We look into the difference between Rivals of Aether and every Smash game. Discord: / discord Patreon: / adamcarra Twitter: / adam_carra #supersmashbros #rivalsofaether
Nah this comment is right Ocarina of Time is a sequel to Link to the Past despite they both playing v differently, because they were crafted by the same people as part of the same series (and that's what sequel means) A spiritual succesor could be an indie game that plays like ALTTP like Hyper Lightdrifter, Moonlighter and other games (maybe not indies) that are top down dungeon exploring games, so they play more like ALTTP than OoT while not being sequels
@hhh hhh I think what he means is a lot of the smash players who haven't played Rivals on PC because they were waiting for the Switch port are going get that version when it drops. I'd imagine the Rivals community would start to grow even more thanks to the Switch version. By how much is uncertain but it can only go up from here imo.
Holy Chief sonic is playable hes just frustrating to play against the people playing him have fun camping theyre opponents probably and no were not fine because no one wants more sonic players LOL but yeah they need to give sonic a moveset revamp
@@coral3831 I mean yeah just revamp his moveset because I main Sonic ok but seriously I hate when people think it's ok to just spam a sonic player like me because when I play Ridley I win more because I don't get spammed to death but when I play sonic people spam kill me to death like wtf is wrong with them so I have to spam them till tjey die.
He means individually vs as a whole, so each character has their own relatively simple set, but when u look at the whole cast, there's loads more shit you can do edge guard than in melee
@@amirfroggie8370 each character in rivals has a few unique gimmicks, while in melee each character has loads of gimmicks that are mostly shared with the rest of the cast. In total you can do more shit with the entire cast in rivals, but you can do more with one character in melee
I was a PM player for a few years, and now I'm just starting to get into rivals of aether. I think you do an excellent job explaining why games like Smash Ultimate just don't sit well with the part of the community that enjoys the freedom of expression that can only be found in Melee, PM, and Rivals.
Well I was a melee player who moved onto ultimate, personally I love movement in my games and that's why I moved on to ultimate, cause I feel like I'm not wearing steel boots anymore, in ultimate every charcater is balanced and it's generally more fun to pick up and play.
I think the no shield and no grab was for the better, it puts more of an emphasis on movement as a means of evasion and defense as opposed to just standing still. It keeps the pressure and pace up
This tutorial was very helpful Adam, I kept on accidentally plugging my smash cartridge into my steam library. Now I can distinguish the two, thank you very much 10/10
Mean while Slap City has all of the above AND IT HAS FISH. Best smash game of all time, no fish no play. On a real note, I hate how you can't say brawl/smash 4/ultimate is a dumbed down game without being attacked. I'm not even trying to start an argument I'm just stating common sense in a conversation stop being maaaaad
The start of the video kinda frightens me. I’ve only played the three “casual smashes”, but I can’t wait to try Rivals when it comes on switch, it just looks so sick. I really hope I can vibe with it. Anybody that played Rivals after smash 4 and Ultimate want to share their experience?
I'm in the same boat as you, although I have played melee before - but to be blunt... I don't like it. It just feels bad to play even if I do something skillful, and honestly I find playing and watching Ultimate competitively far more fun aside from its issues with buffering. I haven't played Rivals, but watching it it seems to have a much better feel to it movement than melee. I think you'll be fine.
Enzlerf - Personally, I like Rivals much more than any Smash game I’ve played, although I’m not necessarily a big smash player in the first place. I only ever play smash casually, never competitively. Rivals stuck with me even though it’s game style is fairly based around the more ‘competitive smash’ titles. I think this is because the game is surprisingly easy to pick up on. It’s mechanics are clearly inspired by competitive smash, yet I was able to learn the game and its mechanics very quickly, whereas a game like melee takes a lot of practice. All in all, the game is easy to learn, but has a very high skill ceiling. This lets new players learn the game and get right to having fun, while also having a ton of room to improve your skills, making for a great game experience overall. Sorry for the essay type comment, just love the game and would highly recommend it
I absolutely love melee before I even put RoA so maybe that helped me transition, even tho there I was trash I can tell you,, having put 1k+ hours in sm4sh that it feels WAY more responsive, it has an amazing feel to it, it's kinda hard to grasp at first, but once you get around things like parry's instead of shields, it's amazing, maybe it isn't as flashy or you don't have your joker's like in ultimate, but it totally makes up for it, don't be afraid of the changes, it will cost you a little bit to get used to them, but if you spend at least a little bit of time I'm sure you'll love it
I started playing Smash competitively with Smash 4 and had a blast. I always thought Melee looked sick, but I hated the Gamecube controller and I also didn't want to soend months just to have a decent movement on that game. After some years, I was getting a bit bored with Smash in general, but RoA launched and caught my attention, and it was really fun, but it was not as good as it is now, so I didn't spend a lot of time playing it. Nowadays, after a lot of patches, the game is amazing and it is my favorite game of all time. It is easier to get into than Melee, but I think it's a lot more unforgiving with your mistakes, so it can scare out some new players, but I promisse you that learning the mechanics is a worth it.
Coming to thing as a competitive smash4 and now smash ult player, who can't get into the complexity of melee, this is a really fuckin great video. I honestly love both sides of these games and I'm super excited to try out rivals because its a bit easier to get into than melee, while still being as weird and fast paced.
I think the video was good, and as far as recovery and character design your analysis was spot on with the complexity. I would just say that melee neutral is not only more intricate, but also more complex due to shields. Shield pressure, being safe on shield, oos (out of shield) options, and of course grabs, that make the game very complex, not just more intricate. This is because it adds a layer of complexity outside of dash dancing and a whiff punish game. The ability to block attacks, punish attacks, and also on the offensive side is more intricate, sure, but in the end of the day it is by definition a far more complicated neutral because it just adds so much more to players options, necessary approaches, and things like that. Parrying definitely helps with this neutral game, but it is like having rock paper scissors without scissors (scissors being grab). I am very hopeful that for the next rivals game that is in development that they will add more complexity to the defensive side of the game with some unique form of shielding, because in the end adding more depth to defensive will also add more depth the offensive, and make the game more of a complete fighting game that has all the wonderful interactions that come with a blocking mechanic.
Everybody forgets about smash 64 :( I put it in the melee side, and that's why I think the brawl side feels so alienating for people who play since the 64 days.
64 is basically a beta of Melee. It has a lot of the Melee stuff but in a more simple jank way. Like the hitstun is just insane. You can do 100 different zero to death combos. They had to tone some stuff down to really create a more fluid game in Melee. But the essence of it was definitely there.
@@Saskaruto16 I'd argue that 64 is different enough to where it's honestly not on the "Melee Side" nor the "Brawl Side." It's different enough to me to where it's more like it's own thing than it is "Beta Melee." It feels it has a little too many differences for it to actually be "Beta Melee." At the same time, I also feel that Ultimate should also not be in the same category as Brawl & Smash 4, and would make more sense in either it's own category OR if not that, in the same category as 64 DESPITE all Smash games being very different games from each other.
I almost want to disagree with your point about shields and grabs. Sure, throws bring more animation load. However, i personally think there's more to their removal than that. Chain grabs, spamming out of shield options, wobbling, ledge grab stalling, the mechanics that were removed not only save effort but are also the most commonly cited short falls of existing smash games. Instead of engaging with these mechanics, which are notoriously troublesome in terms of pacing and balance, dan brilliantly circumvented them with streamlined mechanics that also further pushed the game in the desired direction in terms of the play experience and game speed. Parrying simply feels like a more elegant defensive option to me.
@@infectedanimal9830 yeah, I'm not thrilled with the change. I want to believe in Dan and I'm still interested in the new game, but there was a chain grab style combo in the trailer itself, so even if I like the new game I know it is deciding to leave the unique pace and style of play rivals 1 created behind.
Rivals is great imo because it removes some of the mechanics that encourage defensive, non-interactive play. No ledge planking, no sitting in shield, and running away is generally harder because all the characters have good movement options. My favorite aspect is parrying, because it has lag and it's a risk to just throw it out all the time. It leads to more interesting mixups than you have against a shielding opponent.
yeah honestly hit cancel + the movement options make Rivals so satisfactory to play, I also really like ultimate but when I'm playing online it's just like whatever throw some safe moves around and end the game
I loved smash ultimate, but then I got and started playing rivals, and now I can't imagine not being able to wave dash, it feels so wrong to play ultimate now
I literally just touched Smash Ultimate for the first time after only playing rivals for about 6 months and it is insane how much I miss wavedashing and decent air dodges when playing it
I think I understand how you tried to break down the design bifurcation in the two sets of games you laid out in the beginning. I'm not experienced enough in either to have an opinion on which is better, but I understand your distinction. Good Job.
I clicked on this video because while I know a lot about Smash, I know little about Rivals. But this is well-edited, and you're pretty funny. I'm gonna check out your other videos now, and maybe even subscribe.
Adam let me tell you something mister, this. This video. Is fucking sick, love how well edited it is and how your thumbnail matches with the design elements of the video. Its really nice.
