The definition of a combo

[-Zangetsu-]

Combo in general: Play Street fighter (any kind),
punch punch punch = 3 hit combo.
punch (wait 1 second) punch punch = 2 hit combo.

Basically, Timing determines combo's
Not successive hits but the timing between each hit needs to be around 0.7 (or relatively short) seconds of each other.

Can't just F-smash someone and run all the way to them and fair them. Thats not a combo, Thats just brawl.

 

[Mike35]

I don't think the lack of "real" combos is necessarily a bad thing. You can still attempt to string together attacks, and if you can still play fairly aggressively with certain characters.

With real combos, you catch your opponent in a mistake and unload a string of unblockable attacks on them. In SSB, you can still unload a string of attacks on your opponent, but you have to be careful and unpredictable with every move. Also, your "combos" have absolutely no pre-set input. Depending on your opponents weight, damage, DI, etc. you can string together moves in many different ways. Keep your opponent second guessing with every attack and you can still pull off some pretty impressive stuff IMO.

Also, I don't really mind them being called combos even if they aren't true combos by the strictest definition. Combo videos just have a certain ring to it that, err, "consecutive attack videos" don't.

 

[Jazriel]

Interesting replies, my next question is: Why would Brawl having "no combos" be a bad thing? I see it as a good thing. I fail to understand why people specifically look for an inescapable sequence of attacks. To execute said combo requires minimum technical skill (Oh look, jab -> shine -> wavedash -> dashing usmash) for most combos. Why is this preferred?

As I said earlier, I like Brawl more than melee in this regard because, being a person who actually fights in real life (17th century rapier ftw), Brawl is far more realistic. You don't punish a person by killing them, you punish a person by getting closer to killing them. You slowly work towards exploiting them, manipulating them, and then going in for the riposte or even a straight up lunge.

I feel the same way when I'm fighting a person who's worse than I am in Brawl and when I'm fighting a person who's worse than I am in rapier. I have to be careful, even extra careful, for whatever stupid/suicidal thing they'll throw at me. I have to play at my highest level, even though they may "suck".

I think this is the main problem people have with Brawl, they can't just own noobs anymore with pure tech skill. They actually have to think, to commit themselves, and then they hide behind this barrier that says "oh but I've practiced something, that should inherently give me an edge over people who haven't".

There's a saying in rapier: "The best fencer in the land isn't afraid of the 2nd best fencer, he's afraid of the worst" and I think this applies to Brawl perfectly.

Every hit counts, every hit is a battle in itself. Every hit you give is a measure of your absolute skill. In fencing there are no mistakes. If you make a mistake you can die. Brawl is the same way, if you make a mistake, you get owned at 60% as MK when hit by Ike's fsmash.

"Don't get hit."

 

[chansen]

Combo in general: Play my mother (any kind),
punch punch punch = 3 hit combo.
punch (wait 1 second) punch punch = 2 hit combo.

Basically, Timing determines combo's
Not successive hits but the timing between each hit needs to be around 0.7 (or relatively short) seconds of each other.

Can't just F-smash someone and run all the way to them and fair them. Thats not a combo, Thats just brawl.

Do you have some sort of warped perception of games and how they should all be exactly alike? I don't think combos should be indentified by one game, certainly not street fighter for that matter. I would quote myself again, but this thread is dead to me.

 

[-Zangetsu-]

Do you have some sort of warped perception of games and how they should all be exactly alike? I don't think combos should be indentified by one game, certainly not street fighter for that matter. I would quote myself again, but this thread is dead to me.

It seems you missed the point of what i was trying to get across.
I never said that it should be identified by one game(SF).
I was using SF as an example to show the importance of a successive line of hits within certain time constraints make up a combo.
If the hits are too far apart, and takes a little longer to hit the opponent again thats where any hint of a combo has ended.

For the record i do not have a warped perception of games like that and do not feel they should all be alike. Also You miss-quoted me

 

[ph00tbag]

Don't be down on Brawl players because they are learning a game that is so well balanced that you always have a chance to turn a match around if you out-think your opponent well enough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEvXeoFXlKo&feature=related

Melee was pretty **** balanced, too, if that's what you think balanced means. Unfortunately, balanced doesn't mean that. Brawl is more balanced than Melee, but that has no bearing on who will win, other than to say that there are more even match-ups than uneven, and there are about as many advantageous match-ups as there are disadvantageous for a majority of characters.

