Sakurai's Genius: A Look at How a Non-Competitive Game Can Be So Much Fun

[Milos]

Let me start off by saying this. I really do like Brawl. I think it's intriguing and fun and entails a lot of thought and dedication to be good at. The reason I created this topic was to examine how a game that was clearly not geared towards a competitive scene can still be fun for someone who enjoyed playing Melee in a competitive style. There are three main points I will cover in this topic.

• The even playing field created by Sakurai and Sora in order to make Brawl fun for everybody.
• The fact that when I play Brawl "competitively" (I use this term loosely, referring to playing to win) I find myself in an extreme state of concentration remeniscient of my days playing melee as such.
• How Brawl will create a "competitive" (same meaning as before) scene because there will be people who play the game to win, or for money.

Sakurai and his developing affiliates obviously went into this game with the mindset that everybody who played this game, whether they were new to it or not, would end up at the same or a similar level very quickly. They ended up being sort of successful with this. On one hand, one can pick up Brawl and play with talented players and do quite well. However, without advanced techniques, and the lack of mindgames, the winner in my experience has ultimately come down to who holds the proper mindset to win consistently.

This brings me to my second point. Brawl is a game that does take a lot of concentration. As a fighting game, party game, whatever you would like to call it, there is and always will be an element of punishment. Yes, DI is more extreme in this game, but anybody with half a brain can read where their opponent will go next. You can follow them with a projectile or high priority move. When you're in the right mindset, you will easily be able to punish whatever move your opponent makes. The game is also clearly slower, which gives, from Sakurai's perspective, both players time to think. But what it ends up coming down to is who can think farther and farther ahead. You end up treating Brawl like a game of chess, you can't think of it by the move, you think of where your opponent will be 5-10 seconds from now. YES, you can also do this in melee, but this is a Brawl thread not a comparison.

Lastly, I honestly believe that Brawl will be played competitively, due to this basic element of punishment. The game is fun, people will gather and play. Sometimes, admittedly, gameplay does get monotonous, but that is inevitable in a game that boils down to concentration and does not really focus on AT's.

And another thing....

The metagame has been broken, those who don't believe that are in denial. The game is nearing it's peak already. I don't want to hear comments about how I should "Wait a year or two, then we'll know for sure". Brawl is almost at it's limit, and if competitive, it won't be about who can discover the next 0-death with Falco, 0-death combos won't exist in the future due to the fact that we will have a more complete understanding of the DI in Brawl. Set combos will not exist to go past 20 or 30%. "Competitive" Brawlers will have to rely on their minds to win matches.

This was just a thought that I threw together into a topic, and I'm aware that it's pretty disorganized and sometimes unclear. If there's anything I should fix just tell me and if it's reasonable I will.

Also, for the whole mindgames in Melee vs. Brawl debate, even though this isn't a Melee vs. Brawl thread, I think it's necessary to remind people what the definition of mindgame is. This is from the Melee section of SWF, in AlphaZealot's term thread.

Mind Games: One of the most misunderstood terms within the community. Mind games are first were used to describe a single trick used against an opponent, but have since come to describe how a player thinks during an entire match. The only real difference between the top level players in the country are their mind games, in other words, the level at which they think and predict their opponents. Mind games are essentially a synonym for the less used term metagaming.

 

[Ageman20XX]

As much as I know someone is going to come in here and flame you, I really do have to agree with everything you said. I totally feel the same way about Brawl overall and you said it very well. Good job.

-Age

 

[Jack Kieser]

Well-written, thought provoking, and insightful. A great post (especially in these times), and I'm glad you took the time to think about the current situation from this angle.

A++, would read again.

 

[Alphabravo]

At this point I'd have to agree with you. However, it saddens me that Brawl will probably end up becoming too shallow. In Melee a player could think ahead but there were always new AT's to discover and master. If the technical aspect of Brawl has almost reached its peak then I'm sorry to say that Brawl's competitive lifespan will be much shorter than melee's.

 

[Wiseguy]

Very interesting perspective on things. All in all, a superb argument.

 

[choknater]

Just a fun fact: Ice Climbers can 0-death ^_^

 

[Rash]

Good read. You clearly point out that this isn't a comparison with Melee, and also admit that Brawl has nearly reached its peak (which I kind of disagree with, but meh). That gives you credibility.

Brawl can be fun no matter how you look at it. Some people are just too hardcore for it, which is a bit sad.

