brawl and SSB4 support it, but not with the same ease of use.
In a way, even Smash's mechanics contribute to nostalgia. The gameplay is more reminiscent of the NES/SNES days than those of the N64 and beyond - 2D platforming, the control stick being used as a shorthand for the double-tapping used to dash in the game's most direct predecessor, Kirby Super Star. Even with original characters like the first design docs called for, the language of the game would still be heavily based in sprite-based games. Compare the evolution of Super Mario World to Super Mario 64, where the entire design was completely overhauled for the new scenario, such that it wasn't until recently that the 2D and 3D sides of Mario started to merge styles again in the Galaxy games.
K2JMan Wow yeah this is an incredible point. It's like these were my thoughts when making this, but you took the words out of my mouth :) Great stuff, thanks for your input!
Exactly
Hey man, another video about game design that I really like.
But if I may say, the 5th reason I would rather call it Depth than Complexity.
Depth is the number of meaningful choices players can make in order to solve the problem.
Complexity is the number of rules that players have to know in order to understand the mechanic.
So I'd say that SSB has a lot of Depth to become better at the game while not being too Complex for beginners to get started.
tasoganedude Yeah that is a great way to put it. Good call!
snomaN Gaming I hope that I don't sound like a know-it-all.
So what's the next game design are you going to talk about?
Or do I just wait and see.
Hehe, let's just say it will be another "Good Game Design" instead of Analybits, and on a very popular indie game :)
I see we have an Extra Credits viewer here ;3
The music in this video is pretty amazing
I can't believe no one else has called you out on you calling the acid on Zebes lava!
lol close enough!
Oh, it's functionally the same. Just the ol' OCD kicking in.
snomaN Gaming do you know who's sub-zero
I like how you used a non-gruesome fatality for the example at 2:00.
Very excellent video! I think you did a fine job of explaining your ideas and making it different from the one recently released by Super Smash Academy. One of the big differences Smash has from other Fighters (by far my favorite one) is similar to one you mentioned: You talked mostly about the Platforms and Stages being designed in more of a platformer style game, but this can be said about the fighting as well. Most fighting games use what's called Relative Direction, which makes it so that you're always facing your opponent, even if you move away from them. Super Smash Bros. incorporates what's called Absolute Direction, which allows you to look any way you want. The stages are made as platforms to accommodate for this, as opposed to other games that might just give you a Zoomed in Final Destination. In addition to that, Absolute Direction is more welcoming to a large group of people. Imagine playing 4 players in a game like Street Fighter. That just wouldn't really work because of relative direction. As a result, Smash is more welcoming to being played like a Party Fighting Game than other Fighting games (which isn't a bad thing).
Super great video, keep up the awesome!
What's With Games Yeah that is so true, awesome point! Definitely something I should've thought of :) Thanks dude :D
Analy bits... Ew, sno
I got triggered as soon as you mentioned items lol.
they might not be competitive, but damn turn those on with a lot of friends and it really gets stupidly fun
It really depends what makes smash fun to you, to me items off is better, in every situation
LoupiTheMightyCucco Certain items are fun for goofing off. I always enjoy Pokeballs to see how lucky you get.
Yami meh, the only item I somewhat like is the cucco item
You are precisely what's wrong with the Smash community
It's okay if you prefer to play with items off, but don't act act all disgusted or offended at the mere mention of items
I never liked traditional fighting games at all... yet I was a Super Smash Bros fan since childhood... Enough said.
Yo Sno! Great vid! Really nailed what makes Smash a unique fighter! Great jorb
***** Hey thanks P-Dact!
Smash 64 has the best commercial for a video game EVER!
No?
Yeah I loved that commercial!
+snomaN Gaming I think part of why it's so good is because the choice in the song.
funny enough i feel like ever since i was 5 years old playing melee at a new year's eve party in 2001, i haven't stopped wanting to go deeper in this game.
unfortunately it has almost no competitive support from nintendo so i didn't find out about competitive scene until 2014. sad.
it has all the competitive support in the world now hahaha
i wish that were true
Dr. Bread it does, nintendo sponsors a lot of tournaments
i think its sponsorship is limited to providing wii U's, tweeting out the tournament, and running splatoon ads.
