Smash Bros. Brawl Tutorial Videos
Sunday, November 9, 2008 at 12:08PM I made this series of ten short tutorial videos for Super Smash Bros. Brawl. They appear on the official Nintendo Channel accessible through your Wii, on Nintendo's website, and below from YouTube. Nintendo asked me to explain the game to new players in a way that shows them there is more going on than they might think. Remember, these videos are for new players, not for tournament champions and they're intended to help the Smash scene grow.
Smash Bros. sells well in the US and in Japan, but struggles more in Europe. It sells more in both the US and Japan, while the perception in Eurpose is that it's "that kids game with the Mario Kart characters." A strange and ironic statement considering that the "Mario Kart characters" aren't even originally from Mario Kart, but that game sells well in Europe so it's a point of reference for many. Maybe my videos and the reputation of my name will help increase the scene in Europe. (Note to anrgy commenters: this information is from Nintendo, not from me. The idea that my name as an expert on competitive games might help in this situation is from Nintendo, not from me, and that's why they contacted me.)
Special thanks to David "Scamp" Cantrell and Cedric "Ceirnian" Qualls for gameplay advice, Rich "FMJaguar" DeLauder for editing and secretly keeping sirlin.net working, and Mike "Bocci" Boccieri for his technical wizardry with video capture.
As more of the videos become available on youtube, I'll post them all below. If you're interested in these videos, you might try that new "share article" link below, for digg or one of those new-fangled link-swapping sites.
--Sirlin
Part 1: The Two Games
Part 2: Attack Types
Part 3: Evasion and Throws
Part 4: Movement
Part 5: KOs
Part 6: The Edge
Part 7: Controlling Space
Part 8: Super Armor and Auto-Cancels
Part 9: Items
Part 10: Tournament Finals Match
Sirlin
Part 5 is now up!
Sirlin
Part 6 is now up!
Sirlin
Part 7 is up!
Sirlin
Parts 8 and 9 now available.
Reader Comments (174)
Agreed with the SSB64 stuff. Hell, hitstun is insane in SSB64 too, edgegrabbing is not automatic [sweetspotting is difficult], throws universally kill, and recoveries are worse than in say Melee [and Brawl by extension], so that game is hella offensive. Combos can go upwards of 0-death. Really epic game that one.
I don't really like Brawl, but looking at the first two videos, you seem to be doing a good job with it, given the audience you're targeting. I'll watch the rest of the videos when I get time, college finals. =/
And possibility the reason for the huge shift within the smash community is because each Smash game is very different [unlike stuff like Guilty Gear who's changes are minor, still an epic fighting game]. The shifts are divisions for each game. 64 and Melee vs Brawl, usually, given the fundamentals of Brawl are very different compared to the previous two [spacing and that stuff still exists, but push and pull -> punishment is vastly different between all of them, but Melee and 64 are most similar]. So when you lump the whole Smash community together, it's no wonder that they all bicker with each other,
Well, it's the thought that counts. I personally do not prefer Brawl, and I find it funny that Nintendo (a very very casual company as of late, some of the things Sakurai has said tells me he's never wanted to win anything) would go to a competitive fighter like Sirlin.
Quick jab at the items thing: Some one said it already but tournaments are designed so the best player wins. Items give a (random) unfair advantage. I'm still not sure why there's confusion. Explanations would be appreciated.
Understand non-smashers, this is an issue that we are used to being attacked on when realistically we just wanna have our tournaments in peace, and not be told "you're doing it wrong" when our format is by far more balanced then items formats. We tend to get defensive about this issue because of constant assault. We will debate on it however, but we'd be less evangelical about it if we weren't under constant assault from the "tierz are for queerz" crowd.
Regardless Sirlin, for the videos in general, I recognize that the tutorial is pretty basic, but I think that an introduction to safe attacks and spacing attacks would be useful for new players. Just introduce them to the fact that advantageous spacing isn't just them being below their opponent and it's character specific. Really I was hoping that the most recent update would do that. For example, Marth vs. Falco, at long range falco can laser marth with impunity, but once Marth gets into the edge of melee range, everything Falco does is punishable, while Marth can just use safe on block moves. At close ranges, the match-up becomes pretty even.
