Brawl will have backwards progression (which is a bad thing)

[Basara]

Melee is a limited game , limited to 5 characters:Fox , falco , marth , peach , sheik...........
Melee tournaments were really borings , only 5 chars won using the same glitch abuse , and almost the same tactics.... in the other Hand brawl has no character limitation you can win with all chars and of course you can punish THAT 2 SPACE IDIOTS FOX AND FALCO MUHUAHUAHU

 

[FrostByte]

Why was jiggs winning tournaments at the end of Melee's lifespan? People, try to at least research what you're talking about before you post

 

[Pink Reaper]

Why was jiggs winning tournaments at the end of Melee's lifespan? People, try to at least research what you're talking about before you post

Hey. HEEEEEY. Don't feed the ****** troll.

 

[Basara]

Why was jiggs winning tournaments at the end of Melee's lifespan? People, try to at least research what you're talking about before you post

OK I forgot jiggly , capitan falcon , Dr.mario , have a REALLY SMALL chance to win a tourney , Can you compare the Fox tournaments winners and jigglys ones plz???....

If you played with bowser , mewtwo etc , etc , ,in a Melee Tournament you were claimed HERO . in brawl if you play with bowser , or DK , then you have almost the same chances that Metagay has......... Im with sakurai , ALL chars balanced and space idiots PUNISHED xDD

 

[Zankoku]

OK I forgot jiggly , capitan falcon , Dr.mario , have a REALLY SMALL chance to win a tourney , Can you compare the Fox tournaments winners and jigglys ones plz???....

Yeah, most of the major tournaments in the past few years were won by Marth players. The last major one, *pound* 3, was won by Mango, a Jigglypuff main.

If you played with bowser , mewtwo etc , etc , ,in a Melee Tournament you were claimed HERO .

If you were really good with that character, yeah. Otherwise you're either new to the game or playing low tier for attention but sucking anyway.

in brawl if you play with bowser , or DK , then you have almost the same chances that Metagay has......... Im with sakurai , ALL chars balanced and space idiots PUNISHED xDD

lolwrong. There are tiers in this game, and the "balance," or lack thereof, will probably become very clear in short time. But the previous top and high tier characters are obviously not still top/high tier.

 

[Shai Hulud]

Melee is a limited game , limited to 5 characters:Fox , falco , marth , peach , sheik...........
Melee tournaments were really borings , only 5 chars won using the same glitch abuse , and almost the same tactics.... in the other Hand brawl has no character limitation you can win with all chars and of course you can punish THAT 2 SPACE IDIOTS FOX AND FALCO MUHUAHUAHU

Have you ever been to a Melee tournament? Have you ever been good at the game? Do you know what the f*ck you're talking about? You sound like a total scrub invoking that "glitch abuse" bulls#it. You sound like some moron who stumbled into a competitive gaming forum, heard someone else say Melee was imbalanced, and then tried to recreate the argument but failed miserably.

Fox, Falco, Marth, Peach, and Sheik use "almost the same tactics"? Really? What tactics are those? Can Marth, Peach, and Sheik do drillshines? Can Falco float-cancel? Does Fox have a chain-grab on all the low-tiers? Does Marth laser camp? These five characters are so different from each other it's ridiculous.

You are such a terrible scrub. Please don't talk about things you don't understand.

 

[Corigames]

Melee is a limited game , limited to 5 characters:Fox , falco , marth , peach , sheik...........
Melee tournaments were really borings , only 5 chars won using the same glitch abuse , and almost the same tactics.... in the other Hand brawl has no character limitation you can win with all chars and of course you can punish THAT 2 SPACE IDIOTS FOX AND FALCO MUHUAHUAHU

You never have been to a tournament have you?

 

[Fletch]

You never have been to a tournament have you?

I think he made that pretty obvious through his post.

 

[Corigames]

I think he made that pretty obvious through his post.

Touche

omg10char

 

[MookieRah]

In comparison to Melee, Brawl has less opportunities for mindgames because you have less options, less speed to employ them, and much less time to punish. Mindgames are all about observation and prediction, that's all it was. In Brawl, a lot of the times it doesn't matter if you predict where they DI, where they roll, and etc. That makes the game focus less on mindgaming, and more on camping because it is the safest and most guaranteed method of winning.

Also, tripping.

 

[Kirby M.D.]

I really hope the Melee scene stays strong, just so we can finally be satisfied with something. If SRK has taught me anything, it's that Brawl is a completely different animal, and camping can be beaten. Nobody is saying that all players must switch to Brawl, and old habits die very hard. I also have to agree with Mr.E: there is still the RPS setup and momentum to be had. It just takes work to counteract the camping mentality, because we're all very new at this game and camping tends to work well in the early metagame of any fighter.

Don't get frustrated; play some Melee, level up in Brawl, and don't forget to have fun. Just play whichever game you want to play just to play it, not to compare. Keep open minded folks.

 

[SirPenguin]

Shame I gotta say this in a topic by a mod. You'd think they'd have more sense than this.

You're being pretty ignorant.

It's been such a short amount of time since release. You...do know that, right? I mean, less than a month in America, just over a month in Japan. During this time, by and large EVERYONE has just been experimenting, having fun, not worrying about advanced techniques. We're just casuals.