 

[LouisLeGros]

It is the sad truth.

I'm going to have to disagree with chess/punishment part though. In Brawl when you mess up you may be punished, but unless you are at like 130% it isn't going to mean much. When you make a mistake in chess at a competitive level then it puts you at a pronounced disadvantage.

Also predicting what your enemy is going to do in your little skirmish is no where near as deep as thinking what your opponent is going to do in chess.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Here's a question that's been burning a hole in the mental pocket. I hear a lot of people saying that Brawl's lifespan will be shorter than Melee's. They cite various reasons, but one of the most cited is the lack of 'depth' (whatever that means). But I've been playing Melee ever since it came out (as in, I never stopped playing it for 7 years), and I never even tried any of the advanced tech stuff, excluding L-canceling, until the last year or so. I played Melee 'competitively' (as in, I played to win and with a competitive spirit) the entire time. I know TONS of people who are the same way.

So, the question is this: if people are HAVING FUN playing Brawl in a tournament setting, then why would a lack of supposed 'depth' shorten the lifespan? Isn't the important question 'are people enjoying playing the game?', and if people are enjoying it, why would they stop playing? In essence, aren't we assuming that EVERYONE who plays Smash 'competitively' is a top level technical player (an obvious fallacy) when we say that a lack of 'technical depth' will inevitably shorten the game's tournament lifespan?

EDIT@Louis: That's like saying having one of your pawns taken in Chess isn't a big deal, either. 'Oh, its just a pawn; that's not much of a punishment.' Yeah, except games can be won or lost by a single pawn, and Smash games can be won or lost by a single percent. Punishment is punishment; you might not see the reward until the long-term has played out, but every hit counts.

 

[everlasting yayuhzz]

Here's a question that's been burning a hole in the mental pocket. I hear a lot of people saying that Brawl's lifespan will be shorter than Melee's. They cite various reasons, but one of the most cited is the lack of 'depth' (whatever that means). But I've been playing Melee ever since it came out (as in, I never stopped playing it for 7 years), and I never even tried any of the advanced tech stuff, excluding L-canceling, until the last year or so. I played Melee 'competitively' (as in, I played to win and with a competitive spirit) the entire time. I know TONS of people who are the same way.

So, the question is this: if people are HAVING FUN playing Brawl in a tournament setting, then why would a lack of supposed 'depth' shorten the lifespan? Isn't the important question 'are people enjoying playing the game?', and if people are enjoying it, why would they stop playing? In essence, aren't we assuming that EVERYONE who plays Smash 'competitively' is a top level technical player (an obvious fallacy) when we say that a lack of 'technical depth' will inevitably shorten the game's tournament lifespan?

EDIT@Louis: That's like saying having one of your pawns taken in Chess isn't a big deal, either. 'Oh, its just a pawn; that's not much of a punishment.' Yeah, except games can be won or lost by a single pawn, and Smash games can be won or lost by a single percent. Punishment is punishment; you might not see the reward until the long-term has played out, but every hit counts.

Scrubs will never understand. You are a scrub. Don't try to comprehend it because you can't.

 

[flyinfilipino]

Scrubs will never understand. You are a scrub. Don't try to comprehend it because you can't.

This is a stupid post.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Good thing he's on my ignore list; that way, I don't have to listen to any idiocy unless my curiosity gets the best of me.

 

[everlasting yayuhzz]

This is a stupid post.

You are a stupid person.

 

[LouisLeGros]

Here's a question that's been burning a hole in the mental pocket. I hear a lot of people saying that Brawl's lifespan will be shorter than Melee's. They cite various reasons, but one of the most cited is the lack of 'depth' (whatever that means). But I've been playing Melee ever since it came out (as in, I never stopped playing it for 7 years), and I never even tried any of the advanced tech stuff, excluding L-canceling, until the last year or so. I played Melee 'competitively' (as in, I played to win and with a competitive spirit) the entire time. I know TONS of people who are the same way.

So, the question is this: if people are HAVING FUN playing Brawl in a tournament setting, then why would a lack of supposed 'depth' shorten the lifespan? Isn't the important question 'are people enjoying playing the game?', and if people are enjoying it, why would they stop playing? In essence, aren't we assuming that EVERYONE who plays Smash 'competitively' is a top level technical player (an obvious fallacy) when we say that a lack of 'technical depth' will inevitably shorten the game's tournament lifespan?

