Scar on the Melee vs Brawl debate: What does competitive really mean?

[thumbswayup]

I played 6 hours of sacred Melee yesterday and it was awesome.

I wish more people were like you.

 

[LouisLeGros]

Wait what? Lagless? Unless I'm misunderstanding your comment... Marth dair (and many others)? I remember being annoyed because dair with a shff with Marth is what I like to consider sitting duck.

So L cancel only took a few hours to master? Tell me the secret. I've always wanted to play like Bombsoldier. I'm assuming you were able to do amazing things like he did in a few hours, am I right?

You are only stating that what took pros and other people months and years to master as something of little importance. Techiniques that come "automatically" (as you say so) now only shortens the gap (and that by a lot) between the amazing players and soso players. As Cactuar and Scar put it, this results to the game being less competitive (in their definition).

Here's a change in point of view. Let's say you are on the higher end of the Brawl scene. You know you are much more nimble, have more experience, etc. and know that you are a better player compared to your opponent. However all your matches come out very close and sometimes you lose. Wouldn't that make you angry? To Think that it takes so little time for people to catch up to you (with much less effort)..

I think that's one of the reasons why people who play the higher end fighting games are so dissapointed in the Brawl outcome and why woudln't they be?

devils advocate would say if they are beating you then you aren't that much better then they are.

But then that sort of makes it impossible to prove the point of melee guaging player skill better then brawl if proponents of Brawl just say it is that is simply proof of there being less of a difference in skill between the two players and thus brawl still gauges skill as accurately, if not more accurately then melee.

A lot of this sort of logic seems to be going on this thread and thus is sort of leading us no where.

 

[BigRick]

Thinking wise, both games should be about equal (I think so because I strongly believe that the offensive meta will develop itself). It's just in Melee the pace is faster so it's alot harder.

However the slower pace and more limited movement opens room for new stuff... the zoning game in Brawl is very different than the one found in Melee and has different objectives.

In Melee zoning was more about setting up a gimp than racking up damage. In Brawl it's the other way around and its much more predominent.

 

[ham-tomato]

I feel that your point on "memory" is not as strong as you think. Most characters can be simplified to very basic strats. These strats involve spamming 1-2 moves that give you decent priority while camping a point on the stage, then using stronger moves to punish an opponent for approaching you. There is no memory of moves used involved in this.


The biggest problem with brawl is that the mechanisms in the game that brawl supporters tend to give examples of when looking for "depth", don't really contribute to the argument. Attack power deterioration only matters to people that don't understand how easy it is to run away and spam aerials that have no lag until their KO power on an easily baited move (upb out of shield, run into instant upsmash, upsmash out of shield, etc) is returned. This takes a few seconds at most, and can be done in between hitting an opponent with any of those moves as they will be taking a significant amount of time floating back down to the stage.

Well I won't try and debate character mechanics, as while i think i a fairly good player I am by no means a devoted student of the game. What I will point out is that what you described seems in my mind to agree with what I said about Brawl having additional levels of skill added to it.

Say your MK and you have used one of his few finishers as you describe. Well now you admit that you gameplay needs to be be altered to this fact. And conversely when you do have full-powered finishers your gameplay will need to revert back. That seems like a new dimension.

Moreover my knowledge that your finishers are weak can effect my play style. While i admit approaching is quite hard with many characters, I might be willing to gamble if I know my 'punishment' is merely going to be percentile and my opponent's is going to be death.

On a side note I find the attitudes of many of the people on the other side of this debate to be quite arrogant. The assumption most run on is that only those who mastered the deepest elements of melee are capable of understanding the depth (or lack thereof) in brawl. As many so fervently point out, brawl is a different game in many aspects, and as such your 'expertise' in judging what is and is not deep gameplay is suspect.

 

[BlackPanther]

I too love both tournaments and casual play, but they aren't unrelated. Being a more accessible game will have MORE people competing on an advanced level, which will make those tourneys even more amazing once their attendance increases by leaps and bounds.

Scar is right, though. This isn't exactly the thread topic...



I'm a little confused. You seem to agree that at least one character offers a level of complexity equal to Melee (stop me if I'm putting word in your mouth.) If that's true, can you know this early that Brawl's metagame won't evolve? 39 movesets is a lot to take in in a week...