To say Melee blossomed into what it is now in the first month, hell, in the first year, in the first 3-4 years, is stupid. To say we even had an INKLING of what Melee would turn into at the time is just as stupid. We didn't. New, entirely undiscovered techniques were, indeed, discovered, and it changed everything. We did not see them coming. Do you remember when people say Melee would be the worse than SSB because it was too fast? They said it wouldn't give people time to react, and that defense would be hard or impossible. Now look at it.

If I didn't know any better, I'd say this is merely a troll topic. You should know all of this already. Are you really that butthurt over the change?

 

[Eggm]

In comparison to Melee, Brawl has less opportunities for mindgames because you have less options, less speed to employ them, and much less time to punish. Mindgames are all about observation and prediction, that's all it was. In Brawl, a lot of the times it doesn't matter if you predict where they DI, where they roll, and etc. That makes the game focus less on mindgaming, and more on camping because it is the safest and most guaranteed method of winning.

Also, tripping.

This is such a smart post everyone read it.

Also samus won a tournament lately on the west coast a few weeks ago (hugs) So theres another character to add to your list of winning tournaments. Also captain falcon places high at nearly everything and i'm sure has won many midwest tournaments since theres really good falcons there. The game is more than just about the top 5 characters. Play it a little and see.

 

[SKnickers03]

my two cents:

veteran smashers will get better as time progresses...while newcomers (because of nintendos emphasis on casual gaming, and removal of "advanced" techniques) will also get better...how can anyone say the competitive quality of the game will diminish when the game was DESIGNED to guarantee improvement?

i predict a rise in tournament competitors...and we'll see amazing things because the playing field has been widened...and as for the mourning melee players...anyone who claims theyve mastered melee i trust will do the same with brawl

 

[shadyf0o]

(this is sort of a sub topic spawned off of the other topic of mine)

after experimenting and playing the game enough the conclusion I've come to about brawl is that it's progression will be backwards.

The game starts with decent combos and gimp kills, and the only reason they exist is because people haven't mastered the defensive options in the game, as the game progresses combos will become smaller and smaller, and gimp kills will nearly fade out of existence. That's just how the game is.

In most games the progression is the opposite, starting with smaller combos and the like and ending with more elaborate things.

This makes for an eventual overly stale simplified game that isn't exciting to watch in a competitive sense, and will eventually shorten the game's overall lifespan.

discuss.

Funny that you say that, because I found myself thinking the same thing not too long ago. Just because combos are harder and less common doens't mean that the game will be any less competitive in my opinion. It just means that because they are harder they take more skill to accomplish. In my eyes it makes the game more of a challenge and is still very competitive.

 

[-West Coast Wes-]

Gimpyfish is right. I dont think the game works as a competitive game at all.

because we know how to approach Brawl since we spent so many years with melee it doesnt take all the time melee did to know what kind of game it is. When melee came out there were no hardcore gamers spending hours on end trying to make it competitive and analyzing it.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Ok, I want to ask this question because I've posted it to other gamers before, and I'd like to get people like Gimpy and Mookie's opinions on this.

For the longest time, fighting games (in general) have rewarded one thing in particular: combos. As was mentioned either in this thread or Scar's thread, the humble beginnings of what we consider the competitive fighting scene today really started with a mistake; during the development cycle for Street Fighter 2, the programmers discovered that it was possible to 'cancel' moves into other moves, allowing for a continuous steam of uninterruptible moves (once the first hit of the 'combo' was landed, of course). Ever since, the concept of the 'combo' has been the cornerstone of every fighting game. Speed, control, 'mindgames'... whatever technical skill or property any given game allows or exudes, the properties can always be reduced to 'does it allow for a combo?',

For as long as I remember, fighting games have showcased this kind and only this kind of skill. If you could think (and move) quickly enough to input a series of particular commands, you were skilled enough to win. Watch any recording of any 'pro' match in any fighting game since SF2 and you will see each player has patterns that will inevitably emerge, combos and series of moves that seem to work every time and that are used almost reflexively. That is the core of what fighting games reward nowadays: muscle memory. Mindgames, what is considered to be the cousin of the combo, in many ways, is usually only necessary up until that first hit is landed, but after that if you know what moves to use in which order and at what time, you are basically golden. After all, that's what a 'combo' is: a series of inescapable and uninterruptible moves.

We, as a competitive gaming community, have taken this to heart. We have decided that the combo is still king, and that the most skilled player is basically the one with the best reflexes. That is fine... to a degree. But, as Thomas Jefferson is oft misquoted to say (although this detracts from the truth of the statement in no way), 'Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.' Ever since Brawl came out (and honestly, probably before then), certain gamers have shared the sentiment that skill does not only come from sheer speed and memorization skills, but also from wit and control. It seems that this is what Brawl will reward in the long run: not players who memorize complex series of moves and commit to muscle memory the movements to perform them, but players who think well on their feet and can deal with (and capitalize on) many different circumstances.

The question I pose to the community is this. For so long, we have convinced ourselves that the 'combo is king', and that the only skill worth rewarding is the ability to commit these combos to memory and to speedily use them when possible. Why can we not reward wit and quick thinking instead, or even as well? Why must we dismiss Brawl simply because we can't combo? After all, every other skill we seem to reward (such as 'mindgames') are simply a means to an end, skills that lead to the same place, to the combo. Why must we discredit and discount Brawl because it rewards a different kind of skill, as though that skill (and thus the game that rewards it) is inherently 'less skillful'? Why can't 'different' be 'equal'?

