• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Is the brawl style of gameplay really that bad?

Aidebit

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jun 10, 2013
Messages
210
Location
Philippines
I think that's because you die if you get touched in SSB64.
If you can cancel Hitstun, you get Brawl. (Getting hit isn't that bad)
If you can't cancel Hitstun, you get Melee. (If you get hit, you'll get combo'ed, but won't die.)
If Hitstun is crazy, you get 64. ("Don't get hit")
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
8,377
Location
Long Beach,California
What about high level games of SSB64?

In that, both opponents are also rather "campy" waiting for the right moment to approach, throwing out air attacks for safety.
And 64 has the MOST hitstun of all the smashes.

So i do not think that the level of hitstun = level of campyness (if you get what i mean)

Its something more in the game

I think its the ability for a character to transfer his momentum from a dash into a jump. In Brawl and SSB64 when you ran then jumped, your momentum would just cease to exist and you would travel through the air at a fixated speed. In Melee when you ran and jumped the speed and momentum you gained from the dash transitioned into your jump, allowing the character to zone quickly and freely. This also gave characters like Falco deadly zoning abilities with SH lasers and Fox solid and fast Bread and Butter.

When I run with Sonic and Jump in Brawl...its just...disappointing.
 

TweetyPurd

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jun 15, 2013
Messages
76
Exactly :)

What i think will happen with this new smash, is that if they increase the speed and hitstun just slightly, it will make for some short combos for every character, while still being easy to pick up and play.

Some projectiles also need a nerf from brawl, as they just encourage camping way too much (Pitts bow)
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
8,377
Location
Long Beach,California
That and they should bring back the projectile reflecting power shield. With Brawl's easy power shield and the ability to reflect projectiles it would prevent characters from being overly defensive and thing about using projectiles.
 

smashbrolink

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jun 14, 2013
Messages
307
Location
Santa Ana California
That and they should bring back the projectile reflecting power shield. With Brawl's easy power shield and the ability to reflect projectiles it would prevent characters from being overly defensive and thing about using projectiles.
Hey, if we're talking shields, then I want to see some sort of shield bash ability for Link so that he can actually knock things back at enemies a la Skyward Sword.[Yes, yes, I know that isn't Skyward Sword Link. Let's not dwell too much on technicalities, eh? Let me have my dreams, damn it!XD]
Wouldn't be hard to implement for him, either; just make it so that if he activates his normal bubble block when a projectile comes within the range of the bubble, he thrusts his shield out and returns it instead.[only works if he's facing the projectile in question, though]
Obviously wouldn't work on, say, Samus's Final Smash laser, per say, but I think anything below that in power should be bash-able, even if the move left him vulnerable for a moment.

Heck, I wanna see that even if it's just the normal shield reflection a la Melee, but as a special animation for Link.

Yes, I'm a total Link fanboy despite his tier ranking. Sue me.XD
 

M15t3R E

Smash Master
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
3,061
Location
Hangin' with Thor
since you don't think L-canceling should be in, do you think aerials should have less landing lag by default, or do you just prefer brawl air attacks?
Yes I do. I desire a healthy balance between Brawl and Melee which is why I love Brawl+. Fortunately we have been told that this is what the developers are aiming to do.
 

GP&B

Ike 'n' Ike
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
4,609
Location
Orlando, FL
NNID
MetalDude
I liked Brawl+. Most of why it probably didn't catch on had a lot to do with how it was handled (practically weekly, sometimes daily updates, and a lot of developer conflicts) and that it didn't stand out especially well in the end as its own game (compare this with Project M, which has a lot of top-to-bottom level changes). But ideally, I'd be perfectly fine with a Smash game that ends up similar to what Brawl+ aimed to be.
 

EpixAura

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Messages
474
Location
Greenville, NC
I'm still of the belief that Nintendo should just make a deal with the P:M team, and basically make Smash 4 a graphically improved P:M. If only life was that simple.