Tournaments and casual play are unrelated. The people who didn't want to take the time to learn melee and just complained about advance techs and "glitches" don't deserve to play in tournaments they just deserved to be called casual players. And if they decided to join the tournament scene now because this game is holding their hand then ****ing shame on them. I love Brawl but only for casual play. I would never play this game on a tourney level though because of how easy it is now. Bein easier for me makes it easier for everyone else and that's not fun when you don't have to work for somethin. And I won't even comment on the second part as I have not seen Snake except by a nub friend of mine so I'm not sure what he's capable of.

 

[Scar]

devils advocate would say if they are beating you then you aren't that much better then they are.

This is the worst devil's advocate ever, and yes it has been going on way too much. The assumptions are that the one player IS better than the other. You can't say "well then the assumptions must be wrong." This is simple principle.

Whenever anyone hypothesizes two players and claims that one is of higher skill than the other, you CANNOT say that that player is actually not better. You can only disprove the leaps of logic made after those assumptions to disprove the point trying to be made.

Thinking wise, both games should be about equal (I think so because I strongly believe that the offensive meta will develop itself). It's just in Melee the pace is faster so it's alot harder.

However the slower pace and more limited movement opens room for new stuff... the zoning game in Brawl is very different than the one found in Melee and has different objectives.

This is false. With less options and more time to think about these less options, thought ability is tested less. I have yet to see someone address this with a viable counterpoint.

Also, it is true that spacing is much more important. This is just plain fact, Brawl will reward people with excellent spacing with lots of individual hits. But I will argue that Melee rewards spacing appropriately. If you have good spacing and no combo ability you will punish with strong single hits and you deserve that edge but nothing more. If you have both good spacing and substantial combo ability, well then you're killing people for silly mistakes.

Brawl rewards the first player (with no combo ability) and this second player (good spacing and combo ability) EQUALLY. I argue that this demonstrates, at least in part, that Brawl is a fundamentally flawed test of Smash-specific skill.

 

[Wiseguy]

If you simply mean that "more thinking" means that players must rely on some shallow thought process (as complex as rock, paper, scissors) very frequently, then yes you are correct. However this goes a long way to say that Brawl will allow less skilled players to win matches by arbitrarily guessing correctly, since there is infrequently a "best" response to these situations.

I think rock, paper, scissors is a bit of an exageration, but I do sort of see the logic that Brawl will have more strategic thinking but within a more limited framework. We'll see if things look different in months to come.

With that, I think I'll scram. Sorry if I caused you too much frustration...

 

[BigRick]

Tournaments and casual play are unrelated. The people who didn't want to take the time to learn melee and just complained about advance techs and "glitches" don't deserve to play in tournaments they just deserved to be called casual players. And if they decided to join the tournament scene now because this game is holding their hand then ****ing shame on them. I love Brawl but only for casual play. I would never play this game on a tourney level though because of how easy it is now. Bein easier for me makes it easier for everyone else and that's not fun when you don't have to work for somethin. And I won't even comment on the second part as I have not seen Snake except by a nub friend of mine so I'm not sure what he's capable of.

Hmm I think you have a bad attitude about this.

You should be thinking ''It's easier for every1 now? So I'll have to work twice as hard now to separate myself from the back''

 

[pockyD]

..but if you punish with "strong single hits" when they aren't at a KO %, you might just be making things harder for yourself

 

[Scar]

Hmm I think you have a bad attitude about this.

You should be thinking ''It's easier for every1 now? So I'll have to work twice as hard now to separate myself from the back''

No. This has nothing to do with attitude. It has to do with simple, obvious, observable gameplay mechanics. When there is no punishment game and a lot of guesswork involved, it becomes impossible to distinguish yourself from the masses without being able to read minds.

People come close to mindreading, but it boils down to random and arbitary guessing. Sometimes you get unlucky, and that's the way that people who have already worked twice as hard will still lose to people who don't deserve to win.

@Pocky, well they would combo the other person to death if they could, but they can't. Strong single hits are the best they can do. So yes, I agree they're not taking the best course of action, but it's because Melee doesn't let them if they're not good enough.