EDIT@Louis: That's like saying having one of your pawns taken in Chess isn't a big deal, either. 'Oh, its just a pawn; that's not much of a punishment.' Yeah, except games can be won or lost by a single pawn, and Smash games can be won or lost by a single percent. Punishment is punishment; you might not see the reward until the long-term has played out, but every hit counts.

losing a pawn is way worse then being hit in Brawl at most percentages (or well, not really but the game really doesn't get the chance to goto 999% and well I guess if the hit is a falcon punch or something...). Also in chess you won't just have a pawn disappear for no reason, I don't think you need to think very hard to figure out the brawl comparison. However, every percentage does count it Brawl, with the way the tourneys are turning out who ever can stay in their camping spot and last the time may be the winner because of percentage.

Then my original comparison just said mistake in chess, you wouldn't even need to lose a piece to make a mistake.


edit:
anyways the point of the comparison was that predicting your opponents moves and thinking ahead are waaaaaaaaaaaaay more pronounced in chess then Brawl, I don't think you really should compare the two in this regard.

 

[flyinfilipino]

You are a stupid person.

Ouch, sorry for criticizing your habit of excessivley flaming people in threads.

 

[sHy)(gUy]

brawl isnt peaking metagame wise, not even close.... its still new, the rest of ur post is right.
brawl will most likely evolve metagame wise differently than meele. Brawl's focus more on simplicity with less depth, means specific character strategies with basic smash knowlede are the keys to winning.... basicly every character can win its how effectively u use them....

 

[Jack Kieser]

Don't feed the troll.

 

[everlasting yayuhzz]

Ouch, sorry for criticizing your habit of excessivley flaming people in threads.

It's not my fault if 90% of the boards are now 12 year old children who have no grasp on the game, but act as if they do. It's pretty god**** annoying.

 

[Thingy Person]

This is a stupid post.

I concur. Confirms that no one listens unless your name is in blue/red.

But I have to say this; doesn't the lack of depth eventually alter how long people enjoy Brawl? If the metagame really is broken and Brawl "has reached its peak", then the only thing that's keeping people away from the logical step of Melee is things like overall presentation...which means they're rather casual players.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Seriously, guys. Don't feed him. Trolls = bad. Feeding trolls = much worse.

EDIT@ThingyPerson: But is Brawl's metagame broken? From the looks of things, the metagame is WAY more balanced than its ever been; its just not a varied. But, the question still stands: will any of that matter if we don't let it? If people are enjoying themselves... who cares? And, 'competition' (i.e. competitive spirit) can exist without depth the size of the Marianas Trench.

 

[Thingy Person]

You're feeding him by stating that he shouldn't be fed. Stop giving attention.

 

[LouisLeGros]

brawl isnt peaking metagame wise, not even close.... its still new, the rest of ur post is right.
brawl will most likely evolve metagame wise differently than meele. Brawl's focus more on simplicity with less depth, means specific character strategies with basic smash knowlede are the keys to winning.... basicly every character can win its how effectively u use them....

you say that as if it is a good thing. I will agree that Brawl hasn't peaked it metagame... but you are sort of fooling yourself if you think Melee didn't have those aspects in its metagame.

 

[ecstatic]

Let me start off by saying this. I really do like Brawl. I think it's intriguing and fun and entails a lot of thought and dedication to be good at. The reason I created this topic was to examine how a game that was clearly not geared towards a competitive scene can still be fun for someone who enjoyed playing Melee in a competitive style. There are three main points I will cover in this topic.

• The even playing field created by Sakurai and Sora in order to make Brawl fun for everybody.
• The fact that when I play Brawl "competitively" (I use this term loosely, referring to playing to win) I find myself in an extreme state of concentration remeniscient of my days playing melee as such.
• How Brawl will create a "competitive" (same meaning as before) scene because there will be people who play the game to win, or for money.

Sakurai and his developing affiliates obviously went into this game with the mindset that everybody who played this game, whether they were new to it or not, would end up at the same or a similar level very quickly. They ended up being sort of successful with this. On one hand, one can pick up Brawl and play with talented players and do quite well. However, without advanced techniques, and the lack of mindgames, the winner in my experience has ultimately come down to who holds the proper mindset to win consistently.