Why can't we view Brawl as it is, a chance to shift the competitive paradigm in a way that hasn't been done since SF2? A chance to change (or even just supplement) our thinking with a dissenting view that is separate, but just as equal?

 

[Mambo]

This begs the question: are combos needed in a competitive fighting game? What if it reduced to small combos, but lost of spacing/timing and punishing? Wouldn't this be as tactical and competitive. It seems reliance on traditional combos (aka continuous string of attacks) is holding some back.

 

[Pubik Vengeance]

I am not trying to disagree, but I have questions for Gimpyfish (or anyone else that knows there stuff):

Why is this true for Brawl but not Melee? And please, no one say "lollz no wavedashing" or anything like that.

 

[Zarkai]

...
The question I pose to the community is this. For so long, we have convinced ourselves that the 'combo is king', and that the only skill worth rewarding is the ability to commit these combos to memory and to speedily use them when possible. Why can we not reward wit and quick thinking instead, or even as well? Why must we dismiss Brawl simply because we can't combo? After all, every other skill we seem to reward (such as 'mindgames') are simply a means to an end, skills that lead to the same place, to the combo. Why must we discredit and discount Brawl because it rewards a different kind of skill, as though that skill (and thus the game that rewards it) is inherently 'less skillful'? Why can't 'different' be 'equal'?

Why can't we view Brawl as it is, a chance to shift the competitive paradigm in a way that hasn't been done since SF2? A chance to change (or even just supplement) our thinking with a dissenting view that is separate, but just as equal?

I'm going to point this out to the many that will have skipped over the intelligent post above mine. Its an extremely valid point. Smash Brothers has always taken pride in establishing itself as a different type of fighting game, but unfortunately untill now, the premises behind top level smash brothers gameplay has been extremely similar to those of fighting games before it.

The notion that this game could possibly establish a new branch of fighting games, not reliant on the same strategies as those before it just holds testament to the possibilities of what this game could become.

I can understand the frustration of some of the pros switching over to this game, but to turn that frustration into arrogantly bashing the game is just unprofessional. Let us all instead look what is right about the game and translate that into deeper competetive gameplay (ex. way balanced character roster than melee).

 

[Egret]

I am not trying to disagree, but I have questions for Gimpyfish (or anyone else that knows there stuff):

Why is this true for Brawl but not Melee? And please, no one say "lollz no wavedashing" or anything like that.

Are you questioning whether or not it is true for melee, in which case it's clear that it's not as reviewing the history of the game is has clearly progressed from simpler beginnings to the amazing competitive game it is now, or why it is not true for melee in which case that is an interesting question which I'm sure someone can answer fairly well.

 

[Nessticle3]

Ok, I want to ask this question because I've posted it to other gamers before, and I'd like to get people like Gimpy and Mookie's opinions on this.

For the longest time, fighting games (in general) have rewarded one thing in particular: combos. As was mentioned either in this thread or Scar's thread, the humble beginnings of what we consider the competitive fighting scene today really started with a mistake; during the development cycle for Street Fighter 2, the programmers discovered that it was possible to 'cancel' moves into other moves, allowing for a continuous steam of uninterruptible moves (once the first hit of the 'combo' was landed, of course). Ever since, the concept of the 'combo' has been the cornerstone of every fighting game. Speed, control, 'mindgames'... whatever technical skill or property any given game allows or exudes, the properties can always be reduced to 'does it allow for a combo?',

For as long as I remember, fighting games have showcased this kind and only this kind of skill. If you could think (and move) quickly enough to input a series of particular commands, you were skilled enough to win. Watch any recording of any 'pro' match in any fighting game since SF2 and you will see each player has patterns that will inevitably emerge, combos and series of moves that seem to work every time and that are used almost reflexively. That is the core of what fighting games reward nowadays: muscle memory. Mindgames, what is considered to be the cousin of the combo, in many ways, is usually only necessary up until that first hit is landed, but after that if you know what moves to use in which order and at what time, you are basically golden. After all, that's what a 'combo' is: a series of inescapable and uninterruptible moves.

We, as a competitive gaming community, have taken this to heart. We have decided that the combo is still king, and that the most skilled player is basically the one with the best reflexes. That is fine... to a degree. But, as Thomas Jefferson is oft misquoted to say (although this detracts from the truth of the statement in no way), 'Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.' Ever since Brawl came out (and honestly, probably before then), certain gamers have shared the sentiment that skill does not only come from sheer speed and memorization skills, but also from wit and control. It seems that this is what Brawl will reward in the long run: not players who memorize complex series of moves and commit to muscle memory the movements to perform them, but players who think well on their feet and can deal with (and capitalize on) many different circumstances.

The question I pose to the community is this. For so long, we have convinced ourselves that the 'combo is king', and that the only skill worth rewarding is the ability to commit these combos to memory and to speedily use them when possible. Why can we not reward wit and quick thinking instead, or even as well? Why must we dismiss Brawl simply because we can't combo? After all, every other skill we seem to reward (such as 'mindgames') are simply a means to an end, skills that lead to the same place, to the combo. Why must we discredit and discount Brawl because it rewards a different kind of skill, as though that skill (and thus the game that rewards it) is inherently 'less skillful'? Why can't 'different' be 'equal'?

Why can't we view Brawl as it is, a chance to shift the competitive paradigm in a way that hasn't been done since SF2? A chance to change (or even just supplement) our thinking with a dissenting view that is separate, but just as equal?

