I've always subscribed to the theory that Melee's greatest defenders were folks who fell in love with a game that was never meant to happen.

Too ready,

Strategy employed in Melee has a much different form than when comparing to an RTS game. There is a lot of strategy happening. Things like baiting, using projectiles to force moves, anticipation, mindgames, inclusion of walls, platforms, dodge mechanic, increasing weight, shielding, dodge roll, dead roll, double jump and the edge game created more strategic opportunities. You can say that mechanical aptitude + intelligence is required to utilize these tools, but that's just what the 2D fighter genre is.

This right here basically describes how everyone is going to interpret this title and respond to the thread (because very, very few people will read your entire OP). You could have helped alleviate such responses by putting more effort into your title, but I understand that you wanted clicks.

I think people are skeptical because of what Brawl was compared to Melee. They stripped nearly everything that made Melee so competitive.

That IS L-cancelling, lol.

Anyway, he straight up said in a prior interview that this game would be between Melee and Brawl.... the other side of this quote is that he felt he had to dumb down Brawl for the expanded Wii audience, and that he does not have to do that for the new Smash, I'll have to find the quote. 

People are skeptical? All the more reason to convey the proper message in the easiest way possible. Also, the OP didn't link the interview nor post all of it (assuming he's gathering this from the same source). 

Here: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=603986

(Sakurai openly states that Brawl was a game made for newcomers, which i found interesting).

If I were you guys, I wouldn't hype up the game too much, you'll just end up being disappointed. I'm just going to go in and enjoy the game for what it is. I was a bit disappointed with Brawl, but quickly got over it after a month. The passion about his work and I won't be one of those fans breathing down his neck.

Fighting games should always be aimed mostly at the midde ground if you wan't to get the most people to lay it. Even the producer of Tekken has stated most of the sales from the Tekken series comes from intermediate or lower players. I just wan't another fun fighting game from sakurai.

From a business standpoint, the choice is obvious. No matter how much it pisses off some hardcore FG players. most of the money comes from people who aren't ChrisG, or Mew2King, or Infiltration. Striking a balance between competitive and casual play is a far better option than doing whatever the hardcore community wants. They aren't as unified a voice as they like to think anyway.

Ono (the producer for SF4) stated Street Fighter 3: Third Strike was a designed as a super-hardcore game. The team wanted to make the most technical SF possible without worrying as much about sales. And the game's performance reflected that; while it's considered by many hardcore fans to be the best SF in the series, it took ten years to get SF4 because Third Strike's shit sales made the whole brand toxic. Only through lowering the learning curve was Ono able to convince Capcom's bosses to give it another go.

Both "vanilla" and Super Street Fighter IV went on to sell something like 6 million units combined. It's a lot of fun, and for all the bitching from the elitist hipster cul-de-sac in the FGC, it's still a very worthy tournament fixture as well. I see nothing wrong with Sakurai trying a similar approach.