This is basically a contradiction. What on earth do you think mindgames are? First off, it's basically impossible to not have mindgames (at least in any game that has more options in it than tic tac toe.) A mindgame is where you take advantage of your opponent's mental weaknesses (to put it broadly.) Punishing isn't a mind game per se (most people don't know the real meaning of "per se", look it up if you don't understand it), but getting your opponent to open himself up for punishment is a mindgame. (With melee, you could run up to a marth, and WD back right before he fsmashes, for a basic example.) In order to do such things, it requires the proper mindset.
Also, for more clarification, mindgames aren't set in stone or whatever. It's all very situational. That example I gave above would only work if you've read your opponent to come to the (possibly false) conclusion that he thinks whenever you're running in, he can land an fsmash. (And if your opponent is attempting mindgames, he'll only think that way if you actually allow him to hit you like that before the time you WD back. You can probably see how deep mindgames could get for a single match.)

This brings me to my second point. Brawl is a game that does take a lot of concentration. As a fighting game, party game, whatever you would like to call it, there is and always will be an element of punishment. Yes, DI is more extreme in this game, but anybody with half a brain can read where their opponent will go next. You can follow them with a projectile or high priority move. When you're in the right mindset, you will easily be able to punish whatever move your opponent makes. The game is also clearly slower, which gives, from Sakurai's perspective, both players time to think. But what it ends up coming down to is who can think farther and farther ahead. You end up treating Brawl like a game of chess, you can't think of it by the move, you think of where your opponent will be 5-10 seconds from now. YES, you can also do this in melee, but this is a Brawl thread not a comparison.

If you have half a brain, then how could you tell where an opponent with a full brain is going to go? He'll read what you're thinking, and act accordingly. That is a major part of mindgames, being able to out-read your opponent. In fact, that was almost the definition that I used, but I decided it needed more broadness, because there may be some other elements. (Obviously there's no exact definition of mindgames, but my definition is the best explanation I could do.) Back to my point, though. If it was that easy to read opponents, then strategy in anything would be pointless. It only takes half a brain to read a CPU, but the difference is that your human opponent can read you, too, requiring the opposing sides to attempt to out-think each other (which would require a proper mindset and thus better mindgames.)

Lastly, I honestly believe that Brawl will be played competitively, due to this basic element of punishment. The game is fun, people will gather and play. Sometimes, admittedly, gameplay does get monotonous, but that is inevitable in a game that boils down to concentration and does not really focus on AT's or mindgames.

At some point, concentration boils down to being mindgames, because I'm assuming you're meaning of "concentration" is focusing on what your opponent is doing, and taking advantage of the patterns, which is more of less my definiton of mindgames worded slightly differently. One major point of my post is to show you that you've mistaken the meanings of multiple terms (but I'm not trying to be offensive or anything, I'm just trying to show you your misunderstanding before someone else does flame you.)

The other main point is the "half a brain" part, which is the only part I'm trying to show flawed.

And another thing....

The metagame has been broken, those who don't believe that are in denial. The game is nearing it's peak already. I don't want to hear comments about how I should "Wait a year or two, then we'll know for sure". Brawl is almost at it's limit, and if competitive, it won't be about who can discover the next 0-death with Falco, 0-death combos won't exist in the future due to the fact that we will have a more complete understanding of the DI in Brawl. Set combos will not exist to go past 20 or 30%. "Competitive" Brawlers will have to rely on the minds (not their mindgames) to win them a match.

I was in denial for a while, but in about the past week I've began (or begun, I can never remember) to accept that we're at that point. Again, though, I want to point out that relying on your mind is more or less mindgames.

 

[everlasting yayuhzz]

I concur. Confirms that no one listens unless your name is in blue/red.

But I have to say this; doesn't the lack of depth eventually alter how long people enjoy Brawl? If the metagame really is broken and Brawl "has reached its peak", then the only thing that's keeping people away from the logical step of Melee is things like overall presentation...which means they're rather casual players.

I personally think unless something is done to get around how strong defensive strategies are, then Brawl is almost at its peak right now. A good camp is nearly impossible to break with most characters.