And the ability to turn a match around based solely on out-thinking your opponent is important, which is exactly why it was also in Melee.

Every hit counts, every hit is a battle in itself. Every hit you give is a measure of your absolute skill. In fencing there are no mistakes. If you make a mistake you can die. Brawl is the same way, if you make a mistake, you get owned at 60% as MK when hit by Ike's fsmash.

"Don't get hit."

And in Melee, every hit counts that much more, and Isai's mantra is even more important, because getting hit can result in not just one hit, but two, or three, or more. And in Melee, it's even more important that you not make a mistake. I have to ask, how did MK get to 60%? Maybe he made three mistakes beforehand? In Melee, he'd probably be dead by now.

Now which would you say is more like rapier? Hmm?

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

Do you have some sort of warped perception of games and how they should all be exactly alike? I don't think combos should be indentified by one game, certainly not street fighter for that matter. I would quote myself again, but this thread is dead to me.

The basic anatomy of a combo exist in the same manner and is presented to have the same elements in every game, whether it is Street Fighter or Guilty Gear. A combo is a string of consecutive hits that cannot be escaped from; it applies to smash bros as well. Things such as DI allowed for people to potentially escape combos at certain percentages, buts some combos were inevitable at lower percentages.

This games doesn't have combos that evolve beyond multiple hits or an AAA combo. This isn't because we are comparing the game to another fighter, but the elements of this game that are so lenient that a combo simply cannot exist. Hit stun and percentage based DI reading made combos possible in Melee, now what do we have with Brawl? Multiple air dodges and an emphasis on percentage based hit stun (Hit stun=Higher %).

 

[QuestionMark]

um i already knew what a combo was thank you very much

 

[Tirno]

Every hit counts, every hit is a battle in itself. Every hit you give is a measure of your absolute skill. In fencing there are no mistakes. If you make a mistake you can die. Brawl is the same way, if you make a mistake, you get owned at 60% as MK when hit by Ike's fsmash.

"Don't get hit."

To add on to ph00tbag's comment, Ike f-smash on MK is sorta a biased example. Ike is one of the few characters with enough power to punish mistakes with death at lower percentages. And even Ike is too slow to really punish effectively. That's why you don't see Ikes camping and baiting mistakes so much, even if there were a mistake by the opponent Ike'd be too slow to capitalize. Then you have characters like MK who are plenty fast but have little killing power. What would MK do in the opposite situation? Get off a quick d-smash? Chances are he won't be able to kill or combo.

Honestly, the trading hits, combo-lacking gameplay isn't so much lacking in skill as it is boring, haha. I understand just as much as anybody that the winner of a Brawl match will be the person who made the least mistakes (though the efficacy of camping can skew this, but that's another argument). However, that's not really a compelling argument, because the same could be said of any competition that isn't completely random. Melee matches just seem more epic than Brawl matches. People like seeing very skilled people in intense combat, where defeat is just a couple of mistakes away. I can't say I've ever done any real sword fighting, but most people would probably say a swordfight where one mistake could result in death is pretty epic, just look at such fights in movies and popular media. In comparison, Brawl is like the same fight except the swords are replaced with wooden sticks. Sure, make enough mistakes and you'll be bludgeoned to death, but it just ain't the same.

 

[Jazriel]

And in Melee, every hit counts that much more, and Isai's mantra is even more important, because getting hit can result in not just one hit, but two, or three, or more. And in Melee, it's even more important that you not make a mistake. I have to ask, how did MK get to 60%? Maybe he made three mistakes beforehand? In Melee, he'd probably be dead by now.

Now which would you say is more like rapier? Hmm?

My Ike vs MK example is a bit extreme. But for my Smash vs Rapier analogy, Brawl is by far more of a realistic fighting thingy than melee is. While you're fighting, it's the subsequent mistakes that lead to an opponents death. Same with Brawl. When my friend mis-spaces marth's fair and gets hit by my Mario's fireball over and over again, I'm slowly winning. Sure, you can get the random out-of-nowhere lunge that can kill people (Like Ike fsmashing MK at 60%) but it's about the small mistakes that add up.

