A Brawl Gameplay Critique

[One_With_Sumthing]

"Brawl isn't Melee 2.0" and "It's too soon to tell".
edit: [JOKE!!!!]



Wow... I've never seen this kind of bickering... Let me offer some insight here:

Didn't read anything other than the first two posts and this one, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

For the Anti-Brawl: This game IS competitive. You can't blame the developers for fixing the flaws of Melee. It wasn't supposed to be a part of the game, but people exploited it anyway. As will be the case, I'm sure, when something comes up in Brawl.

=rolleyes=
Point 1, where does Sakurai say that "it" [I'm assuming you're referring to wavedashing, if not let me know] was a glitch? I don't read Sakurai's posts much, so I doubt I'd know, but I've yet to see valid proof. It was in both SSB and SSBM, no?
Point 2, even if it were a glitch, most seem to think of it as an improvement to the game; the newer players don't really need to worry about it anyways, so what's the big deal? Why must it be removed, just because the creators don't like that something happened in the game they didn't expect, even if it was a good addition? [And I still haven't seen stark proof that Sakurai did not intend to add wavedashing to the game in the first place...]

Everyone needs to understand WHY the game needed to be slowed down. To take advantage of the Online capabilities, ask yourself: Could you see yourself playing Melee online? A game that relies on split-second timing, at speeds of something that would take a T-4 connection to play smoothly? Let's be honest here... Even the best consoles have lag. The game was slowed down in an effort to appease the masses by giving them a chance to get used to a slower pace, so they COULD implement an online feature.

A valid theory, but far from fact, unless you can cite something and/or give more evidence of this.

As for the physics argument... that point is moot. It's about time that the game started to take on a bit more realistic element to it, instead of it just being "Smash and Kill". It brings about ACTUAL STRATEGY in a game that has been constantly criticized as being too much of a Slash and Bash, nonsensical series. I think we should be embracing this, because it's the first opportunity that they've had to impliment such a system. Not complaining because you can't take advantage of cheap efforts to steal a win.

I don't completely understand why the previous game didn't have "ACTUAL STRATEGY" and how it was less "realistic" than this. I do not recall any of the constant criticism, and if you're going to use that as part of your argument honestly, then you'd have to be a hypocrite, seeing as you're complaining about the complaints of the new system.

(I did read the "win at all costs" bs topic, I don't agree with it.)

I didn't, so nothing to say here.

There are plenty of strategies where you CAN win at all costs, without being a spamming, exploiting loser of a player.

I can vaguely understand this sentence, and so if you're to say something, is there some proof you have to offer?

Here's a challenge... Why don't you try the exploit tactics against Tabuu? See how long you last. The moves and physics were changed to MAKE the game competetive. If the whiners would actually sit down and PLAY the game, they would realize this. Instead of complaining about all that's been "taken out" of the game, look at what the game has to offer.

Who the hell is Tabuu? Also, I'm 99.99% certain that most of those who complain about the game spend more time playing it than arguing against it, which seems to be what you're implying is false here. Also, please explain how changing the physics somehow makes it more competitive instead of less competitive. What new competitive things does the game have to offer? That is the point here, no?

Characters ARE balanced, contrary to popular belief... They are effective for different styles of play. Ike is powerful but slow, Marth is weak, yet agile. Faclon is fast yet hard to control, Ganondorf is Slow, bulky but extremely powerful.

Not yet played the game, wouldn't know. However, I have high doubts about whether it's possible to truly balance that many characters in such a short time frame, especially since it seems they spent much time on other things.

Characters have strategies, we just need to find them and carve them out. So quit griping about it, and start playing!

I don't actually gripe, but I WISH I could play; this sentence means war against everyone who doesn't have this game. [is alone on this -.-'] Also, many strategies have actually been found. And I'm sure/hope those who gripe reasonably also do play.

I for one DO play to win. I'm very competetive, and I find this game is extremely entertaining and rewarding. (Just for those who claim I'm just a pacifist) I've beaten SSE on Intense... I know what it takes to win.

'K, thanks for this opinion post. Also, more unsupported statements.

 

[MaverickZer0]

Who the hell is Tabuu?

You're kidding, right?

Not yet played the game, wouldn't know.

That explains most of your post, right there.

K, thanks for this opinion post. Also, more unsupported statements.