 

[sHy)(gUy]

you say that as if it is a good thing. I will agree that Brawl hasn't peaked it metagame... but you are sort of fooling yourself if you think Melee didn't have those aspects in its metagame.

its not that its a good or bad thing more like just the way it is.... its a simpler version of smash. Yes meele also had those aspects and more, but the simplistic nature of brawl places a bigger empasis on the basics shielding,shieldgrabbing,airdodging,grabing,varied attack usage, edgaurding,spacing..... thats y once u have the basics down the only depth in the game comes from character specific starategies this is the part of the game that will evolve the more people play the more they figure out what to do in which situation by trial and error, thats how the metagame will grow.... this is a more "mind" oriented game and less technical

 

[orintemple]

Brawl is almost all mindgames, and mindgames alone can only go so far. Melee had both intense mindgames AND heavy technical skills, which players needed years to master both. If Melee had never existed then mindgames alone might have been enough to carry Brawl for years to come, but because a lot of the same sort of mindgames can be carried over from Melee all most players need to do is master their characters physical moveset, which doesn't take that long, to be very good.(provided they had good sense of mindgames in Melee) Knowing how to mess with someone's head doesn't require vast knowledge of the games workings.

In any case, Brawl IS fun. I don't think anyone is refuting that. Even the so called "Brawl-Haters" realize Brawl is a fun and well made game as far as a game goes. It is just lacking in the competitive department, which is the place that most people around here care most about.

 

[Thingy Person]

EDIT@ThingyPerson: But is Brawl's metagame broken? From the looks of things, the metagame is WAY more balanced than its ever been; its just not a varied. But, the question still stands: will any of that matter if we don't let it? If people are enjoying themselves... who cares? And, 'competition' (i.e. competitive spirit) can exist without depth the size of the Marianas Trench.

Since all of my previous attempts at treading into this subjects resulted in knees dealt to my face, I was just speaking hypothetically.

If people are enjoying themselves... who cares?

How long do you think people would enjoy themselves if the competitive aspect would be crap? One obvious (IMO) thing relating to the supposed lack of depth that might lenghten Brawl's lifespan is the much more inviting competitive scene, so people that become bored move on and new players will take their place. Of course, this is bull**** if you want some kind of ranking system, so I hope it'll never be that way.

 

[ecstatic]

orintemple, I'd have to disagree, mindgames have no limit. Chess has the biggest competitive history of any game on planet Earth, and it has no technical skill, and all mindgames. The difference is the amount of viable tactics and counters to those tactics, though. This is where melee beats brawl. At this point, although you can weaken its effects, turtling in Brawl doesn't really have a counter, which means the game is to out-turtle each other (I'm not saying this doesn't take skill and mindgames.)
In chess, melee, ST, etc. though, there is no un-counterable tactic*, instead the best thing to do is to constantly change play styles, to counter your opponents play styles. This requires reading your opponent's play styles. This is why Brawl is so far inferior competitively to those above mentioned games.

*Although melee DOES have wobbling and unescapeable waveshining, neither one is currently "uncounterable", because wobbling is very hard, and only about three people can do it consistently, and waveshining, to the best of my knowledge, only works until you get the the stage's edge, so the effect isn't endless. Plus, they're very hard to start up. That said, in a few months/years I believe melee would've ended up unplayable due to enough people wobbling. This would've been by far the best tactic, and either would've had to be banned or the game would consist of IC dittos trying to wobble each other.

 

[sHy)(gUy]

what will carry brawl is the amount of characters.... meele had maybe 10-15 characters that were "good", brawl has 40 characters that are "good"(the only exception being c.falcon and yoshi maybe) the character matchups are like 40 x 40 = ? i dunno but its alot of matchups.... the metagame will never end.... or will last alot longer than meele's. Even if all the technical aspects of the game have been realized the character selection is big and will make brawl last

 

[Jack Kieser]

what will carry brawl is the amount of characters.... meele had maybe 10-15 characters that were "good", brawl has 40 characters that are "good"(the only exception being c.falcon and yoshi maybe) the character matchups are like 40 x 40 = ? i dunno but its alot of matchups.... the metagame will never end.... or will last alot longer than meele's. Even if all the technical aspects of the game have been realized the character selection is big and will make brawl last

That's part of what I disliked about Melee's metagame: the matchups. The fact of the matter is that Melee's (and many game's) weakness was that in order to place in competitions, many times there were only 4 or 5 characters you could realistically use (hence, the tier lists). Brawl, though it may lack tech skill, is MUCH more balanced in this regard. Gimpy's Bowser is a rarity in Melee, but in Brawl, Bowser has a much better matchup against many other characters (just to give an example).

