Smash named as one of MLG's greatest games of all time

Emblem Lord is right in some points, Smash Bros. is big because it was created as a party game that uses video game celebrities in it. That's what attracted the majority of people in the first place, it was not the hidden depth that this game had to offer.

It is true that the depth of the game made the people stay, wanting for more. But the importance of the community is also the reason why the game is keeping its appeal for so long : you don't play a game that nobody else plays.

So basically, the size of the community isn't directly correlated with the quality of the game. But you indeed need a great community to have a nice tournament scene with your game.

So I guess that it would be true that Smash is currently superior than Tekken and SC as a tournament game, not because Smash is better, but because the community is better (a reason which was already cited in the article).

However, I don't know if Smash is deeper than Tekken and SC, since 3D is not my cup of tea. But let me just warn you that Tekken is much more than just launcher > juggle combo.

EDIT: In Tekken it seems that landed hits can lead to a myriad of different statuses, either on hit or block. So there would be your equivalent of DI...

funny how its MLG's greatest game, yet they trashed it at the end because i guess halo 2 n gears of war(****iest game evar) were more competitive. i heard mlg had a sho w/ halo 2 for 45 minutes n smash for 5 min, is that true? Smash was the best hands down, n supposedly SCII was better than original so, i dunno. n tekken 5 sux w/o question.

Broly said:

funny how its MLG's greatest game, yet they trashed it at the end because i guess halo 2 n gears of war(sitiest game evar) were more competitive. i heard mlg had a sho w/ halo 2 for 45 minutes n smash for 5 min, is that true? Smash was the best hands down, n supposefdly SCII was better than original so, i dunno. n tekken 5 sux w/o question.

Click to expand...

Reread the article's title plz... or the thread's title

Too bad other fighting communites are all crap.

Oh wait the games are too!

no duh, lol

u really think gears of war is one of their greatest? lol, well mayb mlg isnt that old. i say they shoulda kept it in da circuit insteas of this evo stuff

M3D said:

The percentage fighting system and directional influence mean that combos cannot simply be memorized and the winner of the fight isn't determined by who inputs the buttons correctly. Each and every matchup is incredibly unique and nearly every combo must be modified on the fly in order to achieve success. That means, while it might require a some nasty memorization skills to be good at Tekken and SC, it takes far more talent and intelligence to sit at the top of the competitive smash scene. [/color]

Click to expand...

please, just get real; there is no game that's 100% about nothing but combos, how do you think you manage to land the combo starters to begin with?

these dial-a-combo comments from everyone i've seen are so ill-informed it's sad; someone mind explaining how killing someone with a 60% combo (which you can't even use every time you get an opening depending on the game thanks to meter, burst, etc) is somehow simplistic compared to killing someone with a marth tipper? and before someone says WELL YOU HAVE TO SPACE THE MARTH TIPPER, you have to be in a position for anything beyond the most braindead 2-in-1's to work too

also your arguments on sales and community = "people agree with me so i'm right"

pdk said:

please, just get real; there is no game that's 100% about nothing but combos, how do you think you manage to land the combo starters to begin with?

these dial-a-combo comments from everyone i've seen are so ill-informed it's sad; someone mind explaining how killing someone with a 60% combo (which you can't even use every time you get an opening depending on the game thanks to meter, burst, etc) is somehow simplistic compared to killing someone with a marth tipper? and before someone says WELL YOU HAVE TO SPACE THE MARTH TIPPER, you have to be in a position for anything beyond the most braindead 2-in-1's to work too

also your arguments on sales and community = "people agree with me so i'm right"

Click to expand...

Yes i love to get ring out by nightmare in 5 seconds and get infinited by a number of characters in tekken. stfu about dying too early, everygame has it wheather u like it or not. just that in smash u can actually do something like di to get out of it. i dont see a website of SC 4 or a new tekken game. WHY? CUZ NOBODY GIVES A ****.

M3D said:

I'm not sure you know who I am Emblem Lord... but if you do, I'm shocked that you would say I'm ignorant.