Dr. Bread lol better than nothing I suppose.
I've never been able to get into watching competitive Melee, honestly. I respect the game and its players, but I'm more of a Smash 4 man myself. I've never been interested in sports at all, but watching Smash 4 tournaments made me realize how sports fans feel. I don't think I'll ever forget watching Nairo finally stop the seemingly invincible ZeRo's 50+ tournament streak. God, that was such a good match!
i think smash playing as intended is fuckin amazing and designed well. it also functions well as a sport/competitive fighter it has evolved into something quite amazing
CORRECTION, Smash Wii U has more people playing it at EVO this year, and nation wide it's got bigger tournaments now then Melee with only a few exceptions.
+atlaspressed All year long Melee has more tournaments and more players at those tournaments as well as high spectator counts. EVO is literally the only exception for player participation.
+atlaspressed Plus, many people who participated at EVO Smash 4 were not professional Smash 4 players, but competitors of other fighting games who signed up for the hell of it
*Playing.* Melee still has larger viewer numbers. Not a show of quality, just statistics.
Honestly, your voice and writing style blend together so damn well. I've been binging a ton of your stuff lately, and I'm pretty impressed by how you not only sound calm and relaxed, but passionate about the subject at hand. That's a tricky combo to nail there, and you've got it down. Great work man
*first song* AND M2K 3-0's LEFFEN!!!
One thing I think smash does completely different from other fighters that is often overlooked is how the combo system works. In a game like Street Fighter, you have specific button combinations and timings to do a limited amout of combos, like comboing 2 specific moves that were made to combo into each other and only trigger after the first part of a combo. In smash, however, you're given a base set of simple moves and can create your own combos by combining them together. This creates really cool and satisfying moments where you craft a combo midgame, and also creates variety where one move can transfer into a bunch of other ones that can lead into infinite possibilities.
+ThePsychicTrainer YEAH that's a great point! It's not about memorizing button combos, but thinking on the fly and trying to stack a sweet combo in real time
This a great vid and no hate but I think you forgot to mention the openness of smash and how combos aren't specific button presses but instead fan made
Yeah that's even better! Melee is when it really started taking off with fan-found moves, it's pretty amazing
I like Super Smash Bros. because it has a good special moves system, i don't like the button combination system they used in, Example, Street Fighter.
How does a breakdown of the ways in which Smash differs from traditional fighting games leave out the fact that you can have 4 fighters (or 8) going at it simultaneously? Or did I just miss something?
Does anybody else find Super Smash Bros 3DS boring? I've bought it twice and sold it twice. Every game mode pretty much just feels like the same thing. The Gamecube version had Adventure mode and the specific challenges to add some fresh dynamics to it instead of literally only doing what is shown in this video, the usual fighting.
Melee deserves its own video lol... its just that great.
+Boarky Haha yeah it is pretty darn great
I am hosting a tournament on the Wii U Version of smash.
Smash and beer.
Opens tonight at 10:30.
Self-promotion. Ah yeah!
Fantastic analysis on the greatest "party fighter" ever. Smash is so different I can barely consider it a fighting game! There's no HP, no death, no damned combo buttons to remember. The physics might be wonky sometimes but they are pretty sharp and the times they are goofy it's hilarious and still a good gaming moment.
+Daniel Payne (Rayan Stiger) Yeah I love it!
+Daniel Payne (Rayan Stiger) Goddamn how do people not understand there can be more than just one type of fighting game on the market? Smash is the best fighting game on the planet because it IS both a party game and a competitive game. Just because it doesn't use every other fighting game style on the planet doesnt mean it isnt a fighting game, that just makes it unique. And better in my opinion.
I love smash bros because every game has so much competitive depth that even one mistake at a high level of play could be the momentum the opponent needs to win the game, set or even tournament
I'm looking forward to more game design analysis! Great vid!
Andrew S. Hey thanks! There's lots more coming, and a ton on the channel already if you haven't seen them before!