I think this adds a LOT to longevity, because it allows more players to main more characters, allowing for better counterpicking and more matchups. Inevitably, this will allow for a great deal of longevity.

 

[Lemon Drop]

When Melee first came out, when did "Advance Techniques" such as Wave Dashing come in to play? Not until a couple years after release, there is bound to be something just waiting to be discovered.

 

[Milos]

This is basically a contradiction. What on earth do you think mindgames are? First off, it's basically impossible to not have mindgames (at least in any game that has more options in it than tic tac toe.) A mindgame is where you take advantage of your opponent's mental weaknesses (to put it broadly.) Punishing isn't a mind game per se (most people don't know the real meaning of "per se", look it up if you don't understand it), but getting your opponent to open himself up for punishment is a mindgame. (With melee, you could run up to a marth, and WD back right before he fsmashes, for a basic example.) In order to do such things, it requires the proper mindset.
Also, for more clarification, mindgames aren't set in stone or whatever. It's all very situational. That example I gave above would only work if you've read your opponent to come to the (possibly false) conclusion that he thinks whenever you're running in, he can land an fsmash. (And if your opponent is attempting mindgames, he'll only think that way if you actually allow him to hit you like that before the time you WD back. You can probably see how deep mindgames could get for a single match.)

Yes this is true there are mindgames in Brawl, but they are very limited. The example you gave with marth and the wavedash is a melee only mindgame. The point I was trying to make was that the Brawl mindgames are more preset. there is a limit as to what you can do because of the limited engine. it is not a problem with Brawl, it's just something to be overcome. By mindset, I mean the state of mind the player is in. A mindgame is when you trick somebody into doing something they can be punished for. The mindset I speak of involves no tricking, it involves punishment on the fly.

If you have half a brain, then how could you tell where an opponent with a full brain is going to go? He'll read what you're thinking, and act accordingly. That is a major part of mindgames, being able to out-read your opponent. In fact, that was almost the definition that I used, but I decided it needed more broadness, because there may be some other elements. (Obviously there's no exact definition of mindgames, but my definition is the best explanation I could do.) Back to my point, though. If it was that easy to read opponents, then strategy in anything would be pointless. It only takes half a brain to read a CPU, but the difference is that your human opponent can read you, too, requiring the opposing sides to attempt to out-think each other (which would require a proper mindset and thus better mindgames.)

And that is exactly what I say later in that paragraph. I state that in the end it will all come down to who can read farther ahead.

At some point, concentration boils down to being mindgames, because I'm assuming you're meaning of "concentration" is focusing on what your opponent is doing, and taking advantage of the patterns, which is more of less my definiton of mindgames worded slightly differently. One major point of my post is to show you that you've mistaken the meanings of multiple terms (but I'm not trying to be offensive or anything, I'm just trying to show you your misunderstanding before someone else does flame you.)

No, I wasn't saying that. My use of the word concentration referred more to foresight. It involved no patterns, just educated guesswork based on what you were planning on doing and judging how your opponent COULD react, not how they WILL react. again, I only refer to punishment as something you didn't plan for, but something you're able to react accordingly to.

The other main point is the "half a brain" part, which is the only part I'm trying to show flawed.

I was in denial for a while, but in about the past week I've began (or begun, I can never remember) to accept that we're at that point. Again, though, I want to point out that relying on your mind is more or less mindgames.

Thank you, but no. Relying on your mind in the form I use is basically foresight (if I had to explain it in one word). Mindgames are when you USE your mind to trick your opponent into messing up, putting you at an advantage.

 

[Milos]

When Melee first came out, when did "Advance Techniques" such as Wave Dashing come in to play? Not until a couple years after release, there is bound to be something just waiting to be discovered.

face-palm

ugh. at melee's launch, there were maybe 100 people who knew a z cancelling and were looking for techs.

brawl's launch....

there are 108,902 members of smashboards right now. we'll probably break 109,000 by the end of the day.

 

[Dark Sonic]

^^Wobbling is so hard to actually set up that it really didn't affect the metagame that much. All a player had to do was keep Nana seperate from Popo (not hard to do with how dumb Nana is in comparison) and not get grabbed by Popo while Nana is standing idle right there (and if you do get grabbed wriggle out before they successfully set up the infinite) It wasn't banned in most places (though there were some restrictions put on it to prevent it from being used as a stalling tactic. You weren't allowed to wobble past 200% in some places, but that was only so that it'd be harder to stall for time with it and you'd rather just kill them)

Now that the rant is over, I agree that one of the major downfalls of brawl is that camping is so effective. You have too many defensive options and not enough offensive ones to balance it out. If it was the other way around you'd have something like SSB64 (where once a combo was started any competent player could finish it with lethal effects), but melee hit a kind of perfect balance (tactics wise, not character wise).