This is probably the most intelligent post on this subject I've seen so far. I'd like to see how some of Brawl's critics reply to it.

I personally hate the idea of getting hit once and then having almost no control on my character while I get hit 5 more times and then killed. For me personally, whenever me and my friends get to the point of "mastering" a game it immediately becomes less fun. This has happened time and time again, and I was pretty sad when this happened to my group with Smash 64 Smash 64 was sooo much fun until a couple people starting mastering these combos and tactics, forcing us all to play the same way and play the same characters and slowly lose control over our characters. We used to just sit there and bash each other for hours. Then we turned off items so no one would start *****ing about bad luck, started playing mostly just Kirbys board to end other randomness. Soon we even started just rotating 4 people in 1 on 1 matches to end even more randomness. Soon after this we just stopped playing the game all together because it really wasn't fun anymore. We took it too seriously these endless combos just got us pigeon holed into playing the same boring way. I saw melee was even more so like this so I basically just stayed away from the game.

People say watching competitive Brawl will be boring? Watching competitive melee wasn't that great IMO. All you did was watch two spacies bouncing up and down really fast until one was caught in a combo or 2 and killed. This game allows for so many different strategies, matchups, and use of most characters full move sets. I'm already back to mostly playing 1 on 1 on the flat stages, mostly Smashville, FD, and Lylat(cause I feel more like I'm watching a movie than playing a game on this awesome stage) but it's not getting old because of the variation in every single match. I've always liked strategy games as much as action/fighting games and this incorporates a lot of strategy and understanding your opponents tendencies and such.

I feel overall it is such a deep and fulfilling game, and it will be a long time before I get sick of it. I've held off on posting on this subject because of combatitive attitudes everyone has taken on this subject such as "ITS NOT MELEE 2.0!!" or "THIS GAME WILL NEVER BE COMPETITIVE!". These type of short sighted or close minded statements prove that many people will stick to their initial take on the game no matter what. I respond now because Jack Kieser showed me that intelligent and well reasoned responses do exist here, and that hopefully people will open themselves up to a new breed of game if they can see that combos (although there will still be some comboing in this game) aren't a must have for a competitive fighting game.

 

[Corigames]

We, as a competitive gaming community, have taken this to heart. We have decided that the combo is still king, and that the most skilled player is basically the one with the best reflexes. That is fine... to a degree. But, as Thomas Jefferson is oft misquoted to say (although this detracts from the truth of the statement in no way), 'Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.' Ever since Brawl came out (and honestly, probably before then), certain gamers have shared the sentiment that skill does not only come from sheer speed and memorization skills, but also from wit and control. It seems that this is what Brawl will reward in the long run: not players who memorize complex series of moves and commit to muscle memory the movements to perform them, but players who think well on their feet and can deal with (and capitalize on) many different circumstances.

You can say that all you want about how we should look to things aside from combos, but we did that, it was called "melee." You didn't have giant letters or numbers pop up on the side of the screen in the middle of the match spewing your combo. You didn't have a voice yelling "COUNTER!" or bull like that. It had mindgames. It had physical dexterity. It had skill. It TOOK wit and control in order to lead a match. It takes thinking on your feet in many circumstances to win at Melee. That's how it is played.

Where are the mindgames in Brawl? Point them out to me. Unveil this blindfold of mine and show me the light! What can we do right now to trick someone? Play Snake and taunt?

Brawl has nothing!

 

[Nessticle3]

Where are the mindgames in Brawl? Point them out to me. Unveil this blindfold of mine and show me the light! What can we do right now to trick someone? Play Snake and taunt?

How don't you see this?? Brawl is all about trying to open up your opponents defenses, by forcing him to attack, or fake attacks to make him move certain ways. Mind games and strategy definitely play a major role. You need to have an idea of what attacks your opponent is going to use, how to counter these attacks, and to force your opponent into specific counters, etc. I'm not saying this wasn't in Melee too, but in Brawl it is a major part if you want to be good.

 

[Rx-]

I completely disagree, but if you agree with this theory, then you'd probably be two stupid to understand what I meant if I explained why, and if you also disagree, then you know exactly why already.

Sorry Gimpy, Brawl's getting cooler, and it's on it's 4th week in the US.

Combos are being assembled as we speak.

 

[LoVer]

Ok, I want to ask this question because I've posted it to other gamers before, and I'd like to get people like Gimpy and Mookie's opinions on this.

For the longest time, fighting games (in general) have rewarded one thing in particular: combos. As was mentioned either in this thread or Scar's thread, the humble beginnings of what we consider the competitive fighting scene today really started with a mistake; during the development cycle for Street Fighter 2, the programmers discovered that it was possible to 'cancel' moves into other moves, allowing for a continuous steam of uninterruptible moves (once the first hit of the 'combo' was landed, of course). Ever since, the concept of the 'combo' has been the cornerstone of every fighting game. Speed, control, 'mindgames'... whatever technical skill or property any given game allows or exudes, the properties can always be reduced to 'does it allow for a combo?',

For as long as I remember, fighting games have showcased this kind and only this kind of skill. If you could think (and move) quickly enough to input a series of particular commands, you were skilled enough to win. Watch any recording of any 'pro' match in any fighting game since SF2 and you will see each player has patterns that will inevitably emerge, combos and series of moves that seem to work every time and that are used almost reflexively. That is the core of what fighting games reward nowadays: muscle memory. Mindgames, what is considered to be the cousin of the combo, in many ways, is usually only necessary up until that first hit is landed, but after that if you know what moves to use in which order and at what time, you are basically golden. After all, that's what a 'combo' is: a series of inescapable and uninterruptible moves.