This is why two things:

1) Brawl does have combos.

When you're fighting, when you lunge, disengage, disengage the compound parry, and then step lunge again for the win, you're seen as being victorious.

What really happened is that you lunged and you mindgamed your opponent to do a particular parry. Then you also knew that he was most likely to perform a different type of parry for the compound parry, so you disengaged that, then you knew that he was going to just completely back up instead of parrying again, so you went for the step-lunge.

At any point in time during that sequence, your opponent could've gotten free. At any point in time he could've mixed it up and made it so your glorious kill was another stalemate (there are a lot of stalemates in rapier ).

2) Brawl should be played with 2 stocks.

This is more my opinion than actual reasoning (though there is reasoning behind it). Brawl so far has shown to have similar if not equal/greater "depth" to melee. The only problem is how "boring" it is. In my opinion, since Brawl deals with eye-for-an-eye compared to melees stock-for-a-mistake, Brawl matches should be very short. It's extremely easy to see when one person is better than another in a Brawl match. No need to drag it on for 3 more stocks. Same with when people are of equal skill level. Final matches in tourney's are already some ridiculously long Bo7, that could be shortened to Bo5 but with 3 stock matches.



I just think that people should understand that a combo (in smash terms) isn't an inescapable sequence of attacks. That is not only unrealistic, but somewhat lame (imo). And that if Brawl is "boring and too slow" then just play with shorter matches.

I have 2 stock matches with my noob friend and not only are they over in 2 minutes, but he has actually beaten me sometimes because I'm playing poorly or trying something crazy out. Which is exactly like real fighting. You don't need to be a super-athelete to have an advantage. Hell, the guy who teaches my classes is overweight, but he has the mindgames. Which, at the end of the day, are all that really matter.

 

[AmigoOne]

A videogame is not to be compared to actual fighting. End of story. Real Life =/= Fighting game. Ever.

 

[Tirno]

A videogame is not to be compared to actual fighting. End of story. Real Life =/= Fighting game. Ever.

Don't be so close-minded, he's not saying they're exactly the same, just that he thinks the punishment game is somewhat realistic, at least in comparison to the style of fighting he's studying. You can argue the validity of his assessment, but otherwise it's just a matter of opinion whether it should be like that; he may like the new gameplay, to each his own. I personally am undecided, Brawl definitely isn't Melee, and in some sense has lost the epic quality of skilled matches, but it can still be fun.

 

[AmigoOne]

Ya, my bad. I just got a little riled up when he kept saying real life, like in self defense street fighting type fighting. When fencing doesn't quite measure like that.

 

[leafgreen386]

The term "true combo" often gets thrown around on these boards. So... why is this so hard for people? In terms of smash:

"True combo" = String of inescapable hits
"Combo" = String of escapable hits through DI (hitstun is high enough that you cannot airdodge)
"Getting hits through mindgames" = getting hits through mindgames

The last of the three could be tech chasing, or it could be aerial chasing, or anything in between, but I think everyone will agree that hitting an airborne foe is not tech chasing, as several people in this thread have insisted, seeing as they were never given the chance to tech in the first place.

The thing is, in melee, a lot of the time "aerial chasing" was still considered "comboing,"as there were much fewer options given to the character getting hit, even if they were out of hitstun. You could air dodge out of some uair chains, but the air dodge left you helpless afterward, and against a character like fox, you would end up getting hit again anyway due to his faster falling speed and being able to land and attack again. Essentially, the only way you were going to get out was either to hit the fox or to smash DI the first hit of a uair. Since most characters didn't have much priority below them, hitting fox was out of the question, and so fox could continue hitting them as long as they didn't smash DI. In brawl, if fox tried to do that to a character that ran out of hitstun before he connected with another uair, they could just air dodge it, and then they still have all their aerial options available to them, and could even hit fox afterward.