I was the MLG Smash director for three years and for about a year and half I was the senior staff writer. I'm a game journalist who has covered Evo in past years and I know the fighting genre pretty well. Now I'm a game developer and continue to do freelance game journalism. While I might not be an expert on SC or Tekken, I know my stuff and Smash is absolutely the most demanding fighter on the planet.

Also, if you think DI isn't important in the high levels of Smash play, then you don't know a lot about the game. Certain combos, like the Waveshine, can be used no matter what the percentage, but for the most part, combos still change on the fly every time. DI is especially important in grab combos. The attacker has to predict/react to the DI of his opponent to continue the combo and the person getting grabbed needs to try to outthink the attacker and DI out of the combo.

I stand by what I said. Based on my professional experience as a tournament director, journalist and developer... Smash is vastly superior to both SC and Tekken.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say smash is the most demanding fighter on the planet... MvC2 and GG are both harder to learn technically then smash is. The execution on both of those games just to compete is much at a much higher level then smash is, plus learning how to set up for combos in that game is in a sort the equivalent to predicting DI in smash. Not exactly the same, but it is similar. Magneto's ROM is harder to do then anything in smash. 6FRC6's in GG are harder then L-canceling by far. Don't take it the wrong way, I love smash, and it is the game I play most, but I realize that there are quite a few of the 2D fighters out there that are harder than smash. Even CvS2 can be harder then smash to play at a high level, since just about everyone uses A-Groove with either Sak, Dict, or both on their team. To even play those 2 characters, you have to learn how to do the DP cancellation custom combos, which are no easy task. I am still pretty new to CvS2, so I can't do the sho sho train with Sak or ptf with Bison yet. Smash is pretty deep, but it is definitely not the most demanding fighting game on the planet IMO. That honor would go either to GG or Marvel.


EDIT: Oh, and for your other argument of just memorizing button combos and whoever can press the best wins, I guess you don't know what option select is, or the different types of setup that require just as much if not more intelligence and decision making then smash.

Emblem Lord said:

Nothing compares to the original Soul caliber in terms of gameplay.

Melee's gameplay was an accident. A **** good one. But an accident all the same.

Sales?

Of course smash will always win in sales. It's ****ing Nintendo for crying out loud.

SC's community was huge back in it's glory days. Not as huge as smashes but only a little bit less then it. SC3 is what killed the community. But SC3 wasn't the best game so I could care less if that game is brought into the argument.

The original Soul Caliber is where it's at.

DI? Wow. Please don't bring up that argument. DI doesn't mean **** at the highest level because people just abuse combos where DI doesn't mean a **** thing.

Button inputs? lol. Smash is a game where you can't even begin to compete if you haven't mastered all the technical aspects of the game. It's the one of the most tech heavy games on the market, aside from MvC2 and the Guilty Gear series.

Talent and intelligence?

Now your just pulling stuff outta your ***. These things are hard to see and measure and you have no real proof or basis on which to back this up.

Don't judge Tekken and SC based on MLG.

Smash is big cause of casuals. SC and Tekken will always have their place as hardcore fighters.

To be honest you can't compare them. Smash is the more successful tourney game. But as a fighter I just don't think it stacks up.

Sorry M3D, but you just sound really ignorant of Tekken and Soul Caliber.

W/e.

Smasheers in genral are casuals. Hell Mew2King one of the worlds' greatest does NOT play other fighters.

He is ignorant of them. In fact I know alot of the pro players don't know anything about other fighyters nor do they play them. So I'm not surprised to see that this board truly thinks that smash is the greatest with it's complete ignorance of the greatness that is Soul Caliber and Tekken.

But even if I did concede that Smash was greater, it doesn't matter too much to me.

Because Guilty Gear is, and always will be king.

Click to expand...

GTFO new***!!!!!

I was going to reprimand ToXn for just generally being a waste of atoms, but this thread makes my brain hurt.