But yeah, Brawl was honestly an amazing game from a casual perspective. There's just way too many flaws from a competitive standpoint. I still love it though.
 

otter

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
616
Location
Ohio
I liked Brawl+. Most of why it probably didn't catch on had a lot to do with how it was handled (practically weekly, sometimes daily updates, and a lot of developer conflicts) and that it didn't stand out especially well in the end as its own game (compare this with Project M, which has a lot of top-to-bottom level changes). But ideally, I'd be perfectly fine with a Smash game that ends up similar to what Brawl+ aimed to be.

I wouldn't say it didn't catch on. Brawl sold nearly 13 million copies and has official nintendo support, but most tourny goers are aware of P:M and that it's a better game. That's remarkable. It's not really realistic to expect the average GameStop customer to play it, it that's what you mean.
 

Phaiyte

Smash Ace
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
932
Why can you not have a game with defensive and offensive playstyles? Why must the game be exactly like melee? You have melee, you have project M, it is time for a game that fits what both sides want. You should be able to play defensive and offensive playstyles, NO wavedashing, lets not be selfish, just think about all the casual players, or even the competitive brawl players who do not play melee. The melee players will have a competitive advantage, and casual players (which make up the majority of sales) will not learn/know about it. Also, casual players never knew about techs like wavedashing and L cancelling, because it wasn't in the manual. Back then, manuals actually told you stuff, and people read them, so it is VERY hard for me to believe neither of these are glitches or exploits in melee.!
It's pretty much in bold print in the N64 manual. js.
 

Phaiyte

Smash Ace
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
932
Why do people keep saying Brawl's balance was a problem? Of course it was, but you can't tell me melee was balanced or more balanced, sure melee's lower tier characters are more likely to win than brawl's because of combos/easy kills, but there was also less characters. Look at Kirby, worst characters in any smash, PERIOD. (Most people do not know how to deal with chain grabs)"
Yeah I'mma stop you right there again. Kirby was AWESOME in 64. See: Apex 2013
 

Phaiyte

Smash Ace
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
932
Every player has a natural inability to play perfectly because nobody can have absolute certainty of what will happen next in a match. That's why these things you call "mistakes" aren't really mistakes. You cannot anticipate my actions if you have no knowledge of what I'm going to do and when I'm going to do it. Let me give you a very simple example. If I make my char run directly at you, do you know 100% what I'm going to do? Hell no. I could jump and attack, i could dash attack, I could grab, I could rollaway or behind you, I could stop and sheild, I could stop and spot dodge, I could stop and airdodge away, I could jump and try to airdodge behind you, I could jump away, or i could run up and taunt in your face. You are not in control of what your opponent does because you do not know what your opponent will do. Consequently, you are only in control of your opponent insofar as you know what your opponent will do. Therefore, if it just so happens that you expect me to attack, and you react with a sheild, but I grab instead, that is not a mistake on your part, because you literally had no control over the situation. That is the true guessing game in smash (and remember, you said you don't like guessing games, so you should have a big problem with this.) My point, as I have stated already, is that no player should be "punished" so harshly for something that is so largely out of their control. Lemme rephrase that statement, because I said it in your language, the one that reads smash as a game of errors and rewards. Here's how that statment reads out in how I understand smash: No player should be punished by disadvantages that are brought about by chance. That's why DI is meaningful, because being overly punished for chance occurrences devalues the gameplay experience (E.G. Smash 64 and Marvel.) Furthermore, addind DI does not detract from the meaning of landing a hit, because, as I have just demonstrated, landing a hit is very often not a result of an outplay, but a result of guesswork and ignorance.