We, as a competitive gaming community, have taken this to heart. We have decided that the combo is still king, and that the most skilled player is basically the one with the best reflexes. That is fine... to a degree. But, as Thomas Jefferson is oft misquoted to say (although this detracts from the truth of the statement in no way), 'Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.' Ever since Brawl came out (and honestly, probably before then), certain gamers have shared the sentiment that skill does not only come from sheer speed and memorization skills, but also from wit and control. It seems that this is what Brawl will reward in the long run: not players who memorize complex series of moves and commit to muscle memory the movements to perform them, but players who think well on their feet and can deal with (and capitalize on) many different circumstances.

The question I pose to the community is this. For so long, we have convinced ourselves that the 'combo is king', and that the only skill worth rewarding is the ability to commit these combos to memory and to speedily use them when possible. Why can we not reward wit and quick thinking instead, or even as well? Why must we dismiss Brawl simply because we can't combo? After all, every other skill we seem to reward (such as 'mindgames') are simply a means to an end, skills that lead to the same place, to the combo. Why must we discredit and discount Brawl because it rewards a different kind of skill, as though that skill (and thus the game that rewards it) is inherently 'less skillful'? Why can't 'different' be 'equal'?

Why can't we view Brawl as it is, a chance to shift the competitive paradigm in a way that hasn't been done since SF2? A chance to change (or even just supplement) our thinking with a dissenting view that is separate, but just as equal?

Solid post. This is how I've been feeling about the game's content.

 

[LoVer]

I completely disagree, but if you agree with this theory, then you'd probably be two stupid to understand what I meant if I explained why, and if you also disagree, then you know exactly why already.

Sorry Gimpy, Brawl's getting cooler, and it's on it's 4th week in the US.

Combos are being assembled as we speak.

Yeah, There are some decent strings for sure. Don't mind the hate anyway. This is inevitable with all community sites when change is in the air.

 

[LoVer]

i'm hoping we can at least get a heavy brawl scene established before people get tired and stop playing the game. while not perfect i believe it has a fair amount of competitive potential.

If you really think that people will get tired of the game and stop playing, or that they will go back to melee in any great quantity, then you're in for a big surprise. I also highly doubt that a heavy brawl tournament scene will replace standard matches.

Don't let smashboards deceive you. It is always the established community that has the hardest time with change. A competitive brawl scene will spring up, if not through smashboards, than through another medium. It will be bigger than melee ever achieved, and it will most likely not include any added rulesets like heavy brawl.

 

[-Hoggle-]

I completely disagree, but if you agree with this theory, then you'd probably be two stupid to understand what I meant if I explained why, and if you also disagree, then you know exactly why already.

Sorry Gimpy, Brawl's getting cooler, and it's on it's 4th week in the US.

Combos are being assembled as we speak.

Nice try you fail at being intelligent and trolling.

If somebody can explain to me how going from melee: making your own combos and using aggressive mind games techniques to brawl: camping and hitting out random attacks when your opponent approaches is making the smash community "better" I'm all ears.

P.S. other than shooting multiple projectiles and chain grabbing what combos have been developed in Brawl? (I'm not to stupid to understand so why don't you explain old chap).

~Hoggle out

 

[Jack Kieser]

coreygames, good job on NOT answering my question at all.

You can say that all you want about how we should look to things aside from combos, but we did that, it was called "melee."

Really now? Then explain why the competitive Melee scene is complaining about a lack of combos so much. The fact of the matter is that in Melee, every move you made was an attempt to lead into a combo. I'm asking why that skill is the only one that we consider 'skillful'. You haven't answered that in any post of yours that I've ever read.

You didn't have giant letters or numbers pop up on the side of the screen in the middle of the match spewing your combo. You didn't have a voice yelling "COUNTER!" or bull like that. It had mindgames. It had physical dexterity. It had skill. It TOOK wit and control in order to lead a match. It takes thinking on your feet in many circumstances to win at Melee. That's how it is played.

I'm not saying that Melee didn't reward wit at all... I'm saying that Melee doesn't reward wit enough for my tastes. People keep telling me that the Ken Combo is really one of the only canned combos in Melee, but that's not really true, is it? There are MANY canned combos in Melee; those combos are only 3 or 4 hits long, though. Then what's the problem? Each mini-combo can combo into another mini-combo! That's where the wit is lost. Yes, you need mindgames to start the combo chain, but after that, it's all going to where you hit the enemy last and performing the next move in the chain.

Where are the mindgames in Brawl? Point them out to me. Unveil this blindfold of mine and show me the light! What can we do right now to trick someone? Play Snake and taunt?

First of all, I'm not going to quote that size 5 text. Secondly, the whole point of mindgames are that you can't point them out. They are supposed to be on-the-fly, witty retorts to situations, sort of spacial puns, if you will. They come out by circumstance. Anyone can predict when someone will wavedash these days. That's fine. But you don't need tricky movement styles to out-think someone. They help, sure, but we're kidding ourselves if we think that mindgames can't exist without movement techs. If you're looking for one, though, how about Lucario? I love his Dair; that momentum halt always catches people off guard.