An interesting ideological dissonance I see in a lot of these takes is the idea that Smash Bros games from Brawl onwards are more restrictive because they took out a lot of the advanced mechanics from Melee, namely L-cancelling and wavedashing. What I never hear anybody mention is how Ultimate made dashing free by allowing you to take any action to cancel any frame of your stopping animation. It's not as precise as wavedashing, but in my mind at least, this is the least restrictive form of movement that has ever been in a game like this, for the same reason wavedashing is held up to be this pinnacle of freedom; It allows you to act freely while maintaining mobility. You can of course make the argument that wavedashing is itself a restrictive form of movement due to its execution barrier, separating haves from have-nots and creating a situation where improper execution of a move creates a punishment that in the reality of the game world should never exist, similar to getting a random heavy punch in a Street Fighter when you mess up a hadoken, which is the same reason why Rivals has a dedicated strong attack button and the option to turn off stick sensitive moves in its control schemes, but I digress. I just think it's strange to equate freedom with advanced techniques. I do think Rivals may be the freest moving of all the games in this list, because it removes a lot of the punishment from the execution while still making basic forms of movement very versatile, but the very concept of a wavedash still seems like an aberration to me. It should never take three inputs to take one step backwards. Full stop. Unless you're playing QWOP I guess. But that's its own special thing.
I've had this feeling for the longest time, and I'm glad somebody finally phrase this sentiment better than I've been able to. Techs like wavedashing has always scared me away from melee and melee like games, the expectation that I am to repeatedly perform a very quick button sequence just for basic movement has always frightened me as it was something of a formidable mechanical barrier. it felt like I could wind up losing and getting punished not because I made the wrong call but because I blundered the input and wound up either doing something I didn't want to do, or doing nothing at all. and having to sit and train muscle memory to perform one action just feels like a waste of time to me, I'm not experiencing the meat of the game, I'm instead having to learn how to perform one action consistently just so that I can experience the meat of the game on an even playing field, and that won't be the only execution that I need to master either. and yet, I've always felt alone on the sentiment as it seems that for many players of fighting games like this, mechanical barriers are seen as a good thing because it separates legitimately good players from players that aren't good, as if people who can understand the mind games that are present in fighting games alone shouldn't be allowed to compete against those that can but also has a twitch reflexes to perform these actions.
Uhhhh, it doesnt take 3 inputs to take 1 step back. You can just walk backwards. Wavedashing is a choice. An option. You dont NEED to do it, its a skill that you practice and learn, like combos/recovery/edgeguarding, etc. Thats like saying you cant kill with ultimate Roy if you have a hard time inputting jab > attack cancel bair. (btw i would just like to point out that nobody has any problem with pivoting in sm4sh or attack cancelling in ultimate, and those techs are arguably way more difficult to perform than wavedashing but :/ )
Nobody is equating difficulty with freedom of movement. Rivals has the freedom of movement in melee without difficulty. Wavedashing gives you more freedom of movement than Ultimate's dashing because wavedashing is literally moving while doing nothing, which means you are moving while maintaining the ability to do every option that you can do when you are standing still (which is every option). In ultimate you can't perform every option out of dash and you can't move around with as much precision as you can with wavedashing because of things like the minimum length of your initial dash. It may be the least restrictive form of movement that the uncool side has ever had, but it's not more free than melee/rivals. And there are a lot of other reasons wavedashing is good for a game, like platform movement. You can waveland onto a platform to land on it quickly and be able to act almost immediately, compared to ultimate which adds a bunch of lag to wavelanding. And in melee you can wavedash or waveland to slide off of a platform which creates much more free platform movement than ultimate, especially when you combine it with the other things melee has like shield dropping. These things are all difficult in melee, and they also create freedom of movement. But that's just a coincidence. You can have one without the other. Rivals made stuff easy while keeping freedom of movement. Another thing, having advanced tech in the game puts no limits on casual players. How is wavedashing a restrictive form of movement? You act like the only way to move around in melee is by wavedashing. You aren't restricted at all by the presence of advanced techniques- if you don't want to use them, just pretend they aren't there and move around however you would like. The addition of an option is not a restriction. Here I would copy what Space Frog said about Roy's jab back air. If you don't like it, don't use it. It doesn't limit you. If you want to take your one step backwards with one input, you still can. Your second paragraph feels like a complaint about difficulty where you establish the idea that if you can't perform an option in a game immediately/without practice, then it's a bad game. I can understand your side of the argument here of not wanting to have to practice for a decent while to be able to move around optimally. That's why you play ultimate where everything is easy. But in the melee community we value tech skill because the more difficult something is, the more impressive it is to see it done. You know that the player had to practice for hours to perform it, so it's really cool. It wouldn't be nearly as cool if any fool could do it on their first time playing the game.
Hey great video, i think complexity vs intricacy may have been poor phrasing. Maybe you were looking for the phrase complexity vs depth? Where smash melee has high complexity, while rivals has a low complexity while maintaining the depth of melee.
He meant intricacies as being more subtle. The interactions in Melee require frame perfect precision and there's a lot of depth in the really small interactions. That's also because Melee is so optimized and dying off of one mistake is very common.
started playing rivals two days ago. wish I hadn't slept on it so long, and anybody who plays smash should also play it, you're straight up just missing out if you don't. Also don't why but I love these videos mostly because of Adams personality. Yall do amazing work
Obligatory underrated content creator comment: Thank you for all your content, Adam! You're channel is a gold mine of humor and insight. I'm always elated to see your new content, and when I need a chuckle I rewatch you and Stephan muck about in character specific tutorials. You're opinions are weighty and you defend them well. I hope someday I am in a place to support your content beyond just a loyal subscriber. Cheers, ~NairDoWell
I think one way of simplifying it it in a similar fashion to how you said it with saying rivals is more complex than melee while melee being more intricate is to look at the games in two different lights. Generally, Rivals of Aether is a much simpler game, however it's complexity comes down to the characters and what their own unique special effects bring, On the other hand, as a whole, Melee is much harder, every character in the whole cast can make use of many movement techniques which make Melee, Melee. However, many characters in Melee do not bring the same amount of unique and intricate designs as each other, this is especially true for echo fighters. With that said, both games go beyond just that, they share a lot of similarities in their differences, MU's are a prime example, Rival's with its limited (excluding custom character) cast allows for more deep match-ups requiring differing play-styles based on your opponent's character, the same goes for Melee for the exact same reasons. Count how many times I said Melee in one sentence, good luck lmao
I really enjoyed the video! You made great points. One HUGE thing I do feel like you should have mentioned is how much rivals rewards aggressive play compared to Melee/PM. No shields, and no chaingrabs mean no essentially "pauses" the game experiences. Rivals defensive options ARE more precise, and intricate IMO. but not as complex. I feel like Dan gave a lot more depth, and in the way shields and ledges function, they FUNDAMENTALLY make Melee easier to play very defensive playstyles. A good example is how floaty characters work in Rivals compared to Melee. In melee, it's optimal to abuse defensive options, while in rivals it is a lot different. Pretty long winded but I thought I should note just how much many melee players would like the game. It adds depth and removes ledge stalling, wobbling, chaingrabs, mechanics that inherantly are unfun to play as and against
For me, I love ultimate, but hate the lack of movement options, but dislike melee because it feels clunky due to having precise timings and tap jump. Rivals feels so fluid to me though, so I love it
Personally, and this is just me, I'm a melee and ultimate player who has played rivals a few times. Honestly I love the movement in ultimate and far enjoy it to melees. Along with competitive balance and large roster, it's my game of choice
@@DarkFart420 Rivals is actually surprisingly beginner friendly. Its got a robust tutorial, it feels good to play. Its got a small roster of very unique characters. I think its actually easier to jump into than Ult, which hides a lot of its advanced mechanics and has an overwhelming amount of characters.
Heyy Adam, I am one of those people that watch your videos on occasion but never sub! And it's funny because I really really enjoyed your videos! So I did sub to you. I really like your style and this video was really well done! Thanks
Just kinda nit picking here, but the terms complex and intricate are kind of misused especially considering that they are synonymous. in general rivals removes complexity compared to melee ex. shielding, l cancels, simpler wave dashing. However where rivals removes complexity it adds depth, ex. character specific effects and mechanics, recovery options. Complexity generally refers to the number of mechanics and systems required to play a game, mobile games aren’t complex, fighters are, whereas depth is the amount of profound and unique experiences and ways to play a game . Project + and rivals attempt to adapt melees complexity into a deep and rewarding, but still challenging experience whereas the later smash titles attempt to remove complexity to appeal to a more casual audience. Despite the lack of complexity the later smash titles still have a good level of depth and their own mechanics ex. Reverse aerial rushes, b reverses, wave bounces. Great video either way, the point you were trying to get across is still clear enough!