 

[pockyD]

i was talking about in brawl

 

[thumbswayup]

On a side note I find the attitudes of many of the people on the other side of this debate to be quite arrogant. The assumption most run on is that only those who mastered the deepest elements of melee are capable of understanding the depth (or lack thereof) in brawl. As many so fervently point out, brawl is a different game in many aspects, and as such your 'expertise' in judging what is and is not deep gameplay is suspect.

It absolutely IS NOT suspect. We played melee for years and understood not just advanced techniques, but the simple MOVESETS of each individual character. You'll notice for the returning characters in brawl that their movesets are almost identical to the ones they had in melee with some small modifications. Therefore, the people who understood how to string together these movesets for effectiveness would know exactly what to look for in brawl. Had I not played melee for the last year, I would be spamming forward and up smash in brawl like there was no tomorrow. Since I knew how to combo in melee, the moment i picked a new character in brawl I practiced each moveset to find the knockback and then see which attack could follow it up. Playing melee competitively also has taught me to think creatively in a gaming aspect, so when I play brawl I always am trying new things to see if they can effectively combo. I do this even though sometimes it means losing a match. I have already discovered many new things to do with the characters I use on my own, and none of this would have been possible if not for my knowledge in melee.

 

[Scar]

i was talking about in brawl

LMAO well then QFT, what a dumb game hahaha. I hit someone with Ganon's dair and got punished for it.

@ham-tomato, I do not presume to tell anyone how much they do or do not know about Brawl. But I can safely say that if someone doesn't have at least a somewhat deep understanding of SSBM, they can NOT effectively compare it to Brawl.

 

[BigRick]

This is false. With less options and more time to think about these less options, thought ability is tested less. I have yet to see someone address this with a viable counterpoint.

Well to make that point clearer I think that there's a difference between being able to think and think fast... some will be better at one, others will be better at the other.

Melee > Brawl in terms of thinking but we're not sure because of a underdevelopped meta
Melee > Brawl in terms of thinking fast

Brawl rewards the first player (with no combo ability) and this second player (good spacing and combo ability) EQUALLY. I argue that this demonstrates, at least in part, that Brawl is a fundamentally flawed test of SmashMelee-specific skill.

big nuance there

 

[MichelFalcaut]

This is false. With less options and more time to think about these less options, thought ability is tested less. I have yet to see someone address this with a viable counterpoint.

Yep, that's the key argument for the "superiority" of Melee. The more options there are available, the greater the variety of outcomes available.
It's statistically well-grounded, but only if your underlying assumptions about the number of "options" is true. If they are in fact true, then comparing Brawl to Melee is like comparing the Prokaryotes to Eukaryotes. Or perhaps Checkers to Chess, or Chess to Warcraft.

However, the definition of what to include in the set of a player's controllable options is questionable. Sure you've lost wavedashing, L-cancelling etc, BUT responding to tripping, and a greater number of movesets (given the increase in characters) may mean Brawl has a net gain in options. Ultimately, I believe it depends on the framework you address the question in (e.g. is having more characters and matchups equivalent to having more options?).

Instead of comparing the two games directly, it might be better to evaluate their features.
A strong argument for Melee's features is simply thinking of the hypothetical; if Brawl had retained Melee's physics, it'd be a lot more fun. A lot.

 

[pockyD]

what do you mean by just plain thinking?

because with fewer options i'm pretty sure character matchups are going to be very straightforward (and unfortunately, likely very defensive)

edit: ****it i need to quote

this ^ was @ bigrick

and having more characters is an option in a very broad sense, but once you get ingame, which is obviously where you actually play the game, that doesn't help you (unless you're samus with final smash on or something)

 

[Doomgaze]

LMAO well then QFT, what a dumb game hahaha. I hit someone with Ganon's dair and got punished for it.

This is what concerns me most about brawl.

Suddenly there are a whole bunch of moves that punishes you for connecting with them. Ganon being a prime example but there are many other characters with such moves.

That if anything shows that they didn't remove L-cancelling to favour character balance, which is a popular statement by pro-brawlers.

 

[Scar]

Well to make that point clearer I think that there's a difference between being able to think and think fast... some will be better at one, others will be better at the other.

But you have to think between more options in Melee than you do in Brawl... shouldn't it therefore be a more difficult decision, especially when there actually is a best answer?