Thanks for making me say the same thing all over again.
I can tell right away that you don't have the mindset of a good fighting game player. It's not to be taken as offense, but I'mma clear up a concept in this anecdote real fast. Have you ever thought of using your character's tools to shut down your opponent's options before? The entire meta of just about any fighting game revolves around almost completely that. When so many of your opponent's options are shut down, you have MUCH less guess work to do when it comes down to the rock paper scissors game. Instead of 3 choices, your opponent now only has maybe 2, and you know exactly which option he no longer has. If you can succeed in shutting down one more option, your opponent is forced to pick paper and you auto counter with scissors every time. Your opponent may shell out some crazy option you didn't realize was there before, and that's when metagames start shifting really hard. The story is literally the exact same for every fighting game ever made.
 

Phaiyte

Smash Ace
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
932
All this "true combo" talk really is dumb. Every good fighting game has options that can be instated while you're being combo'd. Guilty Gear, Blazblue, Persona 4, etc all have Bursting. Smash just has DI, which is ok. It's much more difficult to keep combos going in this game, and as such it's also harder to get out of well performed maneuvers. DI is not a mistake in this game, for those saying it is. DI is just Smash's answer to interaction with the person being combo'd so he isn't just sitting there for 10 seconds waiting for the aggressor to stop pressing buttons.
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
8,377
Location
Long Beach,California
Hey, if we're talking shields, then I want to see some sort of shield bash ability for Link so that he can actually knock things back at enemies a la Skyward Sword.[Yes, yes, I know that isn't Skyward Sword Link. Let's not dwell too much on technicalities, eh? Let me have my dreams, damn it!XD]
Wouldn't be hard to implement for him, either; just make it so that if he activates his normal bubble block when a projectile comes within the range of the bubble, he thrusts his shield out and returns it instead.[only works if he's facing the projectile in question, though]
Obviously wouldn't work on, say, Samus's Final Smash laser, per say, but I think anything below that in power should be bash-able, even if the move left him vulnerable for a moment.

Heck, I wanna see that even if it's just the normal shield reflection a la Melee, but as a special animation for Link.

Yes, I'm a total Link fanboy despite his tier ranking. Sue me.XD

Hell yeah! I've been saying this for the longest. Link needs mad buffs, man. He too many weapons and moves at his disposal.

I'm in the same boast as you. I love Link, full homo. He's the reason I started playing Smash Bros. in the first place.
 

MuraRengan

Banned via Warnings
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Messages
1,510
Location
New Orleans
I can tell right away that you don't have the mindset of a good fighting game player. It's not to be taken as offense, but I'mma clear up a concept in this anecdote real fast. Have you ever thought of using your character's tools to shut down your opponent's options before? The entire meta of just about any fighting game revolves around almost completely that. When so many of your opponent's options are shut down, you have MUCH less guess work to do when it comes down to the rock paper scissors game. Instead of 3 choices, your opponent now only has maybe 2, and you know exactly which option he no longer has. If you can succeed in shutting down one more option, your opponent is forced to pick paper and you auto counter with scissors every time. Your opponent may shell out some crazy option you didn't realize was there before, and that's when metagames start shifting really hard. The story is literally the exact same for every fighting game ever made.

I'd like to respond to this post, but I'm not exactly sure what this post has to do with what you quoted from me. I'll take a guess though.

Are you saying that trying to shut down your opponent's options is the alternative to the scenario I posed? If so, then I think you're thinking of competitive fighters in too abstract of terms. Theoretically, shutting down your opponent's options is what you want to do, but in practice this is not possible in every instance of Smash's mechanics.

For example, envision the start of a ditto match. How exactly can one player "shut down" the other player's options from the get-go? In a ditto, at the beginning both players have the exact same number of options, and if they were to move in the exact same ways, they would never reach a point in which one can take an option away from the other. If gameplay followed that abstract formula of "shuttign down" the opponent that you're suggesting, then ditto matches would always result in stalemate. The reason they don't is because of what I said earlier, people don't play perfectly. Eventually, one of two things will happen: one player will be significantly better than the other and know how to put himself in an advantageous position (and this is, as you say, the beginning of "shuttign down" and taking away a player's options), or both players will be unaware of how to place themselves in advantages positions and an advantage will be granted by chance, that is, players trying to feel each other out and experimenting with their options.

