Gaming Nintendo is not focusing on the competitive side of Super Smash Bros. Ultimate

[Deleted User]

So Sakurai says that by designing the game with a focus competitive userbase for Super Smash Bros. Ultimate the game becomes too technical for casual players.

I'm fine with this because I don't play Super Smash Bros. competitively. When I hear terms like DI I don't know what the fuck I'm listening to. I just hope that the characters are reasonably balanced. With a bloated roster it's quite likely that some characters will be way better than others. Even when playing among friends we try to win because it gives us a kick (or dopamine boost for those who want to be scientific). Everyone wants a fair chance of winning with their personal favourite character. If the roster is unbalanced then hopefully the Switch scene will produce a "Balanced Ultimate" mod similar to the "Balanced Brawl" mod.

Source: http://www.nintendolife.com/news/20..._about_competitive_aspect_of_super_smash_bros

 

[BORTZ]

Brawl and Sm4sh were personally, imo, way too unbalanced to ever be considered competitive anyways. From what we have seen of Ultimate, at least everything looks like it will be closer to at least a semblance of everyone having a viable final smash.

Oh well, the idea that game like Smash was ever considered "competitive" in any regard is funny to me.

 

[FierceDeityLinkMask]

I am of two sides to this. As someone who was/is REALLY into smash and even tried learning everything I could about the competitive side I can see why this is upsetting too some. However, I think these people shouldn't be upset. Not because "smash shouldn't be considered competitive" but because this means absolutely nothing.

Smash players and the competitive community have been through a hell of a lot of shit. They can make eating a bowl of jelly competitive and fun. Just from what we've seen Smash Ultimate (SU) will still be as competitive as Smash 4 just with core changes. I'll give it 2 months after release before everyone is used to SU and the competitive scene is as lively as it's always been. Not to mention, we still have melee.

Finally I would like to point out that competitive smash play is extremely different from non competitive play. Not only with the rules, but also with the core play-style. Everything from jumping, attacking, hell even how you move is different among differently skilled players. Smash will be alright competitively.

 

[FAST6191]

While I have no objection to the principle of making a competition from something not inherently built for it all I have seen from the "competitive smash" scene(s) has been drama, insanity, whining, some of the poorest competition design I have ever seen, some of the worst understanding of gameplay design I have ever seen and generally nothing worth respecting as a whole. As a fan of trainwrecks I was a least satisfied there but other than that... no.

To that end I hope any competitive scene which grows around this will start fresh and actually have a clue.

 

[Draxzelex]

First off, thread title is a misconception because that is what SAKURAI said, not NINTENDO. 2 different entities. Nintendo can still give Smash Ultimate a competitive scene without Sakurai. May not be ideal but Nintendo has never stated that there will no competitive scene.

Secondly, Sakurai clearly stated he is against making a game SOLELY for competitive play, not allowing the game to be competitive. Look no further than the fact that damage in 1v1 is higher than free-for-all along with stage hazards and he's clearly designing for a competitive audience in mind. There's no rule saying that you can't design both for casual and competitive which is the whole point of Smash. You play the way you want to.

 

[FAST6191]

You seem to upset and I can't quite figure out why.

"SOLELY for competitive play, not allowing the game to be competitive"
You can't really disallow competition, indeed that people tried to construct a competition around the existing titles says as much (that they all seem to have gone about it in the worst possible ways is a different matter). That said I would like to see an anti competitive game purely as that would be an interesting exercise in game design.

"There's no rule saying that you can't design both for casual and competitive"
In this case there kind of is. If you don't design for and balance something (as a basic thing look up the pareto curve/frontier) then chances are you are going to end up with either underpowered and overpowered characters, and if you don't it is an incredibly happy accident (or your characters are identical). If here they are just designing so it broadly works you are going to see all the banned characters and whatnot of previous games.

 

[Clydefrosch]

and why would they? for those conventions where other people make money with their game?
casuals are the reason we got so many smash bros games in the first place.
honestly, as long as they get rid of the floaty controls, i'm fine with every other inbalance

 

[Xandrid]

Cool, that's fine by me

 

[Reploid]

Cool, uncompetitive fighting game. I think those called beat them ups.