Is it just me or has Ultimate regressed somewhat content-wise? The older titles (I skipped the WiiU one tbf) had a real story mode, challenges, mini games... all that I miss in Ultimate.
smintili It is an improvement over Wii U.That being said the series has definitely regressed a lot content wise since Brawl.
There's still a crap ton of content but I mean what do you expect? They brought back every single character and are adding more and when it comes to developing a fighting game, the balancing is easily the hardest/most time consuming part of the game. Ultimate still has a story mode, challenges and mini games.
@@AldenBunagCDAD Yes, it does have a story mode, but compared to the mode in Brawl it is lackluster in my opinion. Just stringing together fights with various minor effects doesn't really constitute a story. And then there's the shall we say flat storytelling. If I recall correctly there are only three to four cutscenes through which the story is told. I still like what they did but I would have preferred less characters and more to do with them than vice versa.
It's a Fighting game with Platforming controls
But-but only shooting stars break the moulds
PS All-Stars confusing? i get that it's nowhere near as good as Smash, but literally all it is is raising your meter up to earn a kill move and then hit R2 when the time is right. Higher number = bigger kill move with 3 being the max. That shouldn't be that difficult to understand especially when there are tutorials on it in the game
+Voice of Reason....Most of the Time Yeah, I think just when I saw it the first time, it was not nearly as intuitive as Smash. But to be fair, I haven't had extensive play time with it.
metaknight. you understand me huh?
There are 2 things I enjoy about Smash Bros: having Boswer as my main, and, in the case of the first 3, Greninja not being a playable character.
Hello, fellow bowser main. Do you wanna make the King great again like me?
+Goldar Rag 😄
I love smash cause perfect control and SWD and tech skullz and speed and power and combo videos and the rekting and teh machinma and da teksk ills....
I think the best thing Super Smash ever used has to be the story mode option. The Subspace embassy takes a creative turn for the game by explaining certain key aspects of characters in that world while showing off some "What if" interactions with certain characters. Sure its a cheap way to unlock EVERY character in the game if you know how, but who doesn't love a good story?
Fast foward to Super Smash for Wii U and 3Ds and the game loses some aspects; their story mode was just interesting and better than the classic mode! Course what made it better is that you can smash with WAY more players, and they added certain characters that should be in the spotlight (thou there were TOOO many Fire Emblem characters AM I RIGHT?!?)
PS All Stars' health thing was not confusing at all
When playing Smash, I prefer playing in a large stage rather than a small one because it gives me space to move around and allow me to attack from afar. That's why I just like to just get rid of my enemies from afar(and why I prefer going as a sniper. But not the sniper in TF2. I can't cover myself because I like too move around)
I love smash because I've grown up with it (melee) so I've gotten good over the years because it never gets old!
My only problem with smash bros is that you have friends who think they're competitive players and whenever you go to they only play omega stages with no items, which gets **boring**
*NO ITEMS, FOX ONLY, FINAL DESTINATION* says a tourney.
Super Smash Mouth
"Only shooting stars break the mold"
I wonder if any actual game designers watch these videos to make better games.
I do
or maybe you haven't played it because you live in greece...
Super Smash Mouth Bros
Somebody once told me
The world is gonna roll me
Smashing good video!
KeiruKeiru I see what you did there
Smash Bros. doesn't have *complexity*, it has *DEPTH*. Complexity will only make a game more confusing, adding more mechanics and things for the player to think about; depth, on the other hand, will make a game more...thoughful, adding more choices and easy, intuitive mechanics.
I'd say more, but Extra Credits did a video one this topic and they're better than I'll ever be:
ua-cam.com/video/jVL4st0blGU/v-deo.html
(Depth vs Complexity - Why More Features Don't Make a Better Game - Extra Credits)
Shows battletoads. Calls it fighting game... TRIGGERED!!!
I think the habit of Smash players to treat items like some carnal sin is a real fucking shame. They add complexity to the battles, changing the way individual fighters act in limited ways. They require different strategies to evade the effects. They allow players to control the battlefield by placing hazards that may restrict an enemy's options - or catch them off guard to devastating effect. Items are fucking great, and anyone who insists otherwise is narrow-minded and stuck in formulaic thinking.