Let me give another example. Take the Sheik vs. Bowser matchup in Melee. That matchup is considered to be 100/0 in Sheik's favor. That's because Sheik's moves have properties that give her more option coverage of Bowser than Bowser's moves do to her. So, Sheik can very easily "shut down" Bowser, but Bowser cannot. For Bowser, the fight isn't about shutting Sheik down, but about inticing Sheik to use her options incorrectly (I.E. baiting, being defensive). That style of play is completely different from what you're suggesting, but is one that is used by lots of players.

Furthermore, in less drastic matchups, players alternate between these two methods of option reduction and error punishment depending on the momentum of the match. In the Marth vs. Falcon matchup, Marth can take two approaches: pressure Falcon into doing a bad move (option reduction) or abuse Marth's range and disjointed hitbox to punish Falcon's approaches (error punishment). Both are equally viable options, but neither are perfect strategies. Falcon has the tools to react to either approach, and his reactions can take the same two approach forms.

Basically what I'm saying is that you're way oversimplifying the matter.
 

Phaiyte

Smash Ace
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
932
No it doesn't mean that at all. you're trying to make this very black and white. Obviously not every successful hit is a triumph and should be reward with a game over. The issue is you are taking the reward system and attaching an additional guessing game ontop, this leads to inconsistency in play.

Again, rewards should come in variables with variences of risk and reward. I've made all of this very clear long before you came into the discussion.

I've just gotta know. If DI is SOOOOOO inconsistent, how come average to high level players are able to get plenty consistent results out of almost everything they do? Have you ever watched Darkrain play Captain Falcon? Literally the only inconsistency in his gameplay is that he fumbles inputs sometimes, which I don't blame him with some of the crazy junk he pulls.

DI doesn't really mean nearly as much as you think it does. The way you're making it out to be, the act of DIing will make you travel miles away from your opponent at any given time, and that just doesn't happen. At low %s you're still going to be in range of your opponent no matter how good your DI is. All they have to do is react to your DI and make a few judgement calls that are not based on chance. The biggest difference DI makes is that it prevents you from being killed by a few smash attacks now n then. Stop making DI out to be a guessing game. Because it's not. If you think it is, then it's because you're bad. And that's ok, no one's gonna judge you too hard.

DI is actually a fantastic example of great game design.
 

EdreesesPieces

Smash Bros Before Hos
BRoomer
Joined
Mar 15, 2004
Messages
7,680
Location
confirmed, sending supplies.
NNID
EdreesesPieces
Btw just going with your chess analysis. I myself love to play chess, yet I would never watch 2 people play it. My dad on the other hand has tons of chess books and different boards and loves playing and watching chess games. Everyone has different likes and preferences, but more often than not, games with few action events or occurings are disliked as an item to watch.

Most people don't like watching chess, it's slow and people spectating aren't doing whats fun about it (thinking!), they are just watching and waiting for those "WOW" moments.

This is something that plagues Brawl and its why people say: "I don't like watching Brawl matches, they are way too campy".
I think players in Melee matches are thinking just as much, they are just doing it faster. I don't see why you think there isn't just as much thinking going on in Melee matches. When I play Melee I think just the same as I do in Brawl, i'm just forced to do it quicker. I'm not sure why you make the false assumption that just because things are moving faster, people will think less. If you don't fully evaluate your approach and strategy in Melee you will be punished, you definitely can't rely on tech skill to make a good approach, especially against a character like Peach.

Let me ask you, if Brawl moved at one tenth the speed it does now, do you think it would be even more of a thinking game? At what speed would you draw a line?
 