Look, Smash is a fighting game, no better or worse than any other serious fighter. It is simple to pick up, but tends to be very tech-intensive at higher levels of play. Other long-legged fighters like the SF, SC (before III) and GGXX series require tech and mindgames in nearly the same amounts as Smash.

It's really just different strokes for different folks, and thinking that your tastes mean superiority is just garbage. 4 million people can be wrong folks, just as the 15 who bought say, Psychonauts can be in the right. Most every facet of Smash has a simple corollary in another hardcore fighter.

For example: WDing = space control/evasion/backdash/jump-back. Shield Grabbing/Wave Smashing = defensive to offensive transition/GI/Parry/Meaty hits/Counters. Hell, even the lauded "percentage combos on the fly" ******** can be easily connected to the "percentage taken combos" that are so maligned by those who praise Smash.

All good fighters have the same basic principles that make them good, having these in a slightly different wrapping does not make Smash a better game. It's like the jagoff Chan wars, or LOL MAH GAEMS IZ TEH BESTEST debates. Get over yourselves.

P.S.: Yeah, it's tl;dr, so sue me. Stupidity gets me angry and verbose.

Goldkirby said:

snip

Click to expand...

This thread is not about if Smash is the deepest fighting game ever... it has already proven wrong in another thread.

This thread is about if Smash is one of MLG's greatest games, and that is probably a yes, even though it doesn't mean much since MLG had a very small repertoire of games in its lifetime... other FG's being Tekken and SC.

Let's not start this argument again, even though I'm partly responsible for it.

M3D said:

Smash is superior to Tekken and SC in every way.

It sold more copies than either game. It never dropped out of the top 10 Cube games sold for its entire lifespan.

It's competitive community is larger and more dedicated that anything you can find at SRK or similar sites for Tekken or Soul Caliber.

The gameplay is easy to pick up, so casual fans can REALLY enjoy the series, even if they never really get good at it. However, the depth of the game is such that after six years of playing the title, we still haven't hit the theoretical skill cap. We're still discovering/mastering new techniques and the metagame continues to evolve each year. Tekken and Soul Caliber games are lucky to last two years before even the dedicated players move on to other titles.

The percentage fighting system and directional influence mean that combos cannot simply be memorized and the winner of the fight isn't determined by who inputs the buttons correctly. Each and every matchup is incredibly unique and nearly every combo must be modified on the fly in order to achieve success. That means, while it might require a some nasty memorization skills to be good at Tekken and SC, it takes far more talent and intelligence to sit at the top of the competitive smash scene.

History? Who cares about the SC characters? Does anyone even remember the names of most of the Tekken fighters? Smash characters are recognizable and important outside of the fighting game and have their own dedicated fans.

Sooo.... in sales, community, competition, recognition and skill... Smash absolutely destroys both Tekken and Soul Caliber. That's a pretty clean sweep.

Click to expand...

This is thread win.

Broly said:

Yes i love to get ring out by nightmare in 5 seconds and get infinited by a number of characters in tekken. stfu about dying too early, everygame has it wheather u like it or not. just that in smash u can actually do something like di to get out of it. i dont see a website of SC 4 or a new tekken game. WHY? CUZ NOBODY GIVES A ****.

Click to expand...

exactly, nobody gives a **** about sc and tekken; i know i hate both, but you must straight-up miss the point with gems like this:

stfu about dying too early, everygame has it wheather u like it or not. just that in smash u can actually do something like di to get out of it.

Click to expand...

1) i never said i hated how fast chars die, i said these endless comments from so many people here going on about how "omg these games are just about combos" are stupid; try going back and reading past the first sentence
2) too bad you can get out of combos in other games too!

M3D said:

The percentage fighting system and directional influence mean that combos cannot simply be memorized and the winner of the fight isn't determined by who inputs the buttons correctly. Each and every matchup is incredibly unique and nearly every combo must be modified on the fly in order to achieve success. That means, while it might require a some nasty memorization skills to be good at Tekken and SC, it takes far more talent and intelligence to sit at the top of the competitive smash scene.

Click to expand...