Melee had many many combos by this "smashified" definition, and it even had its share of true combos, too, that there was no way you were getting out of it regardless of what you did. Granted, there weren't many, but they were there. In brawl, there are very few combos - true or not. Almost every "combo" is just getting hits through mindgames. If your foe doesn't know that they can airdodge out due to the attack not giving as much hitstun as they thought, or that their dair beats your uair, you might "combo" them due to their insufficient knowledge of the matchup, but this will almost never work on someone who is actually familiar with the game. It's almost a backwards progression. As two players grow in skill, they are able to punish each other less and less for the mistakes they make. They're making less mistakes, but they're not suffering any heat for making them, either. In melee, two players each growing in skill would make less mistakes all the same, but they would get punished harder and harder for making them, giving them a lot more incentive not to screw up. Brawl is too forgiving about this stuff. Players who thrived on punishing their foes for making mistakes, although they can still do that, are rewarded much less for it, while the game instead rewards players who camp more than anything. If you can successfully trick your opponent into getting hit 10 times in a row, more power to you, but it won't be comboing. It's all one big mindgame. Chasing a foe for consecutive hits has essentially replaced what every melee vet might consider a "combo."

 

[FalconPunch]

^This........

 

[Twin Dreams]

DI'ing out of a combo is different than DI'ing out of a string of attacks.



A combo is inescapable. However, in smash, they can DI. If they DI in one direction and I guess wrong and go the other way, that doesn't change the fact that it is no longer a combo. That's like saying no combos exist in MK because a combo breaker stops it.


DIing out of a string of attacks is when it would be a combo, but if you just hold away from your opponent. IT IS IN NO WAY A COMBO. You can get away and gain control of your character.


There is no such thing as a "true combo."

There are combos. There are things that are combos.

 

[ph00tbag]

My Ike vs MK example is a bit extreme. But for my Smash vs Rapier analogy, Brawl is by far more of a realistic fighting thingy than melee is. While you're fighting, it's the subsequent mistakes that lead to an opponents death. Same with Brawl. When my friend mis-spaces marth's fair and gets hit by my Mario's fireball over and over again, I'm slowly winning. Sure, you can get the random out-of-nowhere lunge that can kill people (Like Ike fsmashing MK at 60%) but it's about the small mistakes that add up.

This is why two things:

1) Brawl does have combos.

When you're fighting, when you lunge, disengage, disengage the compound parry, and then step lunge again for the win, you're seen as being victorious.

What really happened is that you lunged and you mindgamed your opponent to do a particular parry. Then you also knew that he was most likely to perform a different type of parry for the compound parry, so you disengaged that, then you knew that he was going to just completely back up instead of parrying again, so you went for the step-lunge.

At any point in time during that sequence, your opponent could've gotten free. At any point in time he could've mixed it up and made it so your glorious kill was another stalemate (there are a lot of stalemates in rapier ).

I really don't see how you're making these associations. For one thing, whenever you score a hit in a fighting game, it's only a step towards winning. When you score a hit in rapier, that's one game in the set, from my understanding. When you try to reexamine these sports side-by side, ultimately any comparison falls apart.

I could throw any number of real-world sports analogies that prove or disprove your point. But that would be pointless because I'd have to completely decontextualize both games, and the point would cease to be valid.

The point is: Smash is a fighting game, and fighting games (should) have combos. This is the way they're played.

2) Brawl should be played with 2 stocks.

This is more my opinion than actual reasoning (though there is reasoning behind it). Brawl so far has shown to have similar if not equal/greater "depth" to melee. The only problem is how "boring" it is. In my opinion, since Brawl deals with eye-for-an-eye compared to melees stock-for-a-mistake, Brawl matches should be very short. It's extremely easy to see when one person is better than another in a Brawl match. No need to drag it on for 3 more stocks. Same with when people are of equal skill level. Final matches in tourney's are already some ridiculously long Bo7, that could be shortened to Bo5 but with 3 stock matches.



I just think that people should understand that a combo (in smash terms) isn't an inescapable sequence of attacks. That is not only unrealistic, but somewhat lame (imo). And that if Brawl is "boring and too slow" then just play with shorter matches.

I have 2 stock matches with my noob friend and not only are they over in 2 minutes, but he has actually beaten me sometimes because I'm playing poorly or trying something crazy out. Which is exactly like real fighting. You don't need to be a super-athelete to have an advantage. Hell, the guy who teaches my classes is overweight, but he has the mindgames. Which, at the end of the day, are all that really matter.