You're welcome. Come back and argue when you actually have, then maybe most of my points will make sense to you,

-------------------

Just to clarify, this game isn't just about the "Brawl" feature, people. Try picking up the Subspace Emissary and Event modes too... SSE is 2 players, for you multiplayer junkies.

This game AS A WHOLE has much more than Melee. SSE will train you to be a better Smasher.

 

[One_With_Sumthing]

You're kidding, right?


Nope. Not kidding.


That explains most of your post, right there.


=rolleyes=
Just because I haven't played DOESN'T MEAN it's impossible for me to understand some of the concepts; really, it's painfully simple [in this case] to make the points I did, which do NOT REQUIRE me to have played the game.


You're welcome. Come back and argue when you actually have, then maybe most of my points will make sense to you,

Your you're welcome is not accepted.
I don't need to play the game, what I need is for you not to make unsupported statements, hoping for people to trust in them.
Please, don't tell me to come back; there's a great chance you'll be long gone.
Also, "maybe my points will make sense to you," doesn't cut it here. If you can't explain to someone just because they haven't played SSBB [and have played, the other 2 older versions], then you probably [scratch that, almost definitely], don't have a good point to make.

Those who make posts that others believe in the most are those who back it up. If you can't do that, it doesn't matter whether or not I have the game, I WON'T BELIEVE YOU.

-------------------

Just to clarify, this game isn't just about the "Brawl" feature, people. Try picking up the Subspace Emissary and Event modes too... SSE is 2 players, for you multiplayer junkies.

Haha, yeah, that's one of my favorite features in brawl.

This game AS A WHOLE has much more than Melee. SSE will train you to be a better Smasher.

SSE? What? Well, that is another opinion, I do suppose.

[This text is to make this post at least 10 characters]

 

[Fletch]

This game AS A WHOLE has much more than Melee. SSE will train you to be a better Smasher.

Absolutely hilarious. Playing a side-scrolling adventure mode with random items versus pre-programmed computers makes you a better Smasher? Better go play more SSE then, apparently I'm not good at this game.

 

[MaverickZer0]

Absolutely hilarious. Playing a side-scrolling adventure mode with random items versus pre-programmed computers makes you a better Smasher? Better go play more SSE then, apparently I'm not good at this game.

If you can't beat a pre-programmed computer... You must not be.

Honestly, the AI in this game (on the harder difficulties) are much more adapted to strategies. They are way more of a challenge than any spamming "expert" I've seen so far.

 

[Fletch]

If you can't beat a pre-programmed computer... You must not be.

Honestly, the AI in this game (on the harder difficulties) are much more adapted to strategies. They are way more of a challenge than any spamming "expert" I've seen so far.

You missed my sarcasm. The computers in this game, while an improvement over Melee's, are still completely ******** and walk into things such as charged Smash's and should never be played against seriously. If you think computers are better than human players, then I really feel bad for how ignorant you are.

 

[MaverickZer0]

You missed my sarcasm. The computers in this game, while an improvement over Melee's, are still completely ******** and walk into things such as charged Smash's and should never be played against seriously. If you think computers are better than human players, then I really feel bad for how ignorant you are.

Okay, what's your score on Cruel Brawl then, master?

 

[Fletch]

Okay, what's your score on Cruel Brawl then, master?

Infinity .

 

[Dream Chaser]

Ultimately, actions speak louder than words. If people want to play melee competitively, there will be competitive melee. And if you think that melee is better competitively, then thats your opinion. Because you cant measure what is "competitively better" quantitatively.

You could measure the number of people that are of the opinion that melee is a better competitive game than brawl.
Likewise, you could also test the speed the characters fall relative to the stage, but how this effects how good a competitive game is is entirely speculative (an opinion) as there isnt a quantitative measurement.

 

[Uck]

Ultimately, actions speak louder than words. If people want to play melee competitively, there will be competitive melee. And if you think that melee is better competitively, then thats your opinion. Because you cant measure what is "competitively better" quantitatively.

You could measure the number of people that are of the opinion that melee is a better competitive game than brawl.
Likewise, you could also test the speed the characters fall relative to the stage, but how this effects how good a competitive game is is entirely speculative (an opinion) as there isnt a quantitative measurement.

No quantitative measurement?

Stop trying to put everything into a formula and use common sense.You can say that theres no quantitative measurement in just about anything in life.

