Smash Bros. Melee was "too difficult" - New Sakurai Interview

[ranmaru]

I played the japanese imported brawl and did ok but meh. I was just having fun cuz of the hype.

I bought it, under drafted, and then, I LEFT IT IN FLORIDA.

My friend kevin has it. xD LOl but I think it wasn't working right anyways.

Waste of money. :[

Super Mario kart is BEAST and I still have it. :3

Also, I do think Mario Kart: Double Dash is ok... but I only like it because I had to first "get used to it" because I liked the original and 64 better. They were damn fun.

Now I do NOT like Mario Kart Wii.

 

[BEES]

Everyone needs to shut up about casuals and hardcore players, btw. Neither of those are meant to be the target audience for Smash Bros.

The target is clearly semi-serious players. People who play without items, 1v1, trying to improve at the game, but who have no aspirations of going to legitimate tournaments. They might do small dorm tournaments, and it's meant to be a social game with a lot of replayability. These people are playing the game for the fighting engine though, make no mistake.

They largely detest the lack of combos, the tripping, the shallow system that Brawl uses. If more of them knew about Brawl+ when it was around, they likely would have jumped ship.

 

[HDL]

You are saying Brawl lacks accessibility but also lack accessibility.

?

The difference here is that the games you mentioned are player(s) vs environment games. The player has to beat the realms the game makes up. So, the challenge is that the player navigates and conquers the levels of the game up until the very end. These games can be accessible and challenging. Many know games like Mario and Mega Man were easy to get your hands around but the levels were hard.

Smash Bros is a multiplayer game, so it is player vs player. The game does not dictate the difficulty, but the players do. A difficult multiplayer usually means that it's hard to control or get a hang of. The real difficulty is the psychology of the opponents. So, for these games, it's better to keep it simple. This allows players to jump right into the action and do what they want; to play with their friends.

The topic I spoke of was accessibility VS depth. The points I made stay the same regardless if you're playing on stages in an arcade game or against another person in a fighter. In a nutshell, I explained why you can make a game very easy to get into and still have depth. Obviously the way these games are played are different but the concepts of accessibility and depth apply just the same.

Whether intentional or not, Melee has depth below the surface and it has not harmed the accessibility the game has, just as the arcade games I mentioned have not had their accessibility harmed by their depth. This is not even about Brawl specifically, but the idea that one must remove or limit depth in favor of more accessibility is flawed and greatly reduces the quality of the final product. That is true for everything, not just games.

 

[Melomaniacal]

Everyone needs to shut up about casuals and hardcore players, btw. Neither of those are meant to be the target audience for Smash Bros.

The target is clearly semi-serious players. People who play without items, 1v1, trying to improve at the game, but who have no aspirations of going to legitimate tournaments. They might do small dorm tournaments, and it's meant to be a social game with a lot of replayability. These people are playing the game for the fighting engine though, make no mistake.

They largely detest the lack of combos, the tripping, the shallow system that Brawl uses. If more of them knew about Brawl+ when it was around, they likely would have jumped ship.

Wait, are you serious? Have you seen the commercials? Have you seen how this series has been advertised? Have you read any interviews about this series?

This series was geared towards casual players strictly for fun and parties. Sakurai said it himself (I don't have the interview handy, but I can find it if you would like) that he does not want for there to be a "winner" and "loser." He only wanted everyone to have fun playing it. No competitions. The 1v1 no items format was not what he had in mind when he designed the series.

Bottom line: the target audience was, and obviously still is, casual players.

 

[Deleted member]

Yeah, the target audience for smash was and is definitely casual players. That doesn't mean the game can't have depth for competitive players, but that was never the intent of the game.

 

[BEES]

I played the japanese imported brawl and did ok but meh. I was just having fun cuz of the hype.

I bought it, under drafted, and then, I LEFT IT IN FLORIDA.

My friend kevin has it. xD LOl but I think it wasn't working right anyways.

Waste of money. :[

Super Mario kart is BEAST and I still have it. :3

Also, I do think Mario Kart: Double Dash is ok... but I only like it because I had to first "get used to it" because I liked the original and 64 better. They were damn fun.

Now I do NOT like Mario Kart Wii.

