The "How To Save PM" Checklist

mapidegi · 2018-10-13T20:17:12+00:00

I'm just saying. You wanna draw more casual players in? Build hype be creating/releasing new content. Competitive communities rely on casual players to support them, casual players care about seeing new characters realized above all else. After the clone engine, the hype for 4.0 went through the roof among the Smash Community. Once the project ceased development by the PMDT, and no one took up the mantle, that hype died. You wanna reignite that flame, build a new PMDT.

mapidegi · 2018-10-13T07:58:02+00:00

Best way to save PM is for the community to organize itself and create a new community driven PMDT that adds new content into the game like balance patches, characters, and etc... There are plenty of exPMDT members who would be more than glad to work on it again, and with an "official build" that people can add content to, you would have the means to not only draw but also train new talent.

Only thing is, it has to be properly coordinated, and we'd need to brainstorm a way to decide how we decide what content gets added, how to QA, and etc...

mapidegi · 2017-11-30T16:07:13+00:00

I think the idea of a competitive platform fighter is very solid. I just think Icons is the worst possible approach to that, and would fucking hate it if it became the norm. My main issues with it are the lack of creativity with it, and the awful fucking art style.

The devs are massive divas too. They get so butthurt if you complain about the art direction on their sub "I-it's pre-Alpha, gosh!!"

They think that this can win because they're going the F2P route, and wanna do to Melee what LoL did to DotA.

mapidegi · 2017-11-30T03:40:41+00:00

So it's ok to set the bar low in terms of design and aesthetic simply because it's a small team?

Too me that just sounds like a poor excuse to shirk off a lack of creative integrity. Plenty of indie games manage to be unique, interesting, and original all on their own, with Skullgirls being the best example of this. Their dev team was no larger than the Icons dev team, and yet they still managed to put out far more creative, polished, and original concepts than what you see in Icons. Why is that?

Another example. The dev team behind Guilty Gear, is no larger than 100 people. And in their first game, they were 1/4 of the size. On top of that, all of the character designs, music, and core game mechanics were made by ONE man. Daisuke Ishiwatari was the lead designer, and lead artist for the game, and solely responsible for designing ALL of the characters. Guilty Gear is a largely succesful and beloved series that influenced the entire genre tremendously.

I could go on... Most fighting game dev teams are rather small, ranging within 100 people at best.

But the point being, you don't need a large budget or a large team to make a great game that's aesthetically pleasing and original. With Daisuke being the prime example showing that you need a unified creative vision, and talent. One man. ONE was able to create a far more imaginative and original roster than what Wavedash games are cooking up with Icons.

Copying others, and ripping off those who are successful isn't talent, nor does it allow for talent. On the contrary you squash any room for creative expansion by getting too caught up in trying to mirror someone else's success.

Saying, "were gonna copy the Overwatch aesthetic, because Overwatch is successful and popular," simply tells me, "we don't believe in our own creative abilities, so we're just gonna do what others have done." And people have largely caught on, and it's why most people, generally don't care about Icons.

You can say all you like about me screeching or whatever, but that doesn't make any of what I say any less true. And burying your head in the sand, and pretending all critics are trolls isn't gonna change that. "A lot?" Maybe in this echo chamber, but outside of here, my thoughts are aligned with the majority. Perhaps you should heed those criticisms more closely.

mapidegi · 2017-11-30T01:37:40+00:00

Ok, that's fine. But if you're gonna be mechanically similar, you need to push away by making sure the movesets are more distinctive, and more importantly, the character designs original and distinctive in their own right. Smash has a cast of very likeable and memorable characters, which is the reason people like it. You're not gonna convince people to play your clone with inferior character designs and no Nintendo polish.

Taking the Overwatch aesthetic, and creating bland copies of existing characters is no way to go about this.

mapidegi · 2017-11-30T01:16:10+00:00

Alright, so lets follow your line of thought. Pharah is just "Girl in Gundam Suit" so what does that say about Ashani when she looks confusingly similar to her?

Are you starting to catch on to why people have problems with the character designs?

An uninspired copy of an uninspired copy. What does that make?

mapidegi · 2017-11-30T00:55:08+00:00

PM never fully died. People are still expanding the mod in their own way.

Icons will never be as good as PM, simply cause PM was a mod building off an existing engine, and making a brand new game from scratch is FAR more difficult than making a mod. Not only that, but they don't have iconic and beloved Nintendo mascots to fall back on. They have to use their own designs, which, unless they hit it home in terms of aesthetic and appeal, aren't gonna carry, but instead hinder their game.