In Brawl there are tons of times when you have to think, but the thought process ends when there is uncertainty. Brawl you have to deal with other people always having options too, and choosing between 3 equally good ones. In Melee you can actually make a correct decision and punish someone while they can do nothing about it but DI after getting hit again, or you can predict the best response and punish someone for being smart.

But only one or two people in the world can do that. Everyone can randomly guess between options in Brawl and get a hit a reasonable % of the time.

big nuance there

Right, and that's your argument, but I'm saying you're wrong. Combo ability SHOULD be tested in Brawl. Smash Combos are what separates Smash from other fighters. I claim that in this regard, Brawl fails to test Smash-specific ability. And in doing so becomes less like Smash and more like traditional fighters.

 

[B-Run]

I see no reason for this thread to even exist. It has no forseeable conclusion and won't change a lick of how anything happens, this is a thread just to be here and have an argument that doesn't change a thing. But since its here... I might as well join in .

The game still operates in a concrete manner. You input into the controller and the game responds accordingly. If this is not what is happening for your game, please stop reading here and buy a new copy of Brawl. As long as your game is working correctly, then the outcome of every match is completely determined by the input of the players.

You say that the definition for competitive is that the person who should win, does. How do you define the person that should win? That's a very vague concept. If by that you mean the person who gets more kills should win, then the game works in such a way that that is the case. If you have some imaginary concept of skill that is measured only by how quickly you can hit buttons, and that person should win, you are wrong. The person who should win is the person who makes the most correct choices. This means whoever plays the strategy to best beat his opponent and has the technical skill and knowhow to realize that strategy will win, always.

So then it comes down to strategies. You believe that projectile camping is the best strategy? You are completely wrong. First, I don't see how you can make a claim like that when we haven't even developed much of a metagame yet. This game will evolve and as long as there is room for the game to evolve, we can't say anything about the competitive potential of the game. There could still be tons of tricks and even glitches yet to be discovered. But regardless... I've been playing this game since the Japanese release and the number 1 problem I find in newbies is that they try to projectile camp and don't play nearly aggressively enough. I won't presume to tell you how to deal with projectile spammers because the metagame will quickly evolve past it, even if temporary spamming does remain viable.

There are tons of viable strategies in Brawl, moreso than there ever were in Melee. Characters are now very well defined and require their own playstyles. In melee the game boiled down to a few tricks that any character could do and the best characters were the ones who did them the best. In melee you could shffl b-air and beat most scrubs with pretty much any character. The difference in playstyles is much much larger in Brawl, thus far anyway, further metagame developement could reduce the game to tactics every character can do yet again, but I doubt it.

Tripping is undoubtably the worst idea ever implemented into a smash bros game. However there are ways to reduce it to near negligable occurences. Spend more time walking. "But walking isn't as fast as running!" ... so? You don't have to run everywhere, or save your running time for when it's safe to do so. "Well I shouldn't be forced to walk everywhere." why not? Your approach time in strategies and combos is just as important as spacing. Get used to it. The top players will know how to walk, I'd suggest everyone learn when its a good time to walk and when to run.

Or how about spend more time in the air? One thing that is completely undeniable is that the aerial game in Brawl is significantly deeper than Melee. Tripping might just be one way to encourage us to play more in the air. Aerial battles in Melee were just the main method of getting back to a platform to keep fighting again. In Brawl the aerial battles are going to develope their own metagame complete with strategies and tricks that evolve as the game goes on.

In conclusion, you think you know the competitive potential of the game already? and you've had it for what? 10 days? a little over a month max? I find this whole thread amusing. I don't claim to know everything about Brawl or even the max competitive potential (if you noticed, I never once said that Brawl was more competitive than Melee). But I do know that it will be a very competitive game and your close-minded statements about how it can never be as competitive as Melee are completely false and unfounded in anything but your own subjective opinion over losing to projectile campers. Just wait a little longer and the pros will show you what you are supposed to do next.

tl;dr: Who cares either way? Then go play Melee if it's a big deal.

 

[BigRick]

No. This has nothing to do with attitude. It has to do with simple, obvious, observable gameplay mechanics. When there is no punishment game and a lot of guesswork involved, it becomes impossible to distinguish yourself from the masses without being able to read minds.