The items in MKWii are too powerful. Funny thing is though, I think the game is legitimately more competitive than Brawl.

-It has an online ranking system, and GOOD online that doesn't lag.
-Nintendo hosts speed trial tournaments.
-Time trials have leaderboards and a vast array of statistics dedicated to tracking world records with different vehicles under different conditions.
-Snaking has been nerfed, but it's still in the game. If you use a kart, you have to maintain a MT 100% of the time, which requires some creativity in places.

If people wanted to take Mario Kart seriously, they could. They could hold karts only, 2v2 strategic items, team tournaments at 150cc, and it would literally be a deeper, richer game to play competitively than Brawl.

 

[INSANE CARZY GUY]

you call that a race? play kirby's airride or F-zero and yeah. XD at kirby airride I once picked metaknight stated the match against my brother took a s*** came back and I won against him and all the cpus XD.

I could see that being taken semi serious there are some very hard to play as vehciles that are pretty good. slick star anyone?

 

[BEES]

Wait, are you serious? Have you seen the commercials? Have you seen how this series has been advertised? Have you read any interviews about this series?

This series was geared towards casual players strictly for fun and parties. Sakurai said it himself (I don't have the interview handy, but I can find it if you would like) that he does not want for there to be a "winner" and "loser." He only wanted everyone to have fun playing it. No competitions. The 1v1 no items format was not what he had in mind when he designed the series.

Bottom line: the target audience was, and obviously still is, casual players.

I don't know how things are where you live, but where I went to school, EVERYBODY played 1v1, 4 stock, no items. For every person that went to tournaments there were probably 10 people that played semi-seriously.

They're still around. Whether you like it or not, this is a very large section of the audience that bought Melee and Brawl.

 

[ranmaru]

At my school we were playing ffa no items, fd, temple, etc. But probably because we only had enough time for ffa's.
(my highschool i mean)


in college it was different. :3

 

[Wenbobular]

I don't know how things are where you live, but where I went to school, EVERYBODY played 1v1, 4 stock, no items. For every person that went to tournaments there were probably 10 people that played semi-seriously.

They're still around. Whether you like it or not, this is a very large section of the audience that bought Melee and Brawl.

I'm also fairly certain that there are many people who you don't hear about that play 4 player FFAs. I'm thinking people like my 10 year old brother haha

I mean sure, the "casual competitive" section is probably alive and kicking, but I'm willing to bet that there are also a huge number of people who play Smash the way Sakurai imagines it to be

 

[link2702]

You can't let yourself get preoccupied with nothing but gameplay and balance details



so i think it is safe to assume the next smash is gonna be even more imbalanced, and badly programmed then brawl was with just more "content" crammed in



weeeelll.....


either time to call it quits with newer smash games....or make the hacks standard

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I was going to write some kinda long thing with numbers or w/e but I'm at work so I'm just going to write my thoughts on the above comments on the system only being a small factor and the game being the main issue. The system is marketed first and foremost, in fact I feel like the Wii is marketed much better than the Gamecube ever was.

There were more units sold because of this, so there are more people who actually have a Wii. The game isn't SOLD only on the fact that "it's good" it's sold because of brand/title familiarity. Nintendo is already a brand you love and am familiar with. And then you have Smash Bros who's been with us since 64, you've tried it out at the store maybe back in the day and then you got your friends into it etc... the next one comes out for the following system so you assume it's going to be good, so you buy it, you're hooked! What a fan-****ing-tastic game! In your head at this point, Smash is a familiar and reliable title that you're looking forward to on the next installment. Then the Wii comes out and "damn, this is gonna be great! I can't wait!" you get it home and it's not exactly what you expected. You're devasted and you immediately sell it on ebay (lol).

Obviously I just used Smash as an example. Chances are, you're a casual player anyway who didn't care about competitive play and bought all three games (or maybe even just two) because it's Smash and it's new!

This is what happens GENERALLY when people buy games (again, I wish I knew the actual studies or statistics on this) but being a general consumer of games I know that when I buy a game I'M HOPING it's going to be good. Not that it's already good. There's been plenty of games I've bought in my lifetime that have sucked *******s when I got it home and was dissapointed in it. The sales aren't indicating the number SOLD BACK, they're only recording what's SOLD initally. And selling initially doesn't automatically mean it's a good game.

