Super Smash Brothers Brawl

[ducky285]

Re: Super Smash Brothers Brawl

You say that like that name is OFFICIAL or something.

But wait. How can you do it into ground moves? All I've gotten out of it is down aerial slamming instantly into the ground, and a little bobbing flip thing that I don't think is even an attack.

Also, when you say "camper" what specifically do you mean by it? People guarding the edge (not grabbing the edge to block it, but literally guarding it and attacking you as you approach the edge to return).

EDIT: I just googled it and got this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GshUovlVOew

Seeing this used like that makes me feel that I'd be cheating as much as wavedashers if I used this against someone.

It's not official, it's just what people call it. Not like it's a crazy unrelated name. It's canceling the Quick Attack by directing it into the ground. I don't see the problem with calling it that. :/

And it's not cheating. It takes practice to incorporate that into your game in a way that helps you. Pikachu is not the only one who has a move like that. If DK and Bowser land during their Up-B moves before they end, they have almost no lag. What makes Pika's so good is that the Quick Attack is...well...quick. And you can direct it into the ground.

I would learn how to use it. Why ignore an attack because you have some sort of qualm over it being "cheap". Not like it grants you an instant KO, nor is it impossible to defend or counter. It's an option that might help your game, regardless of whether or not you want to compete. I'm not trying to start an argument but I don't see any reason why doing this would be considered cheating.

And to clarify, campers are basically players who stay away and throw projectiles while positioned in the same spot until someone approaches. They either punish the approach with a high priority attack (Pit is a prime example) or run away and start camping from the other side of the stage. It sounds cheap but it's a legitimate strategy. It just makes matches boring and annoying. A lot of people are figuring out ways to beat campers, though. The QAC is Pika's best approach against such strategies.

[Afrobean]

Re: Super Smash Brothers Brawl

And it's not cheating.

Perhaps not, but when seeing it used in the way it is in that video, it makes it apparent that this was almost assuredly not an intended use of the skillset, and is, instead, an abuse of the physics engine.

I'm specifically talking about the up B leading into more up B. It just looks unfair, although I do realize that using it in that way doesn't even give a heavy advantage because of it. I guess I just mean that, like, if the designers had wanted Pikachu to have 3 or more "attacks" to his up B, they would have made it possible to do more than 1 additional "attack" NORMALLY.

I would learn how to use it. Why ignore an attack because you have some sort of qualm over it being "cheap".

I never said I wouldn't learn it. I just said that I would feel like I'm cheating if I used it against someone. Although, to be honest, I doubt if I'd ever learn enough of it to use it in the way the video maker did, but perhaps just enough to take it from barely being able to time it, and hardly hitting the sandbag in practice mode (waiting for online), to at least landing a hit on my opponent sometimes with it.

Like, I was totally against wave dashing too, but I still fooled around with it and knew how to do it once I actually investigated HOW to do it. Like, I wouldn't use wave dashing to be honest simply because I wasn't that good at it (and frankly, Pikachu didn't have a whole lot of room to slide anyway), but were I good at it, and I was playing against someone who I would only be able to compete with on a reasonable level if I used it, I would pretty much have to. However, I'd rather not even put myself in that sort of a position where I would feel like I would need to abuse the game's physics in an unintended way just to stand a chance of winning.

Not like it grants you an instant KO, nor is it impossible to defend or counter. It's an option that might help your game, regardless of whether or not you want to compete. I'm not trying to start an argument but I don't see any reason why doing this would be considered cheating.

Either way, this takes the fighting style in a direction I don't like. Lately, I've been taking to abusing Pikachu's neutral B to apply minimal damage or call my opponent to action, and if I took to using this tactic heavily, I wouldn't be able to use neutral B in the same way because I'd be too busy flying all over the place with my up B.

I like dashing around, jumping and forward/back aerials. I like spamming neutral Bs, then dashing in and smashing away. I like rolling around trying to find my way into a hole in my opponent's defense, then dropping a forward smash on them. I like knocking my opponent up with my down smash, then finding where they are above the screen and getting them in a down B.