People come close to mindreading, but it boils down to random and arbitary guessing. Sometimes you get unlucky, and that's the way that people who have already worked twice as hard will still lose to people who don't deserve to win.

Omg I waited so long for this

This is exactly why SF2 players hate SF3

Yes Brawl is more of a yomi (guessing) game, that's what it is... that's the skill that it tests

but yea some ppl are better at this than others

 

[pockyD]

but you have to guess like 200x a match

 

[MichelFalcaut]

I think this thread relates to a pretty good philosophical question that the ancient Greeks pondered about for ages. Is being a god (Melee) better than being mortal (Brawl)?

 

[Scar]

Why have you been waiting for this? I have brought it up a thousand times. It is the core of my argument.

Without a legitimate punishment game, individual matches can easily be settled by someone who is REALLY good at prediction randomly guessing wrong. I am not interested in this kind of skills test.

Melee had this aspect in it, and it rewards people for being good at guessing, but it rewards them in good proportion. It's not the entire game.

Edit: PockyD is an extension of my subconscious. I give you permission to take everything he has said (and hopefully will say) as something I would respond with.

 

[Scar]

DISCLAIMER
There are plenty of threads in Brawl General Discussion where you can go and rant and rave and make no sense and everyone will join you. This thread is for INTELLIGENT discussion. If you want to whine, please go do so somewhere else.

If you want to say "rofl u guyz r arguin im just gon play brawl," or "This argument is irrelevant" or whatever it is that clearly will not benefit the conversation, you are not alone, people agree with you, but this is the wrong thread. Please post it somewhere else!

B-Run, I hate to say this, but you sir are a moron. I am not reading your post and immediately putting you on the Wall of Shame for blatantly not reading the opening post. Your post is in blatant violation ofevery single request I made in the opening two paragraphs of my thread.

 

[Scar]

If you have some imaginary concept of skill that is measured only by how quickly you can hit buttons, and that person should win, you are wrong. The person who should win is the person who makes the most correct choices. This means whoever plays the strategy to best beat his opponent and has the technical skill and knowhow to realize that strategy will win, always.

Actually I read this part and am going to respond.

First, you blatantly ignored my plea for you to understand that I am not and will never argue that Advanced Techs make for a good or competitive game. I do not think that quick button presses are paramount, they deserve the amount of reward they are given, which I feel happens in Melee. You can have quick fingers and suck at the game, case in point.

However PockyD and I have been arguing for the past 2 pages, which you also have blatantly ignored, that there is no correct choice in Brawl. Most of the time, we are at a neutral position, where you can guess to retreat, attack, or defend.

These three are rock paper scissors. In most situations, no hits will be exchanged. In some, attacks will trade, and in others, one person will hit the other and will be rewarded with nearly nothing. He will be able to perhaps land one or two follow up hits, and in some rare cases, the person winning the arbitrary guessing contest will actually be at a disadvantage.

Specific example, I once was Ganon at high %. I punished someone for randomly tripping with my dair. That person was out of hitstun and on top of me before I came out of my landing lag. That person hit me with some arbitrary move and killed me.

Someone killed me because the game made them randomly trip and I hit them for it. The point still holds if that person airdodged and I hit them for not attacking me, or anything else. The tripping part just makes it so much more ridiculous.

 

[BigRick]

Why have you been waiting for this? I have brought it up a thousand times. It is the core of my argument.

Without a legitimate punishment game, individual matches can easily be settled by someone who is REALLY good at prediction randomly guessing wrong. I am not interested in this kind of skills test.

Melee had this aspect in it, and it rewards people for being good at guessing, but it rewards them in good proportion. It's not the entire game.

Edit: PockyD is an extension of my subconscious. I give you permission to take everything he has said (and hopefully will say) as something I would respond with.

Omg... I'm really sorry then for making you talk alot lol. I think that I was simply waiting for the word ''guessing'' to come out.

 

[Scar]

Well BigRick I think that you and I have reached an agreement. We agree that Brawl is more about guessing and prediction, and I think that it's disproportionately focused on because it's completely random and arbitrary. You seem to have no problem with the amount of guessing going on.

If that's the case then Brawl is your game of choice whether it's less competitive than Melee or not. If you want to continue discussing the consequences of guessing and how it clearly and directly yields better players losing to worse players simply by luck, then sure, we can do that.