That is some pretty large theory crafting right here about Brawl. Like I agree they were marketed better which helped, but saying this attributes to how good the game was is a pretty large stretch.

False.

No, it's pretty much true.

This is the conscious I have heard from the multiple library tournaments I helped with, heck Melee wouldn't wouldn't have been hosted at all for the kids if it wasn't for my friends and myself.

Edit: @ Red Ryu, That's a great example, again showing that sales do not imply a good game, and lack of sales do not imply a bad game.

Agreed.

I know a lot of underrated movies and games that were good even if they didn't sell well, at the same time I've seen a lot of overrated movies and stuff get popular for really odd reasons.

Everyone needs to shut up about casuals and hardcore players, btw. Neither of those are meant to be the target audience for Smash Bros.

The target is clearly semi-serious players. People who play without items, 1v1, trying to improve at the game, but who have no aspirations of going to legitimate tournaments. They might do small dorm tournaments, and it's meant to be a social game with a lot of replayability. These people are playing the game for the fighting engine though, make no mistake.

They largely detest the lack of combos, the tripping, the shallow system that Brawl uses. If more of them knew about Brawl+ when it was around, they likely would have jumped ship.

Have you seen interviews or anything with the game? It is aimed at casual while both games allow settings to be changed for competitive play.

The topic I spoke of was accessibility VS depth. The points I made stay the same regardless if you're playing on stages in an arcade game or against another person in a fighter. In a nutshell, I explained why you can make a game very easy to get into and still have depth. Obviously the way these games are played are different but the concepts of accessibility and depth apply just the same.

Whether intentional or not, Melee has depth below the surface and it has not harmed the accessibility the game has, just as the arcade games I mentioned have not had their accessibility harmed by their depth. This is not even about Brawl specifically, but the idea that one must remove or limit depth in favor of more accessibility is flawed and greatly reduces the quality of the final product. That is true for everything, not just games.

You know, making a game with great depth but lacks any form of accessibility is worse than a game with more limited depth and a lot of accessibility because it would sell terribly and limit it's competitive audience.

Even is a game was easier, it would be able to be played by more people which is an extremely important detail for making a game. Difficult =/= depth necessarily.

Neither game balanced it right.

The items in MKWii are too powerful. Funny thing is though, I think the game is legitimately more competitive than Brawl.

-It has an online ranking system, and GOOD online that doesn't lag.
-Nintendo hosts speed trial tournaments.
-Time trials have leaderboards and a vast array of statistics dedicated to tracking world records with different vehicles under different conditions.
-Snaking has been nerfed, but it's still in the game. If you use a kart, you have to maintain a MT 100% of the time, which requires some creativity in places.

If people wanted to take Mario Kart seriously, they could. They could hold karts only, 2v2 strategic items, team tournaments at 150cc, and it would literally be a deeper, richer game to play competitively than Brawl.

A game that punishes players for winning is competitive? (I know both games have alternative settings)

 

[BEES]

I'm also fairly certain that there are many people who you don't hear about that play 4 player FFAs. I'm thinking people like my 10 year old brother haha

I mean sure, the "casual competitive" section is probably alive and kicking, but I'm willing to bet that there are also a huge number of people who play Smash the way Sakurai imagines it to be

Those exist, and I'm sure they're a larger group in terms of sales. I think the semi-serious players deserve more credit for spreading the game though. They clock a lot more hours on it. They have more than a passing interest in the game, and they try to get people into it. Even if 2 out of 3 of the people they introduced ended up playing it casually.

 

[BEES]

either time to call it quits with newer smash games....or make the hacks standard

Looks like hacks will be our only respite.

I don't think any other developer is interested in making a smash-style fighting game.

Maybe SEGA... they did make their own Sonic version of Mario Kart, and it is clearly more competitive than MKWii.

 

[TheGoat]

No, it's pretty much true.

This is the conscious I have heard from the multiple library tournaments I helped with, heck Melee wouldn't wouldn't have been hosted at all for the kids if it wasn't for my friends and myself.