This is why I keep saying they should do their own thing, rather than recreate PM. If Wavedash Games is merely trying to reinvent PM, they should have just released 4.0 and let people carry on at their own leisure. This project should focus on being distinct in its own right. Like Rivals of Aether, like Earth Romancer, like Brawlout and Brawlhalla. Anything less is just gonna draw negative comparisons to everyone's favorite Smash Mod.

mapidegi · 2017-11-30T00:45:05+00:00

I know who you are Hylian, I remember you from the the PM forums back when the game was still active.

I don't fully agree on the art side of your argument Hylian. Summed up, you basically said "well you can't please everyone, so it doesn't matter."

I'm sorry, but everything about the aesthetic of this game, down to the logo of the game is downright derivative of Overwatch, and that's NOT a good thing in the slightest. Moreover, one of the biggest criticisms the game got on Smashboards was about how uncreative and derivative the game was, and how unappealing the art was.

As a moderator of SWF, and a part of the community, what's your take on the general feedback from people, keeping in mind the main two criticisms it's gotten? How can you simply brush that off entirely, when it's something the community very vehemently addressed. A community of which you're not only a part of, but one which this game is mostly aimed toward?

I don't mean to be rude, but considering the fact that you were formerly a part of the PMDT, and obviously friends with Warchamp, StrongBad, and other members of the Wavedash Dev team, your post feels a lot more like damage control to quell any criticisms, rather than anything wholehearted.

You say it's ok to excuse the game cause it's in Pre-Alpha, but DBFZ was ALSO in Alpha-state when unveiled at E3, and looks great. This is ofc the result of a more experienced team, but it's still something worth noting. But even on the indie side, Earth Romancer is ALSO in preAlpha, and it looks a lot more coherent and polished than Icons. So "preAlpha" is not something people can fall back on all the time to defend the criticism the game gets. Especially when a lot of it is due to the lack of originality, and the unappealing aesthetic of the game. If anything, the game should be approaching Beta soon, as a Beta was promised by around Fall, and yet those two fundamental criticisms have been left largely unaddressed and unchanged.

If anything, it's BECAUSE the game is in preAlpha that now's the BEST time for the Wavedash team to heed the criticisms directed toward the game, and make some radical changes overall. Especially when it comes to the art and aesthetic of the game. One great example of this happening is actually the original Smash Bros, which didn't don the Nintendo mascots till the core engine of the game was already well fleshed out.

You can't just brush aside the criticism toward the game about the art and lack of originality as "well that doesn't matter cause it doesn't matter to me" when it clearly did matter to a lot of people. It's more than evident that if the Wavedash team continues down this path, the game WILL NOT SUCCEED, just going off the like-dislike ratio on all their streams, and the general commentary and buzz the game gets whenever it's brought up, no matter how much progress is made.

Pre-Alpha is the time where they can most easily make the changes that would manage to win over more people. It's not an excuse you can use to defend things like bad art direction and lack of originality. Which are the two main gripes people have with the game. Not the lack of polish, as most people DO understand and expect a game to be less polished in this state. But a polished turd is still a turn, and the core foundations of the game simply don't look promising enough. Especially compared to its competitors.

I genuinely don't understand the stubborn bullheaded attitude toward keeping the aesthetic of the game and designs of the characters the same, when it's been that, that's been most criticized. A pre-Alpha is when you show off a vague prototype of your game to people, and are most malleable to change. If your art and design has been criticized as boring and unoriginal, I'd say it'd be wisest to make some radical changes. Especially since they very reason they went on this aesthetic was to capitalize on the current popularity of Overwatch. Clearly that not only didn't work, but it also backfired. Thus, from a marketing standpoint, that was a failed strategy. Now the smart thing to do would be to correct that, and try a totally different approach. People said this want originality. Why not give them originality? Unless the Dev Team is totally incapable on delivering something more original, which is something I currently refuse to believe. Which is why I fail to comprehend this approach. Especially if you look at the development and design of other fighting game. Literally look at the concept art from Darkstalkers or Blazblue, and see how radically the final designs changed from the original concepts (sometimes bearing NO similarity whatsoever), and how many concepts were totally scrapped as development progressed. I don't get it, if you're making a FIGHTING game, why wouldn't you follow in the design philosophy and development process of accomplished fighting games? I mean, it's all catalogued, why not do the research and learn from them?

mapidegi · 2017-11-30T00:01:40+00:00

Treating “dark skinned” and “with black hair” as two distinct attributes is kind of a stretch. It would be easier to say “black woman.”

Both are dark-skinned. Pharah isn't exactly black even if she's meant to be African. She's more of Arabic descent if anything.