Items can be fun in a public setting where everyone is just playing for fun, even 1v1 for fun. But they aren't good for a competitive setting man. They favor faster characters for one thing, they are 100% luck based as well. If players could control how they are used more (sort of like how custom equipment helps) I'd see them as better and would bet people would be more ok with em.
I disagree. They're an integral part of the game. If you're only good at playing the game with them off, then you're not actually competing on your skill at playing the whole game, including juggling the other choices the game puts into your hands. You're competing on your skill at one narrow facet of the game. It causes major over-specialization.
In real world competitions, skill matters less than you'd expect. If two MMA fighters are roughly equally skilled, then the match comes down to intrinsic details about each fighter, rather than the fighters' skills. Having a longer reach or faster reactions can ensure your victory. But really, it can come down to luck, and capitalizing on the opportunities luck presents you. If your opponent jabs at you, but his foot slips slightly so he ends up off balance, that's a lucky break for you, and capitalizing on it properly could easily win you the match.
Items really aren't 100% luck based, with the exception of pokeballs. You still need skill in order to use the item properly, and knowing how the item's mechanics interact with your character and the opponent is a requirement for high level of play. While it is random what items will spawn, that's still not luck based, because it means that you need to be able to react quickly and think on your feet. And while items may favor faster characters, the difference is made up for quite a bit since items can spawn anywhere on the stage. And not getting the item can sometimes be a benefit - the home-run bat is powerful, but difficult to capitalize on due to the massive wind-up, for example. The fan is fast, but light hitting, and is best used against opponents who shield a lot. Throwing items has other uses, but a skilled enough player can dodge - or catch - thrown items. Having the item, even for something like the hammer, is not an instant-win ticket. It's just another tool that you need to be skilled at using.
Adding items can radically change the strategies used by the players. It forces them to be more adaptable, and to make choices based on more than memorizing attack frames and i-frames. Items make the game better. Period. And the game is meant to be played with them on. Period.
In MMA fights people aren't gonna be throwing a loaded gun towards one
person randomly and then a glow stick towards the other person randomly.
Smash has plenty of natural luck in it actually and people can find that exciting easily; Peach might pull out 2 bombs, 1 stitch face, and a Mr. Saturn in one match, or she might pull only normal stuff when she could really use a break in a bad match. Luigi might get 3 misfires back to back, Mr. Game & Watch might pull a 9 3 times in a single game. That stuff can be pretty awesome to see, in fact it is a lot more hype generating to see that type of "crazy" happen than just someone getting lucky and having a baseball bat spawn on them by luck and they end up winning for that reason.
Also, it is more than just pokeballs that have luck: the smart bomb you tossed at someone just felt like not going off and they toss it back at and it goes off then of course, the hammer that was picked up felt like losing its head and now said hammer person is tossed off a cliff as their foe laughs and picks up an item that will dish out 30% and has high knockback when and if they can get back. Someone managed to get 2 of the dragoon pieces and another person has one, that one person with one ends up smacked 50x in a roll with no luck to have him drop the last piece, but the person with 2 of them 2 times with a jab combo and they just lose both of theirs and now might have to dodge an attack that kills at 20% or so and when it is ready to fire after the i-frames and animation passes hits on frame 1 or so.
Oh and it doesn't matter if the items spawning is random and you just need to "react on your feet." If someone is playing Ganondorf and has 120% and the person they are fighting is Sonic chances are that unless that heart container that just spawned lands right near or next to Ganondorf's feet the Sonic player isn't gonna let them get that heart easily on Smashvile and Ganondorf is gonna be pretty poed that Sonic's small 40% was easily healed and Sonic is just gonna go back to waiting on items to spawn that will make it easy for him to kill Ganondorf while he keep on struggling to hit Sonic with anything for the next 8 minutes cause Sonic doesn't have to approach now that he can just wait for free weapons and stuff to spawn and get to them a whole lot easier than Ganondorf can. Really if you think Sonic's strategy is gonna change so much just with items on I have to laugh. I'm sorry but Sonic is still gonna be running around trying to overwhelm somoene with speed and punishing whatever are the smallest errors someone makes, but now he can pick up a knife as well and get to game changers easier than anyone else!