I agree with the points you made in this video but your argunent of "intricate vs complex" was really poorly explained Its more like the intricate small options in melee were brought to the forfront in rivals. Since rivals is a game designed around being competitive from the start dan had the advantage of making options seem much more intuitive and nessisary. In melee shit like shortening foxs illusion is needlessly hard cause the developers never thought to consider its competitive applications (and new players will never think to apply it properly anyways cause if you miss you die) Tldr: both games are still intricate but rivals intricacies are more easy to understand and execute
Thanks for the video! Unsubbed, disliked, left. I think it's pretty cool how every character in Rivals has a unique gimmick, yet doesn't feel "gimmicky". Compared to a character like Ike from Ultimate, who does not have a gimmick (the whole character is variations of frame data, hitboxes, weight, etc) and yet does feel kind of gimmicky because of NAir. That's just an example, I know there's more to Ike than nairing, but it's surprising how Rivals manages to avoid that trap of one-move characters even though Wrastor play IS centered around side-b, Etalus IS centered around ftilt and sideb, etc.
I don’t have the opportunity to play melee or rivals since i only have a switch and no pc rn, but this video definitely helped me get even more hyped for Rivals to come to switch so i can try it instead of ultimate this summer
Cuz smash in general was not supposed to be a competitive game. We made it a competitive game by having it the No item treatment or certain stages ain't broken.
@@Herozonex200 This comment thread was talking about movement and controls being messed up in ultimate. How you control your character in the game affects both casual and competitive players alike. Unless somehow the casual controls are different than competitive controls which i wasn't aware of.
Hey man, great video Definitely enjoyed the editing and you made some great points I would suggest for you to look more into the camera while talking as it gives the viewer more of a feeling that you're engaging with them if that makes any sense? Anyways keep up the great work!
I think another example of how Rivals is more focused on the broad strokes of gameplay is the combo game. The histun is almost as long as Smash 64, but it gives more powerful escape options (DI is even stronger than in Smash). This means that a lot more stuff links, but only if you make the correct prediction on how your opponent is going to try to escape, which makes it less about learning the optimal combo tree, and more about learning your opponent. Also, I don't think complexity is the best word to describe what makes Rivals distinct from Melee's intricacies, since complex is very similar to intricate. While a lot of Melee players probably wouldn't like this, I would say that what you're describing is that Rivals is more strategic. While there is strategy in Melee as well, the intricacies are much more important than the broad strokes of what you're doing. Comparatively, while Rivals does have intricacies, your broad strategic decisions are more important, since you don't have to deal with (pointless) technical hurdles like L-Cancelling which greatly reduce your efficiency if you can't perform them.
Up until this point, I've been describing the games as Melee-esc and Brawl-esc, and using "iterative sequel" to term PM/Rivals/etc. This video does a great job of taking my dumb buzz words and making them mean something, and I very much appreciate that. Also I'm not sure how to articulate how the movement nuance and freedom (or lack thereof) fundamentally define how players interact when comparing the two styles, though I very much feel it. I... Don't know where this fell in the video subject, but it feels really hard to put in non-subjective terms, so I can both understand and appreciate its lack of appearance in the video essay.
There's so much to brawl people don't even know about it's crazy. Somebody needs to make a vid on brawl's Meta history because i think it would actually be massively intriguing. All people know are "MK tornado ICs chain grab broken tripping no combos 2 viable characters muh stalling Ledge Grab Limit" and etc. Since it released right after melee and had massively flawed systems in place, its Meta got swept under the rug. However, the game, objectively, is among melee as probably the second deepest game in the smash series to be explored. Idk, there's so much literature on melee and games like it, that I feel like it would do good for a team(not me, i can _maybe_ cover brawl because I actively followed its competitive scene) to do a history on each games Meta history and the evolution of strategies and tech for each character. That would a monumental task, but that would be amazing.
While I wish there were a bit more movement options, Ultimate definitely has a lot more fluid movement than Smash 4 and Brawl. Tbh I'd say there's Melee, then P+ and Rivals on one side, Brawl and 4 on the other, and Ultimate as an in between, because Ultimate is a lot faster than 4 and Brawl. Brawl was based a lot on chaingrabs, infinites, and camping, while 4 had tons of cheese where you can kill at 40 with rage, but Ultimate doesn't have a lot of that. Sure it has dumb stuff like jab side b as Roy, Arsene BAir, etc. but I feel like Ultimate isn't as restrictive as Brawl and 4 are. I still really love Rivals tho and I can't want for the Switch release because my computer is broken and I can't play Rivals
I feel like Ultimate should be in the middle. It tries to bring some of the stuff that people liked about melee, and speed the game up, but not the extent that ProjectM/PM/+ did.
Leaf Maltieze idk I kind of feel like ultimate is the least like melee in that it’s so clunky to play. I get that this is controversial but to me the thing that makes melee great is that even though it’s difficult when you get better you actually get to move in a new way, you can see your skill on the screen, even against an opponent that doesn’t match your skill. In brawl and smash 4 instead of movement and combos that fluidity came from neutral. But in ultimate it feels more aggressive but not as fluid, you get in and then spam your best move, the other person tries to get out and you return to neutral. Not that there isn’t skill involved but that skill can’t be expressed with the same freedom that it was in the previous games. Even brawl.
Ultimate doesn't bring too much. Movement is less restrictive since everyone can dash dance and defensive play got discouraged thanks to the new airdodge, but it doesn't do enough. Recovering is very easy compared to Melee, PM and Rivals, combos are situational and more cookie-cutter just like Smash 4 rather than free-flowing due to DI and SDI being neutered and it lacks the precision of Melee and PM and overdoes the input buffer unlike Rivals. Ultimate strays too closely to Brawl and Smash 4 to exactly be put in the middle. Overall gameplay is faster than Brawl and Smash 4, but its design philosophy doesn't really combine both Smash 4/Brawl and Melee/PM/Rivals.
The way I'm interpreting the complexity vs intricacy thing is like mma vs boxing. Rivals is like mma in that each character changes the way you have to play and brings completely different elements from each other, ie and wrestler vs BJJ vs muay thai etc. Melee is like boxing in that were all using our fists, you get me? It's the same style with different approaches, some definitely are more tricky and complex like puff and Luigi. But for the most part you're using the same fundamental tools as your opponent. Man I love fighting games and how they relate to martial arts, it's really like an extension of it
@@Parpeing oh I like the music comparison that's really good. No I didn't mean it in terms of wavedashing and stuff like that, I meant overall attributes and abilities. In melee, everyone's abilities are pretty tame in that they dont change the entire landscape of the stage, add any lasting effects onto your or their own character, etc. In rivals, every character has a lot more to them that makes them a completely different style to play against, while in melee sure the different characters play different, but none of them are placing traps around the stage, lighting you on fire to make koin easier, putting a stream across the stage that increases their speed, etc. You have to play much differently according to whatever character your opponent picks in rivals, much like in mma you cant fight a wrestler like youd fight a grappler. In melee though there's only a couple of characters you really have to change your playstyle for unless the player themselves is just really good. And even then those characters, (puff and luigi, samus and some low tiers) dont really change the landscape nearly as much as the characters in rivals do, you get what I'm trying to say? Sorry if that was confusing. I like the jazz analogy though that makes a lot of sense
Your point about freedom of mouvement is so true. The question I would wonder next is : even though removing L-canceling seems to be a good thing, is there a point to which removing technicality is detrimental to the goodness of the game? Or what is the limitation of making things simpler to execute? Anyway, Rivals sits at a really really good place regarding that balance (if any balance is required by the previous question)
I personally always saw, no ledge, no shield, and no grab as getting rid of some of the worse things in melee. Grabbing in melee was broken for most some characters and if were on ledge you were winning. And with no grabs no shields.
Pi napple excuse me wut. You’re telling me that the character who is: overly quick, suffers pretty much no end lag on all of his moves, incredible combo game, projectiles that are nearly impossible to avoid and surprisingly potent killing power ISN’T overpowered?
Love it! I really like the words you put to this topic and I’ll definitely discuss this with my friends. Also, you’re one step away from getting popular on youtube. You took the first step which was to talk about smash, now all you have to do is stop talking about rivals. For real though, great video. Keep it up!
I think it was M2K that said this, and I agree with it. Rivals removed mechanics that slow down the game pace to try to eliminate waiting. No shields means no standing in place waiting to get hit, no grabs means no waiting for throws and no waiting to get a shield grab, no ledges means no ledge stalling and no waiting for an opponent to make a move. For the goal of trying to make the most consistently interactive game pace, those are all good design changes.
I mean, tbh the only smash game that was slower and more casual than the one before was brawl. Smash 4 was faster and more competitive than brawl and ultimate was even faster and more competitive than smash 4. But if you compare to melee, yes, they are indeed slower and more casual.But I would say that ultimate is on the left side, because I think it's competitive enough to be there, imo.
That is not exactly what he means by less competitive. By competitive he means how difficult it takes to master the game/character. The competitive games have pinpoint movement and complex combos that every character can do. These combos can be game changing and a one time moment. The newer games barely have that aside from like 10 specific characters with a difficult combo game (example is peach). Yes ultimate is still somewhat competitive but not to the same league as the other 3.