But basically, in this Match-up, Marth can low-strong all day and Falco has to figure out a way to create better spacing.
Also, you planning on doing anything on traps and brickwalls in any of your segments?
Everyone harps on these sakurai comments, I can see his POV on a lot of things. I can see a benefit in letting losers at least feel competitive, I can see a benefit in changing up the match and seeing how players react. I don't personally like the idea that your character can trip and fall, but I also don't like moves that are hard for no reason and i have to hope i did them right, how far apart are they really? Are those games uncompetitive because i don't like them?
I'm sure his delivery and some of his phrasing didn't go over well with the internet crowd, the internet crowd doesn't always go over that well either among real life players, so I call it even.
I'm sure most(all) SF experts didn't like Ono's comparison of Third Strike to a chess match, or the implication that rollbacks are too hard to implement. Does that mean that he's an idiot? no, Does that mean that Capcom doesn't care about tournaments? no.
------------
Competitive gaming has this whole big picture that people are missing. The level of competition is not necessarily related to any one factor: randomness, popularity, balance, accessibility, etc.. all of them play some role in the competitiveness of a game. The community isn't limited to the players you know, and the pool of competitive players isn't limited to those people either. A lot of people are posting "well X makes Y game more competitive"... really? According to what? does it apply across all competitive games or just the ones we're choosing to count?
I want games that are so accessible that your goldfish could play it, I also want games with analog fireball throwing and moves that all behave differently based on execution and how perfectly you executed the motion.
-------------------
This notion of 'being attacked' is really overdramatic, peace is achieved through understanding, and I am wondering how much understanding there is when players are boycotting tournaments, harping on the game company, the staff, and everyone outside of the people they are used to dealing with.
I can understand wanting to be 'left alone', but it's time to step out of the internet forum and into the real world. The game you play is not yours, it belongs to Nintendo, it belongs to the other 4 million players that paid for the game, it belongs to everyone. The question shouldn't be "how can we convince everyone that we are right?", it should be "how can we work with these different parts of the community?". Instead of talking about why your internet group is so perfect, think about where it may need improvement. If there isn't a path to improvement, then it's probably time to play a different game.
In the end, the game companies, tournament players, non-tournament players, spectators, sponsors, and everyone else are part of the same community, and if we want anything more out of the scene, we will have to put more into the big picture.
Overall, your videos serve as an excellent introduction to a higher level of play for Brawl and Smash Brothers in general, Sirlin. I do hope they achieve the goal of developing a larger interest in competitive Smash Brothers. Brawl may not be my choice game of the series, but a larger, more competitive, more vocal community can't hurt when it comes time for there to be another iteration.
I'd also like to apologize for certain member of the Smash Brothers community. I certainly have no authority to do so, but some of what has been said here has been ridiculous, disgusting, and only plays into this perceived notion that the Smashboards community is full of pompous, self-righteous posters who are not open to discussion. It's disappointing to me that members of other communities would delve so deep into stereotypes and prejudices that they would take such anomalies to represent the whole of our community when you can find similar such people amongst any other.
That said, it is most certainly true that the Smash community can come off as overly defensive. Unfortunately, from the game's initial presentation, it's had a stigma of "non-competitive kiddy (expletive)" that the community has had to educate against over and over and over again. While it may sound overly dramatic, I feel it is no exaggeration to say that competitive Smash Brothers has suffered from more serious and more numerous assaults than most any other such game to date. Sigh. Why can't we all just get along?
@sirlin
Dont Regret your work. I mean alot of this information is old but its still good watching stuff like this & its well spoken.
Like ivo's post was completely unnecessary all you did was stat orther peoples opinions about the game and sales. thats nothing to freak out over.
And since you already have a decent amount of knowledge on this game you should try hitting a couple of tournaments. The community is pretty friendly.
