Tom McShea: Why Smash doesn't need change

#1 Posted by nintendoboy16 (26283 posts) -

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?

#2 Edited by uninspiredcup (7874 posts) -

Did Syndicate need changed? Did Dragon Age need changed?

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

#3 Posted by wolverine4262 (19057 posts) -

My thoughts?

lolTomMcsheaopinion.

#4 Posted by Blabadon (25954 posts) -

"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

#5 Posted by Jeager_Titan (945 posts) -

My thoughts?

lolTomMcsheaopinion.

You got that roght. Boooo on tom mcshea opinion.

#6 Posted by Desmonic (13457 posts) -

This kinda goes against their (and by their I mean the general review outlets, not just GS) "motto" in these past few years of popular franchises NEEDING changes to be any good (for better or worse).

It's not that I disagree with what he says but if you're going to follow a certain direction in your reviews, don't allow staff to start opening exceptions. Might as well just say you're gonna review each game within its own context, as it makes more sense IMO. Not every single game needs to be compared to everything else out there to be deemed good or not.

And yes, I do understand it's his opinion. But it's his opinion posted on GS, for whom he works for and reviews games. Therefore one can assume his own opinion will play heavily into how he reviews games (or certain games at least).

#7 Posted by MonsieurX (29576 posts) -

Did Syndicate need changed? Did Dragon Age need changed?

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

Looks like the same about you

#8 Posted by ActicEdge (24378 posts) -

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.

#9 Posted by StrifeDelivery (1396 posts) -
#10 Posted by sonic_spark (4599 posts) -

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.

#11 Posted by kinectthedots (1629 posts) -

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.

#12 Posted by handssss (1825 posts) -

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.

#13 Posted by kaealy (1454 posts) -

"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?

#14 Posted by nintendoboy16 (26283 posts) -

@handssss said:

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.

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

#15 Posted by gamer2444 (29 posts) -

Nintendo....lolllll.

#16 Edited by DocSanchez (1568 posts) -

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.

#17 Posted by foxhound_fox (87754 posts) -

Tom McShea is pretty much a try-hard now.

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

#18 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (7007 posts) -

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

#19 Edited by YearoftheSnake5 (7219 posts) -

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

#20 Edited by DJ-Lafleur (34144 posts) -

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

#21 Posted by jg4xchamp (47431 posts) -

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.

#22 Posted by princeofshapeir (13791 posts) -

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.

#23 Posted by nini200 (9615 posts) -

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

#24 Posted by LegatoSkyheart (24924 posts) -

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

#25 Posted by Shinobishyguy (22424 posts) -

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

#26 Edited by parkurtommo (26534 posts) -

Brawl is better than melee.

It has better graphics.

#27 Posted by Big_Pecks (5245 posts) -

Watch it get a 6.

#28 Posted by RageQuit4Life (351 posts) -

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

.

#29 Edited by 93BlackHawk93 (5326 posts) -

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

#30 Posted by 93BlackHawk93 (5326 posts) -

Watch it get a 6.

I can see that happening. -_-

#31 Edited by Heil68 (43508 posts) -

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

#32 Posted by Shinobishyguy (22424 posts) -

@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

#33 Posted by stereointegrity (10701 posts) -

the only reason im buying a wii u

#34 Posted by princeofshapeir (13791 posts) -

@nini200 said:

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

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

Melee is the most well-balanced of the official games

#35 Posted by MBirdy88 (7754 posts) -

@Desmonic said:

This kinda goes against their (and by their I mean the general review outlets, not just GS) "motto" in these past few years of popular franchises NEEDING changes to be any good (for better or worse).

It's not that I disagree with what he says but if you're going to follow a certain direction in your reviews, don't allow staff to start opening exceptions. Might as well just say you're gonna review each game within its own context, as it makes more sense IMO. Not every single game needs to be compared to everything else out there to be deemed good or not.

And yes, I do understand it's his opinion. But it's his opinion posted on GS, for whom he works for and reviews games. Therefore one can assume his own opinion will play heavily into how he reviews games (or certain games at least).

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.

#36 Posted by Bread_or_Decide (17354 posts) -

@nini200 said:

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

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

Melee is the most well-balanced of the official games

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.

#37 Edited by nini200 (9615 posts) -

@nini200 said:

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

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

Melee is the most well-balanced of the official games

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

#38 Posted by nini200 (9615 posts) -

@princeofshapeir said:

@nini200 said:

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

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

Melee is the most well-balanced of the official games

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.

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.

#39 Posted by Desmonic (13457 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

@Desmonic said:

This kinda goes against their (and by their I mean the general review outlets, not just GS) "motto" in these past few years of popular franchises NEEDING changes to be any good (for better or worse).

It's not that I disagree with what he says but if you're going to follow a certain direction in your reviews, don't allow staff to start opening exceptions. Might as well just say you're gonna review each game within its own context, as it makes more sense IMO. Not every single game needs to be compared to everything else out there to be deemed good or not.

And yes, I do understand it's his opinion. But it's his opinion posted on GS, for whom he works for and reviews games. Therefore one can assume his own opinion will play heavily into how he reviews games (or certain games at least).

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.

Like I said in my post, if an entity is trying to follow a certain trend, then don't let exceptions (like this one) happen. Otherwise, also like I said, don't follow those trends and just review each game according to it's own context, which makes a lot more sense IMO.

I don't disagree with what he said, I disagree with this trend review outlets have tried to push where even new IP's need to be different and do thing differently. It's apparently a crime nowadays for a game to just be another good entry in a specific genre.

#40 Edited by princeofshapeir (13791 posts) -

@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

#41 Posted by princeofshapeir (13791 posts) -

@nini200 said:

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.

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?

#42 Posted by nini200 (9615 posts) -

@nini200 said:

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.

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.

#43 Edited by princeofshapeir (13791 posts) -

@nini200 said:

@princeofshapeir said:

@nini200 said:

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.

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

#44 Edited by nini200 (9615 posts) -

@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

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

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

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

#45 Edited by princeofshapeir (13791 posts) -

@nini200 said:

@princeofshapeir said:

@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

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

@princeofshapeir said:

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

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 :(

#46 Edited by DJ-Lafleur (34144 posts) -

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.

#47 Posted by The_Last_Ride (70789 posts) -

McShea doesn't know what he's talking about

#48 Posted by drummerdave9099 (654 posts) -

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