@@virtualgamer673 The game is just as hard to master, but it's more the mental aspect that makes it competitive, not the combo game. In Ultimate, you don't get punished for missing a wavedash shine or some complicated tech, you get punished because your smash attack was too risky. it was your fault, you should have played safer etc. Now, the combo games are really not that restrictive, most character have a decent combo game, it's just more read and string based, you know. It's not just "execute this correctly and your opponent can't do anything about it", it's more read based
Ruben Soares Monteiro That’s the reason why it isn’t as competitive “it’s the mental aspect.” Every competitive game does need a mental aspect but that is all ultimate has. Sure it may look flashy but it’s pretty simple to fail. Aside from the 10-20 characters with an actual combo game most characters have less than a three hit combo. But like I said it isn’t a bad competitive game it just doesn’t fit with the other 3.
@@virtualgamer673 That's cool. I mean, that's one of the reasons I play ultimate: the extremely developed mental aspect. Everyone is viable, every move is useful, you have to consider every possible senario, because they are all likely to happen. You don't have a option that's always useful like shine. One of the reasons I quit melee is because it often felt like a 1 player game, where you just get comboed and cant do anything about it and where your objective is to win neutral and that's it. I find the combo game more interesting when you just put them in a disadvantageous position rather than a true combo because there's interaction, there's still counterplay. But not like brawl, where the combo game is extremely limited. I'm glad that we had a pleasant conversation, have a nice day :)
While Ultimate is a slower Smash game than Melee and P+, it was not “designed to be slower” in general. (It’s debatable whether it was designed to be more casual.) It made several changes to speed up gameplay from Sm4sh and make for a more competitive game. Also, keep in mind that PM and P+ are not official Smash titles, and that Melee’s blistering speed and intricate mechanics were largely unintentional. That is to say, the design philosophy did not suddenly become much less competitive after Melee; the design team just implemented their vision better in Brawl. I think it’s more accurate to say that their philosophy trended more and more competitively as the series went on, resulting in Ultimate, which is actually a great competitive game. Of course, Melee, Rivals, and P+ are all phenomenal competitive games. No shade on them here. I just think you misrepresented the design philosophy of the Smash dev team in just about every game in the series with that ridiculous binary chart of yours.
In regards to the game design and competitive viability nobody has to prove anything with aether, ssbm, 64, pm or p+. People are always making a case for brawl, 4 and ultimate. That's fairly telling. Those games are really fun and all man but they are not on the same level. The players feel it, the viewers feel it. A sick combo in the complex games is a spectacle and a feat. A spectacle in the in that they are awesome looking and a feat in that they are very demanding, the average player can't do it. Brawl, 4, and ssbu's combos, in my opinion and experience, are a spectacle first. That extends to nearly every aspect of the game, from edgeguarding to neutral. Ssbu is super balanced tho and that's awesome.
I'll be honest, feels more like your talking about rivals being moreso a spiritual successor to melee and PM and such rather than it being a sequel to the smash games, plus the points about the other smash games not being sequels or really mentioning them at all seems a bit weird since you didnt really go in depth about it but I understand the points you are trying to make in general so it's still a good video, nice job
One thing I've always hated about Melee and PM is ledge hogging. One of the best things to ever happen to Smash was the introduction of ledge trumping. I'm so glad that Rivals doesn't have ledges/ledge hogging. That mechanic just makes it so much more annoying and disheartening for newer players when they try to get into the game.
While I understand why ledge-hogging is annoying to new players, it objectively makes the game deeper. When edge-guarding is better, and when the ledge itself isn't always safe, then stage control matters much more. In Melee and PM, center stage is way more advantageous, and being in the corner is way scarier because going off-stage is more likely to be the stock. Smash 4 and Ultimate, with the magnet hands and ledge trumping, make it so it is almost ALWAYS a good decision to go to ledge. There is rarely a reason not too. It removes an entire dimension of the mind games in recovery, and it makes stage control less significant. So it is easier and more accessible, but I personally dislike ledge trumping a great deal. That said, I LOVE the recovery system in rivals. It is deep and edge-guarding is dope, and your recovery options are many. This makes stage control more of a factor and makes recovery fun. It also eliminates the annoying parts of ledges like ledge stalling. That said, I don't necessarily think it is superior to the Melee/PM system. But both, in my opinion, annihilate ledge trumping as a mechanic. At least in terms of depth.
I feel "spiritual successor" is a better term than "sequel."
Yes.
lmao ok same thing
"ya god damm right"
@@why3994 not really
Nah this comment is right
Ocarina of Time is a sequel to Link to the Past despite they both playing v differently, because they were crafted by the same people as part of the same series (and that's what sequel means)
A spiritual succesor could be an indie game that plays like ALTTP like Hyper Lightdrifter, Moonlighter and other games (maybe not indies) that are top down dungeon exploring games, so they play more like ALTTP than OoT while not being sequels
The difference between smash and rivals is I can play smash with my friends and rivals with nobody
Until switch edition, I'm pretty sure
@@bulbasaur5995 no, rivals doesnt have crossplay, and i dont think itll have crossplay by the time the definitive edition comes out.
@hhh hhh I think what he means is a lot of the smash players who haven't played Rivals on PC because they were waiting for the Switch port are going get that version when it drops. I'd imagine the Rivals community would start to grow even more thanks to the Switch version. By how much is uncertain but it can only go up from here imo.
@Bunneer not on Xbox One :-/
@ anybody feeling like this: join your local discords. it made a day and night difference for me
I think being able to fast fall immediately after a hit is genius, and rivals would be way different without it
I love it because it was originally an accident but Dan kept it because he liked it
The combos end up pretty cool, but they're very similar to each other. Everything kinda gets homogenized. It's still hype though, just a downside
Both games have furries in them, so I honestly can't tell the difference.
The difference is that Smash got other things like humans, witches, squids, and whatever Mario and Kirby are
The difference is the volume of furries vs the volume of Fire Emblem characters
My eyes have been opened.
they are not furries cause a furry is a human in a costume of animal but the charecter are straight animal
@@M0mazosMissy Mario is a human, and the humans found in the Metro Kingdom are called New Donkers.
"You know Smash Bros?"
"Yeah"
"Take that game."
"okay"
"Add more furries"
"okay."
*"P r o f i t"*
“Hey you know how Project M added custom characters right?”
“Yeah”
“We should do that too.”
Just put Project Sonic in smash ultimate then we're fine because that means Sonic's moveset will actually be playable and more people would play him.
Holy Chief sonic is playable hes just frustrating to play against the people playing him have fun camping theyre opponents probably and no were not fine because no one wants more sonic players LOL but yeah they need to give sonic a moveset revamp
Punctuation is important
@@coral3831 I mean yeah just revamp his moveset because I main Sonic ok but seriously I hate when people think it's ok to just spam a sonic player like me because when I play Ridley I win more because I don't get spammed to death but when I play sonic people spam kill me to death like wtf is wrong with them so I have to spam them till tjey die.
Dan: does not want to make character sprites for grabbing and ledge
Also Dan: "lets make 3d models of our characters"
Also dan: let's make a whole new mode that is just a tetherball match
Dan:And let’s call the new update the “definitive edition”
Also Dan let's make a battle pass
is that really why theres no ledge? lol
@@Leon-bt7gw I heard that he excluded it because he found that it made matches slower and he didn’t like it
*Just got into the rivals community and I gotta say, loving me some rivals and smash time*
@Joseph Forsythe *Yeah I got it on steam and sure, I'm a little busy these days but soon ill have more free time*
@Joseph Forsythe *oh yeah btw steam name is "ZeusTheGoose" almost forgot my bad 😅*
I wouldnt mind playing a game. I rarely find anyone online.
@@azariahduran7330 *you're always welcome to join as well, I need more people that can destroy me ingame anyway lol*
@@ZeusDahGoose dont worry fam youll be fine
just play Wrastor it'll be great
Adam: In depth explanation
Comment section: haha furries
"NOooooo rivals is so better than ssbu and other smash post melee"
"haha furries"
8:32 "The goal of Rivals was to simplify every character but make them all more complicated"
what
He means individually vs as a whole, so each character has their own relatively simple set, but when u look at the whole cast, there's loads more shit you can do edge guard than in melee
@@buubaku Could've worded it better.
Because that literally makes no sense.
@@amirfroggie8370 each character in rivals has a few unique gimmicks, while in melee each character has loads of gimmicks that are mostly shared with the rest of the cast. In total you can do more shit with the entire cast in rivals, but you can do more with one character in melee
Honestly it made sense to me lol
I was a PM player for a few years, and now I'm just starting to get into rivals of aether. I think you do an excellent job explaining why games like Smash Ultimate just don't sit well with the part of the community that enjoys the freedom of expression that can only be found in Melee, PM, and Rivals.
Connor Y you also forget that Rivals has mods, and in my honest opinion, any game that has mods is a 10/10 and will live forever
@@dinoshotgun exactly
I mean,look at the workshop, it's full of master pieces on the characters section
Nah, melee's trash
Well I was a melee player who moved onto ultimate, personally I love movement in my games and that's why I moved on to ultimate, cause I feel like I'm not wearing steel boots anymore, in ultimate every charcater is balanced and it's generally more fun to pick up and play.
