zeech, post: 6785755, member: 8463 wrote:
The word does have a meaning - but its subtle and depends on context. Since it varies from conversation to conversation, simple minded people prefer to think it's meaningless
In this context, the difference between casual and competitive/hardcore is the intentions of the developer. A "competitive" game would be making at least a token effort to support the needs of a competitive community, either by patching balance issues, or including tournament/competition friendly features, etc. Or even just the stated vision of the developer. If they say, "oh, this is just a fun game for kids, our primary intention is not competitive play," then there you go.
So one could say that recent fighting games have been "casual-ized" by tournament unfriendly features such as DLC/unlockable characters, gems and so forth.
As an example, in a different context I describe myself as "casual" FG player. This is because I don't practice very much and don't care about winning. However, since I attend offline tournament events ("for fun") and mash buttons and beat other low-skilled players, this makes me considerably more "hardcore" when compared to the majority of the population. So yeah, "casual" means different things at different times, and you have to use your brain to work out what people are trying to say.
ric0, post: 6786085, member: 34744 wrote:
SSBM is definitely not basic and not easy to play, whether it was intended to be that way or not.
I think what really makes a competitive fighting game is the hype it generates.
SynikaL, post: 6786102, member: 3272 wrote:
The "Competitiveness" of a thing is something that can, more or less, be actually quantified: you simply measure the amount of humans competing in its regard. That was my point. Only simple-minded ingrates would care to call something strictly "casual" when there are known humans that exist, playing said-game competitively. People can call the Smash series "casual" all they want - it doesn't change the fact that people pack convention halls and hotels to play these games competitively, in effect, making them competitive games.
zeech, post: 6786315, member: 8463 wrote:
You're still missing the point.
But that's a side issue - the word is still useful as an adjective to describe things.
Smash is not the same as Street Fighter. Naruto is not the same as Guilty Gear, etc. There are differences in goals, target audience and design that are undeniably real. How to capture and describe those differences? If I say, "casual", most people will know what I mean. My thread requires it, because I'm trying to ask why/how a game not really intended for competitive play, ends up competitive anyways. "Casual" is a simple and clear way to sum up what I mean, that people here will instantly understand.
Whether I'm insulting smash or not will be evident from the context I'm using it, and it's a seperate issue entirely. It can't be helped that people here associate the word with negative characteristics. That will happen regardless of what word is used. (like how the various words for disabled people or homosexual people have changed over the years to avoid negative connotations, but the connotations eventually follow.)
So yeah, insults depend on context as well. You should be able to figure out that I'm not using casual in a pejorative sense here.
t1bz, post: 6786543, member: 59768 wrote:
I would argue that Smash "blew up" because of the simple and incredibly intuitive controls. Instead of double tapping or pressing two buttons to dash, you just slam the control stick in whatever direction you want to go and your character starts running. There is an actual jump button instead of having to tap up every time. Likewise, grabs can be accomplished with the press of a single button as opposed to having to use 2 buttons or a direction in conjunction with a button. When you need to block, you just hold a trigger button, you don't have to worry about left/right or high/low. Perhaps most importantly there are no traditional FG inputs like qcf's. All moves are produced by simply pressing one of two buttons and holding a certain direction. All of this adds up to make the game 10x easier to pick up and understand on a basic level than traditional fighters.
I know several people who play smash on a competent, if not quite tournament-quality, level. Yet none of these guys will play Mahvel with me. When they try to, they immediately get frustrated because they cannot do DP motions consistently, they get hit because they forgot to block low, etc. Another turn-off to these guys are the combos. As easy as Mahvel's basic combos are, to people who have never played a proper FG before they still look quite intimidating, and even ABCS -> BBCS -> super does take some small amount of play/lab time to get down if you have never played a FG and are still having trouble just doing a qcf consistently, as opposed to smash where combo'ing is much less important below tournament level (or simply non-existent in the case of Brawl). I really think how comfortable you can get with a game the first 2 or 3 times you play it makes a huge difference in whether or not you stick with it, and that smash excels in this category compared to traditional fighters.
Last but not least, even though Melee is extremely technical at high levels, just like in other FGs there are certain characters who can get the same results as others with much less, if any, need for high execution and tech skill. Sheik and Jiggles being the two biggest offenders IMO, and I don't think it's a coincidence that one of my friends who can't short hop or wave dash plays those exact two chars. And then of course you have brawl where it's like "lol execution? what is that?"
IglooBob, post: 6786613, member: 57681 wrote:
it seems like something Sirlin would talk about. that FGs that strip down the execution barrier allow you to immediately get to the part of FGs that's actually fun, interacting with your opponent in interesting ways. SSB as a series seems to follow that philosophy.
zeech, post: 6786070, member: 8463 wrote:
Maybe he meant Darkstalkers?