But Good job on this video ill be trying to get my hands on StreetFighter2 turboHD Remix as soon as i possibly can =D
Most of the videos seem to be down. Wonder why.
Sirlin,
How can you even support a game that has intentionally designed randomness programmed into it? The lead design of Brawl even said that he intentionally put tripping into the game to be an act of randomness so that noobs would still get to beat up on vets...and that win or lose, it would make for a fun game. I totally disagree with it and I'm very surprised that you support such flawed game design.
- Daniel
Yeah, Brawl does have random factors, but so do most other fighters. According to Sirlin, RPS (rock-paper-scissors) plays a large role in fighting games like SF because, at the highest levels of play, everyone knows the game inside-out. Thus it's very hard to gain a "technical" (i.e. skill-based) advantage over someone that has the same game knowledge you do. That's when "mindgames" come in; these are guesses made by both players as to what moves their opponent will be using. If you guess right, you get a free hit/combo, and if you guess wrong, your opponent gets a free hit/combo. I would call this random (although not as bad as tripping that you have no control over) because, in essence, it's a guessing game. Unless you have an attention span that's capable of recognizing the move your opponent is about to do and responding to it accordingly all in the space of a single frame, then you're really just playing rock-paper-scissors with him, right? And RPS is certainly a game that relies heavily on chance...there are certainly things you can do to help predict which move your opponent is likely to use, but you can never be sure. Heck, I bet if someone programmed computer AI for a fighting game whose moves were 100% random, it'd be hard to beat.
InTheory,
You're talking about PLAYER-CONTROLLED randomness. The intentional tripping in Brawl is done by the game, like a random number generator...etc... Players cannot control when the tripping occurs...that's a broken game in my opinion.
Yeah, I know it's "player-controlled"...but it's random nonetheless. In my opinion randomness of any type, whether it's controlled by players themselves or by the game, is an undesirable competitive feature. Randomness provides openings for less-skilled players to beat more-skilled players, depending on how much randomness is present. In a game like MarioKart, for example, you have so much randomness that, often, your racing skills get you nowhere; thunderbolts and blue shells can put you from first to last (and vice versa) in a matter of seconds. Not every race is like this, but it comes close enough that it kills any competitive incentive (at least for me).
Basically, the more "skill factors" a game has, the more suitable it is for competitive play, in my opinion. By definition, competition means determining who the better play is, or who can consistently beat everyone else. Randomness of any type makes this difficult. You have to question, "Did he win because he happened to choose the right move at the right time, or because he actually knows the game better"? Of course some will argue that randomness makes games more exciting because "you don't know who's going to win until the last second" or whatever. My response to that would be that if you want close games, go play MarioKart...I guarantee that almost every game will be so close you won't be able to keep from shouting for joy. In fact, I think that playing a game just for the sake of playing "close games" is stupid unless you're just trying to have fun...if you're trying to improve your skill at something, you want a game that will definitively show the skill differentiation between players.
And yes, I ultimately agree with you - tripping in Brawl is a testament to how ill-fit the game is for competitive play. Combos are nigh-impossible, games are horribly slow, and it's hard to be aggressive unless you're playing someone like MetaKnight.
InTheory:
RPS is not random. Let me rephrase that, RPS can be random, but never is with humans. Let me give you some simple examples:
Starcraft: Say you are playing Protoss and your opponent is Zerg. You think they might Zergling rush you so you start out by making a bunch of Zealots. Your Zealots will beat the Zerglings, but you're screwed if they decided to instead quick tech up to Mutalisks.
Street Fighter: Say you are playing Guile against whoever and you're in a situation where your opponent is close enough to jump in. Assuming you have down+back both charged up, you can either Flash Kick to counter a jump in, or Sonic Boom to counter a walk up attack. Against a poor player, you might be able to get away with acting on reaction but pro games move too fast to allow that.