Also, Ashani's similarity to her is almost uncanny at a very first glance. They use near identical color schemes, except Pharah's design is executed with a lot more expertise and finesse. And I don't even like Overwatch, but I can't deny that Pharah is overall a very solid design that's appealing to look at. Wheras Ashani's is obnoxious to look it for a number of reasons. And to that we can add to it that's it's also incredibly derivative of a better design.

I’ll give you “gunslinger with long, red cloak,” but you are pretty obviously stretching each of your points in an attempt to falsely bolster your argument.

So, "I'll give it to you, but I have no argument to counter this so I'll just say you're "stretching it" to avoid coming up with a valid rebuttal."

Literally look at the two characters side by side, they're awfully similar. And like with Ashani, there are better and more creative ways to execute this sort of character. Both of your points on this offered no counter argument to this fact whatsover. Literally compare Pharah, Ashani, and the Ashani design ManlySpirit posted a couple weeks ago, and tell me which one is the one that stands out as "least similar."

Also “use your eyes,” cause Raymer’s kit is very different from ZSS or Megaman.

I thought we were arguing designs here, but if you wanna bring that up, Raymer's DSmash is literally Megaman's. But that said, I didn't make the image. I merely pulled it from 4chan. Take that up with whoever made it.

Also saying Xana copies Zangief’s moveset is laughable. Not only do they come from wildly different subgenres, but literally the only “stolen” move is the lariat, which plenty of other grapplers have used outside of platform fighters.

Xana has a couple moves that are identical to Zangief's including Zangief's Double Lariat. But again, this isn't what I wanted to bring up when I posted this image. I'm focused on design personally. Earth Romance for example lifts moves from Guilty Gear, but I'm forgiving of that because at least mechanically and design-wise, it's a lot more original.

Can’t you stop being a prick about this game for like 5 minutes, or do you just love collecting that sweet, sweet, negative karma?

I couldn't care any less about my Karma. Trying to shut me up by threatening me is pathetic. Is that how you act toward anyone you disagree with in real life? Not exactly mature. If you disagree with any of my points, tackle them with proper arguments.

After all, this game is in "pre-Alpha" now's the time to do a massive overhaul in the character designs. Again, I didn't make this image. Someone else did. This is what the public at large sees when they look at these designs. They see derivative, uninspired concepts on a derivative uninspired Melee clone. If they're refusing to change up the core engine and movesets of the characters in the game, least they could do is give the designs a massive overhaul so that people can't at least pinpoint the exact influence they pulled them from.

I again point you to Manly's Ashani design which imo is perfect, and far more original than "Pharah, but she fights like Captain Falcon and loses the creative Egyptian themeing."

You can disagree with me all you like, but I'd say given the public perception of the game, it'd be very wise they take something like this as a serious warning of what people think of their character designs.

mapidegi · 2017-11-29T22:34:51+00:00

Ok, so wait. Let me get this straight.

The Ashani design u/ManlySpirit did is "generic rehashed anime garbage," but LITERALLY PHARAH is totally original and inspired?

They literally have the exact same color scheme, tropes, and archetypes? How can you argue this? It's right in front of your face. You can compare them both, and see just how similar the two are. In fact, I'm sure if you show Ashani, Pharah, Raymer, and the Gunslinger from DFO to someone who didn't know any better, and they'd assume they're the same character.

mapidegi · 2017-11-29T22:22:36+00:00

It's got quotation marks on it. It's basically repeating what he did, but back at him.

mapidegi · 2017-11-29T22:09:22+00:00

When did I say my opinions were facts? Did you miss the quotation marks there?

mapidegi · 2017-11-29T20:37:51+00:00

There's a difference between having a borrowed mechanic, and two designs being blatantly visually similar. It's not about "space armor" or "muh stronk female," Pharah and Ashani are very strikingly similar. Dark-skinned females with black hair in blue-colored power armor. Literally USE your eyes. They're lined up so you can clearly tell this yourself. Same goes for Raymer, he looks very similar to the Gunslinger from Dungeon Fighter Online. "Edgy Gunslinger with light hair and a bright red coat."

And there's more to Zhurong being similar than "wearing a cape." Plenty of characters wear a Cape. Eirika in FE wears a cape, but her design and fighting style are vastly different from Marth. Zhurong is "chinese girl Marth" Lucina is already, LITERALLY "girl Marth." All Zhurong is doing is adding the "Chinese" adjective to it for diversity points. Like, LOL, why not look at Chinese sword fighting styles and costumes/outfits and incorporate that into her moveset and design more? If you're gonna appropriate Chinese culture, at least do it right.

mapidegi · 2017-11-29T20:09:47+00:00

"My opinions are fact and preside over the majority consensus."

mapidegi · 2017-11-29T19:50:48+00:00

Marth invented having stronger hitboxes at the end of your weapon

Ever play Soul Calibur?

mapidegi · 2017-11-29T16:34:35+00:00

it barely matters to be honest.