Also, high level smash play as it is now is all about capitalizing on the opportunities presented towards you and thinking on your feet in general. These games are on purpose attempted to be designed to be easy to pick up and not complex at all to play. Now, how much they have been able to do that varies by title but that is the idea behind them. Do you think that Jigglypuff getting a rest off on someone, or Ness landing PKT2 on someone just happens? No the player is seeing you make mistakes and is figuring out how to punish the other for it, they are being more adaptable to the things going on than.
The more adaptable a person (and their character, but at equal play it is the person) are is directly equal to the amount of success they have at higher level play. Someone who rolls 500 times in a match or throws out Mario's usmash/dsmash 500 times in a roll blindly (and usually after rolling cause why not?) is at some point gonna start to get punished for it or attempted to get punished for it when a good player sees that no matter how good Mario's usmash/dsmash can be. In fact chances are the pro people would still be pros even with items turned on because they are good at adapting at the game in the 1st place.
Oh and the game is meant to be played however the people playing it at the time want it to be played. That is the point of there being things like stamina matches, giant matches, light gravity, super sudden death, and so on. The idea of the game is to be flexible as possible with how you play it with others no matter if it is competitive or casual after all. Really what do you have against the idea that a bunch of people don't want to deal with items in the form of play they like and just happen to be one of the majority of the group they are in at the moment in time?
Smash also has the best competitive scene of any fighting game series imo
1:04 - 1:59 althought ironically later Smash games would incorporate a health system and command-inputs
I enjoy Smash for the strictly AI tournaments I have on my 3DS- what I do is assign different characters I "ship" into teams, and have teams compete for "OTP". Samus and Megaman currently hold that record, not only because they fight well together, but also because they have their own adorable pose whenever they emerge victorious. :)
The thing about Melee and Smash 4, and why I think most people love one or the other, comes down to something I heard from a friend: Smash4 is about the neutral game, Melee is about the punishes. Think about it: Melee has crazy, read- and reaction-dependent combos, plus a brutal edgeguarding system, which leads to super hype games that could go either way from any point. Smash4 has a design I can definitely respect, but the combination of the extremely hard-to-punish shields and airdodges, plus the extreme difficulty of real edgeguarding given the trash ledge mechanics, means that it comes down much more to the stray-hit neutral game. Which game you prefer depends on your playstyle.
Dark Souls also breaks the mold. Not just by reintroducing the old harder difficulty, but by 1) making your experience also be currency, by 2) making death matter for online play, NPC interaction, item drops, and whether your experience is lost or not, and 3) feeling much more realistic than in other games. There's time to cast spells, it actually has a cost, and it doesn't do the same damage across the board. Your character is adept at all weapons used but definitely not a master, you attach rather slowly and more straightforward, as if you were kinda taught how to use weapons but not taught tactics... and if I die it almost always feel like it's my fault
i don't like the fact that nintendo went on to give the 4th installment 'omega' mode or whats it called i mean i can live without items to be used (still sucks though) but just a flat plate to battle? i mean we do have final destination. so why?
+Kill Jack Yeah, I mean they made them with competitive players in mind, so they can have a bit more variety in the stages, but they are pretty bland to me. At least you don't have to play on them if you dont want to.
snomaN Gaming yup thats the good side but some friends are just ugh ^^
This was great!
I like, that Smash is so easy to learn. You can still achieve something just by pressing random buttons, even for a 4 year old.
There are no button combinations, you have to learn, just a few basic techniques, and most of them aren't even important.
If you can jump, some strong attack, some damaging attack and up special, there is not much you really should learn anymore.
You should rather learn how to chain your basic actions in a meaningful way together. There are almost no prebuilt combo attacks, you have to learn, which will make you much better. There are only combos built out of about 20 basic attacks, that are almost the same for every character.
And it's still possible to get really good at it, especially in Melee or Project M and mods based on it.