Both of these could be seen as random to an inexperienced player, but a high level player knows that they are anything but.
xAS - RPS is "never random with humans"? Dude, by definition RPS is random! Let me address your two examples.
Your StarCraft example was very poor, but it does apply in a certain sense - if both players arbitrarily choose not to scout each other and go for "whatever feels right", then yes, StarCraft does have RPS. However, there's something called "scouting" that good players do that reveals what your opponent plans to do. If I was Protoss, I would scout my Zerg opponent around 9-10 supply to see what tech buildings he has. If he has a Spire, then I know that he's planning to get Mutalisks at some point, and I can prepare/respond to that. If I see that he doesn't have a Lair yet and maybe getting more hatcheries, then I know he's planning to try a push with heavy Zerglings/Hydralisks, and I can react accordingly. Of course scouting can't tell me everything, but it does mean that the RPS factor is greatly diminished since, in theory, you can always scout to figure out what your opponent is up to. Scouting is a huge deal in competitive StarCraft - shoutcasters will literally freak out when they see that one player has spotted the other player's "secret plan" or whatever because they know how valuable that information can be.
Street Fighter isn't like that. Attacks/special moves are initiated in fractions of a second; there's no way you can consistently "scout" out what the crouching Guile is going to do. All you can do is give it your best guess and try to trick him out. For example, you can choose to use the jump-in if you know that the Guile likes to spam Sonic Boom, and then punish him because he leaves himself open from above. But the Guile can just as easily anticipate this reasoning on your part and choose to do a Flash Kick (unexpectedly) and knock you out of the air. SF and other fighters consist largely of "RPS encounters" like this - both players know exactly which move counters which other move; it's just a matter of who tricks who into doing what. At high levels of play there's actually very little room for "technical skill", so to speak, because everyone can do everything perfectly and knows all the counters anyway, and thus there's no technical skill gap. The "game" of SF consists of tricking your opponent into doing a move that either 1.) you've anticipated and can counter or 2.) you didn't anticipate but can counter anyway because your opponent missed his attack or suffered cooldown from an attack. Thus it's safe to say that SF pretty much revolves around the concept of RPS, at least at higher competitive levels.
Just to go back to StarCraft, I'd be wrong to say that things like scouting and reconnaissance totally eliminate RPS, because they don't. They just diminish it to a point where you can actually make decisions based on strategy and reasoning rather than mindgames and guessing. As I said before, if I'm playing Protoss against Zerg, I can anticipate his Mutalisk harassment or whatever if I scout the Zerg well enough. However, the Zerg player can also anticipate my scouting Probe and kill it with upgraded-speed Zerglings, thus denying me the ability to scout him. In this situation, there would be more RPS present because I wouldn't have scouted my opponent. I could either choose to try scouting again, or perhaps make a few Photon Cannons to cover my back in case he does try something sneaky. Or, I can attack him to force him to bring out what troops he does have so I can get a better idea of what he's doing. StarCraft mixes RPS with strategic decision-making, while SF basically throws you into a massive guessing game where there's little room for actual "strategy."
I personally don't like Brawl, but I don't go degrading it. Even if a lot has been removed since Melee, I'm sure there is still depth in there. Sometimes less is far more, and fast games are not always the best.
Also, there seems to be another Marc on this site, so please do not mistake me for that other person, with me having posted comments on here now and then.
InTheory, I suggest you read this article before you continue. Rock Paper Scissors against a human is anything but random.
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/rock-paper-scissors-in-strategy-games.html
xAS - I looked at the article you linked to. Here's a quote from it:
"Even these explanations are simplified, but the RPS system is basically there. Attack the opponent. If they tried to throw you, you'll hit them. If they block or reverse your attack, they nullified your attack. If you expect them to block, you can throw. If they expect you to throw, they can attack."