Many people like to say that brawl is more balanced, but what they don't realize is that brawl is only balanced when the characters have to fight each other (lols it's a fighting game). However, why should I fight if camping is the most powerful tactic in the game and has the highest reward:risk ratio? The best characters in the early tournament scene will be the ones who can camp the best (Pit, Toon Link) and the ones who can counter camping the best; those with good punishing moves or ways to nulify camping.

A game's "depth" is largely related to two main factors:
How many options do you have?
Are all those options roughly equal and interchangable?

Melee not only had tons of options available to the players both on offense and defense, each of those options had an effective counter. Camping was effective, but could be severly punished should your opponent ever create an oppening. Shield pressure games were great, but any holes in it (trust me, there were indeed holes in falco's pillar) would allow the opponent to turn the situation around. If the characters had been more balanced, this would be so much easier for people to see. Now that it's gone people are starting to notice it. That's why you suddenly see people complaining about camping. There was camping in melee, it's just that there was also a counter to camping, which forced the opponent to stop.


Brawl is a fun game. Brawl will be played competatively, at least for a little while. However, I severly doubt it will last as long as melee did, because as soon as you start to abuse the godly camping system, the game becomes less fun for the guy trying to get past all the projectiles. Winning without actually putting yourself in danger is a very appealing situation, and if you really are playing to win, then how much fun your opponent is having really doesn't matter. If they manage to get past all the stuff you've been chucking at them, then they simply get to play for the time being.

 

[LouisLeGros]

I agree with the post above me
__________________________________________________________________________


the difference in "depth" and "competitiveness" is more then the ATs, read Scar's thread if you really want to go into it.

Also, Don't kid yourself with Brawl's balance. There will be a tier list. There will be a handful of characters that will win 99% of the tournaments (Game & Watch & R.O.B. for top tier!11!1`1111).

I haven't seen anything that would point to the game being any more balanced then melee at the competitive level.

 

[Sheik-Master]

I feel the game has gotten alot more strategic in that not every character has all that wave dashing glitch stuff like melee did. Now you rely on your pure skill of the character you play. I think the game has gotten slower than melees and some characters advantages were watered down from melee. But i think it all game out to be a more dynamic game.

 

[sHy)(gUy]

the only reason camping is good rightnow is beacause people dont know the game well enough. I mean if u want to win camping is safe and effective but its not unbeatable.... I garuntee any meele pro could beat someone camping in brawl, pros wont camp in brawl because they know its only a situational tactic... there are times when approaching is nesecary, if u have 2 players trying to out camp eachother eventually someone is going to have to approach, u cant knock the opponent off the ledge by camping... i serioursly doubt advanced brawl playing will consist of two falcos shooting eachother from across the stage

 

[Milos]

Sheik-Master
Smash n00b

 

[Dark Sonic]

Yes this is true there are mindgames in Brawl, but they are very limited.

This right here is a problem no matter how you look at it. Sure we can overcome it, but it is a fault of the game and there is no denying that.

The example you gave with marth and the wavedash is a melee only mindgame. The point I was trying to make was that the Brawl mindgames are more preset. there is a limit as to what you can do because of the limited engine.

Mindgames being more preset, means that they require less thought, which is a bad thing.

it is not a problem with Brawl, it's just something to be overcome.

If it needs to be overcome... then that means it's a problem. If it wasn't a problem then we wouldn't need to do anything about it. We're only trying to fix it because...it's bad.

By mindset, I mean the state of mind the player is in. A mindgame is when you trick somebody into doing something they can be punished for. The mindset I speak of involves no tricking, it involves punishment on the fly.

So you mean playing more reactionary and relying less on forsight. Honestly, which sitaution do you think takes more thought? It's true that you have to think quickly in order to react properly to a situation, but melee had both reactionary play as well as forsight, while in brawl reacionary play is far superior.

And that is exactly what I say later in that paragraph. I state that in the end it will all come down to who can read farther ahead.

This is a contradiction with your previous statement. You said we should rely less on forsight, and then immediately say that the one who wins would be the one with the best forsight.