Btw this argument is not very good... the percentage fighting system and DI sounds very good on paper and without a doubt add depth to the game. However, it also adds imbalance to the game, because the best characters overall are those who are less affected by these two mechanics, thus giving them a better combo ability.

DI and percentage doesn't really affect Sheik's combos, they mostly stay the same throughout the match.

Lower tiers have a much greater variation in their combos due to DI and %, and that is what makes them low tier in a sense.

I think one of the problems here is that advanced techniques in smash are being compared to some very difficult and technical 'built-in' moves in other fighters.

The depth of smash is in the discovery of things never intended by the developers. I find that almost any game 'designed for the hardcore' is actually not very hardcore at all. It's the player base pushing a game past it's intended limits that makes it hardcore. The depth that smash has revealed over the years shows how well it was made and the possibilities present in something so simple at first glance.

Smash is an easy game that is very difficult to play at a pro level, not a difficult game that is difficult to play at a pro level.

FoxySigma said:

I think one of the problems here is that advanced techniques in smash are being compared to some very difficult and technical 'built-in' moves in other fighters.

The depth of smash is in the discovery of things never intended by the developers. I find that almost any game 'designed for the hardcore' is actually not very hardcore at all. It's the player base pushing a game past it's intended limits that makes it hardcore. The depth that smash has revealed over the years shows how well it was made and the possibilities present in something so simple at first glance.

Smash is an easy game that is very difficult game to play at a pro level, not a difficult game that is difficult to play at a pro level.

Click to expand...

1) wow, looks like every game is hardcore now
2) games like mortal kombat have a ton of infinites and whatnot that aren't "supposed"to be there, but it's not like they're deep; what i'm saying is it doesn't matter how much neat stuff you find, it matters how much those specific finds in a game actually contribute to it plus how complex the game they were found in was to begin with
3) mind naming the "supposedly hardcore but not" games you base this on?

SC/Tekken always facing enemy <<<<<<<<< Smash Free movement
lol how can you go back after playing smash

FoxySigma said:

I think one of the problems here is that advanced techniques in smash are being compared to some very difficult and technical 'built-in' moves in other fighters.

The depth of smash is in the discovery of things never intended by the developers. I find that almost any game 'designed for the hardcore' is actually not very hardcore at all. It's the player base pushing a game past it's intended limits that makes it hardcore. The depth that smash has revealed over the years shows how well it was made and the possibilities present in something so simple at first glance.

Smash is an easy game that is very difficult to play at a pro level, not a difficult game that is difficult to play at a pro level.

Click to expand...

And why do you think so? Why can't they be both hardcore as the same time?

And most traditional fighters also have advanced techs based on exploits.
And what, Brawl would not be hardcore if they put wavedashing in?

This post makes me -->

point is, traditional fighting players cant play smash n smash players can play other games. enuff said.

"can play soul calibur" != "can play other games"

Broly said:

point is, traditional fighting players cant play smash n smash players can play other games. enuff said.

Click to expand...

This post also makes me -->

On what is this opinion based from? Ppl can play whatever game they like.

The reason why ppl bash other games is because they are close-minded, whatever side you are from.

Some of you guys really need to get your heads out of your butts, just like some SF players need to.

pdk said:

"can play soul calibur" != "can play other games"

Click to expand...

i mm u on smash and on soul calibur 2 n ill win for sure in both

Life bars and preset combos? Gimme a break. I loved a lot of other fighting games, but now that smash is here, i can't play that boring crap anymore.

BigRick said:

This post also makes me -->

On what is this opinion based from? Ppl can play whatever game they like.

The reason why ppl bash other games is because they are close-minded, whatever side you are from.

Some of you guys really need to get your heads out of your butts, just like some SF players need to.

