Tom McShea: Why Smash doesn't need change

Article here

Reasons:

Six years is a long time

There is nothing else like it (he makes a pretty bad example using Onimusha: Blade Warriors though)

Balance perfection

The wrath of the scorned

Consumer demand

---

So, after you've read the whole thing. Thoughts?

Did Syndicate need changed? Did Dragon Age need changed?

Publishers only give a shit about money. Everything he mentioned means shit.

My thoughts?

lolTomMcsheaopinion.

"If you've been out of the Smash loop for a few years, you may have missed the brouhaha surrounding Brawl. People hate it. Well, that may be a little strong, but it's turned off the competitive community so much that it's been shelved while Melee takes center stage. Don't believe me? Just go to EVO next year, yell "Brawl is better than Melee!" and watch the fireworks. Preferably from a safe distance."

#Truth

Looks like the same about you

Smash doesn't need to change but they are doing a lot of fun stuff with this one. Customization in movesets is absolutely huge and a crazy good addition.

I agree with the general concept...

But I lol'd at Tom McShea saying a franchise doesn't need change. I find that to be one of his main criticisms of existing franchises. Interesting read nonetheless.

My god, this just make his opinion that much more un-credible.

How many times in the past has he criticized games for being more of the same as a negative, even though they were still great games in their own right?

There is something to be said about having a consistent and fair critical opinion, which Tom feels he can completely ignore depending on his preferences.

shit reasons. he really doesn't care just because he likes it as is. if it were any other franchise he didn't care this much about, he'd be docking points for not doing enough things differently. then again, it's a nintendo game, so it was already guaranteed to be exempt from this type of criticism.

"Balance perfection"?

I've heard people moan about balance for years since the release of the latest smash, isn't there even characters that are banned by EVO?

Where the **** do people still get this idea when it's not even true?

If it didn't need change you would be a fool even buying the new one. Just play the old ones if it's the same. Every franchise needs some change, to some degree.

Tom McShea is pretty much a try-hard now.

If it didn't need change, they wouldn't be making a new one.

I bet he reviews the game now and docks it points for being too similar to previous installments.

What he says isn't wrong, though alot of what he says isn't necessarily exclusive to Smash either.

I think that's a lazy justification. Yes the last 2 makes some sense; you don't want to alienate your fanbase/cripple yourself from a sales standpoint.

But fundamentally what makes a sequel great to me has always been those willing to mix it up. The ones that don't want to stick to the obvious formula, and are willing to make changes. That's not to say you can't just taken a proven concept, and enhance it even more to a point of perfection (Super Mario Galaxy 2 for instance), but games that are just the status quo are no worse than the shit we bitch at COD/Madden for. I don't buy that a gap in releases justifies releasing the same game over n over again. I don't buy that "time spent" and "effort" and "love" overrule the part where the game is the same game. I don't buy that a creative studio is bound to its fanbase. Let's be real that "shitty" smash game sold a ton. Nintendo's fanbase is enough of a hivemind that they will follow Nintendo's decision making.

So yeah, I don't think anything he wrote would justify "Oh, they made another fucking smash bros" feeling. For the record I want a more nuanced fighter, or at the least something that has a good fighting engine like Melee, as opposed to the gameplay per square inch borefest that was Brawl.

It does need change, and they are changing a lot with Smash 4, so I don't get the point of this article. And unlike Brawl, a lot of the change is meaningful content instead of a dumb gimmick like Subspace Emissary.

Balance Perfection? Smash hasn't been balanced well since 64 and even 64 wasn't perfectly balanced. Melee was an unbalanced mess and so was Brawl. But then again you read that it's Tom Mcshea and go meh whatever lol

Tom doesn't realize that Smash Bros. Changes from Game to Game.

How much can a fighter like smash change between sequels? Eventually it will get to the point where it isn't even smash anymore

Brawl is better than melee.

It has better graphics.

Watch it get a 6.

It's not broken, so it doesn't need any change.

.

It's changing quite a lot actually. Any SSB fan that is following this game closely can say that.

I can see that happening. -_-

People wont care what they do to it and still buy it.

@93BlackHawk93: lol I'd like to see their reasoning behind that. Unless the online is broken like brawl I don't see it getting less than 8

the only reason im buying a wii u

64 wasn't balanced well at all, Pikachu is borderline broken

Melee is the most well-balanced of the official games

your logic is flawed. he explained it was a 6 year gap. most of the franchises demanding change are yearly itteration games like cod. never have they made it a universal rule.

I really don't ever get how a party fighting game is or even must be balanced. It's just people jumping around trying to toss eachother off screen.

And the people who play this game "seriously" always make me laugh. I've seen countless youtube videos of "tournament style smash" and it looks ridiculous.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

It is indeed a game where fighting is involved so balance is important whether its a traditional fighter or not.

Melee however was a super speed mess with absolutely atrocious hitstun. However, it did have a great character roster and the best stage design out of the 3 so I'll give it that.

@nini200: Pikachu has no unfavorable or even matchups in 64. Fox and Falco have several even matchups in Melee. Pikachu was always top-tier since 64 was played competitively, whereas Fox and Falco had to earn top-tier status as Melee's meta developed. And there's the fact that 64 isn't as technical as Melee and 64 Pikachu doesn't require anywhere near the amount of skill as spacies in Melee (at a high level of play). People think just because 64's roster was small it was balanced, and that because there are useless characters in Melee like Kirby and Pichu Melee is unbalanced; but when a single character in a game is objectively better than every other character in the game--which isn't the case in Melee--that game is unbalanced.

@Bread_or_Decide: If you don't know anything about the competitive scene and don't care, I don't see why you're adamant on flaunting your ignorance

You think Melee's the game with atrocious hitstun? lol, I thought you played 64. Or do you mean there's not enough hitstun and 0-to-death combos actually require some effort?

Lol somebody's upset at the truth lol Don't worry so much, it's just a video game, it wont keep you up at night.

Melee didn't have enough hitstun.

Melee with 64 hitstun would be stupid

If it legitimately didn't have enough hitstun it wouldn't have had the biggest competitive scene of any Smash Bros. game since 2001

Awww, we made the wittle baby cry. It's ok wittle baby, the truth hurts but it'll be ok.

Ooh we got a double post lol somebody's mad that truth is being told about their favorite smash bros game Lol Waahhh Waahhhh

Yo, if you like 64 that's cool, I never said I hated it; I like all of the Smash Bros. games. Just don't think it's balanced like Melee is. The least you could do is come up with an actual rebuttal :(

Melee's balance wasn't perfect but it was definitely better balanced than 64 and Brawl.

melee's hitstun is perfectly fine. I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've ever heard someone complain about it.

McShea doesn't know what he's talking about

watch him review it and take points away for "not enough changes"