Do some reasearch and stop trying act so smart.Everyone has an opinion but try to have an informed one.
http://smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=42749 <-- This is a start for your measurments. rofl

 

[RBinator]

Wow... I've never seen this kind of bickering... Let me offer some insight here:

For the Anti-Brawl: This game IS competitive. You can't blame the developers for fixing the flaws of Melee. It wasn't supposed to be a part of the game, but people exploited it anyway. As will be the case, I'm sure, when something comes up in Brawl.

At the moment, Brawl isn't considered as competitive as Melee since the meta game didn't have much time to develop yet and not many advanced techniques being discovered yet, plus any other details I forget. What things do you consider flaws in Melee? Just because something wasn't intended doesn't mean it was bad. The players you speak of don't care if something is intended, they look at how it can improve or break the game.

Everyone needs to understand WHY the game needed to be slowed down. To take advantage of the Online capabilities, ask yourself: Could you see yourself playing Melee online? A game that relies on split-second timing, at speeds of something that would take a T-4 connection to play smoothly? Let's be honest here... Even the best consoles have lag. The game was slowed down in an effort to appease the masses by giving them a chance to get used to a slower pace, so they COULD implement an online feature.

Not really sure how to comment on this one.

As for the physics argument... that point is moot. It's about time that the game started to take on a bit more realistic element to it, instead of it just being "Smash and Kill". It brings about ACTUAL STRATEGY in a game that has been constantly criticized as being too much of a Slash and Bash, nonsensical series. I think we should be embracing this, because it's the first opportunity that they've had to impliment such a system. Not complaining because you can't take advantage of cheap efforts to steal a win.

Realism, in this kind of game? Are you serious? Just by saying "Smash and Kill" the way you did to me sounds like you don't understand the Melee meta game very much. Who has been saying Melee was too much of a "Slash and Bash" game? Anyone that sees Melee as a mere party game and not a deep fighting game didn't really look much into it. So you're saying Melee didn't have "actual strategy" before? Cheap effects to steal a win? Again, to me this sounds like you don't understand the Melee meta game very much.

(I did read the "win at all costs" bs topic, I don't agree with it.)

There are plenty of strategies where you CAN win at all costs, without being a spamming, exploiting loser of a player.

Actually, at the moment, Brawl rewards you more for projectile spamming then Melee did. Exploiting loser? Sounds more like the words of a scrub then a competitive player to me.

Here's a challenge... Why don't you try the exploit tactics against Tabuu? See how long you last. The moves and physics were changed to MAKE the game competetive. If the whiners would actually sit down and PLAY the game, they would realize this. Instead of complaining about all that's been "taken out" of the game, look at what the game has to offer.

Tabuu is almost nothing like facing another player. How in the world does playing against another player and against Tabuu remotely even compare?! Knowing how to beat Tabuu is hardly gonna do you any good against another player. What are these exploit tactics that you speak of? Those that have criticize the game are also looking at what the game offers and making the most of it.

Characters ARE balanced, contrary to popular belief... They are effective for different styles of play. Ike is powerful but slow, Marth is weak, yet agile. Faclon is fast yet hard to control, Ganondorf is Slow, bulky but extremely powerful.

As for the game being balanced, we're see how much this proves to be truth in the months and years to come. What do you mean Marth is weak? His tipper alone disproves that.

Characters have strategies, we just need to find them and carve them out. So quit griping about it, and start playing!

That's what we been doing, playing and that's the reason why there are critiques like this topic because of what was discovered about this game so far.

I for one DO play to win. I'm very competetive, and I find this game is extremely entertaining and rewarding. (Just for those who claim I'm just a pacifist) I've beaten SSE on Intense... I know what it takes to win.

Once again, you're comparing a single player (and co-op) mode to multiplayer. The skills required in Subspace are not the same skills required to take on a skilled human player. For someone who claims to be competitive, you sure seem to be making a lot of claims that doesn't hold water (like knowing how to beat CPU players) in the actual competitive area.

This game AS A WHOLE has much more than Melee. SSE will train you to be a better Smasher.

SSE training you to be a better Smasher in competitive play? Let's see...

You fight enemies with certain patterns.
Random items are all over the place.
You can use stickers to power up your characters only in this mode.
Bosses have a few select moves that can all be dodged.
Other stuff I missed.