Click to expand...

high-calibur smash players need tech skill as a huge part of their game

mindgames are obviously a part of other "standard" fighters but when a single opening can end in a 50% + combo (lol tekken), I'd have to say tech skill is generally far, far more weighty here than mindgames ever could be

Broly said:

i mm u on smash and on soul calibur 2 n ill win for sure in both

Click to expand...

and i'd take you on in kof, but do either of these make a difference in the points we're trying to make here?

on a side note:

I_R_Hungry said:

high-calibur smash players need tech skill as a huge part of their game

mindgames are obviously a part of other "standard" fighters but when a single opening can end in a 50% + combo (lol tekken), I'd have to say tech skill is generally far, far more weighty here than mindgames ever could be

Click to expand...

mindgames are obviously a part of ssbm but when a single opening can end in a marth fsmash, falcon knee, zelda toe of doom, shinespike, donkey punch, rest, link sword plant, sheik slap, luigi chop, etc (lol ssbm), I'd have to say tech skill is generally far, far more weighty here than mindgames ever could be

in short, it goes both ways

(on a side-side note quick reply needs to stop breaking half the time)

Broly said:

i mm u on smash and on soul calibur 2 n ill win for sure in both

Click to expand...

Lol why are you so sure? You main Link in both of them lol

Neways get this ''I'm better than you'' crap out of this thread. You just trying to use this to back up the nonsense that you try to disguise into arguments.

Life bars in Smash FTW!!!

I_R_Hungry said:

high-calibur smash players need tech skill as a huge part of their game

mindgames are obviously a part of other "standard" fighters but when a single opening can end in a 50% + combo (lol tekken), I'd have to say tech skill is generally far, far more weighty here than mindgames ever could be

Click to expand...

And what about the 50% or more combos in smash then?

Sry I forgot, there's DI!

Falco usually doesn't give a **** about your DI...

BigRick said:

And what about the 50% or more combos in smash then?

Click to expand...

a 50% combo in tekken means 50%. as in, your opponent is halfway from dying. and as long as you memorize a few exact patterns they are essentially inescapable.

a 50% combo in smash bros means you hit them farther, I mean it's a different system so it doesn't mean that you do 50% more and they die, it just makes it harder for them to combat you (obviously). plus with DI it's almost always an escapable combo.


there is no doubt that smash bros is deeper than any other 3d fighter. As for 2d fighters, I don't have much experience with them and I'm obviously biased but I'd still have to say smash bros is likely deeper since to my knowledge they still have the issue of escapable comboes.

BigRick said:

Falco usually doesn't give a **** about your DI...

Click to expand...

FALSE. If it weren't for DI, Falco would be broken. There would be no way to escape some of his combos.

I_R_Hungry said:

a 50% combo in tekken means 50%. as in, your opponent is halfway from dying. and as long as you memorize a few exact patterns they are essentially inescapable.

a 50% combo in smash bros means you hit them farther, I mean it's a different system so it doesn't mean that you do 50% more and they die, it just makes it harder for them to combat you (obviously). plus with DI it's almost always an escapable combo.

there is no doubt that smash bros is deeper than any other 3d fighter. As for 2d fighters, I don't have much experience with them and I'm obviously biased but I'd still have to say smash bros is likely deeper since to my knowledge they still have the issue of escapable comboes.

Click to expand...

Yeah but in Smash there's still stuff that pratically kills your opponent. There's still CG's, Wobbling, Rests, Knees, Spikes, SHEIK (lol) and other gimps that requires only one slip up from your opponent so that you can take advantage of it and ****.

As for your statement which says that Smash > 3D fighters in general, I might believe you, since I don't play 3D fighters anyways.

What I was doing is warning people that you can't underestimate other games simply because of combos, and that DI and % are very overrated features... especially because there's no mindgames in DI : if the attacker can read DI correctly and knows the correct course of action and has a top/high tier character then the next hit is guaranteed.

To Zjinn: Lol, ask Fox and Falcon how easily they can escape his combos.

BigRick said:

And what, Brawl would not be hardcore if they put wavedashing in?

Click to expand...

Actually this is pretty much true. If they intentionally added wavedashing back in, to satiate those begging for it, it would likely be much easier as it's now an intended function, and it would be balanced and a normal part of gameplay and so on and so forth.

3) mind naming the "supposedly hardcore but not" games you base this on?