So how exactly did you arrive at this conclusion? Can you back up your argument instead of just saying "it's what some random people who play at a library agree with"? Casual Melee is just as easy to play.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Those exist, and I'm sure they're a larger group in terms of sales. I think the semi-serious players deserve more credit for spreading the game though. They clock a lot more hours on it. They have more than a passing interest in the game, and they try to get people into it. Even if 2 out of 3 of the people they introduced ended up playing it casually.

Do you have anything that really proves they bought more?

The marketing was clearly aimed at casuals, the library tournaments I ran has a mix of these kinds of people who liked FFA items and people who hated it.

So how exactly did you arrive at this conclusion? Can you back up your argument instead of just saying "it's what some random people who play at a library agree with"? Casual Melee is just as easy to play.

By asking people at anime conventions and the library tournament in my county. Grand majority said Brawl was easier.

If you want actual reasons, just look at how game play differs. Ledges, air dodging, buffering instead of L canceling, etc.

Both are easy, but Melee is harder and Brawl is easier at a causal level.

 

[AllyKnight]

The only funny part though is, all of you would suck at Brawl if you took it seriously. Competitive or not, you suck if you can't beat Brawl 'scrubs'.

That's my only complain about melee ******s LOL

 

[TheGoat]

By asking people at anime conventions and the library tournament in my county. Grand majority said Brawl was easier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

If you want actual reasons, just look at how game play differs. Ledges, air dodging, buffering instead of L canceling, etc.

Both are easy, but Melee is harder and Brawl is easier at a causal level.

L canceling is not a part of casual gaming. The difference in ledges and air dodging do not make it easier for beginners to play. Melee is just as easy to pick up as brawl, because in casual play, they both involve running around, spamming powerful moves, and perhaps throwing items around. There's no reason to think that Melee is harder for casual gamers to play; it's when we get into competitive play that Melee becomes more complicated than brawl.

 

[crismas]

That is some pretty large theory crafting right here about Brawl. Like I agree they were marketed better which helped, but saying this attributes to how good the game was is a pretty large stretch.

I never said it attributes to "how good the game was", I'm saying that the familiarity of the title leads people to buy the next installment in a series of games. Not necessarily how good the game actually is (unless you know friends who have the game and have played it before you bought). And I'm not just talking about Brawl, I'm talking generally about games and replying to the idea that "games are bought because they are good". You never came across people who bought a Castlevania (example) game because they loved the Castlevania series?

Elliot is now trolling T_T <3

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Doesn't work.

We're talking about how easy it is for people to get into a game, which deals with how people feel about it, you must consider this when we're dealing with game play.

L canceling is not a part of casual gaming. The difference in ledges and air dodging do not make it easier for beginners to play. Melee is just as easy to pick up as brawl, because in casual play, they both involve running around, spamming powerful moves, and perhaps throwing items around. There's no reason to think that Melee is harder for casual gamers to play; it's when we get into competitive play that Melee becomes more complicated than brawl.

Which game is harder to recover? Melee. Brawl is easier to recover in, in which the characters ledge snaps come into play here.

Air dodges are easier because it makes fighting edge guarding easier to deal with at low levels of play.

Melee is harder at low levels of play.

I never said it attributes to "how good the game was", I'm saying that the familiarity of the title leads people to buy the next installment in a series of games. Not necessarily how good the game actually is (unless you know friends who have the game and have played it before you bought). And I'm not just talking about Brawl, I'm talking generally about games and replying to the idea that "games are bought because they are good". You never came across people who bought a Castlevania (example) game because they loved the Castlevania series?

Oh for a game being sold well =/= being good I agree.

Your post seemed to come off differently. sorry.

 

[crismas]

It's cool, lol! No worries :D

 

[Strong Badam]

All of these factor were pretty much known before the game came out via hype. Accessibility wasn't known, however once it is known people have known that Brawl is easier to pick up and play than Melee, which is Sakurai's point.

No where in this paragraph did you explain why Brawl is "easier to pick up and play" than Melee.

It's hard for competitive players to understand, which funny enough he even knew, because once we know how to do it, it stops being hard.