 

[Draxzelex]

You seem to upset and I can't quite figure out why.

I'm upset because this thread is based off a misconception which can potentially snowball into more misconceptions.

"SOLELY for competitive play, not allowing the game to be competitive"
You can't really disallow competition, indeed that people tried to construct a competition around the existing titles says as much (that they all seem to have gone about it in the worst possible ways is a different matter). That said I would like to see an anti competitive game purely as that would be an interesting exercise in game design.

I did not word that properly in retrospect. What I meant to say was designing a game for competitive use solely as opposed to any other reason (i.e. party-game mechanics). I'm not referring to how the community perceives games to be competitively viable or not. No developer can stop that because a competitive game is made competitive by the community, not by the developers. Although hypothetically if a developer were to try make something as anti-competitive as possible, you would basically do all of the things in reverse to making a game competitive like an unbalanced roster, implementing a lot of luck in gameplay, or don't allow the freedom to alter rules.

"There's no rule saying that you can't design both for casual and competitive"
In this case there kind of is. If you don't design for and balance something (as a basic thing look up the pareto curve/frontier) then chances are you are going to end up with either underpowered and overpowered characters, and if you don't it is an incredibly happy accident (or your characters are identical). If here they are just designing so it broadly works you are going to see all the banned characters and whatnot of previous games.

The scenario you are envisioning is the other end of the spectrum where you design for complete casual play. The point I am making is that Sakurai does not prefer to choose either side and instead somewhere down the middle. There is also the argument that you can never completely balance a game like Smash. The best example of this is Project M where the community tried to tweak characters based off of its own competitive community which could not end up making a balanced roster. Also, while unbalances exist in all Smash iterations, the practical application of those unbalances do not always play out in reality.

The point about completely banned characters while good is very difficult to implement in the Smash community. Best example is Meta Knight from Brawl who was so polarizing that he had his own tier. However, regardless of how broken he was, the community could never ban him. I don't think we will such a character like that ever arise again from Ultimate or any sequels especially now that we have balance patches, but it showcases that character bans are rare if non-existent. What is usually banned are character actions such as chain-grabs, infinites, and game-breaking glitches.

Anyways, I just don't want people misinterpreting Sakurai or Nintendo as anti-competitive when, at least for the Switch, they are actually embracing much more than for other consoles. If Sakurai were to design Smash for competitive play solely, then we really have no need for items, most stage hazards, or even other game modes. But Smash is still a fighting game and there are plenty of features to indicate he is not just designing it for casual play.

 

[FierceDeityLinkMask]

But Smash is still a fighting game and there are plenty of features to indicate he is not just designing it for casual play.

Idiot: "But... but... Smash Isn't even a fighting game... BECAUSE I SAID So... It's Just a game for Nintentoddlers!"

Me: "lololololol"

 

[NyaakoXD]

I think what Sakurai is going for is to strike a middle-ground for both competitive and casual players. He tried to do it with Sm4sh, but of course there were still complaints from both sides and how it was still slightly closer to Brawl than with Melee.

 

[FAST6191]

"There is also the argument that you can never completely balance a game like Smash"
I reckon with that neural AI stuff they did for melee the other year ( https://gbatemp.net/threads/mit-dev...-that-can-compete-against-top-players.462500/ ) they could go all

and generate an essentially balanced game, or at least one such that no human will ever usefully be able to claim an edge. Capcom already seem to be doing it with street fighter and there are plenty of examples of other games being tweaked to that end.

I don't think anybody would say they are anti competitive, more that their approach to competitive is not to dismiss them and maybe offer a reassuring platitude and leave it at that.

"were to design Smash for competitive play solely, then we really have no need for items, most stage hazards, or even other game modes"
Why? Nothing about competition precludes such mechanics.