@@drewcollins9698 what was your tag in melee
3:39 Sylvanos on his back is a blessed image. Thank you for showing me.
I think the no shield and no grab was for the better, it puts more of an emphasis on movement as a means of evasion and defense as opposed to just standing still. It keeps the pressure and pace up
it was weird at first but i think it's for the better, same goes for ledges
@HattyGames 102 The logic is that they messed around with the game and enjoy the change due to the sort of experience it offers
@HattyGames 102 It's called *sound* logic
This tutorial was very helpful Adam, I kept on accidentally plugging my smash cartridge into my steam library. Now I can distinguish the two, thank you very much 10/10
Mean while Slap City has all of the above AND IT HAS FISH. Best smash game of all time, no fish no play.
On a real note, I hate how you can't say brawl/smash 4/ultimate is a dumbed down game without being attacked. I'm not even trying to start an argument I'm just stating common sense in a conversation stop being maaaaad
but I like game. u say game i lik not good as game i no understand? i hate u
@@AdamCarra wow i cant believ u treat ur viewers this way unsub
cuz you are wrong smash is just easier to get into but its so deep when you get competitive
@@MAKMath So...then it's not easier to get into. You contradicted yourself.
@@Jarekthegamingdragon i meant its more beginner/casual friendly but competitively its way deeper
The start of the video kinda frightens me. I’ve only played the three “casual smashes”, but I can’t wait to try Rivals when it comes on switch, it just looks so sick. I really hope I can vibe with it. Anybody that played Rivals after smash 4 and Ultimate want to share their experience?
I'm in the same boat as you, although I have played melee before - but to be blunt... I don't like it. It just feels bad to play even if I do something skillful, and honestly I find playing and watching Ultimate competitively far more fun aside from its issues with buffering. I haven't played Rivals, but watching it it seems to have a much better feel to it movement than melee. I think you'll be fine.
feels good
Enzlerf - Personally, I like Rivals much more than any Smash game I’ve played, although I’m not necessarily a big smash player in the first place. I only ever play smash casually, never competitively. Rivals stuck with me even though it’s game style is fairly based around the more ‘competitive smash’ titles. I think this is because the game is surprisingly easy to pick up on. It’s mechanics are clearly inspired by competitive smash, yet I was able to learn the game and its mechanics very quickly, whereas a game like melee takes a lot of practice.
All in all, the game is easy to learn, but has a very high skill ceiling. This lets new players learn the game and get right to having fun, while also having a ton of room to improve your skills, making for a great game experience overall.
Sorry for the essay type comment, just love the game and would highly recommend it
I absolutely love melee before I even put RoA so maybe that helped me transition, even tho there I was trash I can tell you,, having put 1k+ hours in sm4sh that it feels WAY more responsive, it has an amazing feel to it, it's kinda hard to grasp at first, but once you get around things like parry's instead of shields, it's amazing, maybe it isn't as flashy or you don't have your joker's like in ultimate, but it totally makes up for it, don't be afraid of the changes, it will cost you a little bit to get used to them, but if you spend at least a little bit of time I'm sure you'll love it
I started playing Smash competitively with Smash 4 and had a blast. I always thought Melee looked sick, but I hated the Gamecube controller and I also didn't want to soend months just to have a decent movement on that game. After some years, I was getting a bit bored with Smash in general, but RoA launched and caught my attention, and it was really fun, but it was not as good as it is now, so I didn't spend a lot of time playing it. Nowadays, after a lot of patches, the game is amazing and it is my favorite game of all time. It is easier to get into than Melee, but I think it's a lot more unforgiving with your mistakes, so it can scare out some new players, but I promisse you that learning the mechanics is a worth it.
Coming to thing as a competitive smash4 and now smash ult player, who can't get into the complexity of melee, this is a really fuckin great video. I honestly love both sides of these games and I'm super excited to try out rivals because its a bit easier to get into than melee, while still being as weird and fast paced.
I'm so glad that grabs and shields were done away with honestly. It was one of the first things I noticed and greatly appreciated.
I think the video was good, and as far as recovery and character design your analysis was spot on with the complexity. I would just say that melee neutral is not only more intricate, but also more complex due to shields. Shield pressure, being safe on shield, oos (out of shield) options, and of course grabs, that make the game very complex, not just more intricate. This is because it adds a layer of complexity outside of dash dancing and a whiff punish game. The ability to block attacks, punish attacks, and also on the offensive side is more intricate, sure, but in the end of the day it is by definition a far more complicated neutral because it just adds so much more to players options, necessary approaches, and things like that. Parrying definitely helps with this neutral game, but it is like having rock paper scissors without scissors (scissors being grab). I am very hopeful that for the next rivals game that is in development that they will add more complexity to the defensive side of the game with some unique form of shielding, because in the end adding more depth to defensive will also add more depth the offensive, and make the game more of a complete fighting game that has all the wonderful interactions that come with a blocking mechanic.
Everybody forgets about smash 64 :(
I put it in the melee side, and that's why I think the brawl side feels so alienating for people who play since the 64 days.
The melee side is the more competitive side silly
@@noco26 64 is REALLY competitive actually. There's a reason Isai dropped Melee for it.
64 is basically a beta of Melee. It has a lot of the Melee stuff but in a more simple jank way.
Like the hitstun is just insane. You can do 100 different zero to death combos.
They had to tone some stuff down to really create a more fluid game in Melee. But the essence of it was definitely there.
@@Saskaruto16 I'd argue that 64 is different enough to where it's honestly not on the "Melee Side" nor the "Brawl Side."
It's different enough to me to where it's more like it's own thing than it is "Beta Melee." It feels it has a little too many differences for it to actually be "Beta Melee."
At the same time, I also feel that Ultimate should also not be in the same category as Brawl & Smash 4, and would make more sense in either it's own category OR if not that, in the same category as 64 DESPITE all Smash games being very different games from each other.
@@curiosityman3704 yeah exactly
I almost want to disagree with your point about shields and grabs. Sure, throws bring more animation load. However, i personally think there's more to their removal than that. Chain grabs, spamming out of shield options, wobbling, ledge grab stalling, the mechanics that were removed not only save effort but are also the most commonly cited short falls of existing smash games. Instead of engaging with these mechanics, which are notoriously troublesome in terms of pacing and balance, dan brilliantly circumvented them with streamlined mechanics that also further pushed the game in the desired direction in terms of the play experience and game speed. Parrying simply feels like a more elegant defensive option to me.
it's a shame since the new trailer for rivals 2 shows they just threw them back in
@@infectedanimal9830 yeah, I'm not thrilled with the change. I want to believe in Dan and I'm still interested in the new game, but there was a chain grab style combo in the trailer itself, so even if I like the new game I know it is deciding to leave the unique pace and style of play rivals 1 created behind.
Rivals is great imo because it removes some of the mechanics that encourage defensive, non-interactive play. No ledge planking, no sitting in shield, and running away is generally harder because all the characters have good movement options. My favorite aspect is parrying, because it has lag and it's a risk to just throw it out all the time. It leads to more interesting mixups than you have against a shielding opponent.
*The Difference Between Smash and Rivals*
*looks at thumbnail* Well, it's not the furries...
It's the lack of anime swordfighters
Fox and Falco?
@@No_Sleepee We have waifu sword fighter though
@@floofzykitty5072
Smash has three.
One is Nintendo and one is???? Wtf are they from? Digimon?
Non sarcastically: This actually was really helpful and funny.
I picked up rivals as soon as I got a PC and I fell in love with the movement and pace of the game.
I had to hit the bell so I can feed my Adam Carra addiction
I'm waiting for the summer when Scott the Woz has to talk about Rivals on Switch.
This is exactly the kind of video I was looking for before I bought rivals!!
yeah honestly hit cancel + the movement options make Rivals so satisfactory to play, I also really like ultimate but when I'm playing online it's just like whatever throw some safe moves around and end the game
Quick reminder that Super Smash Bros for Nintendo 64 exists
Pretty sure the first smash game was Smash 4
quick reminder that super smash flash is the most important game in the franchise
@@AdamCarra Ah yes. Smash for the Nintendo 4. I totally forgot.
Strange that it took them 59 generations till the next game.
I loved smash ultimate, but then I got and started playing rivals, and now I can't imagine not being able to wave dash, it feels so wrong to play ultimate now
Jaxon Umbaugh Yeah I feel ultimate neutral boring and the game just feels laggy. Can’t imagine not wavedashing around stage I play pm
I literally just touched Smash Ultimate for the first time after only playing rivals for about 6 months and it is insane how much I miss wavedashing and decent air dodges when playing it
This video did a really good job of explaining the differences I felt but could not put into words between Melee, Ultimate, PM, and Rivals
The complexity vs intricacy is what I always tell my friends when I’m talking about rivals. Fantastic video
Hey, this explanation actually brought me more interest on Rivals. :)
I think I understand how you tried to break down the design bifurcation in the two sets of games you laid out in the beginning. I'm not experienced enough in either to have an opinion on which is better, but I understand your distinction. Good Job.