How is all that gonna help you face a skilled player?

Honestly, the AI in this game (on the harder difficulties) are much more adapted to strategies. They are way more of a challenge than any spamming "expert" I've seen so far.

The AI in this game is better then Melee's, but still not anyway near that of a good human player. If the computers gave you more of a challenge then any human you faced, you must not have played against anyone good.

Okay, what's your score on Cruel Brawl then, master?

Once again, how does a single player mode relate to how good you are at the meta game?! Cruel Brawl is...

You against five CPUs at once.
Each CPU can KO you at very low damages with just regular attacks.

How does facing a bunch of handicapped CPUs at once relate to facing a single non-handicapped human player? Are you saying the same tactics you use against one human player is the same ones you use in Cruel Brawl?

At this rate, I find it very hard that you're competitive when you keep bringing up stuff that isn't related like using single player and co-op modes are arguments that you're good and the things you said about Melee.

10characters

 

[Fletch]

10characters

Thank you for completely dissecting and disproving his whole post, I didn't really feel like it because most of what he posted is just completely ridiculous.

 

[everlasting yayuhzz]

Hey there Mav, want to money match? I am one of those "spamming" people. So...how does $1000 sound? I'm sure you would take my money easily, so why not play me for it?

 

[MaverickZer0]

Haha... Having just played a dozen matches online (no items etc) against "competitive" people... it's pretty sad how "competitive" they were. I easily beat them, seeing as they didn't have very much incline to do much else other than randomly mash buttons.

 

[VulgarHandGestures]

wow. the original post was incredibly biased and myopic. "you don't kill people, they just die"? what the ****? and since when were games measured off of what other games have done? i've said this before, and i'll say it again: brawl is a new game, and comparing it to melee is setting yourself up for disappointment.

you all complain about how this game isn't as technical as melee, but guess what? melee doesn't require half the technical skill that some other games do. on the flip side, brawl requires more technical skill than many games before it. does that mean that, because melee isn't the most technical game out there, that it's "worse" than those other games? is brawl "better" than the games that require less technical skill? the obvious answer is no, good lord, no. putting melee and brawl into a vaccuum is absolutely, unequivocably moronic.

and while we're on the subject, brawl does not move more slowly than melee. all the videos i've seen on youtube, and all the matches i've played in, have finished JUST AS QUICKLY as matches in melee did. what you're really saying is, your character doesn't move as spastically in brawl as it did in melee, which is not the same thing. melee characters moved like ballet dancers compared to some of the things you could do in other games i've played; again, judging brawl based on melee is downright ********. all the things you claim to love and miss from melee, other games have ten times more of.

if you want to judge brawl based on melee, it's clear just from your approach to brawl that all you really want is more melee. if that's what you want, go ahead and keep playing melee. you're going to be left behind. you can whine and complain about how "brawl fails compared to melee" but all you're going to to lose are both competitive scenes, rather than just letting melee go.

not to mention how hypocritical it is to whine about what melee "was". you all carry on about the chaoticness and the speed and the technical demand, but let me tell you from personal experience, melee was not the fastest, or the most chaotic, or the most technically demanding game. you should all be denouncing melee for being slower than this or that game... but you're not, because when you get right down to it, you're just being childish.

brawl is a new game. if you don't like brawl, that's fine. go play something else. brawl is a new game. you can either appreciate it for what it is, and help it develop; or you can sit on the boards all day and cry about what it isn't, and i've already discussed how that's completely insipid. brawl is a new game.

 

[MaverickZer0]

Yes, agree with the above post.

If Nintendo released Melee with new characters, updated graphics and more stages... there would be MUCH more uproar than displacing self-proclaimed pros.

It's about as useful as comparing Street Fighter, and Street Fighter Alpha Turbo, comparing Animal Crossing with Animal Crossing: Wild World, comparing Pokemon Red with Pokemon Ranger... Just because it's the same FAMILY doesn't mean it's the EXACT same game.

Look at Super Smash Bros. (Original). Are you as good at it as you were? Do you enjoy it more than Melee and Brawl? Do you want the game to be more like that? Or were you happy with the update, to Melee after a while... It was fast at first, but you grew into it. Same goes with Brawl. Give it a chance, and you'll grow into it. It's much more entertaining.

 

[kamekasu]

Okay, what's your score on Cruel Brawl then, master?