I don't know where you're getting that Brawl has equal or greater depth than Melee. I'd say it's impossible for a game with random disadvantages meted out, most likely to characters with a slight positional advantage. Furthermore, the lack of combos makes the option of following up a bad option if it means giving up your positional advantage.

Furthermore, the fewer stocks, the greater the chance that tripping will have a significant effect on the outcome of the match. A stock could always be taken away by a significantly inopportune trip. Three stocks makes this less of a significant problem.

Finally. You need to stop asserting that "smash combos" are different from other combos. Because they're not. A combo is inescapable. It's a part of the definition, as accepted by pretty much everyone who is highly competitive at these games. It is stubborn and ignorant to say that these people with more experience have no idea what they're talking about. It doesn't matter if it's more or less realistic. These are video games anyway. Stop trying to compare them to something else.

 

[MarKO X]

Well, the problem here is still in the exact definition of a combo.

If you can escape a combo, does that mean it's a combo? If you didn't escape a combo that could've been escaped, does that make it a combo?

The thing with combos in other fighting games is that there seems to be two key elements to a combo: a string of attacks that naturally combo together (such as Ryu and Ken's Hurricane Kick from Street Fighter) and being able to cancel an attack into another attack (or even one combo into another combo). Smash games hardly have attacks that cancel into another to automatically create a combo based on button sequence, although certain attacks sequences are often given the term "combo" in Smash.

So I'll do a little compare and contrast session here just to help:

SFA3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdJXWTryZFU
Killer Instinct: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1BxFdsqhnM (you gotta love the 16 bit sound!!!)
UMK3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2zw9Jb6Wyk
Melee: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5d__PzWcaE
Brawl: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxTxmzrfuMk

Hopefully that helps.

My opinion: a combo in Brawl is not a combo at all... except in Brawl.

 

[Tyrael64]

Guys. There is no such thing as a "rapier" sport.

It is called FENCING. In FENCING, you fence with a "foil", "saber", or "epee".

 

[Master Peach]

Brawl has combos but to a small amount.

As far as I know only these characters can combo a little.

Diddy
Zamus
Sheik
Marth
Toon Link
Pit (a little)
Metaknight

I think Mario Falco, GAW, and Fox can combo. That's about as much as I know. But from what I've experienced these guys can combo, but not a lot, Probably at low percentages they can make it work.

Zamus out of all people can combo really well. With that whip and gun she can do anything.

If people disagree give me reason why you disagree and we'll share points on the matter.

 

[ThaRoy]

Oh my god, ALMOST ever post defines a combo and then says BUT SMASH HAS DI'ING SO IT DOESNT WORK.

WE ARE ALL TALKING ABOUT SUPER SMASH ****IN' BROTHERS BRAWL. HENCE THE FORUM. Wanna discuss combo'ing in Tekken, Street Fighter, Harry Potter Quiditch World Cup, or any other game...don't pollute this forum. Brawl has DI, Hitstun, Final Smashes, Japanese creator, and the ability for a Pink puff ball to swallow grenades...don't ***** and say "Well...Kirby did swallow the grenade which, since he is a puff ball, would give him explosion properties. No *******, this is Brawl, what happens is it detonates. See, we are all talking abou BRAWL, so don't deny or justify your points with saying that Brawl's properties don't allow for techniques to happen because that isn't the case. My god...this is like explaining to your ***** "well...she had STD's...but I didn't think you'd contract them because you peed in her ******..." At the end of the situation, you have STD's...she has pee in her ******. END OF STORY.

 

[uremog]

lol, wtf was that about? too hard to read.

when you can get another hit in before an enemy's hit stun from the last hit ends, it's a combo. otherwise, it's technically not. just because brawl doesn't have any of these that will always work doesn't mean we should redefine a word for the sake of the game. words have meanings and if you mean something else, use another word.

 

[Tirno]

lol, wtf was that about? too hard to read.

when you can get another hit in before an enemy's hit stun from the last hit ends, it's a combo. otherwise, it's technically not. just because brawl doesn't have any of these that will always work doesn't mean we should redefine a word for the sake of the game. words have meanings and if you mean something else, use another word.