Click to expand...

Though it isn't a fighter, a very relevant game that I could name is Halo 3. It was apparently designed from the beginning with competitive and high-level play in mind, with professional Halo 1 and 2 players testing and perfecting it during the creation, and look what it's like now.

That's one reason I think Brawl will be a success. Nintendo in no way is affiliating itself with the idea of an intendedly hardcore game, and are changing and adding to the gameplay in ways that no hardcore player would ever think to try. Leave it to the developers to make a game fun during production, and given enough depth, the community will provide the hardcore aspect.

smash is a huge draw for the mlg ..... i wounder why they didn't put it in the tv show on usa ..... or on it now on g4.

There's still CG's, Wobbling, Rests, Knees, Spikes, SHEIK (lol)

Click to expand...

Falco usually doesn't give a **** about your DI...

Click to expand...

Lol, ask Fox and Falcon how easily they can escape his combos.

Click to expand...

How long have you been part of the smash community, a week? Do you honestly think that a game with that many broken abilities and players would still be competitive?

If all of those things were really game-breaking and insta-kills once they land, pros would be cheesing through tourneys with them. But the game is balanced, because it's not some crappy 5-inch-deep fighter. It stays balanced even after player-discovered techniques are used.

Also, please stop saying all this crap about "QQQQQ WHINE WHINE FOX FALCO WHINE SHIEK WHINE UNBEATABLE COMBOS."

If that's true then why can't you just go on YouTube and find tons of matches where one player just ***** the other because of their character choice or combo-usage? You can't because characters are not game breaking.

Like ANY sport, any player can beat any other player at any given time. There is no guaranteed cheap win, there aren't no-skill maneuvers to destroy your opponent. Maybe you think there are because all you've played are depthless fighters that give you the impression that these facets must exist in smash too, but you're wrong. Maybe you're a smash noob and after playing for a few days began complaining about how level nine computers were broken, who knows. Or about how Falcon Punch is way too strong and probably owns in tournament play.

FoxySigma said:

Though it isn't a fighter, a very relevant game that I could name is Halo 3. It was apparently designed from the beginning with competitive and high-level play in mind, with professional Halo 1 and 2 players testing and perfecting it during the creation, and look what it's like now.

That's one reason I think Brawl will be a success. Nintendo in no way is affiliating itself with the idea of an intendedly hardcore game, and are changing and adding to the gameplay in ways that no hardcore player would ever think to try. Leave it to the developers to make a game fun during production, and given enough depth, the community will provide the hardcore aspect.

Click to expand...

Hmm I see your point, even though I do not totally agree.

So let me get this right... by your standards, a game can only become hardcore if there's a community messing around with it, trying to push the limits of the engine.

On the other hand... a game that has plenty of depth, with plenty of features, all intended by the developper should not be considered hardcore. These games can simply be considered hard or challenging.

Am I right?

But there's something that I don't understand, let us go back to the Halo 3 example... if a game was designed with inputs from the community, how does it not make it hardcore?

Unless you imply that the source of the hardcore aspect does not simply lie in the influence of the knowledgable players, but also in the process of discovery?

FoxySigma said:

How long have you been part of the smash community, a week?

Click to expand...

the guy with 22 posts who joined in July 2007 is asking how long he's been playing. I love how biased nearly all smashers are. It just makes it even funnier when they try to argue about things they know little about.

Learn how to read Foxy all he's trying to tell u is that even with DI most top tier characters still have methods of getting near 100% kills at certain percents.

Brightside6382 said:

Learn how to read Foxy all he's trying to tell u is that even with DI most top tier characters still have methods of getting near 100% kills at certain percents.

Click to expand...

Exactly, high level SSBM matches are mostly a display of two-way **** unless it involves characters with weaker offensive options, just like every other fighter.

Yes, there is DI, % and char specific stuff to know about but in other games there's also char specific stuff to learn too.

In combos, the complexity added by DI and % are offset by the simplicity in the very small repertoire of moves : uthrow, pivot uthrow, walk forward uthrow, utilt, uthrow, turn around fsmash // nair, shine, dair, shine, dair, shine, nair, fsmash

Everything else is good tech skill and reaction time.