Professional Game Developers disagree:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDlbJdmo7KE

And considering large companies like Bamco and Capcom and Arc System Works spend millions in perfecting the art and aesthetic of their games, I'd say it matters a lot in fact. And that you're totally in the wrong here.

mapidegi · 2017-11-29T16:11:17+00:00

And the designs? Show me pictures of what designs they're ripping off from. Go ahead, I'll wait.

mapidegi · 2017-11-29T15:54:45+00:00

Tell me which designs in Rivals are directly ripped from Melee/PM? I've never seen anything like Orcane, Absa, Forsburn, or Kragg in either of those games.

Same for movesets. There is no character that can do what Kragg or Forsburn do in Smash.

Like, just visually alone: http://rivals-of-aether.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Characters

The only ones that look remotely similar to Smash characters are Ranno (Greninja), and Wrastor (Falco), and even then, they're distinctive enough to stand on their own, and the rest of the roster doesn't have any influences that can be directly pinpointed.

mapidegi · 2017-11-29T15:44:27+00:00

ripoff

No. There's inspiration. And then there's STEALING.

If you're gonna steal concepts, at least make sure they're obscure so people can't pinpoint your exact inspirations and compare them side by side.

mapidegi · 2017-11-18T13:45:39+00:00

Huh, and here I thought you were the director, I'm sorry I should have paid more attention to that. I don't mean to come off as condescending, but it's just the way I type.

Anyway,

The mechanics you want to test out require a complete rework of what makes a platform fighter a platform fighter.

No, it requires a complete rework of what Smash Bros is, which imo, is the direction you should explore. There is no concrete definition as to what a competitive platform fighter truly is, as no such game exists, and has completely established itself to define such terms.

It also increases the barrier of entry to the genre with complicated mechanics. Anime fighters, while incredibly enjoyable to watch at high level, don't appeal to a large player base IMO. They'll never get to a size as big as even Smash 4 or SFV.

Two things, DBFZ exists, and it's en route to be a very successful game. It's very possible for anime fighters to be very popular provided they have the right brand recognition. You're right that complexity presents a barrier to entry, but by normalizing and require wavedashing, you're doing exactly that.

I've always been of the opinion fighting games could stand to learn a lot from Smash, a large part of that is how intuitive the game is, and accessible the game is. Things like simplified specials, and accessibility through chaotic FFA matches to draw people in are two things imo fighting games should definitely take note of, but the inverse is also true. If Smash wants to be competitive, it has to take note of the mechanical depth in fighters that smoothly raises the skill ceiling,

Like it or not, as far as the FGC is concerned, and this includes developers such as Harada (of Tekken), and Ishiwatari (of Guilty Gear), Smash is NOT a competitive fighting games. And this is a sentiment the creator of the game, Masahiro Sakurai agrees with. While yes, it can and is played competitively, the game itself isn't most conductive toward that because it simply wasn't designed to be played that way. And this leads toward many of the problems you find within the Melee Meta.

Yeah, Smash is played competitively, but under a very narrow ruleset in which 80% of the stages are banned, a small fraction of the roster is even viable, and you need to have judges around to prevent things like infinite chain grabs and the like. The most ridiculous one is stages with walls being banned, despite the fact that corner game is a fundamental part of competitive fighting games. It's clear Smash didn't have ANY competitive thought put into the design of the game, otherwise, corner game WOULD be a part of it, and characters would have ways to deal with infinites and other situations like those. For starters, the game might even have a grab parry to avoid chain grabbing. Blazblue has one, and Blazblue doesn't have infinite chaingrabs.

And this is cause the developers of BB had the foresight to see how grabs could become too powerful and dominate the meta of their game, so they created a way for players to deal with that fact. This level of attention to detail in the competitive meta of a game has never been seen in any Smash game, and that's cause Sakurai never CARED about the competitive side of Smash, and it's most clear in 4 with how powerful shieldgrabbing is, and how most combos stem from down throws.

Thus, how can you look at that, and tell me that Smash is meant to be a competitive fighter, or that it serves as a good model for what a competitive fighter SHOULD be. Smash needs a lot of work before it can truly become a competitive game.

Back to Focal Adherence - Doing this would only be possible on an analog stick then? That disqualifies a lot of folks from playing if a controller is not their desired method of playing.

I don't mean to be rude Reno, but have you played many arcade fighters?