Tebbo, post: 6786713, member: 9985 wrote:
yeah but that is just one perspective. that's how he thinks of things, and what he likes.
tons of players, myself included like technical stuff and going through that process of learning and expanding with the limitation of execution.
i think ssb is a bad example anyway. imho the main contributor to its success was using a variety of nintendo characters. of course everyone who grew up during that time was going to want it. you get to beat on mario as link. it sells itself.
from that point its just a numbers game. if you sell several million copies of the game, you're going to get some people who REALLY like it and want to seriously dig into it and push the game as far as possible. so it becomes competitive because of that.
Tebbo, post: 6788813, member: 9985 wrote:
melee is a great game.
not sure how that changes anything that i said. the series is successful because of the characters.
the gameplay comes after that. brand awareness is pretty much the most important thing when it comes to selling a product.
you can't compare that to other stuff that does not have that kind of awareness. the gameplay is sick, I played melee all throughout college and still love the game. it is an awesome game all around. but smash became big because it let kids play as their favorite character and beat up their friends. not because the gameplay was super slick and refined (although it pretty much is especially in melee).
zeech, post: 6793637, member: 8463 wrote:
I wonder how much of an effect nostalgia has. We know that SF4 was pretty big (in contrast to SF3) because of its SF2 characters evoking nostalgia from a generation of arcade players. Smash obviously runs the entire gamut of Nintendo's history so it probably has a pretty strong effect here too.
Darknid, post: 6812714, member: 17231 wrote:
Smash took off because it took Nintendo's legendary game icons and put them together in a game that combined the time-tested elements of Nintendo's great platformers with the style of a beat-em-up fighter, and Melee just happened to be an incredibly deep competitive game. It attracts casual and competitive players alike.
I get the distinct impression that people who insult Smash Bros either haven't seen a competitive match or have seen one and the sight of all the tech at work made their balls shrink and they're living in denial ever since.
ViolentDjango, post: 6817207, member: 43185 wrote:
Like it or not, MLG was where the money was for the game -- and as a result, that's what people will reference for competitive play for the game.
SynikaL, post: 6817228, member: 3272 wrote:
You might have watched some Melee matches, but judging by your pos,t and this line in particular, you likely just played Brawl. Everything you just posted is awful in more ways than one.
SynikaL, post: 6817268, member: 3272 wrote:
I'm not defensive regarding Smash, or even Melee - I'm defensive against bad opinions. I'm pretty sure Melee had its largest tournament ever just last year (Genesis, maybe? Not sure, don't pay attention to the scene much anymore). Alphazealot suggests numbers are strong for the game in general, still, with many tournaments throughout the year. I doubt 3rd Strike at the height of its popularity even compared.
How relevant to the FG scene Melee (or even Brawl) is to the scene at large - is irrelevant. Especially in consideration for how self-sustained they are.
Brawl is such a bad game, I don't even consider it cannon. I always make sure to mention I'm referring to Melee whenever talking about Smash.
ViolentDjango, post: 6817289, member: 43185 wrote:
Just saying that, unfortunately, Brawl is Smash Bros for the average person these days.
ViolentDjango, post: 6817289, member: 43185 wrote:
First, there's no such thing as a "bad" opinion, there can be uneducated opinions -- but that assumes the opinion references the pertinent information in some way or would otherwise benefit from it. The fact that Melee had a big tournament last year doesn't really equate much to what I'm trying to say...
I've never said anything about Smash not being a popular series, and I've said nothing against Melee as the hallmark of the game's quality -- but when the average person thinks of Smash, Brawl is the game that comes to mind, purely because its the most recent -- Numbers be damned. If people cared about numbers then Brawl probably would never have been played in a single tournament.
Just saying that, unfortunately, Brawl is Smash Bros for the average person these days. And the only reason I brought up the Third Strike example was not to try to goat some "Street Fighter is better and more popular comparison" comparison, but to point out that, for example, the last sentence of your last post is EXACTLY something someone would say about Third Strike compared to AE, because arguably, Third Strike is the technically superior game. Just meant to point out that the comparison was parallel in terms of quality among people who know what they are talking about.
sanchaz1, post: 6817298, member: 54487 wrote:
Bullshit. Melee is the game for a smash player.
ViolentDjango, post: 6817350, member: 43185 wrote:
Average person =/= Smash player...
I'm not going to bother with trying to re-explain any of this again...
SynikaL, post: 6788845, member: 3272 wrote:
To suggest that the Nintendo branding is the only reason the game was popular is simple-minded and plain wrong.
ph00tbag, post: 6819985, member: 64083 wrote:
ViolentDjango, I really do think that you're the one that's just plain not getting it. In fact, I have a hard time believing at all that you got all that deep because just from reading your posts, it seems pretty clear that you're stumbling on a fundamental point to SynikaL's posts, which anyone who has come to any remotely deep understanding of the mechanics and gameplay of Smash games can tell you: Melee and Brawl are wholly different games. They share the same fundamental goal of removing an opponents options of avoiding the blast zone, but their way of crafting gameplay around that goal is different in an almost innumerable number of ways.