And to clarify, campers are basically players who stay away and throw projectiles while positioned in the same spot until someone approaches. They either punish the approach with a high priority attack (Pit is a prime example) or run away and start camping from the other side of the stage. It sounds cheap but it's a legitimate strategy. It just makes matches boring and annoying. A lot of people are figuring out ways to beat campers, though. The QAC is Pika's best approach against such strategies.

Haha. I had a friend doing that earlier with Pit, but to be honest, I do a similar sort of thing with Pikachu's neutral B to motivate my opponent to do things. Either way, neither of us used that EXCLUSIVELY, and just used it as a means to pull the action back together rather than maintaining heavy distance between the both of us.

And yeah, if someone beat me as Pit thanks to just staying away from me and spamming arrows at me, I certainly wouldn't consider it a legitimate defeat. It's one thing to use the arrows to pull your opponent toward you or something, but it's another to use it to risklessly deal a bunch of damage over a long period of time.

it doesn't look like a glitch either

Did you see them using it combo'd into another set of up B?

[MrGiggles]

Re: Super Smash Brothers Brawl

Pit's infinite jump is positively infuriatiang. I love playing as Pit.

That Pikachu movie is pretty incredible though. I really want to try that out.

[Sir_Thomas]

Re: Super Smash Brothers Brawl

It's not official, it's just what people call it. Not like it's a crazy unrelated name. It's canceling the Quick Attack by directing it into the ground. I don't see the problem with calling it that. :/

And it's not cheating. It takes practice to incorporate that into your game in a way that helps you. Pikachu is not the only one who has a move like that. If DK and Bowser land during their Up-B moves before they end, they have almost no lag. What makes Pika's so good is that the Quick Attack is...well...quick. And you can direct it into the ground.

I would learn how to use it. Why ignore an attack because you have some sort of qualm over it being "cheap". Not like it grants you an instant KO, nor is it impossible to defend or counter. It's an option that might help your game, regardless of whether or not you want to compete. I'm not trying to start an argument but I don't see any reason why doing this would be considered cheating.

And to clarify, campers are basically players who stay away and throw projectiles while positioned in the same spot until someone approaches. They either punish the approach with a high priority attack (Pit is a prime example) or run away and start camping from the other side of the stage. It sounds cheap but it's a legitimate strategy. It just makes matches boring and annoying. A lot of people are figuring out ways to beat campers, though. The QAC is Pika's best approach against such strategies.

I dont think this is abuse of the physics engine. It doesnt matter how a set of actions are intended to be used really. A sword is meant to stab someone. If you balance on a sword to reach something, well then good for you.

Ducky... Just because something takes practice to incorporate it into there gameplay does not make it fair. Using cheats takes certain practice to incorporate it into unfair gameplay as well. What makes something cheat isnt how hard it is to use. Cheating is when you do or use something that is not intended to be done/used in a game. Glitches that were accidently put in game are not intended for use. It was a mistake. Just because it takes time to learn how to use a said glitch or bug does not make it ok.

Really, its an issue if its really a glitch. If not; I find it fair.

[Afrobean]

Re: Super Smash Brothers Brawl

I dont think this is abuse of the physics engine. It doesnt matter how a set of actions are intended to be used really. A sword is meant to stab someone. If you balance on a sword to reach something, well then good for you.

I agree, actually, but when the issue becomes using a split second of "airtime" after "jumping" toward the ground to allow yourself to open into ANOTHER jump (which in turn could also be chained into the ground into more jumps...), it's just plainly obvious that this is not the reason why they added this split second of airtime upon up+b-ing into the ground. It's the same thing as wavedashing, using the landing mechanics in a way which was surely not an intended use of the landing mechanics.

A good example of something like this that I would consider totally right despite not necessarily being intended would be like Samus or Link's selfdestruct being used as a means of "infinite" recovery. That's using an intended feature of gameplay in another way, while at the same time, not abusing anything which could be argued as a potential programming oversight.