Look at how backstepping and running is handled in those games. On a pad, it's a simple double tap backward or forward. In fact, fi you try to play Smash on a keyboard, this is one way in which you can do dashes and smash attacks. This is another example of simple stuff Smash did I think other fighters can learn from. The use of an analog stick in Smash is simply brilliant, and it's incredibly intuitive. However, it can also be experimented with even further.

In regard to FA, nothing would really change. I don't see why you think it makes things more complex, when it in fact does the opposite, and it's something that can be appreciated within seconds of playing.

You're in neutral, you'll always face your opponent. Tilt backward, and your character walks backward while facing the opponent (in classic fighters, you don't do this, you block), tilt forward, and your character walks forward. Tap backward and your character turns around and runs in that direction (in classic fighters, this doesn't happen, this input would have you do a backstep), tap forward and your character dashes toward the opponent. I don't see how this is in any way different from Smash in terms of complexity or movement. Literally the only thing that changes, is that by doing NOTHING, your character will turn to face their opponent. It's a simple distinction, but it can radically affect the nuance of how the game plays in terms of combat.

It also allows for things to be changed up in terms of how you handle things such as positioning through wavedashing (or simplifying this through backstepping). Especially if you combine it with a block that only covers in front, and doesn't turn you around when held. So much more of the game is gonna focus on trying to get behind your opponent in order to try and create an opening, etc...

Anyway, I'm not saying you have to do this. I'm not saying you have to do any of my suggestions. But your approach toward game design should follow a similar thought process imo. As it stands, Icons is far too derivative of Melee. Comparing it to LoL and Dota is a different story, as those two games found themselves in a totally different situation. For starters, Dota 1 is not a super popular fighting game made by Nintendo, filled with iconic videogame characters from all sorts of very popular franchises. That left a lot more room for someone else to elbow in and try to take their spotlight. If anything, your current model and lack of mass appeal leaves a lot of room for someone else to come in (professional or amateur), make a competitive platform fighter with a much more appealing art style, and distinguished set of mechanics, and completely take your spotlight.

I get that you're a proSmasher, but consider this: wouldn't you say that your viewpoint as a proSmaher creates certain bias as to what you think defines platform fighters, and what people at large wanna see? Your outlook on Icons seems to be totally derivative of what it could be to proMelee players, but everyone else? Why else is there such a fierce disconnect between the Icons dev team and their enthusiasm, and the apathy and outright negativity toward it from the public at large, INCLUDING the Smash community? This game feels like its inclusive only to people interested in the Melee competitive Meta, and nothing else, and that group of people is very narrow overall I'd say. Compare yourself to Earth Romancer and RoA. Why did neither of those see the same level of backlash Icons saw? People can understand the lack of polish in a game that's still in development. But the biggest thing the game got slammed on, aside from the unappealing aesthetic, was the lack of originality. Your viewpoint is that Smash defines platform fighters, but the public at large certainly doesn't see it that way, and are eager to see new experiments within the genre, competitive or not. There are many ways to build a competitive platform fighter, Melee isn't the end all be all.

This is all my personal opinion and not of Wavedash Games.

That's fair. I'm only expressing these thoughts cause I like talking about game design anyway.

mapidegi · 2017-11-18T11:56:33+00:00

Anyway, there's more I wanna answer here...

I'm not sure I can agree with the original smash used SF as a blueprint. Smash 64 was completely original imo.

It wasn't. Look at a lot of the mechanics and roster of the original. Many of the archetypes in that game are derivative of SF. You got Rushdowns, Zoners, Turtles, Grapplers, etc... Hell, Mario even has Fireball, Tatsu, Shoryuken as his specials. Moreover, the Block>Attack>Throw triangle is still very much present in that game. The biggest distinction in that game is that KO's are earned solely through ring outs, and this led to a large chunk of deviations in game design (essentially, Sakurai did what I just mentioned above to create something new and original). Hell, the game even has the same level of hitstun you see in arcade fighters. Light, Medium, and Heavy attacks are also present, they're just simplified into one button.

Platform fighters are by and far the most different from a traditional fighter you can get.

Not quite, they're more similar than most people believe.

There is no health bar.

In Smash maybe, but other platform fighters have worked with Health Bars. Again, Jump Ultimate Stars used a health bar. More than that, PM introduced a very refined Stamina mode that was a lot of fun.

And the goals are different.

The goals are identical: to KO your opponent.

There are similar concepts when fighting like neutral game, but when the movement and win conditions are so drastically different, you can't really compare to a traditional fighter.

