Bayonetta OP in Smash?

[SacredWarrior]

just sell the game used.

I would have to sell my Wii U because I bought the Smash Splat bundle meaning my Wii U came with Super Smash Bros and Splatoon pre-installed. So nope

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

I would have to sell my Wii U because I bought the Smash Splat bundle meaning my Wii U came with Super Smash Bros and Splatoon pre-installed. So nope

Ah, I can see the issue then.
In which case your best protest would just be to stop buying anything further.

+Stop playing. Games like smash rely on an active player community.

 

[SacredWarrior]

They don't care about your satisfaction. They don't care about your emotions. They only care about generating a sufficient level of profit so as to continue on the next day.

And that's why the AAA gaming industry is failing. Quantity over quality is all they care about. Just making quick bucks by using shady tactics. No heart put into their games whatsoever.

You are one among millions of voices, drowned out by the sheer volume of everyone else; a cacophony of sounds so incoherent that Cthulhu would blush at his genuine inferiority to our own crowd mentalities.

What if those millions of voices all sound the same and have the same opinion and the greedy companies still don't listen? They're being assholes then. Like how Microsoft told their fans in a condescending way to just stick with the Xbox 360 if they didn't like their original plans for the Xbox One? Or if developers take down videos just because they leave a bad review on their product or call them out on their bullshit? Censorship.

What you do with that product afterwards is none of their concern.

Is that why most developers hate used game sales and don't like GameStop? Online passes and digital distribution exist because of that. Greed.

Whether you are satisfied with it or not is irrelevant to them.

I beg to differ. Sales don't mean anything when it comes to reception. Just because a game sells well doesn't mean it's gonna leave a good mark on the company. Evolve, The Order 1886, Destiny, Assassin's Creed Unity, need I say more? Our satisfaction is relevant because it determines whether or not the game is gonna sell in the first place unless the game has very aggressive advertising. Just look at Street Fighter V and how badly it's sold compared to other fighters.


Companies need to start listening to gamers because if they want more of our money, they'd be smart to do so. They're getting too arrogant for their own good and they think we'll fall for anything. The saying "The customer's always right" exists for a reason. They can't flourish without us and they need to remember that. So they need to keep us happy and they can do that by changing their ways that people have been bitching about for God knows how long instead of trying to cover themselves.

 

[SacredWarrior]

+Stop playing. Games like smash rely on an active player community.

Or I could just drop Bayonetta for another character since I use a few others.

 

[Brovo]

And that's why the AAA gaming industry is failing. Quantity over quality is all they care about. Just making quick bucks by using shady tactics. No heart put into their games whatsoever.

Um... What? They're making money hand over fist. EA reported 1.2 Billion in Net Profit in 2015. Activision-Blizzard reported 1.8 Billion in Net Profit in 2015. Of the top ten best selling games in 2015, nine of them were by triple AAA developers. Of the best selling video games of all time, at least 8 were published by companies that count as triple AAA, with the #1 spot going to EA's version of Tetris.

The Triple AAA industry is thriving. It's making more money now than it has in years. "Art" has nothing to do with whether or not a game will sell well. Public awareness and interest in the product determines how well something will sell. Hell, Smash Brothers hardly counts as "art." It's a sequel to a sequel to a game whose sole purpose was to draw in as many fans of as many differing franchises as was possible to one massive market dump game, and because the game is entertaining, it worked.

What if those millions of voices all sound the same and have the same opinion and the greedy companies still don't listen?

Then Communism would work.

They're being assholes then. Like how Microsoft told their fans in a condescending way to just stick with the Xbox 360 if they didn't like their original plans for the Xbox One? Or if developers take down videos just because they leave a bad review on their product or call them out on their bullshit? Censorship.

Censorship has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The public can express disdain for a product if the company is actively looking for said input. That's the entire point to an announcement (aside from the aforementioned marketing point): Is to gauge public interest in a product.

Microsoft didn't change the XBox One because people were mad. Microsoft changed the XBox One because they thought it would gain them more customers. And it did. So they won.

Is that why most developers hate used game sales and don't like GameStop? Online passes and digital distribution say hello.

Developers don't generally care, it's publishers who care, and it's because they want their money. And while it's easy to pin it on greed (hell, some of it is definitely greed) it's also because shareholders want greater returns in profits to the investment they put into the company via purchasing a share. The CEO is beholden to shareholder interest, which is exclusively based around money. It's why trickle down economics doesn't really work when one factors in megacorporations, but that's an entirely different topic.

I beg to differ. Sales don't mean anything when it comes to reception. Just because a game sells well doesn't mean it's gonna leave a good mark on the company. Evolve, The Order 1886, Destiny, Assassin's Creed Unity, need I say more?