Phaiyte

Smash Ace
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
932
Unfortunately, I disagree. In fighting style games, casual players' knee jerk reaction to high level play is typically very negative. They see someone playing well and automatically start saying "broken" "spamming" "camping" "cheating". Even players that became semi-competent with Brawl and post here are terrified with the option of technical play, even if it's not mandatory.

Keep in mind that most of Melee's sales came before the tournament scene existed, so it's hard to use that as evidence that casual players are cool with it.

It's unfortunate that this attitude is so deep rooted when games like League of Legends and Starcraft can condition new players to admire high level play. The primary difference is direct help from the developer, which isn't coming anytime soon.
Tournament play very much so existed in 64, and plenty of concepts carried over pretty well and plenty of people were ready to dive into creating the competitive scene for Melee. All those people shouting "cheating", "spamming", "camping", all literally have no idea what they're talking about, and you can't just punish other, more skilled people because of that.

A fantastic example is the fact that I main Nu/Lambda across the entire Blazblue series. I can probably post pictures for days of the amount of hate mail I've actually received over PSN across every release of the game simply because I'm good at the game and so many players just don't understand. Usually I reply either trying to give them constructive criticism or just troll them and make them more mad. But that's beside the point. The major point is that those characters aren't even really that good, save for Calamity Trigger, and there's literally no reason to complain about them. I can remember being a beginner when I first got the game and thinking Tager was OP because he did so much damage so easily and had the fastest and most destructive projectile in the game. But I kept a healthy mindset, got better at the game, and soon enough Tager became something to laugh at more often than not.
 

Phaiyte

Smash Ace
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
932
For me, Melee had a point where the bar reached too high for me to surmount even after months of effort, and that turned it into a point of frustration.
I'm all for high bars, but I like high bars that aren't so high as to be guaranteed to only be reached by a very small portion of players.
In my case, it was my inability to gain enough dexterity and finger speed to successfully pull off Wave Shining even outside of the stresses of combat, let alone when under pressure in a match.
I know it's a silly thing to some, but for me, that acted as more of a deterrent than losing matches or having a lower tech bar to reach ever could, and I don't even main Fox.XD
It was just the knowledge that there was a point that all of my efforts and hard work could not help me reach, that made me start to dislike bars as high as that.
There were other cases, of course, but Wave Shine is the, dare I say it? *Puts on sunglasses* Shining example of my case.
In this anecdote you are literally saying that you want to win against players that are 10x better than you and you don't really want to work for it. How does that contribute to healthy gameplay? This is a huge reason why I ****ing hate Brawl. You can be leagues ahead of your opponent in every skill and still have a huge chance of losing. That's backwards.
 

Phaiyte

Smash Ace
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
932
I practiced for a good 6 months, my friend.
If I can't get it in 6 months of play time, then it's not something I can competently do during battle, and when facing off against someone who can easily incorporate something that advanced into their routine for quickly stacking damage, it instantly puts me at a severe disadvantage. Especially if I'm playing as anything other than a top-tier character, like my main for example.
It's simply a natural limit for me; my fingers don't move fast enough to perform the move reliably, let alone during the pressure of actual combat.
I know others who are the same way so it is not an isolated incident. If you're a different case, then count yourself lucky, but just be aware that there are people out there that simply don't have the ability for it.
That's the kind of thing I want to see stop happening; lower the bar so that anyone can do it, but not so far that it takes away from the satisfaction of making the moves work for you.
There's a middle ground here for those with the open mind to see it.

Also, just to clarify, when I mentioned a "small portion of players", I was referring to the competitive base, since, as far as I'm aware, there's far more people that aren't competitive due to not knowing or being able to pull off these things, or just not liking to use them[yes, they do exist, rare as they are], or in other words, casual players, than there are competitive people.
Not putting competitive people down, here.
*puts on my spiky golden wig*
I'm just saiyan. 8)
You're still making the "point" that people shouldn't be rewarded for their efforts. Like a tournament is supposed to be easy or something. That whole "6 month" anecdote is nothing more than lazy. I've been playing Blazblue since day 1, and I'm still, to this very day, getting better and learning new things every single day, and that becomes really obvious is very notable when I win tournaments. If you're a casual player that gets mad when they lose it's seriously just as simple as staying away from tournaments and stick to playing with just your 11 year old brother. Problem solved; everyone can go home.
 