That you don't grasp this fact that all dedicated smashers, even Brawl players, confirm, is evident in the fact that you continue to insist that all Smash games can be thrown under the umbrella term, Smash Bros.
Basically, I'm sure if you were explicitly dismissive of Brawl, there wouldn't be as many people calling you out. The issue is that you seem to think Melee is the same game as Brawl, and you dismiss it out of hand. The point is that Melee, although intended as a game for young adults to dick around with at parties, is in fact, very deep and highly competitive. Maybe it doesn't have what you want, but that doesn't mean lumping it with Brawl doesn't do it a huge disservice.
I don't really insult, Smash Brothers, but after quitting it and switching to proper fighting games I no longer have respect for it. They all have their valuable points in competitive depth, but honestly, the game as a whole just doesn't do it for me after I learned to play real fighting games.
LordLocke, post: 6829588, member: 344 wrote:
It's not too hard to figure out- Super Smash Bros. and it's sequels were fun. Still are, outside of it's current scene. It's not surprising a scene was created around the game because it's got a major built-in audience, is basically the definition of 'easy to learn, hard to master,' and is both very flashy and very technical at the same time. It took years of gaming history and shoved it into one package that just hit all the right notes. The Smash games reeks of fanservice and polish and joy and flair and depth to explore, but most importantly, the Smash games were just a huge blast to play, especially with other people who truly and genuinely loved the game- much like any other competitive fighter. No sane person would spend the time it would take to consistently perform actions like L-canceling (a technique required to be performed virtually every time you used a jumping attack to be competitive) if there was not a genuine passion for the game, and no bad game could inspire that kind of passion in so many people.
I was there when what would be the first major breakout of the scene first started up- in Northern California, the spring after Melee launched. The Tournament Go series, the Bay Area Biweeklies, etc. Back when the game was new, the player base was open minded, and it about playing some Smash Brothers and not playing the 'right' ruleset for it or the 'most competitive' stage selection- partially because there was not one for the time, but mostly because they wanted to keep Smash intact. Over a year came and went, and the most radical changes to the game were the removal of stages that had obvious horrific flaws for competitive play- Icicle Mountain for it's ability to kill heavy characters with a random speed-up (It could rise faster then Bowser or DK could keep up with- if they were already low on the screen they were dead), Yoshi Island 64 for cloud camping,
But then the major question came up- what would it take to get Smash Bros. recognized by the greater fighting game community?
The answer should have been one that's basically been adopted by both the Smash and greater Fighting Game community these days for spite instead of acceptance- 'Who cares? Let's play our game!' But at the time Smash was starting to outgrow it's britches. Melee tournaments were going from local affairs to inter-state to national to finally international- as early as 2003 players from Europe were already coming over for events, by 2004 Japan was coming too. And the guys behind Tournament Go were looking at trying to convince Evo to host Smash for the first time for Evo 2004. But the outside was not sold on the game. Weren't sure the scene had matured enough. Wasn't sure the game had competitive depth. They needed to be sold on Smash as an actual fighting game, and left it to the Smash community to go out and do it.
And so starting Summer 2004, people began talking rulesets- some communities had already adapted a no item, limited stage selection like New York, while others like NorCal had only banned the bare minimum to keep the game competitive without being totally broken. After a lot of debate, the scene for a while tried to put out a somewhat unified face in terms of ruleset in an attempt to get itself taken seriously- one that tried to absolutely minimize the random factors and player vs environment factors of the game to focus as greatly on the one-on-one aspect of the game as it could- ironic, the actions they first took to reach out beyond their community and draw the interest of other fighting games groups would wind up forming the mindset that would wind up ostracizing the Smash community from both it's casual fanbase AND other fighting game communities. Some, like myself, slowly splintered off from the community during this time, but many many more trickled in- happy to know the game they lapped up so eagerly on their sofas with friends on slow weekends was actually becoming serious business and wanted to help push it into becoming a real breakout success.
The rest, of course, is history. Evo finally gave Melee it's shot in 2007 to some moderate success, and invited the Smash guys back to help break in their new game that turned into the community wedge that was Brawl @ Evo 2k8- ironically enough, because this time Shoryuken and Evo wanted to test out the new game in it's fullest while the Smash community, who years prior cobbled together as minimal a ruleset as possible to get themselves invited to Evo in the first place, were confused why SRK didn't just want to grandfather in Melee's proven rule list. But by then Smash wasn't just another up-and-coming community- it was a huge and unique beast all it's own, unlike anything that had really come before or has risen up since. So it wandered off and still continues to really do it's own thing, drawing in new faces every so often that want to have their favorite Nintendo characters beat each other up in a brawling game that offers a genuinely unique experience that isn't really offered anywhere else.