All games which sold bucketfuckloads and made an insane amount of money anyway. Companies which will continue to sell bucketfuckloads of games afterwards, as they always have. Your point?

Our satisfaction is relevant because it determines whether or not the game is gonna sell in the first place unless the game has very aggressive advertising.

It's not though. They don't care. They've never cared. Look at how long EA has been releasing absolute floodgates of garbage. The Sims 2 & 3 each had so many expansion packs adding so much fucking nonsensical fluff that to own both games completely at one point cost over 1,000 dollars. People still paid for it. People still enjoyed it.

Because as much as you'd like to imagine that your outrage is shared among many, it's really not. Thousands of people can absolutely loath a game and it can still sell like fucking hotcakes. Its sequels can still sell like hotcakes. Look at Call of Duty: Look at how well that franchise sells. I don't enjoy it and I imagine you don't either, considering you made a nasty remark about "those evil dude bros" in the industry. Except, and here's where you should probably think very carefully about your position...

Who made you the legislator of taste? I don't enjoy Call of Duty but I don't go about thinking every fan of the series is fucking stupid for buying the franchise. Everybody has their own definition of value. I don't really enjoy most Nintendo products: I think they're derivative and repetitious to the point that, once I've played one, I've played them all. I've played Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time: No Nintendo title is ever going to best those two for me where it concerns Mario and Zelda, but they're going to keep making games in those franchises. That doesn't mean that people who then enjoy those games are stupid: It just means their definition of value is different to mine.

Your outrage is your own. Proclaiming that it's the company's fault, or that the company is morally bankrupt, for providing a service which contains terms or changes which you don't want, makes you the righteous elitist. You are judging everyone else who doesn't agree with you.

Now yes. Censorship is bad and it should be combated wherever it sprouts up. People should be free to speak their own opinion on whatever they like. However, to conflate tweaking bayonetta's numbers in a video game with censorship on the mass media stage is intellectually disingenuous, and shows how weak your position really is when you have to resort to comparing to an extreme like this. Nintendo isn't censoring you: Nintendo is changing their fucking game. You can either like it or not. Play it, or don't. Keep buying their stuff, or don't. They don't care so long as they make their money at the end of the day. Because they want to put food on their table and buy ever progressively more expensive and nice things. Just like you. Just like me.

They're just making a change you don't like, or providing a service you don't want.

Seriously. Go outside. Get some fresh air. Listen to some Gilbert and Sullivan. You sound like you need it.

 

[Hecatoncheires]

I see your Gilbert and Sullivan, and raise you cute pictures of kittens.

 

[Brovo]

I see your Gilbert and Sullivan, and raise you cute pictures of kittens.

 

[Rain of the Night]

@Grumpy

Ok, there is SOME progress in this thread. (Though the current subject has moved on past what the thread's initial subject... And I still see the "I'm right, you're wrong" mentality here.)

Spoiler

Keep that 'Close Thread' button near you. I can feel it Grumpy.

 

[Brovo]

Shh Rain. The Grumpy will know when the time has come to deliver the final blow. He is a beast that feeds off of anger. He will know when the culling time has arrived.

 

[Rain of the Night]

 

[Kestrel]

Bayonetta isn't easy to learn. In fact, she's VERY difficult to use. She only looks easy because of the top players who use her. Since her fighting style is so different from how Smash normally operates, she's like Ryu in that she has the mechanics from her home games and plays that way. There is no lack of execution barrier. Bayonetta requires time, dedication, and LOTS of patience to use.

Every character requires time to master. Every combo requires muscle memory. Being different from other characters in the game is kind of saying it's difficult to play heavies 'cause you're used to Fox.

She's high risk, high reward. A character of the extremes. There's nothing to fear. The stuff you see people pull at tournaments requires lots of practice to pull off. I speak from personal experience.

High reward is the definition of fear in fighting games. Conditioning your opponent to do X, then punish with Y. I mean... Have you ever played a grappler in a classic 2d fighter? If you make your opponent afraid to press buttons, you win. Instead of a 360, Bayonetta has Witch Time. However, unlike Gief's meaty pokes, Bayonetta has combos that murder. You don't want to guess wrong as a Bayonetta player, 'cause you'll get punished. However if your opponent guesses wrong, they get punished harder.

Does the controversy make sense, now? Yes, you have to dominate her to win 'cause Bayonetta is bad on the defence, but you need to guess right more often than the Bayonetta player does to secure that win.

 

[SacredWarrior]

Does the controversy make sense, now? Yes, you have to dominate her to win 'cause Bayonetta is bad on the defence, but you need to guess right more often than the Bayonetta player does to secure that win.

No it doesn't make sense.

Let's use another character as an example.