Chiroz

Tier Lists? Foolish...
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
4,648
Location
Waiting on The Hero
NNID
Zykrex
I think players in Melee matches are thinking just as much, they are just doing it faster. I don't see why you think there isn't just as much thinking going on in Melee matches. When I play Melee I think just the same as I do in Brawl, i'm just forced to do it quicker. I'm not sure why you make the false assumption that just because things are moving faster, people will think less. If you don't fully evaluate your approach and strategy in Melee you will be punished, you definitely can't rely on tech skill to make a good approach, especially against a character like Peach.

Let me ask you, if Brawl moved at one tenth the speed it does now, do you think it would be even more of a thinking game? At what speed would you draw a line?
I dont know why you quoted that segment. Nowhere in that segment do I even speak about Melee. In case you misunderstood what I wrote what is expressed there is that spectators watching a game are never thinking even a fraction of what the person playing the game is thinking. Sure sometimes you imagine yourself being X or Y player on this match, try to analize his moves and predict his actions, but that is not what a regular spectator does, a regular spectator just watches in order to be amazed by the awesome moments. If you reread my post without being so defensive about your bias you might see it.

One thing you have to understand is I do not hold bias for either Melee or Brawl. I hold both games in a very high regard. I love them both and understand them both and I actually prefer Melee over Brawl.

I never said that a Melee player inherintly thinks less than a Brawl player. Neither did I say smarter players played Brawl. What I did say though was that Brawl does have a thinking barrier above Melee. In Melee, being fully competent at techs will get you much farther than thinking well. By this I don't mean thinking isn't important, obviously smart plays are the most important thing in any smash, yet wavedashing and L-Cancelling correctly will allow you to beat a much smarter opponent that is unable to do either. This does not exist in Brawl which means that to be a competent player you are required to be really good at outsmarting your opponent and thinking your approaches.

Basically what I mean to say is that the best Melee players as well as the best Brawl players are just as smart and probably smarter than any other player. But you can still become competent in Melee just by being proficient at all of the techs and having a bare minimum of what we call "smart plays". In Brawl though the whole metagame (except for maybe MK) is based around these smart plays which in turn means that in order to be competent in Brawl this bar of bare minimums of "smart plays" is raised higher than Melee. It's like having 10 things you need to know to be competent, if you fail at 1 it isn't that bad if you can complete all other 9, yet if instead of 10 things you only had 2, then it is much more important that you do not fail at that 1 thing. That does not mean you cannot think as much or more in Melee than Brawl, you obviously can and the higher level the player the more he does.

This argument has nothing to do with Melee or Brawl, I am just answering your previous question, When something is faster there is normally less opportunity to think, that is always a given. People analyze things at different speeds and volumes, in different ways. Having less oportunity to think does in fact in a "stadistics" poblational sample. Basically what I mean by this is that if you took every person in the world and made them play rounds of rock, paper, scissors with only 2 second intervals between each round they might just choose a random one each time. If you then proceed to do the same but with 10 second intervals then you might see people trying to figure their opponents choices a bit more.

The above analysis in no way resembles Melee or Brawl, it was just answering your questions. Obviously there is a fine line where no more thinking can be done. If you gave them 10 minutes instead of seconds most people would probably end up making a choice by the 20-30 second mark and just waiting for the remaining time, there is obviously a line, yet I cannot tell you where that line resides.