 

[MoaM]

I think this thread relates to a pretty good philosophical question that the ancient Greeks pondered about for ages. Is being a god (Melee) better than being mortal (Brawl)?

You've just summed up an entire thread of dichotomized, unpersuadable debauchery.
I find it odd that some hold an elitist opinion towards competition/fighting games...all this detrimental attitude towards "guess-work" is like advocating one should bring a gun to a Wrestling Match just to win...but whatever.

Anyway, I'm only here to ask this:

It seems to me, Scar, that you're implying that the "better player" should never lose.

"Yes" or "No"?

 

[B-Run]

B-Run, I hate to say this, but you sir are a moron. I am not reading your post and immediately putting you on the Wall of Shame for blatantly not reading the opening post. Your post is in blatant violation ofevery single request I made in the opening two paragraphs of my thread.

Wall of shame? I'm so crushed...

Just because I said the argument was irrelivant doesn't mean I didn't argue the point of the topic competently. I simply chose not to follow your rules and say what I thought before going into my points.

This whole guessing game you say everybody is playing is completely off base. First, either you are correct in your prediction or you are wrong, there is nothin random about it. Just because you can't be 100% correct 100% of the time doesnt mean that there's something wrong with the game. Second, find ways to reduce your vulnerability when you go on the attack. It really is that simple. There's ton's of punishment to be had for incorrect choices, you just haven't found them yet.

This must be why I never see really good players post a lot outside of the Back Room.

 

[Doomgaze]

You've just summed up an entire thread of dichotomized, unpersuadable debauchery.
I find it odd that some hold an elitist opinion towards competition/fighting games...all this detrimental attitude towards "guess-work" is like advocating one should bring a gun to a Wrestling Match just to win...but whatever.

Anyway, I'm only here to ask this:

It seems to me, Scar, that you're implying that the "better player" should never lose.

"Yes" or "No"?

That's got to be one of the worst analogies I've read on these boards since, well... yesterday.

 

[BigRick]

Well BigRick I think that you and I have reached an agreement. We agree that Brawl is more about guessing and prediction, and I think that it's disproportionately focused on because it's completely random and arbitrary. You seem to have no problem with the amount of guessing going on.

If that's the case then Brawl is your game of choice whether it's less competitive than Melee or not. If you want to continue discussing the consequences of guessing and how it clearly and directly yields better players losing to worse players simply by luck, then sure, we can do that.

Actually I like Brawl and Melee equally... but just like you I moved on because almost every1 moved on.

I'm not a big fan of the constant guessing (hence its also why I think SF2 > SF3), however I'm looking forward to see if there's a good, balanced metagame that can come out of the extremely effective camping/zoning game that we currently have.

So yea... I have not made my decision yet. And if Brawl totally sucks then I'll just play it with my niece and I will just move to something else... ST remix? Starcraft 2? lol

 

[Scar]

I find it odd that some hold an elitist opinion towards competition/fighting games...all this detrimental attitude towards "guess-work" is like advocating one should bring a gun to a Wrestling Match just to win...but whatever.

Anyway, I'm only here to ask this:

It seems to me, Scar, that you're implying that the "better player" should never lose.

"Yes" or "No"?

No. I am of the opinion that a worthwhile competitive game should very frequently end with the better player winning in a reasonably short contest. Best of 3 with finals being best of 5 is appropriate in Melee.

There should be upsets because of random Johns, playstyles or characters being counters, etc. etc.

The analogy is awful. Bringing a gun to a wrestling match is analogous to pulling someone's controller out and throwing it across the room. I certainly do not condone that in Melee nor in Brawl. I speak of guessing in the context of events with completely arbitrary outcomes, where doing nothing has the same strategic value as any other response. I think that these events have little place in Smash games, and I think Melee had it right.

In almost all situations, you can actually think out the best response. There is a correct answer. It is not rock, paper, scissors.

This whole guessing game you say everybody is playing is completely off base. First, either you are correct in your prediction or you are wrong, there is nothin random about it. Just because you can't be 100% correct 100% of the time doesnt mean that there's something wrong with the game. Second, find ways to reduce your vulnerability when you go on the attack. It really is that simple. There's ton's of punishment to be had for incorrect choices, you just haven't found them yet.

