| DivinePaladin said: As for the Super system, it was honestly a LOT of people just whining. It had flaws (see: Kill confirms that took away a lot of the risk/reward that the system was meant for), but it was no worse than the Percent system in Smash 64. I've done some deep analyses comparing Smash 64 to PSAS (they shared almost the same development time, for example), but I'll say in short that PSAS is most fairly compared to Smash 64, not Melee a most people did. |
I have a hard time seeing the super system as viable. It just seems like far too simple of a mechanic to actually work as the core of a game. Its difficult to ignore the balancing issues and kill confirms, but take that away and you still don't have enough. There just doesn't seem to be enough to the meta, and yet its not simple enough to work as a deconstruction like Divekick.
Smash did a lot to make its ring out system work for it, such as Directional Influence and Edge Guarding and the mechanic also worked to give the game some built in pacing (the game changes as you and your opponent racked up damage) as opposed to PSASBR which really doesn't have very much in the way of pacing (as opponent built up meter you have to play around their supers, but I dont' think that is on the same level). It stacked layers of complexity on top of it with Melee, but the foundation was incredibly strong from the start.
I would love to hear you explain what they could do with the system to make it more in depth.