Yeah, this applies to pretty much anyone doing anything. You learn how to do something and it isn't hard. This is why it isn't hard for casual players to pick up Melee; they learn it once and then it isn't hard.

I've tried introducing this to causal players at gaming tournaments at my library or even seen it tried at anime conventions, people to go Brawl.

because it has more characters, stages, better graphical capabilities, etc. you forget that to the average casual gamer, newer = better and better looking = more fun. despite the obvious fallacies inherent here, all they mean is that you can't use this as a supporting argument for why Brawl is easier than Melee or even better, for that matter.

Yes but Melee by far it is harder even on a casual level.

I AM CONVINCED
COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY CONVINCED

The only funny part though is, all of you would suck at Brawl if you took it seriously. Competitive or not, you suck if you can't beat Brawl 'scrubs'.

That's my only complain about melee ******s LOL

ad hominem. *yawn*

 

[TheGoat]

Doesn't work.

We're talking about how easy it is for people to get into a game, which deals with how people feel about it, you must consider this when we're dealing with game play.

No, the ad populum fallacy still fails.
Just because you surveyed a bunch of random people and they said brawl was easier does not help your argument. Besides, even if your logic worked, you would have to go interview thousands of people all over the world who have played brawl and melee. The small population you inquired about does not represent the whole community.
But the logic doesn't hold up anyway because we are arguing based off of facts and examples, not whether or not somebody says "brawl is easier just because"

Which game is harder to recover? Melee. Brawl is easier to recover in, in which the characters ledge snaps come into play here.

Air dodges are easier because it makes fighting edge guarding easier to deal with at low levels of play.

Recovery has nothing to do with how easy a game is to play. Look at ssb64, recovering is extremely difficult, yet playing the game casually is a cinch.

Melee is harder at low levels of play.

 

[None Shall Pass]

I find that hard to swallow, considering that at the time I first picked up melee I was completely casual about it. I was 10 when I first played it and to me it was the perfect casual experience at the time. I couldn't even imagine that there was a deeper side to it until a friend introduced me.
So it's weird to me how he sees it as an obligation to keep Smash exclusive to a certain crowd, when one of the biggest things about melee to me was its ability to be appealing to literally any crowd.

Besides all this, I thought Sakurai had said on multiple occasions that he won't be involved in another Smash game.

I agree completely.

On a personal note, fighting games should be competitive, slightly balanced, and in-depth.

I used to play Luigi. As a 10 year old, I beat Event 51. Took me 5 minutes. Melee is too hard?

Brawl is a degenerated, shallow version of Melee. But, it attracts a particular audience which in turns means excessive income. The Wii itself is targeted to casual gamers, why would a major title be any different? After all, it's featured on a casual console.

Unlike most people, I don't hate Sakurai for making a decision which prioritized profit. Am I disappointed? Sure, but that's capitalism for you.

But, Melee is enough for me. I'll play it for years to come, hopefully.

 

[AllyKnight]

Elliot is now trolling T_T <3

actually I'm not. ^^

 

[Minato]

Both are easy, but Melee is harder and Brawl is easier at a causal level.

I agree with this. Some people disagree saying that Melee is just as easy as Brawl on a casual level. While Melee is still easy to get into, I do think it's still a tiny bit harder than Brawl, especially for casual players that got a feel for both.

I love Melee and I don't like Brawl, so I asked my friends why they liked Brawl more than Melee.
They told me that it was because it was slower giving them more time to think, they had an easier time to recover (regardless if anyone was edgeguarding), it was easier to short hop, and they also preferred Brawl's air dodging since it was just easier to dodge attacks when they're helplessly falling.

Now that casual players experienced both Melee and Brawl, a lot of them have a hard time going back. Even if they aren't playing with pros.

It's sad and disappointing that there won't be another Smash as deep as Melee (not that I thought there would be one), but I liked the interview because Sakurai acknowledged how Melee turned out and explained how much work and effort they poured into it. It's a shame he won't go in that same direction, but I do understand where he's coming from.

I still wish instead of catering to get new players to jump right in and making it too easy, that he would make it enjoyable for both casuals and competitive players like Melee.
That's just my take on it.