This must be why I never see really good players post a lot outside of the Back Room.

You should have more respect than to run into a discussion (whether you think it's fruitful or not is irrelevant, your peers are clearly discussing something) and to completely disregard someone's direct wishes.

At the bolded portion of your argument, before you decide what you're going to do, before the other person does what they're doing, any response is as good as the next. Any response is randomly better than the other, depending on what the other person does. This supports my hypothesis that the learning curve on the game is truly very small and the game itself has little competitive value, since people can arbitrarily guess right or wrong 200x in any given match.

To the rest of your post, there is no good reason for the game to punish nearly all offensive actions. If I need to look that hard for a good way to hit someone who just fell completely defenselessly in front of me, then the game is clearly flawed.

"I haven't found it yet," may seem like a fine response but I really don't think it is. I have heard it a thousand times. We shouldn't have to look so hard to do extremely simple things. I don't remember any other fighting game punishing me so hard for doing something good.

 

[meatpopsicle]

in the end, I think Brawl requires more application of strategy and on-the-spot thinking, as opposed to abusing the same tired, yet brokenly effective techniques over and over again and that's whats driving the Melee pros crazy

Sorry if someone has already responded to this but **** this one really got to me.

You, sir, have NO IDEA WHAT YOU"RE TALKING ABOUT.

 

[Kyldare]

When Melee was released 7 years ago, there was no wavedashing. There was no l-cancelling, shffl, or any of the other innumerable combos and "glitches" that now define Melee's gameplay. It took years to realize the potential of these glitches and actualize their impact on the competitive scene. What people don't realize is that the Smash community will find replacements for all of these techniques and find new ones. I think that we need to give Brawl some time to blossom into a more competitive game. It might take a few years to establish itself as a highly competitive game. We should also hold off on labeling people as either "pro-brawl" or "pro-melee." Grouping and labeling are just going to perpetuate the negative vibes that keep reverberating around these forums.

 

[Scar]

I agree with not labeling people, that's a good point it's just hard to talk about either group without using those terms. To ignore the fact that there are two groups would be foolish, so I don't see any good way around it.

Having faith that there will be game-breaking mechanics is just that: faith. I see no reason to ever have blind faith in anything. The metagame may change, but simply speaking, SSBM was more competitive from the start than Brawl is now.

 

[Zankoku]

When Melee was released 7 years ago, there was no wavedashing. There was no l-cancelling, shffl, or any of the other innumerable combos and "glitches" that now define Melee's gameplay. It took years to realize the potential of these glitches and actualize their impact on the competitive scene. What people don't realize is that the Smash community will find replacements for all of these techniques and find new ones. I think that we need to give Brawl some time to blossom into a more competitive game. It might take a few years to establish itself as a highly competitive game. We should also hold off on labeling people as either "pro-brawl" or "pro-melee." Grouping and labeling are just going to perpetuate the negative vibes that keep reverberating around these forums.

There's a lot wrong with the retelling of the past in this, and it's not just calling L-Canceling and SHFFLing glitches.

 

[Chrono Centaur]

rofl, I think I know that Dogenzaka guy, he goes to another forum I frequent
but on topic

Brawl doesn't seem like a competitive game, yes; but people will play it, and it will have a following of tournament players. It just won't receive the amount of attention Melee did for its insane competitive level. Also, I just can't go back to Melee after I play as Dedede. :<

 

[DRaGZ]

You're not putting words in my mouth. I have a paragraph explaining what I meant, but I'll explain it again. Pardon my impatience.

Snake offers things Melee doesn't. Melee offers things Brawl doesn't. So Snake is complex in a different way than Melee. The two games are different, and test different things, but fundamental flaws in Brawl prevent it from being anywhere near as good as Melee is from a purely competitive standpoint.



I feel that you have failed to demonstrate how it promotes MORE strategic thinking. Maybe you need to think strategically more frequently, but I feel that this is simply because the game forces you back at a neutral position way too frequently.

I also feel that Brawl cannot give you enough options in any given situation for you to make the claim that in any given situation Brawl promotes a deeper strategic thought process than Melee.