Just found your channel! Good stuff, love seeing discussions on Melee/ Rivals! Keep it up Adam
This is one of your best videos yet, Adam. Nice.
Rivals is a strongly worded love letter to smash
Rivals is its own beast. Smash flash is a love letter
@@mitzi3262 that's why I said strongly worded because it's a different game but it still pays tribute to what came before it
I feel like I can't move when I play Ultimate.
Yeah I feel the same way
Same, it just feels bad man
Movement in Ultimate is awful, the worst in the franchise
Oh crap people actually agree with me for once. Dang. Thanks!
@HattyGames 102 I've played Brawl for like, 20 minutes, so I wouldn't really know. Obviously I know about the tripping though.
I clicked on this video because while I know a lot about Smash, I know little about Rivals. But this is well-edited, and you're pretty funny. I'm gonna check out your other videos now, and maybe even subscribe.
Adam let me tell you something mister, this.
This video.
Is fucking sick, love how well edited it is and how your thumbnail matches with the design elements of the video. Its really nice.
An interesting ideological dissonance I see in a lot of these takes is the idea that Smash Bros games from Brawl onwards are more restrictive because they took out a lot of the advanced mechanics from Melee, namely L-cancelling and wavedashing. What I never hear anybody mention is how Ultimate made dashing free by allowing you to take any action to cancel any frame of your stopping animation. It's not as precise as wavedashing, but in my mind at least, this is the least restrictive form of movement that has ever been in a game like this, for the same reason wavedashing is held up to be this pinnacle of freedom; It allows you to act freely while maintaining mobility.
You can of course make the argument that wavedashing is itself a restrictive form of movement due to its execution barrier, separating haves from have-nots and creating a situation where improper execution of a move creates a punishment that in the reality of the game world should never exist, similar to getting a random heavy punch in a Street Fighter when you mess up a hadoken, which is the same reason why Rivals has a dedicated strong attack button and the option to turn off stick sensitive moves in its control schemes, but I digress. I just think it's strange to equate freedom with advanced techniques. I do think Rivals may be the freest moving of all the games in this list, because it removes a lot of the punishment from the execution while still making basic forms of movement very versatile, but the very concept of a wavedash still seems like an aberration to me.
It should never take three inputs to take one step backwards. Full stop.
Unless you're playing QWOP I guess. But that's its own special thing.
I've had this feeling for the longest time, and I'm glad somebody finally phrase this sentiment better than I've been able to. Techs like wavedashing has always scared me away from melee and melee like games, the expectation that I am to repeatedly perform a very quick button sequence just for basic movement has always frightened me as it was something of a formidable mechanical barrier. it felt like I could wind up losing and getting punished not because I made the wrong call but because I blundered the input and wound up either doing something I didn't want to do, or doing nothing at all. and having to sit and train muscle memory to perform one action just feels like a waste of time to me, I'm not experiencing the meat of the game, I'm instead having to learn how to perform one action consistently just so that I can experience the meat of the game on an even playing field, and that won't be the only execution that I need to master either.
and yet, I've always felt alone on the sentiment as it seems that for many players of fighting games like this, mechanical barriers are seen as a good thing because it separates legitimately good players from players that aren't good, as if people who can understand the mind games that are present in fighting games alone shouldn't be allowed to compete against those that can but also has a twitch reflexes to perform these actions.
Uhhhh, it doesnt take 3 inputs to take 1 step back. You can just walk backwards. Wavedashing is a choice. An option. You dont NEED to do it, its a skill that you practice and learn, like combos/recovery/edgeguarding, etc. Thats like saying you cant kill with ultimate Roy if you have a hard time inputting jab > attack cancel bair. (btw i would just like to point out that nobody has any problem with pivoting in sm4sh or attack cancelling in ultimate, and those techs are arguably way more difficult to perform than wavedashing but :/ )
Nobody is equating difficulty with freedom of movement. Rivals has the freedom of movement in melee without difficulty. Wavedashing gives you more freedom of movement than Ultimate's dashing because wavedashing is literally moving while doing nothing, which means you are moving while maintaining the ability to do every option that you can do when you are standing still (which is every option). In ultimate you can't perform every option out of dash and you can't move around with as much precision as you can with wavedashing because of things like the minimum length of your initial dash. It may be the least restrictive form of movement that the uncool side has ever had, but it's not more free than melee/rivals. And there are a lot of other reasons wavedashing is good for a game, like platform movement. You can waveland onto a platform to land on it quickly and be able to act almost immediately, compared to ultimate which adds a bunch of lag to wavelanding. And in melee you can wavedash or waveland to slide off of a platform which creates much more free platform movement than ultimate, especially when you combine it with the other things melee has like shield dropping. These things are all difficult in melee, and they also create freedom of movement. But that's just a coincidence. You can have one without the other. Rivals made stuff easy while keeping freedom of movement. Another thing, having advanced tech in the game puts no limits on casual players. How is wavedashing a restrictive form of movement? You act like the only way to move around in melee is by wavedashing. You aren't restricted at all by the presence of advanced techniques- if you don't want to use them, just pretend they aren't there and move around however you would like. The addition of an option is not a restriction. Here I would copy what Space Frog said about Roy's jab back air. If you don't like it, don't use it. It doesn't limit you. If you want to take your one step backwards with one input, you still can.
Your second paragraph feels like a complaint about difficulty where you establish the idea that if you can't perform an option in a game immediately/without practice, then it's a bad game. I can understand your side of the argument here of not wanting to have to practice for a decent while to be able to move around optimally. That's why you play ultimate where everything is easy. But in the melee community we value tech skill because the more difficult something is, the more impressive it is to see it done. You know that the player had to practice for hours to perform it, so it's really cool. It wouldn't be nearly as cool if any fool could do it on their first time playing the game.
Hey great video, i think complexity vs intricacy may have been poor phrasing. Maybe you were looking for the phrase complexity vs depth? Where smash melee has high complexity, while rivals has a low complexity while maintaining the depth of melee.
He meant intricacies as being more subtle. The interactions in Melee require frame perfect precision and there's a lot of depth in the really small interactions. That's also because Melee is so optimized and dying off of one mistake is very common.
He saw complexity and intricacy as different forms of depth, both of them contribute to depth
Thank you for this video! Thanks for yourtime and your work :)
Thanks for breaking this down, Adam! Now I'm even more excited for Rivals 2, but also any other games that learn from the philosophy of this game.
First time I played rivals I kept going for the ledge and I was so confused
As a person who loves PM, yeah i knew I'd like Rivals
amazing video, I play competitive smash, and once RIVAL gets into Switch, ima start playing thaT..HYPE
Also.... could you make a TIER LIST based on result and/or personal opinion and changes you would like done?
started playing rivals two days ago. wish I hadn't slept on it so long, and anybody who plays smash should also play it, you're straight up just missing out if you don't. Also don't why but I love these videos mostly because of Adams personality. Yall do amazing work
Milestone System you forgot the Milestone System!
but is it free?
@@hhhhhh-vi6sq it'ы нге мфуеооптоаьаьаобчлыжэфюдвьылвлылчтоыбв.ы
Чльв воытыляь
*Drowns in changed keyboard*
@@Fizz-Q ah, i see.
but is it free?
Skinnnnns, skinnnnnss
Obligatory underrated content creator comment: Thank you for all your content, Adam! You're channel is a gold mine of humor and insight. I'm always elated to see your new content, and when I need a chuckle I rewatch you and Stephan muck about in character specific tutorials. You're opinions are weighty and you defend them well. I hope someday I am in a place to support your content beyond just a loyal subscriber.
Cheers,
~NairDoWell
I think one way of simplifying it it in a similar fashion to how you said it with saying rivals is more complex than melee while melee being more intricate is to look at the games in two different lights.
Generally, Rivals of Aether is a much simpler game, however it's complexity comes down to the characters and what their own unique special effects bring,
On the other hand, as a whole, Melee is much harder, every character in the whole cast can make use of many movement techniques which make Melee, Melee. However, many characters in Melee do not bring the same amount of unique and intricate designs as each other, this is especially true for echo fighters.
With that said, both games go beyond just that, they share a lot of similarities in their differences, MU's are a prime example, Rival's with its limited (excluding custom character) cast allows for more deep match-ups requiring differing play-styles based on your opponent's character, the same goes for Melee for the exact same reasons.
Count how many times I said Melee in one sentence, good luck lmao
I really enjoyed the video! You made great points. One HUGE thing I do feel like you should have mentioned is how much rivals rewards aggressive play compared to Melee/PM.
No shields, and no chaingrabs mean no essentially "pauses" the game experiences. Rivals defensive options ARE more precise, and intricate IMO. but not as complex.
I feel like Dan gave a lot more depth, and in the way shields and ledges function, they FUNDAMENTALLY make Melee easier to play very defensive playstyles.
A good example is how floaty characters work in Rivals compared to Melee. In melee, it's optimal to abuse defensive options, while in rivals it is a lot different.