 

[Melomaniacal]

I don't know how things are where you live, but where I went to school, EVERYBODY played 1v1, 4 stock, no items. For every person that went to tournaments there were probably 10 people that played semi-seriously.

They're still around. Whether you like it or not, this is a very large section of the audience that bought Melee and Brawl.

Okay, let's not argue about our personal experiences because clearly that won't tell us anything.

Bottom line is that the game was advertised and aimed towards the casual crowd. It has been said multiple times in multiple interviews. Just look at the way it's advertised. Look at the back of the case.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

There is truth to this article in some respects.

I have heard of a lot of stories where there was the one person out of a group of friends who totally wrecked them all in melee. After that point they all sort of stopped playing expect for that one person. however, it seems more people pick up brawl because they can still compete with that other person more easily.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

No where in this paragraph did you explain why Brawl is "easier to pick up and play" than Melee.

Look at the physics changes, look at the game play changes, it's clear they made game play easier.

Yeah, this applies to pretty much anyone doing anything. You learn how to do something and it isn't hard. This is why it isn't hard for casual players to pick up Melee; they learn it once and then it isn't hard.

It does, but it's still harder for us to see this when we try to compete in this game.

because it has more characters, stages, better graphical capabilities, etc. you forget that to the average casual gamer, newer = better and better looking = more fun. despite the obvious fallacies inherent here, all they mean is that you can't use this as a supporting argument for why Brawl is easier than Melee or even better, for that matter.

Not every casual is like this, game play can also be an issue when Brawl did make game play easier, in fact weren't melee plays knocking on Brawl for easier/dumbed down game play in the past? Pretty sure that was one of the main things they keep yelling at Brawl for.

Brawl is easier to pick up and play, if not what makes Melee easier in comparison?

pretty sure Melee turnout for both Pound and Genesis were equal or greater.
the fact that people play "competitive Brawl" doesn't mean that competitive Brawl isn't a joke.

Don't try changing the subject, you said Brawl was not competitive, yet I listed multiple national circuits, which people do compete in it. You have no basis to call it a joke since people are competing in it and it has a healthy scene.

For Pound 4, Melee had 347 players while Brawl had 256 for single, might have had a cap dunno. Then again Pound used to be a Melee only tournament so I'm not surprised.

Genesis had 292 Brawl and 290 Melee for singles.

I AM CONVINCED
COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY CONVINCED

again, I am completely and utterly convinced of your position due to this definitive proof provided by you.

 

[mastermoo420]

The only funny part though is, all of you would suck at Brawl if you took it seriously. Competitive or not, you suck if you can't beat Brawl 'scrubs'.

That's my only complain about melee ******s LOL

Yeah, but that's still like saying that an NBA player will lose to an NFL player when they play football if the basketball player decided to play football. They're both good at what they do, are good athletes, and both football and basketball are sports, but that doesn't necessarily mean their skills transfer over going either way.

If you meant that we were to practice Brawl exclusively, I don't think that necessarily holds true. You really don't know until you try. And if you're comparing say, me, the average-to-below-average Melee player, of course I'd take forever to reach your level in Brawl if ever. Sticking with that analogy before, even if the basketball player were to play football, he'd still truck over any little random squirt who decides to try his hand at sports after studying for the last 12 years without exercise.

For the Brawl v. Melee thing, I tend to put up the "Brawl sucks! Melee > Brawl!" front often, but personally, Brawl isn't that bad of a game; it's fun, even, especially when Melee feels a little stale sometimes (which tends to happen if nobody will play with you ._.). I mean, I still think Melee > Brawl, but that's an opinion, and Brawl doesn't really suck.

 

[Strong Badam]

Look at the physics changes, look at the game play changes, it's clear they made game play easier.

this is not how you make a convincing argument. you're telling me to find examples for you. moving on.

It does, but it's still harder for us to see this when we try to compete in this game.

see above?

Not every casual is like this, game play can also be an issue when Brawl did make game play easier, in fact weren't melee plays knocking on Brawl for easier/dumbed down game play in the past? Pretty sure that was one of the main things they keep yelling at Brawl for.

we yell at brawl because it's ****ing terrible. the gameplay AT TOP LEVEL is slow as ****, hit & run gameplay.