No, I wasn't saying that. My use of the word concentration referred more to foresight. It involved no patterns, just educated guesswork based on what you were planning on doing and judging how your opponent COULD react, not how they WILL react

But you see, that is all part of foresight which is part of mindgames. For any given situation, there is a limited number of ways your opponent could react. This does not take as much thought as you apparently believe. Where foresight comes into play is your ability to accurately predict which one of these limited options your opponent will take. How your opponent WILL react is completely dependent on how many options they had in the first place, because they can only pick from that pile. From there, you must determine which of those options they will take based on
The opponent's tendancy to use one option more than the others
What you personally believe the best option would be if you were in your opponent's shoes
What you believe would be the best option given that the opponent has full knowledge of the option mentioned above
ect.

again, I only refer to punishment as something you didn't plan for, but something you're able to react accordingly to.

But you just said that we were supposed to plan for it! And you just said that we have a plan for this particular situation. You're contradicting yourself quite a bit.

Thank you, but no. Relying on your mind in the form I use is basically foresight (if I had to explain it in one word). Mindgames are when you USE your mind to trick your opponent into messing up, putting you at an advantage.

And mingames rely completely on foresight. You want us to predict what our opponent will do based on what options they have, but the entire point of mindgames is to put the opponent into a situation where they're options are easily accounted for so that predicting which one they'll take will have more accurate results. You can't have mindgames without foresight, which is what he's trying to explain to you. Mindgames isn't nessecarilly tricking your opponent into messing up, but tricking them into a situation where you can effectively punish them for being predictable. If you know what they're going to do, but you're not in a position to punish them for it, then you have to actively move both yourself and them into such a position so that you can capitalize on them. Sometimes they didn't actually make a mistake in their gameplay at that moment, and they went with the best option at the time, but if you've succesfully moved them into a situation where all of their options are punishable, then you've done a good job. You are not making your opponent make a mistake, because he has already done so himself. You are capitalizing on a mistake he's already made, the mistake of being predictable.

 

[The Alpha Gundam]

^^Wobbling is so hard to actually set up that it really didn't affect the metagame that much. All a player had to do was keep Nana seperate from Popo (not hard to do with how dumb Nana is in comparison) and not get grabbed by Popo while Nana is standing idle right there (and if you do get grabbed wriggle out before they successfully set up the infinite) It wasn't banned in most places (though there were some restrictions put on it to prevent it from being used as a stalling tactic. You weren't allowed to wobble past 200% in some places, but that was only so that it'd be harder to stall for time with it and you'd rather just kill them)

Now that the rant is over, I agree that one of the major downfalls of brawl is that camping is so effective. You have too many defensive options and not enough offensive ones to balance it out. If it was the other way around you'd have something like SSB64 (where once a combo was started any competent player could finish it with lethal effects), but melee hit a kind of perfect balance (tactics wise, not character wise).

Many people like to say that brawl is more balanced, but what they don't realize is that brawl is only balanced when the characters have to fight each other (lols it's a fighting game). However, why should I fight if camping is the most powerful tactic in the game and has the highest reward:risk ratio? The best characters in the early tournament scene will be the ones who can camp the best (Pit, Toon Link) and the ones who can counter camping the best; those with good punishing moves or ways to nulify camping.

A game's "depth" is largely related to two main factors:
How many options do you have?
Are all those options roughly equal and interchangable?

Melee not only had tons of options available to the players both on offense and defense, each of those options had an effective counter. Camping was effective, but could be severly punished should your opponent ever create an oppening. Shield pressure games were great, but any holes in it (trust me, there were indeed holes in falco's pillar) would allow the opponent to turn the situation around. If the characters had been more balanced, this would be so much easier for people to see. Now that it's gone people are starting to notice it. That's why you suddenly see people complaining about camping. There was camping in melee, it's just that there was also a counter to camping, which forced the opponent to stop.


Brawl is a fun game. Brawl will be played competatively, at least for a little while. However, I severly doubt it will last as long as melee did, because as soon as you start to abuse the godly camping system, the game becomes less fun for the guy trying to get past all the projectiles. Winning without actually putting yourself in danger is a very appealing situation, and if you really are playing to win, then how much fun your opponent is having really doesn't matter. If they manage to get past all the stuff you've been chucking at them, then they simply get to play for the time being.

Best post in this thread by far