FoxySigma said:

How long have you been part of the smash community, a week? Do you honestly think that a game with that many broken abilities and players would still be competitive?

If all of those things were really game-breaking and insta-kills once they land, pros would be cheesing through tourneys with them. But the game is balanced, because it's not some crappy 5-inch-deep fighter. It stays balanced even after player-discovered techniques are used.

Also, please stop saying all this crap about "QQQQQ WHINE WHINE FOX FALCO WHINE SHIEK WHINE UNBEATABLE COMBOS."

If that's true then why can't you just go on YouTube and find tons of matches where one player just ***** the other because of their character choice or combo-usage? You can't because characters are not game breaking.

Like ANY sport, any player can beat any other player at any given time. There is no guaranteed cheap win, there aren't no-skill maneuvers to destroy your opponent. Maybe you think there are because all you've played are depthless fighters that give you the impression that these facets must exist in smash too, but you're wrong. Maybe you're a smash noob and after playing for a few days began complaining about how level nine computers were broken, who knows. Or about how Falcon Punch is way too strong and probably owns in tournament play.

Click to expand...

Exactly. It's almost pointless to argue with someone overly ignorant to the deep aspects of smash while he argues people don't understand SC or Tekken and it's complexities, lol. This guy either wants attention or just likes talking out his ass.

and LOL @ brightside's noticing that the guy with 22 posts seems to know more than the guy with over 2k.

On the other hand... a game that has plenty of depth, with plenty of features, all intended by the developer should not be considered hardcore. These games can simply be considered hard or challenging.

Click to expand...

That is essentially what I want to get at. Depth, as I am using the term, is really the quality of the gameplay engine, and smoothly balanced the game is, not how many features it has. Games that are advertised as hardcore, or games that have loads of unlockables and modes, are not necessarily any good.

But there's something that I don't understand, let us go back to the Halo 3 example... if a game was designed with inputs from the community, how does it not make it hardcore?

Click to expand...

Ah, yes, you caught me a bit on that. But there is a fundamental difference in the community interaction with the game before and after release. Since Halo 3 was tampered with by pros and veterans in the creation process, it became like a Halo 2.1, because they were extensively familiar with the prequel and obviously would not want to try anything too different. When only the developer has the chance to play with concepts and functions, like in Brawl, they usually produce new and interesting ideas that, while usually shunned at first by the community, make for a deeper and more important game in the long run. Many famous and fantastic games were large changes from successful establishments in the franchises before them, and aggravated fans were taken out of their comfort zone and plunged into something that was fresh, creative, and most importantly, very good.

the guy with 22 posts who joined in July 2007 is asking how long he's been playing. I love how biased nearly all smashers are. It just makes it even funnier when they try to argue about things they know little about.

Click to expand...

I've been playing Melee since the day it came out, and I am a long-time lurker on these forums. I lost interest in forums a few years ago due to the fact that discussions don't usually get anything done (take this one for example), but I gave in and decided to register and post in a few locater threads.

And for your information, I am EXTREMELY biased. Feel free to quote that as often as you like. I also do not know nearly as much about other fighters as I do about Smash. You can quote me on that as well.

But that doesn't mean that I can't still provide a strong, convincing, and intelligent argument for my opinion, however mislead it may be.

Learn how to read Foxy all he's trying to tell u is that even with DI most top tier characters still have methods of getting near 100% kills at certain percents.

Click to expand...

I believe that the skill of writing is developed after reading, and therefore, since I am obviously posting (in proper English, I might add), I must have learned how to understand letters at some point along the road.

Anyways, the way you phrase the statement there is much weaker than what was said before. Sure, top tier characters do have "methods" of getting kills of a long combo, but it usually requires some luck and mistakes on the opponents part, although I do admit some have little margin for error if the player is very skilled.

Yet simply having a "method" of doing so doesn't not in any way make it easy, or game-breaking.