Brawl is easier to pick up and play, if not what makes Melee easier in comparison?

you're in the melee forum. the burden of proof lies on you. don't come in here asking us for proof that melee is "easier" (which, by the way, no one tried to say; the most anyone has said is that Brawl isn't easier, which also includes the possibility that their ease of use is equal)

Don't try changing the subject, you said Brawl was not competitive, yet I listed multiple national circuits, which people do compete in it. You have no basis to call it a joke since people are competing in it and it has a healthy scene.

yes i do.
if I go to an international Rock, Paper, Scissors tournament with 500 players and a $50,000 prize pot, does that make it a competitive game? no.
stop kidding yourself bro.

For Pound 4, Melee had 347 players while Brawl had 256 for single, might have had a cap dunno. Then again Pound used to be a Melee only tournament so I'm not surprised.

the second sentence is irrelevant.

Genesis had 292 Brawl and 290 Melee for singles.

which is roughly equal to, after conversion factors, 2 brawl players and 290 melee players?

 

[AllyKnight]

Apex 1 and 2 had more brawl entrants than Melee by alot.

 

[Daniel_the_Seraph]

The only funny part though is, all of you would suck at Brawl if you took it seriously. Competitive or not, you suck if you can't beat Brawl 'scrubs'.

That's my only complain about melee ******s LOL

I would say the same thing applies the other way, but that really goes without saying.

Also, it's not true. I was semi-good (placed in a few AiB tournaments [online tournies are a joke I know] with GANONDORF) for the ~5 months I played Brawl before I gave it up because it sucks.

 

[AllyKnight]

I would say the same thing applies the other way, but that really goes without saying.

Also, it's not true. I was semi-good (placed in a few AiB tournaments [online tournies are a joke I know] with GANONDORF) for the ~5 months I played Brawl before I gave it up because it sucks.

I bless your life for doing such thing LOL **** WIFI PIECE OF ****

Yeah but you don't see Brawl people say oh I hate melee or it sucks. I know quite a lot of people that hate it but won't say anything to be respectful. It's sad.

 

[Scufo]

Good games always sell. Period. The reason they didn't sell was because something was holding them back.

Hi. You don't know me, but I wanted to tell you that you are dumb. The claim you make here is so ridiculous, so demonstratively false, that I'm actually having trouble believing that you truly, in your heart of hearts, believe the filth that is spewing forth from your keyboard. You should take a look at that quote again, think long and hard about it, and if you still think what you're saying is actually correct, do us all a favor and refrain from engaging in argument or debate until you get your thoughts in order, because right now there is clearly something wrong.

 

[Strong Badam]

Apex 1 and 2 had more brawl entrants than Melee by alot.

this is still an entirely irrelevant point...

 

[AllyKnight]

this is still an entirely irrelevant point...

Are you weak good though? That is the question.

 

[Melomaniacal]

Wait... how can you even argue that Brawl is harder than Melee on a casual level? In my mind it's so blatantly obvious that Melee is harder on a casual level....

...let's see... Brawl (please keep in mind that I'm talking about a casual level here):

1. Slower. Do I need to explain why this makes things easier?
2. More floaty. Again, that should be self-explanatory.
3. Easier recovery options. Besides the fact that so many characters simply have more jumps/less punishable recoveries, you can now grab the ledge backwards. This is easier than recovering in Melee.
4. Air dodging doesn't put you in free fall. Honestly, this should also be self-explanatory.
5. Buffer. Seriously. This was put into the game to make quicker button inputs easier. That's all it does.

Melee:

1. Faster. Self-explanatory.
2. More difficult to recover.
3. Faster fall speeds. This makes it more difficult to go off stage in general.
4. Hit stun.
5. More stuff I don't feel like getting into.

 

[huMps]

melee was a fun enough casual game to keep me playing for 7.5 years. And after discovering the true depth of the game through SWF, I enjoy it even more. I don't get it. but I do, It's all about the money. straight up.

 

[Daniel_the_Seraph]

Yeah but you don't see Brawl people say oh I hate melee or it sucks.

I see Brawl kids hating on Melee all the time, actually.