If you simply mean that "more thinking" means that players must rely on some shallow thought process (as complex as rock, paper, scissors) very frequently, then yes you are correct. However this goes a long way to say that Brawl will allow less skilled players to win matches by arbitrarily guessing correctly, since there is infrequently a "best" response to these situations.

This does nothing to further the point that Brawl's level of competitiveness approaches that of Melee.

@QED, yes, these are my exact frustrations. I feel that we both understand that certain players are not concerned with high levels of competition and I think it's important to point out that we are okay with that. I certainly am not trying to convince anyone to stop playing Brawl.

I do, however, want to point out obvious flaws with Brawl's mechanics and open the eyes of people who don't understand where we're coming from when we say that Melee is more competitive than Brawl.

Oh, I definitely don't think Brawl is going to be as competitive as Melee, don't get me wrong.

But by the fact that it doesn't have as much technical skill to master, I think it forces more strategic thinking.

But I'm beating a dead horse with that statement. I've already said this in three different ways in this topic already (aside from this post).

 

[DRaGZ]

Well BigRick I think that you and I have reached an agreement. We agree that Brawl is more about guessing and prediction, and I think that it's disproportionately focused on because it's completely random and arbitrary. You seem to have no problem with the amount of guessing going on.

If that's the case then Brawl is your game of choice whether it's less competitive than Melee or not. If you want to continue discussing the consequences of guessing and how it clearly and directly yields better players losing to worse players simply by luck, then sure, we can do that.

I think I have to agree with this as well.

Maybe this is why I like poker a lot. Lolsers.

 

[B-Run]

You should have more respect than to run into a discussion (whether you think it's fruitful or not is irrelevant, your peers are clearly discussing something) and to completely disregard someone's direct wishes.

Honestly, I read the first post yesterday and forgot you had a "no useless argument" clause in effect. Tho I probably still would have said something along those lines, I just wouldn't have said it so much.

At the bolded portion of your argument, before you decide what you're going to do, before the other person does what they're doing, any response is as good as the next. Any response is randomly better than the other, depending on what the other person does. This supports my hypothesis that the learning curve on the game is truly very small and the game itself has little competitive value, since people can arbitrarily guess right or wrong 200x in any given match.

It's not random, if a person is consistantly wrong, they have bad predictions skills. It may seem random to the loser because he doesn't understand why he lost. There are people on this planet who can tell exactly what you are thinking about by just looking at you. I've spent the majority of my life watching how people react to certain situations and predict how people I've never met will do things based on what I see, its the same concept. The reason I'm doing so well in Brawl right now is because I know what people are going to do most of the time.

The same was true in Melee. If there was a single correct response for something in Melee, then the person who set themselves up should have known that outcome was what was going to happen. If everybody had perfect prediction skills, nobody would ever lose, every match would stay at 0% forever. At some point somebody has to be wrong, this is no more true for Brawl than it was for Melee.

To the rest of your post, there is no good reason for the game to punish nearly all offensive actions. If I need to look that hard for a good way to hit someone who just fell completely defenselessly in front of me, then the game is clearly flawed.

again you go right back to your undeveloped understanding of the game. Punish all offensive actions? Find your autocancelling short hopped aerial attacks, 10x better than l-canceling. There is plenty of room to punish poor choices as long as one player or the other is playing aggressively. Correct choices will always keep you safe.

I won't argue that tripping takes away from the competitive aspect of the game, but it by no means ruins it. It's easily managable. Like I said there are plenty of ways to get minimize tripping, I trip maybe once every 4-5 matches and it's normally in a non-crucial moment because I'm not trying to keep my movements under control.

"I haven't found it yet," may seem like a fine response but I really don't think it is. I have heard it a thousand times. We shouldn't have to look so hard to do extremely simple things. I don't remember any other fighting game punishing me so hard for doing something good.

Maybe I wasn't clear... I already have found ways around all of your problems... I think playing defensively is a poor choice and I consistantly beat people who do play defensively. I play aggressively in Brawl and lose very few matches. I meant "you" literally, not the general kind. I already know how to play against the styles of play you deem unbeatable or too hard to get around. And I win almost every game I play, the times I lose are to other people who play aggressively. And I have played people like Azen and Ken in brawl a number of times. I know what I'm talking about.


Unfortunately, I must go now... I'd love to stay and chat, but I can't.