That's what I tried to tell people like 2 pages ago, haha. I don't see why it's such a hard thing. Smash has a really easy thing to define combos around besides timing/prediction/any other arbitrary thing. If you hit your opponent more than once while they're hitstunned, it's a combo. Easy, right?

 

[Ballistaboy]

This is my sentiment exactly. I see Brawl being "deeper" than Melee merely because it's not retardedly broken. Oh noez! I attacked a pixel off and LOST AN ENTIRE STOCK. How is that fair? One mistake should be punished accordingly. Not an entire life lost.

In my opinion, the game should be understood in a move-by-move basis. In the previous Fox vs Marth example, Melee's flaws are shown because of exactly that: the combos. Oh look, one mistake that has a punishment completely out of proportion to the mistake.

I see Brawl as being far more neck-and-neck, far more fair. You need to play perfectly to pull off a combo, you need to play perfectly to even get 20% ahead. When you 0-to-death someone it's not "Oh, nice tech skill" it's "Oh snap! I just got tricked!"

It's because of this view, that I was confused with the definition of a combo. You can 0-to-death people in Brawl, but is that a combo? I would say yes, you attacked, they did not, you attacked again, they did not, you attacked again, and their defenses were not adaquate. To me, this is a combo. So because Brawl does have "combos", I don't understand why people say it's a bad game.

What puzzles me even further is that why do people want games with the strictest definition of "combo"? How sad is it that there are games where say 50% of your life can be taken off if you land this one particular move? Why don't you just make that move do 50% and void the combo all together? Sure, utilizing that combo is "skill", but at the pro level that "skill" is universal.

You think that in melee once you get combo'd its always a kill, usually its dealing damage of like 4 to like 7 hits sometimes more, it can lead to a kill but no always

 

[Yuna]

Why are people still arguing the definition of a combo in Smash? It's not a combo if people can get out of it. Just because they don't get out of it sometimes doesn't make it a combo, it makes the players bad players. Even with no hitstun, Smash DI and airdodging, certain things cannot be gotten out of. Those are combos.

The rest are just consecutive hits. Why are people so obsessed with being able to call everything and anything a combo?

 

[Eggz]

Come to Washington state and tell us combos don't exist in melee.

On a self contradictory note, however...

Melee may not have SF combos, but those consecutive hits are still combos. At certain %s, nair to knee with C. Falcon is inescapable.

Actually, nair doesn't even neccesarily connect, you can smash DI the first hit and not be hit by the second one..

 

[FakeKraid]

Melee was pretty **** balanced, too, if that's what you think balanced means. Unfortunately, balanced doesn't mean that. Brawl is more balanced than Melee, but that has no bearing on who will win, other than to say that there are more even match-ups than uneven, and there are about as many advantageous match-ups as there are disadvantageous for a majority of characters.

Actually, I think that improves my point a little bit, but perhaps I can improve my admonition even more with this revision, now that I have had a little time to think.

"Don't be down on Brawl players because they are learning a game that is so balanced that to win a match, you have to out-think your opponent not just a few times every match, but absolutely constantly, for the entire match, and for just about every hit you get. That is not easy to do consistently, but that is what separates the good players from the bad in Brawl."

 

[Commander Jesus]

my combos are so huge that i knock things off shelves with it

 

[FrostByte]

Actually, I think that improves my point a little bit, but perhaps I can improve my admonition even more with this revision, now that I have had a little time to think.

"Don't be down on Brawl players because they are learning a game that is so balanced that to win a match, you have to out-think your opponent not just a few times every match, but absolutely constantly, for the entire match, and for just about every hit you get. That is not easy to do consistently, but that is what separates the good players from the bad in Brawl."

What game have you been playing for the past 7 years?

 

[Undrdog]

Might I just mention that all fighting sports use this quote or a variation of it as their definition of a "combo" or "combination"?

"Attacks thrown in sequence, such as a left jab, followed by a straight right, followed by a left hook."

In other words you can block an entire combo. Why should our terminology be different? If you want to coin this definition of 'attacks after the first always landing' thing make a new term. Don't jack another.