As far as "the scenario I am envisioning" thing then not really. If you don't design for competition from the ground up or crowbar it in later then it is so incredibly unlikely that you will end up with a balanced game (I reckon there are about 15 stats that matter in the average smash title if taken to top end actually competitive things, and possibly a few more I am not thinking of, the chances of any two matching well in those is already, small, them matching ever other character or at least every other clone is then probably approaching atoms in the universe numbers of low probability). For a fun with friends thing then you can knock that out easily enough.

Banned character wise it was more that things got banned, then someone figured out a counter and then it was back in. That is just the antithesis of good competition design. At best you are going for good spectacle design there.

 

[Xzi]

I don't believe any Smash Bros game has ever been designed with only the competitive scene in mind, so this isn't surprising. That doesn't mean it won't be as competitive as Sm4sh, if not slightly more so.

 

[Draxzelex]

"There is also the argument that you can never completely balance a game like Smash"
I reckon with that neural AI stuff they did for melee the other year ( https://gbatemp.net/threads/mit-dev...-that-can-compete-against-top-players.462500/ ) they could go all

and generate an essentially balanced game, or at least one such that no human will ever usefully be able to claim an edge. Capcom already seem to be doing it with street fighter and there are plenty of examples of other games being tweaked to that end.

This is what happens when I use a superlative haphazardly. Anyways, I believe those games still require balance patching after the fact so the process still needs refinement. Not to mention that the feats AI are capable of are not all humanly possible, at least as consistently and flawlessly as a scripted program. Competitive games eventually involve less gameplay and more of reading your opponent as most people who beat that AI take advantage of its flaws the same way top-level players win nearly all the time.

"were to design Smash for competitive play solely, then we really have no need for items, most stage hazards, or even other game modes"
Why? Nothing about competition precludes such mechanics.

No but practically a developer has a finite amount of time and resources they can allocate towards a game. Practically, they have to plan and budget what they have with what they have in mind.

As far as "the scenario I am envisioning" thing then not really. If you don't design for competition from the ground up or crowbar it in later then it is so incredibly unlikely that you will end up with a balanced game (I reckon there are about 15 stats that matter in the average smash title if taken to top end actually competitive things, and possibly a few more I am not thinking of, the chances of any two matching well in those is already, small, them matching ever other character or at least every other clone is then probably approaching atoms in the universe numbers of low probability).

Characters that are considered high-tier receive that placement due to a combination of tournament results (can't be the best unless you prove you're the best) as well as their movesets. As balanced as Melee is at the top-level, Fox is still considered the best due to his down special that if played optimally, will prevent him from losing to any other character. Meta Knight has several of these overpowered moves in his toolkit ranging from his ability to glide, an insanely fast up aerial that works as a combo tool, and moves that out prioritize other characters' moves. Bayonetta stands out due to her abilities to camp ledge in a game that punishes ledge camping with her disjointed up special, a frame 1 airdodge, and arguably the best counters the game that punish over-aggressive play. These characters don't have any character attributes that make them the best (speed is obvious but a given), but are defined by their toolkits. And because all characters have access to wide-ranging attack patterns due to keeping them in line with their franchise, some having more or less source material to work with, and whatever else Sakurai uses to create movesets, balancing the characters become much more difficult.

 

[Deleted User]

First off, thread title is a blatant lie

I derped. That's not a blatant lie.

 

[Draxzelex]

I derped. That's not a blatant lie.

Edited my post to sound less harsh

 

[mizorechan]

Hope to have plenty of single player content. This game is the "KOF 98" of Smash franchise, which is a good thing.

 

[NitroTears]

To me, while it may not be his focus, Sakurai has made some things in smash ultimate, I guess help or cater to the competitive scene a little, while not fully siding with it. I think It's more about the little things like the awesome UI changes for one-on-one stock battles and the Battlefield and Final destination forms for every stage, just things like that. While it is minor, You can foresee the use of these features a great deal at EVO or the like. I kinda like these new things, because although I'm not the best at the game, it still makes me smile that Sakurai does take everything into consideration for his game.

 

[Jayro]

This is just Sakurai being lazy, he's probably burnt out of making Smash games by now. It seemed he was even bored with it after brawl. Surprised they even bothered making Smash 4 on the 3DS tbh...