Pretty long winded but I thought I should note just how much many melee players would like the game. It adds depth and removes ledge stalling, wobbling, chaingrabs, mechanics that inherantly are unfun to play as and against
I hit the like button because I LIKE to help Adam Carra
For me, I love ultimate, but hate the lack of movement options, but dislike melee because it feels clunky due to having precise timings and tap jump. Rivals feels so fluid to me though, so I love it
Personally, and this is just me, I'm a melee and ultimate player who has played rivals a few times. Honestly I love the movement in ultimate and far enjoy it to melees. Along with competitive balance and large roster, it's my game of choice
@@drewcollins9698 Ult is definitely overhated and offers a lot of depth to the player. If it had good online I'd probably still be playing it.
ya ultimate you can just jump right into. its def the better casual experience
@@DarkFart420 Rivals is actually surprisingly beginner friendly. Its got a robust tutorial, it feels good to play. Its got a small roster of very unique characters. I think its actually easier to jump into than Ult, which hides a lot of its advanced mechanics and has an overwhelming amount of characters.
Oh I still play ultimate all the time, but mainly casually and at tournaments because the rivals community at my university isn't very large
Heyy Adam, I am one of those people that watch your videos on occasion but never sub! And it's funny because I really really enjoyed your videos! So I did sub to you. I really like your style and this video was really well done! Thanks
Just kinda nit picking here, but the terms complex and intricate are kind of misused especially considering that they are synonymous. in general rivals removes complexity compared to melee ex. shielding, l cancels, simpler wave dashing. However where rivals removes complexity it adds depth, ex. character specific effects and mechanics, recovery options. Complexity generally refers to the number of mechanics and systems required to play a game, mobile games aren’t complex, fighters are, whereas depth is the amount of profound and unique experiences and ways to play a game . Project + and rivals attempt to adapt melees complexity into a deep and rewarding, but still challenging experience whereas the later smash titles attempt to remove complexity to appeal to a more casual audience. Despite the lack of complexity the later smash titles still have a good level of depth and their own mechanics ex. Reverse aerial rushes, b reverses, wave bounces. Great video either way, the point you were trying to get across is still clear enough!
I agree with the points you made in this video but your argunent of "intricate vs complex" was really poorly explained
Its more like the intricate small options in melee were brought to the forfront in rivals. Since rivals is a game designed around being competitive from the start dan had the advantage of making options seem much more intuitive and nessisary. In melee shit like shortening foxs illusion is needlessly hard cause the developers never thought to consider its competitive applications (and new players will never think to apply it properly anyways cause if you miss you die)
Tldr: both games are still intricate but rivals intricacies are more easy to understand and execute
Thanks for the video! Unsubbed, disliked, left.
I think it's pretty cool how every character in Rivals has a unique gimmick, yet doesn't feel "gimmicky". Compared to a character like Ike from Ultimate, who does not have a gimmick (the whole character is variations of frame data, hitboxes, weight, etc) and yet does feel kind of gimmicky because of NAir. That's just an example, I know there's more to Ike than nairing, but it's surprising how Rivals manages to avoid that trap of one-move characters even though Wrastor play IS centered around side-b, Etalus IS centered around ftilt and sideb, etc.
This made me more confused about something things but overall made me understand things I hadn't really though of, so thanks
new favorite youtube channel right here
Disliking because Adam told me to, and well he is my favorite Adam
I like this video. It's the difficulty of Melee's intricate moves that turned me off and the limitation of current smash's meta that drew me to Rivals
Your production value has gone up a lot, keep up the great work adam.
Oh i didn't know wiff lag was a thing, thats such a smart mechanic. I wish the ultimate devs had thought of it
DUDE! literally cause this video, I'm playing rivals now
This makes sense actually, I tend to enjoy the intricacy of smash but I do love rivals for its depth
Good video! Makes me want to try rivals again. Been playing a lot of ultimate. Just got back into melee and pm
I don’t have the opportunity to play melee or rivals since i only have a switch and no pc rn, but this video definitely helped me get even more hyped for Rivals to come to switch so i can try it instead of ultimate this summer
*Adam closes the storybook*
"And that's why Rivals is the best platform fighter of all time."
I would say for ultimate they attempted to make it "faster" but just completely fcked up movement and controls which just destroys the game
Very true, makes me sad i can't do rising fullhop aerials anymore
Especially with the buffer system.
Cuz smash in general was not supposed to be a competitive game. We made it a competitive game by having it the No item treatment or certain stages ain't broken.
@@Herozonex200 This comment thread was talking about movement and controls being messed up in ultimate. How you control your character in the game affects both casual and competitive players alike. Unless somehow the casual controls are different than competitive controls which i wasn't aware of.
Hey man, great video
Definitely enjoyed the editing and you made some great points
I would suggest for you to look more into the camera while talking
as it gives the viewer more of a feeling that you're engaging with them
if that makes any sense?
Anyways keep up the great work!
Very well put Adam
I think another example of how Rivals is more focused on the broad strokes of gameplay is the combo game. The histun is almost as long as Smash 64, but it gives more powerful escape options (DI is even stronger than in Smash). This means that a lot more stuff links, but only if you make the correct prediction on how your opponent is going to try to escape, which makes it less about learning the optimal combo tree, and more about learning your opponent.
Also, I don't think complexity is the best word to describe what makes Rivals distinct from Melee's intricacies, since complex is very similar to intricate. While a lot of Melee players probably wouldn't like this, I would say that what you're describing is that Rivals is more strategic. While there is strategy in Melee as well, the intricacies are much more important than the broad strokes of what you're doing. Comparatively, while Rivals does have intricacies, your broad strategic decisions are more important, since you don't have to deal with (pointless) technical hurdles like L-Cancelling which greatly reduce your efficiency if you can't perform them.
Up until this point, I've been describing the games as Melee-esc and Brawl-esc, and using "iterative sequel" to term PM/Rivals/etc. This video does a great job of taking my dumb buzz words and making them mean something, and I very much appreciate that.
Also I'm not sure how to articulate how the movement nuance and freedom (or lack thereof) fundamentally define how players interact when comparing the two styles, though I very much feel it. I... Don't know where this fell in the video subject, but it feels really hard to put in non-subjective terms, so I can both understand and appreciate its lack of appearance in the video essay.
There's so much to brawl people don't even know about it's crazy. Somebody needs to make a vid on brawl's Meta history because i think it would actually be massively intriguing. All people know are "MK tornado ICs chain grab broken tripping no combos 2 viable characters muh stalling Ledge Grab Limit" and etc. Since it released right after melee and had massively flawed systems in place, its Meta got swept under the rug. However, the game, objectively, is among melee as probably the second deepest game in the smash series to be explored.
Idk, there's so much literature on melee and games like it, that I feel like it would do good for a team(not me, i can _maybe_ cover brawl because I actively followed its competitive scene) to do a history on each games Meta history and the evolution of strategies and tech for each character. That would a monumental task, but that would be amazing.
Good video like all of your content
Please make more
please, quarantine is killing me I need more content
I've only play brawl, smash 4, ultimate, and rivals, and yeah even before I played rivals I agree
While I wish there were a bit more movement options, Ultimate definitely has a lot more fluid movement than Smash 4 and Brawl. Tbh I'd say there's Melee, then P+ and Rivals on one side, Brawl and 4 on the other, and Ultimate as an in between, because Ultimate is a lot faster than 4 and Brawl. Brawl was based a lot on chaingrabs, infinites, and camping, while 4 had tons of cheese where you can kill at 40 with rage, but Ultimate doesn't have a lot of that. Sure it has dumb stuff like jab side b as Roy, Arsene BAir, etc. but I feel like Ultimate isn't as restrictive as Brawl and 4 are. I still really love Rivals tho and I can't want for the Switch release because my computer is broken and I can't play Rivals
was looking for this, I 100% agree. I don't think that ultimate is a sequal to melee nor brawl, its in the middle of those two
I feel like Ultimate should be in the middle. It tries to bring some of the stuff that people liked about melee, and speed the game up, but not the extent that ProjectM/PM/+ did.
Leaf Maltieze idk I kind of feel like ultimate is the least like melee in that it’s so clunky to play. I get that this is controversial but to me the thing that makes melee great is that even though it’s difficult when you get better you actually get to move in a new way, you can see your skill on the screen, even against an opponent that doesn’t match your skill. In brawl and smash 4 instead of movement and combos that fluidity came from neutral. But in ultimate it feels more aggressive but not as fluid, you get in and then spam your best move, the other person tries to get out and you return to neutral. Not that there isn’t skill involved but that skill can’t be expressed with the same freedom that it was in the previous games. Even brawl.
Ultimate doesn't bring too much. Movement is less restrictive since everyone can dash dance and defensive play got discouraged thanks to the new airdodge, but it doesn't do enough. Recovering is very easy compared to Melee, PM and Rivals, combos are situational and more cookie-cutter just like Smash 4 rather than free-flowing due to DI and SDI being neutered and it lacks the precision of Melee and PM and overdoes the input buffer unlike Rivals. Ultimate strays too closely to Brawl and Smash 4 to exactly be put in the middle. Overall gameplay is faster than Brawl and Smash 4, but its design philosophy doesn't really combine both Smash 4/Brawl and Melee/PM/Rivals.