Evil Zone / Erezvaju also had the simple combat / skill execution system... but back then people complained about it for being too simple : (
For a while I was kinda turned off to the series due to my friends being kind of obnoxious competitive players of the game while I was in highschool, but I'm getting back into it a little more nowadays. I tend to main Link most of the time when I play it, though when Brawl was out, I recall enjoying Snake as well (His attacks felt the most satisfying to me in a game where the momentum and kinetic flow of attacks felt really off.). The thing that I always enjoyed was the easy pick up and play element to it. I remember even playing Melee on my own a lot when I was younger. I didn't feel like I needed other people to play against, I just set up some bots and had a good time, or went to one of two single player modes. It was just so immediately engaging and fun as both a party game and something to screw around with on my own terms. I think that's why I'm a little weary of the active competitive scene. The rules and stipulations surrounding it just don't appeal to me, and I remember some of my friends being obnoxious blowhards who insisted on playing with competitive play rules every match. (It also doesn't help that one of them fucked up my 3DS analog nub when I let them borrow it to play over lunch.)
And this is the reason why PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale did fail. It wanted to copy Super Smash Bros..... but it copy it wrong way.
Amazing video! Smash is the best fighting game
Great video. I really love Smash Bros. When the N64 version first came out me and a friend of mine (who were just kids by then) got the game and we used to go to his house to play smash all night with his brothers almost every week for some time. We kept going to his house from time to time until it sort of became a tradition of ours. We grew up playing the game and as the different versions of smash came out it felt as if the game was growing up with us, so it's a franchise that's deep in my heart.
To this day, though I unfortunately haven't had the chance to get a Wii U in which to play the last Smash, and we've separated a lot because of college and stuff, every time my friend comes to town we meet up to play the last version of smash (which my friend has).
I've lost a lot of practice, but I still haven't met in the present anybody who can beat me at Smash except for my friend (even online)... and though I will admit that he's always been better than me, I'm still pretty much the only person I know who can beat him as well.
Damn good times!
+Carlos Espinosa Yeah it's like such a good game to play with a friend. I poured SO MANY hours into the original smash, too many to count
the intro music!!! Mew2King 6-0 Leffen
Battletoads is a beat 'em up game, not a fighting game... Unless you play Co-op with a second player... then it definitely becomes a fighting game against your partner!
Only shooting stars break the mold
.....I don't know. The thing about fighting games is that players compete directly, so in many cases if a newbie is getting frustrated it might not be because of a steep learning curve, but simply because their opponent is on a higher point of a smooth learning curve.
Because there are very few uncertain factors and the players are almost entirely in control of experience, the player with more skill or game knowledge is going to have an intrinsic advantage. When you give players control over the games flow the players that understand more of the game are naturally going to have an advantage in direct competition. And since most fighting games tend to have a lot to learn this creates the illusion of a high skill floor and/or a steep learning curve.
Let me explain it like this. If two people are learning how to play your game at the exact same rate, but one for whatever reason is more skilled or knowledgeable, when will the less skilled player catch up? Assuming there are no other variables or outstanding imbalances, the answer will be when both players have reached the skill ceiling. In many cases new players will be improving at a significant rate, but they don't feel like it because their improvements are almost never enough to surpass better players and they rarely ever translate into immediate success.
This is gonna sound pretty harsh, but if new players aren't frustrated playing against better players in one on one games, that means the game either has a low skill ceiling, gives very little actual control and agency to the players, or someone is being an abnormally good sport. Many games don't give players much agency and/or don't have a very high skill ceiling, at least when compared to modern fighting games. I think this is why gamers are taken back by games that do have high skill ceilings and smooth learning curves. It doesn't take much of a skill gap to make someone feel overwhelmed. Most fighting games aren't designed to punish players for taking it slow and learning at their own pace. Better players do so naturally out of the desire to win. Even if the worse player manages to catch up, there isn't anything stopping the better player from labbing to pull ahead again. In this way the players drive each other to get better and game gives them a lot of room grow.