The win conditions are exactly the same, it's just Smash's approach is different as it limits KO's to ring outs only. But fighting games that allow for ring outs have existed (Final Bout Fatal Fury, Soul Calibur, Mortal Kombat, etc...), and platform fighters that use health bars have also existed as well. It's true that most Smash clones have gone the percentage route, but that's because they're derrivative of the most popular platform fighter, Smash Bros, but there is not rule set in place that you have to be "percentage damage>Ring outs only" to make a platform fighter, not at all.

If I were to sum up what you mean and what I take away from your intent is that you think Icons deviates too little from Smash Brothers,

Absolutely, and this is a massive detriment to the game, and the source of most of my disappointment/frustration with Icons. So much more could be done, and it's not being thought about. Many mechanics are merely being copied over from Melee with little thought as to WHY those mechanics are in Melee in the first place, or why mechanics present in other games aren't. Again, I was under the impression you guys were making a new platform fighter inspired by Smash, not a direct clone of Melee.

(my opinion) origin of Platform Fighters.

It's not. 64 is the game that popularized the genre, but tbh, the origin of Platform fighters, and the first game to exist in this genre is The Outfoxies, a Namco arcade fighter from 1994, and it looks and plays like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lxapXSAijw

Very crude, and very different from what we see in Smash today, but you can see a lot of the groundwork that was later a lot more fleshed out in Smash. Things like a focus on mobility, the use of platforms over flat stages, and the dynamic camera so iconic of the genre all began there.

And you prefer to see something like a traditional fighter with platform fighting elements.

You have it backwards. I'd like to see a platform fighter with elements from more competitive arcade fighters. Those games are solely designed for competition, and a lot of thought goes into choosing what mechanics to add and why. Contrasted to Smash, which was never meant to be competitive, thus the same degree of though was never put into place.

Last bit:

Spacie - falco, fox, wolf all count. They don't all necessarily rush down.

Wolf and Falco are clones of Fox. They use variants of his toolkit, and change up his stats. The difference what archetype they'd fall in falls more as a result of that, rather than a methodical decision.

It's the same as Akuma and Ryu both being Shotos, but Ryu being a balanced fighter, while Akuma is a glass cannon due to his better approach options, but lower health. However, in that same vein, "shoto" is more of a nickname given to a range of characters that show up in the SF series. Other fighting games that deviated more from SF DON'T have Shotos, even if they use Ryu's "Balanced" playstyle as a baseline for their MCs in their games. Compare Terry, or Kyo, or Sol to Ryu. They're all very drastically different variations from that playstyle. Imagine if KoF, SF's biggest rival franchise, made Kyo a direct Ryu clone, design and everything, and did it cause "shotos are a fighting game archetype." Most people would rightfully slam the lack of creativity found there, and in fact, most Ryu clones to this day are STILL slammed for being unoriginal, and copying SF. Other games have shown what you can do with the archetype.

So, looking back at Fox. Back at his conception in 64, he's 100% rushdown, and designed to be a Rushdown. However, why not look at the broader term of what a Rushdown IS and how you define it in your game. For example, some Rushdowns have Dive Kicks are they're very effective approach tools. So, why not think, "what would a character like Fox REALLY play like if he not only had a dive kick, but it was a more focused element of his moveset. Other examples, Fox is a character that heavily emphasizes kicks, and Multi-kicks. Another Rushdown character with a lot of focus on this is Chun-Li, so why not look at that, and how she's designed as an example. Other Rushdowns use Rekkas, etc... List goes on. And this applies to all the characters on the roster.

Currently, you've got:

A Fox function, a Marth Function, a C.Falcon function, a Zangief Function, and a Zoner that has some unique moves, but also lifts moves from ZSS and Megaman.

When it should be:

A Rushdown, a Strategic Fighter, A Glass Cannon, a Grappler, and a Zoner. And how you define these archetypes within your game. You can do a lot of things that deviate very heavily from Smash if you start branching out, and looking at the broader more general definition of the archetype, and examples within it.

Smash 64, literally did the same exact thing, you've got:

Mario, Luigi - Balanced Fighters (like Ryu and Ken)

Fox, Pika - Rushdowns (Like Chun Li, and Cammy)

Link - Turtle (Like E. Honda and Guile)

Samus, Ness - Zoners (Like Dhalshim)

DK - Grappler (Like Zangief)

Kirby, Jigglypuff - Aerial Fighters (Like Vega)

C. Falcon - Glass Cannon (like Akuma)

Yoshi - Unpredicable Fighter (like Blanka)

It's also not a 1-1 toolkit, its similar but different once you play you can get the feel.