Approaches from a competent player who can wave-dash, L-Cancel and Space correctly consistently give the opponent much less opportunity to punish you. (note this does not mean punishes aren't as hard, we all know in Melee punishes are much stronger, what this means is there is much less window or options to punish a correctly played approach. This in turn means that your opponent can approach safer, thus allowing him to think less of his approaches if he so desires. It doesn't mean he has to, it means he can. This is why things like Shield Pressure exist in Melee and I am not saying Shield Pressure is bad, it is a good thing and something very fun to do and see! Yet in Brawl none of that exists meaning you need to think out that one and only attack much more in order to connect it.

As a conclusion to this post I know I said some things that don't quite make sense but I was in a hurry because I have to do some personal things. I just want to reinstate I hold no bias towards either game and I see them each with its own personal merit.
 

Amida64

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
315
Location
Lexington, Kentucky
Yeah I'mma stop you right there again. Kirby was AWESOME in 64. See: Apex 2013
No, I main Kirby in 64, I know about competitive 64, I know he is decent in Brawl too. I was saying him and pichu in melee, are the worst characters out of all the bad characters of all the smashes. Sorry, should have been more specific.....
 

Chiroz

Tier Lists? Foolish...
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
4,648
Location
Waiting on The Hero
NNID
Zykrex
Ok, now that I am not as rushed I think I can articulate my opinion better. It is not that Melee players think less than Brawl players, it is not that thinking is less important in Melee. What it is is that not thinking is a much bigger problem in Brawl than in Melee.

In both games it is very important to think and smart players will always win (as long as they have an understanding and proficiency at techs), but approaching stupidly is much more punishable in Brawl than in Melee (assuming players are completely proficient at performing all ATs) (and by more I mean you will be punished more times, not harder, since as I already stated Melee has much stronger punishes)
 

smashbrolink

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jun 14, 2013
Messages
307
Location
Santa Ana California
In this anecdote you are literally saying that you want to win against players that are 10x better than you and you don't really want to work for it. How does that contribute to healthy gameplay? This is a huge reason why I ****ing hate Brawl. You can be leagues ahead of your opponent in every skill and still have a huge chance of losing. That's backwards.
You're still making the "point" that people shouldn't be rewarded for their efforts. Like a tournament is supposed to be easy or something. That whole "6 month" anecdote is nothing more than lazy. I've been playing Blazblue since day 1, and I'm still, to this very day, getting better and learning new things every single day, and that becomes really obvious is very notable when I win tournaments. If you're a casual player that gets mad when they lose it's seriously just as simple as staying away from tournaments and stick to playing with just your 11 year old brother. Problem solved; everyone can go home.

Way to put words in my mouth.

Name once, ONCE, where I said I wanted these things for the sake of "beating people 10X better than me", or "I don't want people to be rewarded for their efforts".

Not where you think I implied it.
Where I actually said it!

Where, at what point, did I say that?

Where?!

Nowhere, that's where.

Take a second look before you assume to know my motives, because right now you're running off of your own mind-set without trying to understand mine.
My goal in wanting a lower bar is so that I can personally meet the uppermost limit.
NOT FOR THE SAKE OF WINNING AGAINST PEOPLE 10X BETTER THAN ME.
FOR THE SAKE OF HAVING AN ACHIEVABLE BAR AND IMPROVING MYSELF.

I don't care about winning so much that I go out of my way to INSULT people who don't play the game I prefer.
I just want to have a goal that my own natural reflexes aren't preventing me from achieving.

Don't reply to me again until you've actually got a firm grasp of my motives and can lay off the assumptions and the insults.
 

Phaiyte

Smash Ace
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
932
I'd like to respond to this post, but I'm not exactly sure what this post has to do with what you quoted from me. I'll take a guess though.

Are you saying that trying to shut down your opponent's options is the alternative to the scenario I posed? If so, then I think you're thinking of competitive fighters in too abstract of terms. Theoretically, shutting down your opponent's options is what you want to do, but in practice this is not possible in every instance of Smash's mechanics.