[zidart]

Re: Super Smash Brothers Brawl

well i think this is like spamming diddy's bannanas or running away from pit, it might sound cheap and annoying but if you wanna win using these attacks then you might as well do so, i personally don't like doing this kind of stuff because when i'm battling with someone i like the other person to not get completely annoyed, i try to make the match enjoyable for both (or all of us), but i can't guarantee i won't do something cheap 100% of the time

[Relambrien]

Re: Super Smash Brothers Brawl

I'm debating whether or not I should post this, seeing as how it could incite some trouble. But heck, I'll have faith in you guys, so don't go crazy and make me regret posting this:

Go to page 62 of your new May issue of Nintendo Power and read the second paragraph, which says...

Nintendo Power: This is one that a lot of hardcore Smash Bros. fans have long wondered about. Was the ablility to "Wavedash" in Melee intentional or a glitch?

Sakurai: Of course, we noticed that you could do that during the development period. With Super Smash Bros. Brawl, it wasn't a matter of, "OK, do we leave it in or do we take it out?"
We really just wanted this game, again, to appeal to and be played by gamers of all different levels. We felt that there was a growing gap between beginners and advanced players, and taking that out helps to level the playing field. It wasn't a big priority or anything, but when we were building the game around the idea of making it fair for everybody, it just made sense to take it out. And it also goes back to wanting to make something different from Melee and giving players the opportunity to find new things to enjoy.

Essentially, wavedashing was discovered while Melee was in development. Its creation was not intentional, though its implementation was. The team consciously left wavedashing in the game (though they did not consciously create it), and it was taken out in Brawl to lessen the skill gap between players.

So before the whole "Proves-it's-not-a-glitch-oh-wait-yes-it-does" thing starts up, here's my take on it. I don't think you can really call wavedashing a glitch, but you can't call it intentional, either. It was something that was created by chance, but did not interfere with the developers' designs and thus was not removed. Sakurai certainly didn't put his "seal of approval" on it, but he didn't stamp it with the "omg glitch" tag either. Hopefully this settles the debate--it doesn't matter what you call wavedashing, glitch or exploit, the fact is that the dev team noticed it and just didn't care about it.

As for the effects on Brawl, here's where I'm getting worried. I believe I read a post of Squeek's somewhere (in a separate thread, mind you) about how casual games are going to be the death of the hardcore gamer. When the majority of the market is buying games like WarioWare, good, deep games are in less demand and thus will be much harder to find, and the overall quality of games will drop.

The reason this worries me is because this interview lends credence to the belief that Brawl was engineered to be more casual than Melee. Sakurai implied that he wanted to lessen the gap between skill level, which is highly indicative of making the game a casual party game. When one of your company's major franchises is moving toward casual, you can't help but wonder when the rest of the industry will follow.

[Afrobean]

Re: Super Smash Brothers Brawl

in other words:

During Melee, the developers realized they left a hole in their physics engine but didn't think it was worth fixing.

The game came out, and players abused the **** out of this hole.

They begin work on the new game, AND CONSCIOUSLY REMOVE DIRECTIONAL AERIAL DODGES SPECIFICALLY TO CANCEL THIS SORT OF BEHAVIOR.

Trying to debate it or even bringing up the topic could serve nothing but to make yourself look stupid. They might have been aware of it, but if they had known what would come, they certainly would have done something about it. The simple fact that they fixed the issue in the next game is proof enough.

Also: **** you for thinking casual gaming is a bad thing.

[ducky285]

Re: Super Smash Brothers Brawl

No one is arguing whether or not wavedashing was consciously taken out of Brawl because THAT much is apparent. It's that the removal signifies something about Nintendo's present and future business plans.

He didn't say casual was bad. He said it might become the trend in the industry. People who enjoy games with a lot of gameplay depth might be screwed if that comes to fruition. People who play competitive games in general fit into this group.

Gameplay depth comes at a price as it tends to requires a lot of dedication and knowledge to get the most out of it. People who play fighting games competitively fare better if they know all the ins and outs of the game they're playing. Someone who doesn't take their games as seriously as all that won't care enough to learn it or will be completely stumped.

Tell someone who has never played Street Fighter 3 how to use the parry system. Most people will be turned off since parrying is risky and requires precise timing. This is despite the game rewarding you immensely for taking the time to learn it. As a result, those people will just go home and play Street Fighter 2 while all the SF3 players who took the time to learn the game continue to play it. I'm not belittling those who can't figure out the parry. I can see where they coming from. If you just want to jump in and start playing, those types of techs are hurdles to their enjoyment of the game and not having to worry about it makes their gaming experience more fun. However, the people who took the time to learn it are probably enjoying it just as much, just in a different way.