This is actually why I think games like Street Fighter and Smash actually have steeper learning curves than most other fighters. It's very easy for players to plateau at certain points in their progression, the process of applying new skills requires much more conscious effort, and learning new skills often doesn't have the same immediate payoff as using familiar tactics. The upside is that it's harder for newbies to get dominated, but as I said before, this is a natural consequence of skill based competition. The reason some players are willing to look past difficult execution and repetitive gameplay is because their progress is more tangible and meaningful.
a video on how ARMS breaks the mold would be cool
I love introducing new players fighting online to Samus's spike
nothing compares to those evenings after school at a buddy's house playing 99 stock matches with poke balls only. frigging classic
The one bad thing about smash is its community. Players who play it competitively might look down on folks who just wanna have fun. This happens especially between players new to the competitive envoirment.
I personally think that smash is a game made for everyone, and i love to play some casual chaos party with friends while i also go to tournaments to kick asses.
My problem with smash is, that it does not have enough substance to entertain and challenge me for as long as traditional fighters do. As a game it's great, but in the view of a fighting game players it's weak. unprecise controls, horrible balancing, wack neutral game and bad modes
Regarding controls I think it's fair to say Soul Calibur/Edge did a lot of that first. But yeah, that's just nerdy nitpicking and either game is awesome regardless
+Vile Lasagna Oo interesting, I didn't know much about Soul Caliber, only really played SC2 on PS2 lol
Soul Calibur is fairly easy to get into, but not nearly as easy as Smash. There are still combos in SC but not as much as other fighting games. Dead or Alive is kind of the same way.
Though that is certainly true about SC, I meant more about the "command attacks", where special moves are direction + button rather than your standard 2D fighter button and movement combinations.
***** ooooohhh got it ;)
smash is one of the best formulas ever made
+Tmathh I agree!
All Stars turns out to be fantastic once you get the hang of it
smash is fun as hack also because it has more cheese mechanics which makes the games way more enjoyable and exciting this is the poblem what traditional fighting games have particually if you have healthbar
Melee is considered the best fighting game because people can easily break it looks at the competitive which barely looks like fighting any more
U mentioned items in a positive way. Didn't think it was possible to say something good about them. Team first thing to do before playing smash is disabling items.
I think part of what helped make it great was when it was being designed it wasn't being designed as a Nintendo character fighting game, it was a unique fighting game being developed and the characters were added on top of it later.
I love super smash bros on 3ds I play it a whole lot and I wish I knew someone that I could play with its an awsome game
+Mitchell Waldroup Yeah I don't have a 3ds, I just have the Wii U version
+snomaN Gaming cool :) just want to say I love your videos and cant wait to see more
+snomaN Gaming Im really good with DK and Ness
Why'd you only show Smash 64 until the Complexity part?
+MegaSuperab The video is on Smash 64. And the first 4 elements appear in Smash 64 first. The complexity was taken up a notch in Melee, so that's why I started talking about the future of the franchise
m8, it is not a fighting game
there is no: tick throws, 50 50s mic ups, frame traps, there is no ark types, no OTGs, no overheads or crossups. these are the basic ideas of a fighting game. to call super smash brothers a fighter is like saying beat them ups like final fight is a fighter because of combos. smash is a game with fighting elements. But it is a party game in heart. Melee might be an exception because of all moves being active on frame one but still smash is not a fighter
But seriously, who plays with items? It isn't as fun I don't think. But it is just my opinion.
The thing is is that putting other Nintendo characters into one game wasn’t genius. It was a way to convince executives to green light the project
Melee is trash, smash U is better competitively and casually. P.S. EXCEPT BAYONETTA, RYU, AND CLOUD WHO ARE ALL BROKEN AF.
Are you the Legend27? Hell yeah you are! You probably win evey local with that mindset.
I think of the smash bros % system as a sort of 'last hit' situation. You can do lots and lots of damage, but you have to deal that last hit flashy finisher to end the game.
Damn there used to be a hitmonlee pokeball? Heck it would have been cool if it was still in!
That part about Melee was so fucken inspirational amen
The theme songs are what stand it apart, I love singing Brawl's intro
Almost everybody I know has no idea what smash Bros is
Only shooting stars break the mold