 

[LeeHarris]

I like the changes in Brawl. I played Melee competitively for years and I loved it. If you were to ask me what I'd change about Melee I'd say, "nothing." I don't see Brawl as the successor to Melee. They play completely different and you have to use a totally different style to win. It is still a highly competitive and progressive game. There's no doubt it's not as technical as Melee, but SFIII:3S isn't as technical as MvC2 or GG and it still dominates the competitive 2D fighter scene. I went through a period where I thought it was garbage and it was too hard to gain a competitive edge over random noobs. Now, after having the game for 2 months I've completely changed my mind. Did anyone here see the C3 tourney results?

1: Azen Zagenite
2: Chillindude829
3: Forte
4: g-reg

And Azen used Lucario. In a year or two from now we may decide "well, this is boring, Brawl is dead," but for now it is very fresh and competitive.

 

[LoVer]

Nice try you fail at being intelligent and trolling.

If somebody can explain to me how going from melee: making your own combos and using aggressive mind games techniques to brawl: camping and hitting out random attacks when your opponent approaches is making the smash community "better" I'm all ears.

P.S. other than shooting multiple projectiles and chain grabbing what combos have been developed in Brawl? (I'm not to stupid to understand so why don't you explain old chap).

~Hoggle out

This is grossly exaggerated.

 

[Xengri]

@ Jack Kieser

I can see what you’re trying to get at but, really, it just seems idealistic to me (I‘ve been saying that a lot lately).
If the attacker doesn’t seek out a combo as a reward for landing a attack on his opponent, then what else is there to look for?
Only thing that comes to my mind is Hit and run tactics or, chip damage by camping.
If I don’t go in for the combo, then what am I going to do after I hit him?

Am I misinterpreted what you were suggesting?

 

[Jack Kieser]

This is grossly exaggerated.

EVERYTHING on these forums is grossly exaggerated. You didn't know that?

 

[Jack Kieser]

@ Jack Kieser

I can see what you’re trying to get at but, really, it just seems idealistic to me (I‘ve been saying that a lot lately).
If the attacker doesn’t seek out a combo as a reward for landing a attack on his opponent, then what else is there to look for?
Only thing that comes to my mind is Hit and run tactics or, chip damage by camping.
If I don’t go in for the combo, then what am I going to do after I hit him?

Am I misinterpreted what you were suggesting?

Sorry for the double post, but I really wanted to respond to this.

Yes, you have, unfortunately, misinterpreted my meaning. I'm not saying that combos are bad by ANY means. They are, to some extent, bread and butter. The problem I see is that the whole point of Melee as it is now is the combo. I know Melee is WAY better than SSB64 on this, but I have to bring up the 0-to-Death combo. As Melee is right now, I think you'd be remiss if you didn't admit that the 0-to-Death combo is a 'holy grail' of sorts in that everyone wants to do it every time. Every combo you initiate you hope leads to death every time. The thing is, in Brawl, that's straight-up impossible. You simply can't combo long enough to expect every combo to rack up that much damage.

See, we've played the contemporary style of fighting games for so long that we just can't accept the fact that Brawl doesn't give the combo power over every other possible strategy. We don't know how. What I'm trying to say is that Brawl doesn't reward the combo like it's an end-all-be-all strategy; we have to know when to use combos, and we have to find ones that work at all instead of having every move combo into another one with little effort. You have to 'know when to hold 'em (in) and know when to fold 'em (knock them away)' in Brawl, whereas in Melee, you ALWAYS tried to hold them in every time.

I'm probably not explaining this as well as I'd like to, but I can always clarify if you need me to.

 

[Adi]

It's not just combos, it's the fact that offensive capabilities across the board have been severely nerfed. Resulting in defensive play having a significant advantage over offensive ones.

 

[Johnknight1]

In comparison to Melee, Brawl has less opportunities for mindgames because you have less options, less speed to employ them, and much less time to punish. Mindgames are all about observation and prediction, that's all it was. In Brawl, a lot of the times it doesn't matter if you predict where they DI, where they roll, and etc. That makes the game focus less on mindgaming, and more on camping because it is the safest and most guaranteed method of winning.

Also, tripping.

I'm not going to lie, I actually have made tripping a mindgame against my opponents when I trip, lol! No one can handle such a random mindgame. Whenever I trip, I just sit there for a second. I do nothing but wait, while they do nothing but grow impatient, and want to take "advantage" of the situation. They can't think, so they charge me with their running A attack. I either time it to where I'm right behind them and smash them, or right in front of them and smash them/use my fAir. Randomness throws so many people off, and they can't possibly begin to adapt to it, or even think while doing it, while I just. >_>

It's not just combos, it's the fact that offensive capabilities across the board have been severely nerfed. Resulting in defensive play having a significant advantage over offensive ones.

Which is why several new techniques I've seen have helped offense. That move discovered like 3 or 4 weeks ago where Squirtle basically super wavedashes across the stage, fSmashing opponents, and it's totally controllable. You basically have to counter with offense, since defense doesn't work really well against it (since it's the counter-defense, basically). Also, the Quick Attack Cancel for Pikachu will probably be a powerful Pikachu meta-game tool to fight off defensive players, and camping defensive players. Stuff like that throws defensive players off guard, and hopefully will get rid of camper. It doesn't (always) equal combos, but it's got potential to start some competitve stuff. Now for all characters to have something like that.