@@charlespfister6240 If they just made the dumb buffer system optional, it would be so much better...
The way I'm interpreting the complexity vs intricacy thing is like mma vs boxing. Rivals is like mma in that each character changes the way you have to play and brings completely different elements from each other, ie and wrestler vs BJJ vs muay thai etc. Melee is like boxing in that were all using our fists, you get me? It's the same style with different approaches, some definitely are more tricky and complex like puff and Luigi. But for the most part you're using the same fundamental tools as your opponent. Man I love fighting games and how they relate to martial arts, it's really like an extension of it
@@Parpeing oh I like the music comparison that's really good. No I didn't mean it in terms of wavedashing and stuff like that, I meant overall attributes and abilities. In melee, everyone's abilities are pretty tame in that they dont change the entire landscape of the stage, add any lasting effects onto your or their own character, etc. In rivals, every character has a lot more to them that makes them a completely different style to play against, while in melee sure the different characters play different, but none of them are placing traps around the stage, lighting you on fire to make koin easier, putting a stream across the stage that increases their speed, etc. You have to play much differently according to whatever character your opponent picks in rivals, much like in mma you cant fight a wrestler like youd fight a grappler. In melee though there's only a couple of characters you really have to change your playstyle for unless the player themselves is just really good. And even then those characters, (puff and luigi, samus and some low tiers) dont really change the landscape nearly as much as the characters in rivals do, you get what I'm trying to say? Sorry if that was confusing. I like the jazz analogy though that makes a lot of sense
Who else remembers Adam's hit canceling video😂
shhhhhhh
Carra I think you ment rivals is character/matchup focused where melee is engine/universal mechanics focused.
Your point about freedom of mouvement is so true. The question I would wonder next is : even though removing L-canceling seems to be a good thing, is there a point to which removing technicality is detrimental to the goodness of the game? Or what is the limitation of making things simpler to execute? Anyway, Rivals sits at a really really good place regarding that balance (if any balance is required by the previous question)
Hey Adam, loved this little thinkpiece. I was wondering if you'd be willing to play Blade Strangers, & make a similar type of video.
Super tired of ultimate so I'm excited to try out rivals when it comes out
I personally always saw, no ledge, no shield, and no grab as getting rid of some of the worse things in melee. Grabbing in melee was broken for most some characters and if were on ledge you were winning. And with no grabs no shields.
nice video i subbed
Subscribed Great video
Someone start a petition to get this guy on ultimate design team so we can get a decent sequel with intricate mechanics and complex characters
there is a clear difference. One game is balanced.
Flashny young Link: *sweats nervously*
wraSToR
Pi napple excuse me wut. You’re telling me that the character who is: overly quick, suffers pretty much no end lag on all of his moves, incredible combo game, projectiles that are nearly impossible to avoid and surprisingly potent killing power ISN’T overpowered?
@@helpmii6826 dude, he can't kill as much as you say. He's good but not top tier
This is a controversial comment but by not specifying what you meant yourself and leaving everyone else to decide, you saved your ass. Nice
Love it! I really like the words you put to this topic and I’ll definitely discuss this with my friends.
Also, you’re one step away from getting popular on youtube. You took the first step which was to talk about smash, now all you have to do is stop talking about rivals.
For real though, great video. Keep it up!
I think it was M2K that said this, and I agree with it. Rivals removed mechanics that slow down the game pace to try to eliminate waiting. No shields means no standing in place waiting to get hit, no grabs means no waiting for throws and no waiting to get a shield grab, no ledges means no ledge stalling and no waiting for an opponent to make a move. For the goal of trying to make the most consistently interactive game pace, those are all good design changes.
I mean, tbh the only smash game that was slower and more casual than the one before was brawl. Smash 4 was faster and more competitive than brawl and ultimate was even faster and more competitive than smash 4. But if you compare to melee, yes, they are indeed slower and more casual.But I would say that ultimate is on the left side, because I think it's competitive enough to be there, imo.
That is not exactly what he means by less competitive. By competitive he means how difficult it takes to master the game/character. The competitive games have pinpoint movement and complex combos that every character can do. These combos can be game changing and a one time moment. The newer games barely have that aside from like 10 specific characters with a difficult combo game (example is peach). Yes ultimate is still somewhat competitive but not to the same league as the other 3.
@@virtualgamer673 The game is just as hard to master, but it's more the mental aspect that makes it competitive, not the combo game. In Ultimate, you don't get punished for missing a wavedash shine or some complicated tech, you get punished because your smash attack was too risky. it was your fault, you should have played safer etc. Now, the combo games are really not that restrictive, most character have a decent combo game, it's just more read and string based, you know. It's not just "execute this correctly and your opponent can't do anything about it", it's more read based
Ruben Soares Monteiro That’s the reason why it isn’t as competitive “it’s the mental aspect.” Every competitive game does need a mental aspect but that is all ultimate has. Sure it may look flashy but it’s pretty simple to fail. Aside from the 10-20 characters with an actual combo game most characters have less than a three hit combo. But like I said it isn’t a bad competitive game it just doesn’t fit with the other 3.
@@virtualgamer673 That's cool. I mean, that's one of the reasons I play ultimate: the extremely developed mental aspect. Everyone is viable, every move is useful, you have to consider every possible senario, because they are all likely to happen. You don't have a option that's always useful like shine. One of the reasons I quit melee is because it often felt like a 1 player game, where you just get comboed and cant do anything about it and where your objective is to win neutral and that's it. I find the combo game more interesting when you just put them in a disadvantageous position rather than a true combo because there's interaction, there's still counterplay. But not like brawl, where the combo game is extremely limited. I'm glad that we had a pleasant conversation, have a nice day :)
While Ultimate is a slower Smash game than Melee and P+, it was not “designed to be slower” in general. (It’s debatable whether it was designed to be more casual.) It made several changes to speed up gameplay from Sm4sh and make for a more competitive game. Also, keep in mind that PM and P+ are not official Smash titles, and that Melee’s blistering speed and intricate mechanics were largely unintentional. That is to say, the design philosophy did not suddenly become much less competitive after Melee; the design team just implemented their vision better in Brawl. I think it’s more accurate to say that their philosophy trended more and more competitively as the series went on, resulting in Ultimate, which is actually a great competitive game.
Of course, Melee, Rivals, and P+ are all phenomenal competitive games. No shade on them here. I just think you misrepresented the design philosophy of the Smash dev team in just about every game in the series with that ridiculous binary chart of yours.
In regards to the game design and competitive viability nobody has to prove anything with aether, ssbm, 64, pm or p+. People are always making a case for brawl, 4 and ultimate. That's fairly telling.
Those games are really fun and all man but they are not on the same level. The players feel it, the viewers feel it.
A sick combo in the complex games is a spectacle and a feat. A spectacle in the in that they are awesome looking and a feat in that they are very demanding, the average player can't do it. Brawl, 4, and ssbu's combos, in my opinion and experience, are a spectacle first. That extends to nearly every aspect of the game, from edgeguarding to neutral.
Ssbu is super balanced tho and that's awesome.
Very good video
I'll be honest, feels more like your talking about rivals being moreso a spiritual successor to melee and PM and such rather than it being a sequel to the smash games, plus the points about the other smash games not being sequels or really mentioning them at all seems a bit weird since you didnt really go in depth about it but I understand the points you are trying to make in general so it's still a good video, nice job
One thing I've always hated about Melee and PM is ledge hogging. One of the best things to ever happen to Smash was the introduction of ledge trumping. I'm so glad that Rivals doesn't have ledges/ledge hogging. That mechanic just makes it so much more annoying and disheartening for newer players when they try to get into the game.
Ledge trumping is a trash mechanic that ruins the off stage game.
I like ledge hogging/grabbing. You get rewarded for edgeguarding right and effectively. You work to get back to stage
While I understand why ledge-hogging is annoying to new players, it objectively makes the game deeper. When edge-guarding is better, and when the ledge itself isn't always safe, then stage control matters much more. In Melee and PM, center stage is way more advantageous, and being in the corner is way scarier because going off-stage is more likely to be the stock.
Smash 4 and Ultimate, with the magnet hands and ledge trumping, make it so it is almost ALWAYS a good decision to go to ledge. There is rarely a reason not too. It removes an entire dimension of the mind games in recovery, and it makes stage control less significant. So it is easier and more accessible, but I personally dislike ledge trumping a great deal.
That said, I LOVE the recovery system in rivals. It is deep and edge-guarding is dope, and your recovery options are many. This makes stage control more of a factor and makes recovery fun. It also eliminates the annoying parts of ledges like ledge stalling. That said, I don't necessarily think it is superior to the Melee/PM system. But both, in my opinion, annihilate ledge trumping as a mechanic. At least in terms of depth.
So basically, to sum this video up, melee and pm take more skill, and rivals takes more thought
Cool vid. Rivals seems pretty fun :O
hey! this really helped me understand