 

[Twin Dreams]

* Combo

- n. - A series of hits that, once the first connects, the rest all continue to connect without giving the opponent the ability to defend at any point. Some games have moves that act as "Combo" breakers, but most do not. - v. - To perform a Combo on an opponent.



http://www.shoryuken.com/wiki/index.php/Glossary

 

[ThaRoy]

Might I just mention that all fighting sports use this quote or a variation of it as their definition of a "combo" or "combination"?

"Attacks thrown in sequence, such as a left jab, followed by a straight right, followed by a left hook."

In other words you can block an entire combo. Why should our terminology be different? If you want to coin this definition of 'attacks after the first always landing' thing make a new term. Don't jack another.

XD I can picture someone in a boxing match NO I JUST HIT YOU WITH A COMBO...YOU CANT ESCAPE! HAX! XD

On a serious note, very true.

 

[2DLogic]

Might I just mention that all fighting sports use this quote or a variation of it as their definition of a "combo" or "combination"?

"Attacks thrown in sequence, such as a left jab, followed by a straight right, followed by a left hook."

In other words you can block an entire combo. Why should our terminology be different? If you want to coin this definition of 'attacks after the first always landing' thing make a new term. Don't jack another.

Well, it's been said before, but real life is different from a video game. Not to mention that by this definition you could stand in the corner whiffing sequential attacks and it would be considered a combo as there is nothing mentioned about any connection to the opponent, defended against or not, with any of the blows.

 

[Undrdog]

Exactly, so come up with a new term for it. Take Pit for example. He can SHFairWoIWPBair. What this is is getting of a sequence of moves in one fluid motion. By sports definition this is a combo. However if we use the term combo as it's being used now, there is no longer a proper term for a sequence of attack/moves.

I know this sounds backwards and at this point it's probably less logical to change what we've been calling it. I'm just pointing out how backwards our terminology is and that people shouldn't be getting on other people's cases for using the word Combo or Combination properly. After all gaming is a new venue as far as sports are concerned and is the exception to the rule here.

However if someone could come up with a better term for a sequence of inescapable hits that would be great. It would certainly make things easier once professional gaming begins getting televised. (Note for those who don't already know, ESPN already has plans to include MLG and other gaming venues in their schedules. Whether this is gamings break into the sports venue or not has yet to be seen but we should at the very least begin to start thinking of people outside of our community.)


And to Twin Dreams... Very good, you were able to quote a gaming website that has zero affiliations with any professional sports. The definition I gave is pretty universally accepted in all fighting sports. My point is why should Smash be any different?

 

[Ch0zen0ne]

This is a combo
http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EWKyT37KiY
not a joke btw it is for real

 

[2DLogic]

Exactly, so come up with a new term for it. Take Pit for example. He can SHFairWoIWPBair. What this is is getting of a sequence of moves in one fluid motion. By sports definition this is a combo. However if we use the term combo as it's being used now, there is no longer a proper term for a sequence of attack/moves.

I know this sounds backwards and at this point it's probably less logical to change what we've been calling it. I'm just pointing out how backwards our terminology is and that people shouldn't be getting on other people's cases for using the word Combo or Combination properly. After all gaming is a new venue as far as sports are concerned and is the exception to the rule here.

However if someone could come up with a better term for a sequence of inescapable hits that would be great. It would certainly make things easier once professional gaming begins getting televised. (Note for those who don't already know, ESPN already has plans to include MLG and other gaming venues in their schedules. Whether this is gamings break into the sports venue or not has yet to be seen but we should at the very least begin to start thinking of people outside of our community.)

And to Twin Dreams... Very good, you were able to quote a gaming website that has zero affiliations with any professional sports. The definition I gave is pretty universally accepted in all fighting sports. My point is why should Smash be any different?

Point taken, but as said, video games are not real life. Just as words have different contextual meanings in various sports, so do they in fighting video games and fighting sports.
What allows this to hold true and for the traditional fighting game meaning of a combo to still be applicable to Smash is the fact that combos, by the traditional meaning(however few or situational they may be), do exist in Smash.