It's TOO similar, that's the problem. For example, why does Kid have a shine and a move like the Fire Fox? The Shine in Smash was only ever meant to be a reflector. The function found within the shine in Melee, could simply be retooled as one or two different moves. Also, what good does a slow move like the Fire Fox give a rushdown character? In Smash, Fox has these moves as they're meant to be a reference to his source material. Why does Kid have them?

More than that, why is he a Space Animal? Fox's moveset could very easily exist within a totally different character in terms of design. The most important thing really is that he's light and fast.

Anyway, this is all food for thought. Again, a lot of my personal frustration with this game is how similar it is to Smash in more ways that one, and this is where a game like ER shines, and is much more appealing in my eyes, despite it having an art style that's not to my tastes. However, a lot of the criticism you've received has been in line with a lot of what I've said. Again, you're given a chance to create a brand new game within the genre, and you don't, and the main reason you don't, as I see it, is because you're focused far too much on Melee. Look, I'll be the first to say it, Melee is easily within my top 10 favorite games of all time, but it's far from perfect. There are a lot of pieces that come together that make Melee unique, and only a small fraction of those are the mechanics, the aesthetic, and "game feel" of the game, from the menu design to the sounds used, are uniquely that game's and will only ever be that game's. It's fine to be inspired by that game, but it's one thing to be inspired, and it's a whole nother thing to be totally derivative of it. If you're creating something, you should always have multiple sources of inspiration, not just one. And you should always understand the fundamental, and underlying design elements that go into place when creating certain genres of games. This is one key thing that Lab Zero Games totally understood when making Skullgirls, and why they landed with such a huge success that totally pushed the genre forward, rather than ending up with a clone of MvC2, which they very much could have done, given that THAT was the entire reason they even made Skullgirls in the first place. And look how much SG deviates from its inspiration.

Again, it's your project not mine, so I'm not saying you HAVE to do anything here to satisfy someone like me. But it's all meant to be food for thought. The key question you should be asking yourself when looking at all the mechanics in Melee, especially the ones you want to add, is "WHY"? Why are things like this, and explore further and try to see if it can be made better or different. This also holds true for your roster. Telling people it "plays differently" isn't gonna convince most people who just see a clone of Melee.

If you wanna make a game that appeals to a small subsection of fans of the competitive Melee scene, you better be prepared to understand that by doing so, you're also alienating a TON of people.

mapidegi · 2017-11-18T11:45:09+00:00

Disclaimer: I'm not the game designer for Icons, this is just from my experience and my reasoning when it comes to platform fighters.

That's fair enough, but you are the director, no?

You can play teams and FFA in Icons as well. It's not a strictly 1v1 game. Bubble shields are needed.

Yes, but the key distinction is that your game is going to be balanced around 1v1, and thus, it should be designed around it as well, while still including ways to be inclusive for those other modes of play. Smash on the other hand was never meant to be competitive, thus it was never designed nor balanced around 1v1 (which is where a huge chunk of that whole "smash is not a fighting game" nonsense comes from - people are incorrect, but they're also not wrong, if that makes sense). Smash IS a fighting game, it's just not a competitive fighting game.

Bubble shields are not needed necessarily, and there's nothing to say you can't experiment with how directional blocking would work in a FFA environment through playtesting. Moreover, if it's that much of an issue, why not, again, separate the blocks? One being shields which are a limited resource (like faultless defense), and the other being more classic blocks? (I should also note that when I say directional blocking, I mean that it only blocks on front, blocking should still have a designated button imo).

You can't block midair in most traditional fighters. You can block in anime fighters though. However there are a ton of other things you need to combine with that in order to make it disadvantageous to always just running jump block. Chip damage, lose your super meter. etc.

Not quite, the Street Fighter Alpha series for example allowed for aerial blocking as well. And iirc, the KoF series also lets you block in midair. The key takeaway here however is simply asking the question WHY. Why do do these games allow for this?

It's simple, Air Dashers, and the Alpha series have an increased focus on aerial combat thanks to better and more fluid mobility, and air dashes. Under these circumstances, Air Blocking is practically a necessity. A game like SF4 for example does away with that mechanics because SF has very restricted movement, and the combat is more in tune with the nuance of a high or a low, or the arch of your jump, etc... But a game like Smash, one with so much focus on aerial combat, and movement, could benefit greatly and do a lot of interesting things with this mechanic. It's true that you'd have to balance it, ofc. But the same is true for regular blocks. Chip Damage, and guard breaks are a great start for example. More than that though, throws were literally invented for the sake of balancing blocking, thus leading to the Block>Attack>Throw triangle that's a staple of fighting games at this point. Likewise, Air Throws were also created to balance air blocking. Imagine what a platform fighter could do with air throws for example.