Sirlin implies that humans tend to make decisions based on the factors that they've observed in the game; i.e. if you know that someon's "throw-happy", you'll jump out of the way or hit them as they try to throw. I already mentioned this with your Guile example - if you expect Guile to use Sonic Boom, then you move close to him, wait for him to use it, and then time it right so you can jump over the Sonic Boom and hit/combo him. However, if Guile knows that you're planning to do this, he can simply counter in a variety of ways (punching/kicking you as you move forward, moving back, jumping up to meet your jump, etc.).
You're right, though - I shouldn't say "random" because it's not truly random in that sense of the word, but it's still a guessing game. I think what I was trying to say is that many (if not all) SF situations become guessing games between the two players. Players' moves will not be necessarily "random" (although this might be a smart choice in certain cases!) since each player acts based on what he thinks his opponent is about to do; however, there's still a great deal of "luck" involved because there's no real way to know what your opponent is about to do. And when you commit to something, it either works or it doesn't, depending on what your opponent decided to commit to. To give a simple example: If I see a fighter walking toward me that I know likes to use his/her low strong attack to gain knockdowns, I'll definitely be ready to block low. However, my opponent knows that I'm ready to block - will he choose to throw, instead, or will he follow through with the low strong hoping for the chance to knock me down? The best that either of us can do in this situation is to guess, because we don't know for sure. That's what I meant by "random" (although I admit I used it incorrectly at first) - I guess anything that involves luck I have a tendency to dub random. Oh well. You get the idea.
Mostly, this "luck" is determined by human intuition. If you see that your opponent is aggressive and gung-ho, you might guess that he is more likely to attack. If you see he is crafty, you might guess that he is going to throw. Even when you are playing random matches online you can usually determine something. For example, if your opponent picks Snake in Brawl, they probably have a tendency to be tricky. If they pick Metaknight, they are probably very aggressive. If they pick Samus, they're probably going to run away and shoot missles at you all day. Even better is when you are facing a known player (either a well known tournament player or the friends you play with at home). Because you've seen so many games by this person, you KNOW what they want to do in any given situation. You also know about how often they do tricky moves. Deep analysis will give you a pretty high rate of successful guesses unless they have studied your gameplay similarly.
So yeah, most good fighting games have a strong element of reading your opponent. It's just like poker; you could say whenever a player raises, it's "random" whether he is bluffing or not, but in reality a good poker player will almost always guess right.
xAS - "So yeah, most good fighting games have a strong element of reading your opponent. It's just like poker; you could say whenever a player raises, it's "random" whether he is bluffing or not, but in reality a good poker player will almost always guess right."
I agree with this - "reading your opponent" is definitely the main concern in fighting games (and in other games, too, but in different ways). The real "game" occurs when you get two players who are both really good at reading each other; for example, two poker players who are really good at both bluffing and guessing their opponents' bluffs. Only one of those poker players will win - and it's really hard to win by "reading your opponent" in this case because your opponent knows that you're trying to read him, and thus he may purposely do things that you won't be "reading" him for. As a good player, however, you anticipate this as well. The "luck" aspect comes in when you try to decide which "anticipation" to follow in your decision. But that's what keeps these games exciting and fresh, I guess.
Firstly, Yoshi's second jump and Snake's up-B don't have super armor, they have "heavy armor", which means that an attack with enough knockback WILL knock them out of it.
As for in general super armor:
All grabs have an identical effect on the frame they connect.
Charizard:
Up-B (you mentioned it)
Forward-B (start-up)
Donkey Kong:
Fully charage neutral B (you mentioned it)
Cargo carry (DK's foreward "throw")
grounded up-B
Ganondorf:
Side-B (from when the opponent is grabbed to when he/she/it is released)
Ike:
Neutral B (you mentioned it)
Up-B (until he grabs the sword)
DDD:
Up-B (till it reaches the apex)
Olimar:
Down-B
Pit:
Down-B
Squirtle:
F-smash
Wario:
F-smash
Down-B
I've been playing Smash since it came out for the 64. I got bored and got too busy for Brawl. This reawakened my curiousity for the game.
While Nintendo didn't make another buck off me since I bought the game when it first came out, atleast you got players like me playing the game again.
Thanks.