Having a unified vocabulary is always helpful, but as you said at this point it is very backwards and illogical to try to alter the definition of a combo for the possibility that there could be confusion if fighting games become a valid, mainstream "sport".

The definition Twin Dreams, and Magus back on the first page, linked to may not have anything to do with professional sports, but SRK is one of the most well known fighting game communities and the higher ups there are the ones who run the Evolution 2K series of fighting game tournaments. Something you'll surely know to be one of the most well known tournaments around. In other words, that is one of, if not the, most widely accepted definition of a combo in any fighting game community.

 

[Dash_Fox]

This thread is full of people who have the wrong idea of combos!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FJyKRfxHz8 <--- this is a combo (I love using MALVA combos for examples). It's inescapable, the training mode meter goes UP and doesn't break. DI can PREVENT a combo like this, as long as the meter goes up however, it's a combo. If the meter breaks, then it is not a combo, even if you hit your opponent after he has escaped the combo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB_XCCZv1qs <---- this is also a combo, even though the meter breaks here (only after grabs or the player smacking into walls). In SMASH 64 there are no wall techs and you're still stunned after slamming into walls (though the stun time goes shorter and knockback reduces). It is inescapable unless DI is used of course.

Same concept in Melee and Brawl. As long as combo meters go up, it's a combo (unless broken by grabs, but you can use your smash senses to tell if it works or not). As long as the other player can't DO ANYTHING except DI, then it's a combo in smash. No techs, no air dodging, no shielding, no quick counter attacks, nothing but DI. (which is why smash is so unique as a fighting game for all three games, you still have options even while being combo'd with DI).

There is no other meaning of a combo, no matter what someone may think. It's a chain of inescapable hits.

Seems most people here think that PUNISHING other players for mistakes or slow reaction times are combos. That is wrong, it's just a punish. Tech chasing is NOT a combo, it's just a punish.

In conclusion, the way Brawl is played right now, there are only a select few combos available within the game. Unless somebody finds a way to cancel any move lag, or finds a way to increase the speed of your character, there will never be a truly good combo system in Brawl, only punishment after punishment.

 

[MarKO X]

So after all of the bashing, flaming, and arguing, there are still two types of people in this thread...

1) People who think Brawl does have combos and say that a combo is a string of hits, whether you can avoid the hits after the first or not
2) People who think Brawl does not have combos, because the hitstun/attacklag ratio is like 1:2, thus making the majority of attacks very avoidable after the first hit.

Now on one hand, you can say that this game does have combos as well as "combo breakers" lol.

On the other hand, you can simply say that this game does not have combos because every "combo" can be escaped in mid-combo.

So I'll hold on to my statement until someone provides substantial evidence otherwise: A combo in Brawl is not a combo at all... except in Brawl.

Why do I say this? Because it's true, in other fighting games, a combo is a string of inescapable hits. But in Brawl, if attacks are strung together close enough where the opponent could've escaped but didn't, I (as well as others who are just spectating the match) will probably say, "That was a nice combo," even though our eyes didn't notice that during frame x, the opponent could've escaped.

So a combo in Brawl isn't a combo at all, except in Brawl.

 

[Twin Dreams]

o...m....f....g.....


Combo = String of inescapable hits.
Combo = Hitting an opponent that is STILL IN HIT STUN


Do combos exist in brawl? Yes! They do. There are some.


If the opponent is stupid/you trick them into getting hit a second time after a first hit, where normally they would be able to escape, it is not a combo. It is you being smarter than you opponent.


If I hit you and you fly across the stage, I chase you down and I hit you again. That is not a combo. There is time in between for you to get away.

What is the difference between one frame or one minute? What is the length of time between hits that would be considered a "combo-that-you-can-get-out-of-but-you're-dumb-and-you-didn't" (CTYCGOOBYDAYD)?



I'll say this once again.


There is a difference between a combo and your opponent being stupid.

 

[RAQU]

Melee's "consecutive hits" were harder to get out of, but there was no such thing as an "unescapable combo" in Melee due to Smash DI.

okay... use link and get waveshined the hell out... smash DI wont do a **** thing. you just have to hope the fox messes up. watch as you go from 40%-to KO'd almost every time. shine shine shine shine shine shine Usmash