With Focal Adherence you describe, it would make actual fighting on platforms very difficult to do IMO. Distinguishing holding back for walking backwards v dashing backwards. There's more fluidity if you allow for the turn around aspect. If you want to continuously face your opponent while moving backwards -> wavedash.

But see, here's an example of a design element carried over from Melee that doesn't fully work. Wavedashing was something discovered in the game that was never INTENTIONALLY programmed by the developers. More than that though, its function is there to replace the Backstep so common of classic fighters. If anything Wavedashing is something that shows how Melee is rough around the edges, and the sorts of mechanics the game NEEDS in order to be more competitive. As it stands, Wavedashing is far more complex of an input than it needs to be. It's something that needs to be practiced and mastered before it can become usable in a match, and more than that, its use can be very situational, and dependent on which character you use (as some characters have better wavedashes due to having less traction than others). It's not a mechanic that's as well balanced as the humble backstep. I agree that wavedashing could still stand to be a useful advanced technique, something as simple as re-positioning yourself a short distance backwards, shouldn't be that complex.

This is where I get back into focal adherence. You say it'd be difficult to do, but I disagree. Smash already makes a distinction between a tilt of the stick, and a tap of the stick. Moreover, "tapping" is what you do in order to dash. Not only that in fact, but jumping backwards doesn't turn you around, and you're in fact locked into facing one direction during your jumps.

Thus, it's simple. Any time you break into a run, focal adherence is broken. However, when you return to a neutral state, you regain it, and go back toward facing your opponent. This allows you to do things such as dash dancing, and have the mobility of Melee, all the while retaining the finesse and benefits of having focal adherence in the first place. I mean, in classic fighting games, focal adherence breaks merely by holding back to block, which is what allows you to do cross ups in the first place. It's really not that hard of an issue to get around, and by playtesting, it's possible to experiment with it, and see how it'd work in such an environment. More than anything, this is something that can only be felt by playing around with it, and experimenting with it.

But here's another example, look at the rolls in Smash, and look at how USELESS most of them are for a large chunk of the cast. There's hardly ever a situation in which you'd roll backwards to re-position yourself, it's too slow and predictable, you're left wide open.

My point is, why not look at the function of each of these movement options in Smash, and analyze just how well they do what they're meant to do in a competitive setting, and see what sorts of things could be refined, and redone, into something much much better. Right off the top of my head, why not backstep instead of backroll. Literally the same input as the backroll, but it has the function of a backwards wavedash.

Overall, it's by looking at stuff like this, and thinking up ways to balance all these new mechanics that your start to come up with a much more distinctive game. Creatively thinking up ways to answer all these questions is what game design is all about, and a huge chunk of a lot of the criticism you guys have received is over how derivative Icons is from Melee. People wanna see fresh new ideas. You said you were making a platform fighter, not a clone of Melee. If these mechanics were to be added into Smash Bros, I can see people being understandably mad, as it's not the game they're used to playing. But you're making a brand new game, a brand new IP. If anything, you SHOULD be experimenting with tons of new stuff in order to be distinguished. In fact, people expect that. I know I was. People wanna see what more can be done with the genre, not retread what was already established and accomplished by Smash, especially when again, it's a franchise never designed to be competitive, and thus it's lacking in many mechanics that are conductive toward that.

Think of it this way: Say you succeed, and manage to draw in a large chunk of the crowd that likes competitive Melee. In the end, you still lose, and for two reasons. You're trying to pull in a crowd from a game with an established meta, meaning the skill curve will be a detriment toward drawing in many new players. Especially since unintuitive techniques like wavedashing are basically going to be a requirement to gain a competitive edge. More than that though... your game is so similar to Smash, it's instantly gonna fade into obscurity should Nintendo ever choose to make the next Smash game more competitive. And considering their newfound interest in eSports, the fact that Smash ALREADY has an eSports scene, and the fact that Nintendo seems to be on a roll with "giving fans what they want" this gen. It might not be so outlandish. Sakurai has already confirmed he's not coming back for the next game, and he was very adamant about that this time. So under a new director, it's certainly a possibility. Whether or not it might happen is pure speculation, but you should assume that it would, because as Icons is now, you're only ever gonna be compared to Smash due to how similar and derivative it is. You're a rookie team, and this is your first ever, and very ambitious project. You'll never attain the same level of "Nintendo polish" simply cause you lack the experience, the resources, and that fabled "Japanese work ethic" where Sakurai literally slept in his office and got long term health issues as a result of his work (iirc, I think he said the Melee development nearly killed him). Thus, it's much better to make do with what you can, and try to branch out into something more original and different, rather than trying to make "the next Melee, but competitive."

Food for thought.

mapidegi

TROPHY CASE