In other words, the greater population of gamers lack the attention span (mostly consciously, I'm not saying you all have ADD and I'm NOT INSULTING ANYONE) to dedicate a large amount of their time to a game. A lot of you are content to play 4p FFA in Brawl with items on high. That's fine. Be happy and enjoy it. Just keep in mind that a lot people want a little more out of the game than all that, hence why Smash has a well organized, well developed competitive scene. We're not expecting everyone to follow that mentality (though there are elitists on both sides that are mainly in the minority).

Relamb's post servesnot to argue in favor of wavedashing, but to point out the attitude of Nintendo toward their games now. They make games so everyone can play them without fear of losing to people of much greater skill. They do this by minimizing the amount of advanced techniques (intentional or unintentional) that would allow those who take the time to learn them a sizable advantage.

It's a smart model, as it grabs a greater share of the market since people who would normally shy away from video games for fear of being overwhelmed by the learning curve or the possibility of losing to a skilled player. It's the pick-up-and-play model. It's been working for Nintendo so far and they will continue with it as long as it's profitable.

I, for one, like a little bit of complexity in my games. Shallow games are boring and lack replay value for me. A lot of people share this mentality but sadly (for us, at least..I'm not about to sit here and proselytize), we're the minority.

EDIT: I'd just like to add that Street Fighter 4 will completely abandon the parry system. The devs' reasoning? To make the game more accessible. See how Nintendo's business model is affecting other companies' decisions? Yes, it's one example. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I'm not saying it's a good thing. I'm saying it's worth thinking about.

[Squeek]

Re: Super Smash Brothers Brawl

I parry in sf3 because it looks cool and they give you points for it.

Also because for some Specials it's the only way to not die.

And hey, who says Brawl can't be complex without a physics engine abuse? Has anyone ever had the same battle play out twice? Hell, I guarantee you could take every match ever carried out from everyone around the world and you'd never have a mirror image.

Mario Kart is basic as hell because even without cheating (read: snaking), I can beat the AI every time I play the game. Brawl is complex because I can get better and better and better and still lose fights against the AI. No matter how good I get, there will always be something I don't expect about to happen that could turn the tide of the match.

And yes I admit I lose fights against the AI. Anyone who doesn't admit that is a liar.

And hey, all along I said that you play Brawl the way you want to play. Just don't try to cram your playstyle down other people's throats. Surely you can reach a compromise (which I've been trying to do) that works for both parties.

[Afrobean]

Re: Super Smash Brothers Brawl

Squeek, most of us can beat level 9 in flat fair matches consistently every time. Even I (who is not well known for being skilled in this game) have only lost once I think and it was because of items or something stupid.

No items, level 9, 1 on 1, I'd always beat CPU.

And yeah, Brawl is plenty deep. In fact, I'd say it's even MORE deep than Melee in that there are more new characters, more new stages, more new items. There are even new physics abuses (such as a few characters up B, Peach's sliding turnip pick, etc.), just not any wide reaching as wavedashing (which simply wasn't all that wide reaching either considering that many characters simply couldn't slide very much).

[DarkManticoreX2]

Re: Super Smash Brothers Brawl

Beat boss batles with every charachter today, 100 man melee is next.

Also did the stage builder challenges. (Most annoying and boring parts of the challenge wall). I think I have 3-4 blue blocks left, all 3 hammers, and maybe 10-12 trophies left to get.

Got all the SSE trophies too.

[korny]

Re: Super Smash Brothers Brawl

I never have less than 2 lives against an AI.

[l2awr]

Re: Super Smash Brothers Brawl

After playing thousands of Brawl matches you learn that Brawl is NOT deep. It is VERY repetitive and very slow. Go play thousands of matches with good people and you'll notice the same things happen every match.

[MalReynolds]

Re: Super Smash Brothers Brawl

Yeah! Two players fighting!

Grrrarrr!