I think LeeHarris said it right. We've got a future, we just gotta be more open-minded on it, and on what we are going to do. We need to keep finding the offensive manuvers. And find the jackpot technique we've been looking for. I know it's there. Hopefully we will find this technique soon. We've found so many, and keep finding so many, it's definitely gotta be there.

 

[MookieRah]

If SRK has taught me anything, it's that Brawl is a completely different animal, and camping can be beaten.

Please show me how they have beaten it. Seriously, SRK is nice and all, but they aren't as used to the smash mechanics as say... the melee pros.

Shame I gotta say this in a topic by a mod. You'd think they'd have more sense than this.

It's also a mod that just happens to be a veteran tournament player that is one of the most experience Brawlers currently. Have you tried to think that it within the realm of possibilities that what he is saying could be true, and perhaps knows a lot more about what he is talking about than you do? Your only argument against him is that the game hasn't been out for a very long time, and you compare it to melee. Brawl isn't Melee. We have a huge tournament scene going straight into brawl that melee didn't have. Brawl is also WAY WAY more simple of a game than melee.

Mindgames, what is considered to be the cousin of the combo, in many ways, is usually only necessary up until that first hit is landed

You downplay the heck out of mindgames that it's shameful. Combos and setups are useless if you can't land them on a smart opponent. The core to every fighting game, real fighting, and most competitive anything is mindgames. The ability to play smart and fool/overwhelm/predict your opponents moves and abuse them. Competitive players get to a point where tech skill is at a competitive standard. In traditional fighters this level of tech skill in general is much higher than that of Melee (and INFINITELY higher than Brawl). Tech skill typically isn't the thing that divides the good competitive players from the best. Combos are merely the best way to cause the most damage once you create an opening. Muscle memory is important, but the true division of skill in pretty much every competitive fighter is how smart you play.

You don't understand this Jack. That's why you are trying to argue that combos aren't important. It isn't about the combos at all, it's that an incredibly important portion of every good competitive game is being removed. That portion is known as execution. Yeah, it's great if you are capable of pulling off amazing ****, but that doesn't amount to crap if you buckle under pressure. You make it seem like it's just easy sailing after that first hit. Lemme tell you something, it's not. What if you make a mistake during your combo? You get punished. You get punished for being sloppy. You are SUPPOSED to get punished for making mistakes. In brawl, while you can still punish, it's AMAZINGLY hard to do so. It's also limiting in what you can do to punish. No matter how skilled we get, we won't be able to punish mistakes properly because most characters are literally unable to place a move in the time it takes to get out of stun, bring up a shield, etc. What does this mean? It means that we can get away with stupid *** ****. It means that you can camp an entire match, and if they break through your camping every now and then you will be alright cause they can't punish you very severely and you won't even take much damage. This is a problem.

Then explain why the competitive Melee scene is complaining about a lack of combos so much.

Because Melee had a unique and interesting spin on combos that goes beyond simply muscle memory. It was all about free-form combos in which being able to follow and predict your opponents DI allowed for you to do amazing combos, but you could ONLY pull them off if you were really really skilled. It took A LOT of skill to pull off these crazy combos consistently, and since comboing has pretty much been removed, a HUGE pool of skill has been directly removed from the game.

I'm asking why that skill is the only one that we consider 'skillful'.

You are dense. People have said repeatedly in this thread that everything that is important in Brawl was also in melee. Comboing wasn't the only skill in melee. Brawl no longer has that intricate system that allowed for the skillful use of mechanics as a showcase this form of skill. There is less depth because of it's exclusion.

I'm saying that Melee doesn't reward wit enough for my tastes.

LOL, this is backwards! In melee, if you were smart and your opponent was not you could REALLY punish their mistakes. You could intentionally make them think to DI a certain way and exploit it. If they missed techs, you could land smashes. If they rolled, you had time to techchase. In brawl, the window is so small that you have to be able to predict everything beforehand, as opposed to predicting a few things and reacting to it accordingly. It becomes an incredibly tough venture to accomplish, because it's hard to predict everything like that. The bad thing is that if you go and make an attempt to punish and mess up... you get punished, because going on the offense leaves you open while being defensive doesn't. How does this reward you for being smart? It seemingly just rewards you for being defensive.

Each mini-combo can combo into another mini-combo!

No it doesn't. There aren't many canned combos. There are "set ups" that lead to combos, but after these setups everything is dependent on each player as to if you can combo. You don't know what you are talking about.

Jack, stop talking as if you know what you are talking about, because you don't.

And Azen used Lucario. In a year or two from now we may decide "well, this is boring, Brawl is dead," but for now it is very fresh and competitive.

Azen is amazing at everything that he does. Everyone else in that list are people that are within a general radius of Azen. Other regions have their heroes too, and these regions will progress much faster than those who don't have crazy *** players like that. The thing is once the scene has been around for a while the skill gap between regions closes a bit, and once everything they are doing as well as the skills they are using become the competitive norm, I feel that with all the existing mechanics that the game will quickly hit a wall. This is exactly the reason for Gimpy to post what he did, as he and many others foresee this wall encroaching on us.

No one can handle such a random mindgame.

Except for every good player that is close enough to take immediate advantage over your trip, in which your "mindgame" only makes you vulnerable for even longer. That's like saying not teching and laying on the ground for a bit in a match is an unbeatable "mind game."