For example, envision the start of a ditto match. How exactly can one player "shut down" the other player's options from the get-go? In a ditto, at the beginning both players have the exact same number of options, and if they were to move in the exact same ways, they would never reach a point in which one can take an option away from the other. If gameplay followed that abstract formula of "shuttign down" the opponent that you're suggesting, then ditto matches would always result in stalemate. The reason they don't is because of what I said earlier, people don't play perfectly. Eventually, one of two things will happen: one player will be significantly better than the other and know how to put himself in an advantageous position (and this is, as you say, the beginning of "shuttign down" and taking away a player's options), or both players will be unaware of how to place themselves in advantages positions and an advantage will be granted by chance, that is, players trying to feel each other out and experimenting with their options.

Let me give another example. Take the Sheik vs. Bowser matchup in Melee. That matchup is considered to be 100/0 in Sheik's favor. That's because Sheik's moves have properties that give her more option coverage of Bowser than Bowser's moves do to her. So, Sheik can very easily "shut down" Bowser, but Bowser cannot. For Bowser, the fight isn't about shutting Sheik down, but about inticing Sheik to use her options incorrectly (I.E. baiting, being defensive). That style of play is completely different from what you're suggesting, but is one that is used by lots of players.

Furthermore, in less drastic matchups, players alternate between these two methods of option reduction and error punishment depending on the momentum of the match. In the Marth vs. Falcon matchup, Marth can take two approaches: pressure Falcon into doing a bad move (option reduction) or abuse Marth's range and disjointed hitbox to punish Falcon's approaches (error punishment). Both are equally viable options, but neither are perfect strategies. Falcon has the tools to react to either approach, and his reactions can take the same two approach forms.

Basically what I'm saying is that you're way oversimplifying the matter.
All you really did was repeat and slightly over complicate almost 100% of what I said.
 

Lemonwater

Smash Ace
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
664
Nothing's wrong with the style. In fact, I actually like it the most out of all the Smash games. It's just that Nintendo really needs a patch system in place to balance things out. Nintendo needs to start acknowledging that there are competitive players for the Smash games and that it's not just a party game to many of the fans. Hopefully they will be able to do that while still allowing modders to create their own Smash versions. We'll see.
 

Lemonwater

Smash Ace
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
664
Yeah, true. I thought about that as well. I am just counting on all the brilliant lurking fans out there who are good with programming things to create stuff like Brawl+

They are our only hope when patches go crazy.
 

otter

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
616
Location
Ohio
Tournament play very much so existed in 64, and plenty of concepts carried over pretty well and plenty of people were ready to dive into creating the competitive scene for Melee. All those people shouting "cheating", "spamming", "camping", all literally have no idea what they're talking about, and you can't just punish other, more skilled people because of that.

A fantastic example is the fact that I main Nu/Lambda across the entire Blazblue series. I can probably post pictures for days of the amount of hate mail I've actually received over PSN across every release of the game simply because I'm good at the game and so many players just don't understand. Usually I reply either trying to give them constructive criticism or just troll them and make them more mad. But that's beside the point. The major point is that those characters aren't even really that good, save for Calamity Trigger, and there's literally no reason to complain about them. I can remember being a beginner when I first got the game and thinking Tager was OP because he did so much damage so easily and had the fastest and most destructive projectile in the game. But I kept a healthy mindset, got better at the game, and soon enough Tager became something to laugh at more often than not.

Calamity Trigger was a mess, and Nu was literally broken, so that's an odd example. I don't blame new players for not knowing the difference between being outplayed in Melee and being in a matchup that is simply can't be won (such as anyone but Arakune or Taokaka vs Nu).
 

DrinkingFood

Smash Hero
Joined
May 5, 2012
Messages
5,600
Location
Beaumont, TX
From what I read in the Kotaku interview, the game looks a little more hopeful than brawl, but still not up to my standards, so as the last thing I really plan to say, I hope that someone takes a P:M-esque approach to modding the game for those of us who appreciate that type of gameplay.
 
Top Bottom