She's my main in Dead or Alive 5 Last Round. Guess what her fighting style is? Wrestling. She's a grappler. She capitalizes on mistakes that her opponent may make and throws them for maximum damage. She's also pretty heavy and hits pretty hard. But guess what her weakness is? She's pretty damn slow (although not the slowest character in the game).

By that logic, I guess Tina is a controversial character too. Or any character that excels in exploiting mistakes right?

That's not unfair. That's just how some characters operate. You can't expect to fight every character the same way. That's not how fighting games work. You HAVE to change up your style depending on your opponent even if you don't like it. You HAVE to adapt otherwise you'll never make it in fighting games. You will be beaten every time. If Smash is gonna be competitive, it can't be exempt from this at all. High reward HAS to be in fighting games.

Bayonetta is a hard hitter which is why her opponents will get punished harder. Her strength is high but her defense isn't. Which is why I said she's high risk, high reward. If she happens to be stronger than the character she's fighting against, that's not her fault. Plus there are tons of characters in Smash 4 who beat her in that department anyway.

 

[Brovo]

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

I propose the Mii Fighter is the most broken, you can customize it so people never know what they'll get. :P

 

[Kagayours]

@SacredWarrior

I have a question.

Why do you care so much what the competitive players think if it doesn't affect you? I know you said it's because you don't want other characters to be "nerfed unnecessarily", but like... we've also established that nerfing/buffing shouldn't affect casual players that much, so... why does it matter to you?

Even if we were to say, for sake of argument, that Bayonetta isn't OP and that people really are just whining... why does it matter? Whether or not the developers listen, it still shouldn't affect you, right?

I apologize if this next bit comes across as needlessly confrontational, but like... it seems like almost every thread you start around here is essentially just "here's a group of people with an opinion I don't like -- what monsters" and, I just... why do you care so much? Why do you put so much mental effort into all this? Really, I'm genuinely curious.

Like, you just seem so riled up about it all. I can only picture you furiously typing away at each response because the fact that these "toxic elitists" even exist just makes you so angry...

And like... you're allowed to have an opinion. I'm not saying you're in the wrong for expressing that opinion. But like... it's ok to walk away from things sometimes. Just because someone holds an opinion that you disagree with doesn't mean that you need to be so personally angered by it. Like, I understand that fan communities sometimes have popular opinions that we don't like. I could rant all day about certain popular opinions among fans of Doctor Who, Steven Universe, and many more. And... sometimes I do! If I feel like sharing my opinion, and if I'm in an environment where it feels right to do such a thing. But, often times... I don't, because I don't want to make myself riled up about stuff, and I'm content just walking away and letting other people have their opinions, because I have other things that I'd rather spend my time and effort doing. And even when I do comment, and even when I do get into some debate with another fan... I still avoid taking it as a personal attack, and I still know when to drop it and walk away if the discussion isn't going anywhere. Being unable to convince someone that you're right doesn't mean that you need to tear your hair out because augh you just want to convince them so bad...

So given the fact that you seem to often come to Iwaku to complain about fan communities that we don't even really seem to be exposed to... I just don't see what it's supposed to accomplish. If you disagree with someone's opinions, then either tell them that directly or ignore them. I don't see what running to another community about it is supposed to do, unless you feel you really need validation that you're right, or you really want to make sure that no one here is siding with the people you disagree with -- and, in that case, I have to ask again... why do you care so much?

Like I said, having (and even expressing) an opinion is one thing, but... I seriously don't understand why you need to pour so much effort into this, and I think you'd be genuinely happier if you just walked away sometimes.




ALSO, and this is a minor complaint, but, as for the whole "Bayonetta plays this way because that's how she plays in her own game" argument... it's not like the play style of the original games really matters much when you have to take a bunch of different characters from a bunch of different genres and fit them to all be able to play against each other. It's not like Pikachu plays even remotely similar to how he does in normal Pokemon games... and it's not like you really need to have played a normal Pokemon game in order to comment on any of the Pokemon characters in Smash. The game is intended for anyone to be able to pick it up and play as any character. You don't need to have any background knowledge on any of the characters or the franchises that they came from in order to play as those characters, which is something I always kind of liked about Smash. Point is, saying "you can't comment because you haven't played Bayonetta" is pretty much irrelevant. The only game that you need to have played in order to comment on Smash in this way is simply Smash itself.

 

[Darog]

Because NO character in in ANY Fighting Game is OP as fuck, right? I mean yo just gotta "Gitt gud scrub #noobswhine24/7" or else yo go back to da drawin board.

I haven't played Bayonetta in Smash yet, but to assume that NO character can be too much/cheap/OP/too powerful is a little silly in my books.

 

[☆Luna☆]

The advantages are extremely steep, but competitive smash players have started to dissect how to beat Bayonetta. It is by no means easy, as can be shown by the tone of the above video, but at least a game plan has been established.