 

[DTKPch]

See, we've played the contemporary style of fighting games for so long that we just can't accept the fact that Brawl doesn't give the combo power over every other possible strategy. We don't know how. What I'm trying to say is that Brawl doesn't reward the combo like it's an end-all-be-all strategy; we have to know when to use combos, and we have to find ones that work at all instead of having every move combo into another one with little effort. You have to 'know when to hold 'em (in) and know when to fold 'em (knock them away)' in Brawl, whereas in Melee, you ALWAYS tried to hold them in every time.

I'm probably not explaining this as well as I'd like to, but I can always clarify if you need me to.

Okay, here's the basic point of a combo, and why all fighting games like it so much:
The basic point of smash is to remove the opponent's stocks. You want to remove said stocks as quickly as possible. We don't rack up damage with combos just for the sake of racking up damage; we want to put the opponent in a position where they're more likely to lose a stock. To remove these stocks quickly, you can either combo or gimp kill, because combos turn a single hit into multiple hits or death.

Now why would anyone WANT to hit someone away without following up instead of comboing? Knocking them away does two things: it prevents you from continuing your hits and it lets your opponent have a chance to hit back, neither of which are favorable to you.

What other strategies are there that are anywhere near as good as long combos?
This is the problem everyone has with merely exchanging blows and the absence of long combos.

Also (this has been repeated VERY much) on a sidenote, comparing Melee's combos to those of Street Fighters is very bad. I don't play SF much, but (correct me if I'm wrong) SF's combos involve a set string of buttons to press, and can be based off of muscle memory. Melee's combos are nothing of the sort, since opponents can DI, thus resulting in multiple possibilites. SF pros have pulled off amazing, yet IDENTICAL, combos. If you watch the Darkrain combo (on Isai), you'll not find another one of it's kind. If you watch the crowd behind him (it was a crew battle, I believe), they go CRAZY, because this combo was truly exceptional. Factors, such as DI, result in Melee's combos not being based on muscle memory, but mindgames.

More examples:
1.) Ken combo: Okay, so it involves mostly SHDF across the stage to a Fair->2nd jump->Dair. However, to perform the Ken combo, you need to properly utilize the sweetspot of Marth's sword (i.e. you need to space yourself right). If your opponent DIs away, you must follow his DI. The same applies for any direction of DI. I myself am capable of pulling of SHDF and 2nd jump->Dairs. However, I've really only pulled off a Ken combo once on the people I play with, just because I can't trace their DI properly. I have all the muscle memory, but that isn't NEARLY enough.

2.) Chain-grabbing (in Melee): Again, you need to follow DI. In fact, mindgames are 90% of all chain grabbing. Marth's uthrow CG on fast-falllers? If you don't follow their DI, it doesn't matter how much muscle memory you have.

Of course, if I've misinterpreted what you were saying, this entire wall of text was all for nought.

 

[Xengri]

Sorry for the double post, but I really wanted to respond to this.

Yes, you have, unfortunately, misinterpreted my meaning.

Yeah, I thought so.

I'm not saying that combos are bad by ANY means. They are, to some extent, bread and butter. The problem I see is that the whole point of Melee as it is now is the combo.

The whole point of Melee (and smash in general) is to keep you’re opponent off the stage and, make them lose a stock. Combo’s just happen to be the most major asset in doing this, the bread and butter as you say. If we don’t use combos, what else do we have? Hit and run and, camping till they are at a high enough % to KO is the only other strategies I can think of. What else is there?

I know Melee is WAY better than SSB64 on this, but I have to bring up the 0-to-Death combo. As Melee is right now, I think you'd be remiss if you didn't admit that the 0-to-Death combo is a 'holy grail' of sorts in that everyone wants to do it every time. Every combo you initiate you hope leads to death every time. The thing is, in Brawl, that's straight-up impossible. You simply can't combo long enough to expect every combo to rack up that much damage.

I believe you’re underestimating just how much Combo’s have been taken out of the equation.
See, in 64 Combos were dominant. It became whoever could hit the other first, got the stock.
In Melee, combos was still a valuable offense but, it was balanced so that the defensive could break a combo provided they tried hard enough. They still were punished with some damage but, they made a mistake to get combed in the first place so, it was far.
In Brawl whoever, Combos are almost non-existent. The defense could break free of a combo with little punishment received.
So, know that the combo has been taken out, what is there to replace it? What’s the alternative?

See, we've played the contemporary style of fighting games for so long that we just can't accept the fact that Brawl doesn't give the combo power over every other possible strategy.

You’re right, Brawl doesn't give the combo power over every other possible strategy. Brawl doesn’t give the combo any power.
What’s there to replace it? Camping so far has stepped up as the most valuable strategy (MVS, has a nice ring to it). But, that’s the problem.

We don't know how. What I'm trying to say is that Brawl doesn't reward the combo like it's an end-all-be-all strategy; we have to know when to use combos, and we have to find ones that work at all instead of having every move combo into another one with little effort. You have to 'know when to hold 'em (in) and know when to fold 'em (knock them away)' in Brawl, whereas in Melee, you ALWAYS tried to hold them in every time.

I'm probably not explaining this as well as I'd like to, but I can always clarify if you need me to.[/QUOTE]

Now I think you’re exaggerating the effort it took to combo in Melee and, down playing the extent of which combos were removed in Brawl.
Combos aren’t the end-all-be-all strategy in Brawl, but now camping is the dominant strategy.
I’m not going to exaggerate Camping, it is possible to get through it, but after you do, with no combos, what’s left?
You hit and then what?