How is this even a valid argument? Cruel Melee/Brawl is basically reduced to spamming kill moves, not any real strategy.

Haha... Having just played a dozen matches online (no items etc) against "competitive" people... it's pretty sad how "competitive" they were. I easily beat them, seeing as they didn't have very much incline to do much else other than randomly mash buttons.

How would you know they were competitive players? Playing on flat stages with no items doesn't make you competitive. Competitive players don't mash buttons. Real competitive players use strategy, true combos, 'advanced' techniques, etc. to win matches. If somebody like you, somebody who obviously doesn't even have a fundamental understanding of the Smash Bros. metagame, beat them, it's highly unlikely they were competitive players.

wow. the original post was incredibly biased and myopic. "you don't kill people, they just die"? what the ****? and since when were games measured off of what other games have done? i've said this before, and i'll say it again: brawl is a new game, and comparing it to melee is setting yourself up for disappointment.

Of course the original post is 'myopic,' it's only from the viewpoint of competitive play, something that Brawl miserably fails at. You obviously misunderstood the argument. What the post was trying to say is that because of the ridiculous amount of DI, you feel as though you have no control over when your opponent dies. Coupled with the inability to edgeguard effectively, it makes you feel as though "they just die" rather than you killing them.

Brawl is the sequel to Melee. Sequels are meant to improve on previous games. It will always be compared to it's predecessor.

you all complain about how this game isn't as technical as melee, but guess what? melee doesn't require half the technical skill that some other games do. on the flip side, brawl requires more technical skill than many games before it. does that mean that, because melee isn't the most technical game out there, that it's "worse" than those other games? is brawl "better" than the games that require less technical skill? the obvious answer is no, good lord, no. putting melee and brawl into a vaccuum is absolutely, unequivocably moronic.

I'd argue the opposite. The hand speed to pull off maneuvers such as shorthop-triple laser or ICs chaingrabs is comparable to something like Renda Canceling in Street Fighter 2. Brawl, on the other hand requires a great deal less technical ability. You obviously didn't play Melee competitively if you're making these comments.

and while we're on the subject, brawl does not move more slowly than melee. all the videos i've seen on youtube, and all the matches i've played in, have finished JUST AS QUICKLY as matches in melee did. what you're really saying is, your character doesn't move as spastically in brawl as it did in melee, which is not the same thing. melee characters moved like ballet dancers compared to some of the things you could do in other games i've played; again, judging brawl based on melee is downright ********. all the things you claim to love and miss from melee, other games have ten times more of.

Uhh.... Brawl absolutely does move slower than Melee. There is no L-canceling whatsoever. That means there is significantly more lag on all aerials. Lag = slow.

The original post is critiquing Brawl from the viewpoint of the competitive Melee player. If you don't understand this, or are ignorant of competitive Melee, your opinion is more or less invalid.

if you want to judge brawl based on melee, it's clear just from your approach to brawl that all you really want is more melee. if that's what you want, go ahead and keep playing melee. you're going to be left behind. you can whine and complain about how "brawl fails compared to melee" but all you're going to to lose are both competitive scenes, rather than just letting melee go.

Nobody wants more Melee. What most competitive players want out of Brawl is a game capable of being played just as competitively as previous installations. As the original post articulates intelligently, this is nearly impossible considering the fundamental game mechanics. Of course, there has been little development of the metagame at this point, but the original post makes it clear that this is a critique of Brawl based on observations so far.

not to mention how hypocritical it is to whine about what melee "was". you all carry on about the chaoticness and the speed and the technical demand, but let me tell you from personal experience, melee was not the fastest, or the most chaotic, or the most technically demanding game. you should all be denouncing melee for being slower than this or that game... but you're not, because when you get right down to it, you're just being childish.

Again, Melee was an incredibly fast game. It is clear from your posts, and your join date, that you did not play Melee competitively. Nobody denounces Melee in comparison to other fighting games because it is 'slower.' This is because they are different styles of games. These days, there are few platform based 2D fighters. The 'fast' games you're thinking of are twitch-3D fighters with different mechanics and engines. The comparisons between Melee and Brawl are drawn because they are based on a similar engine.

brawl is a new game. if you don't like brawl, that's fine. go play something else. brawl is a new game. you can either appreciate it for what it is, and help it develop; or you can sit on the boards all day and cry about what it isn't, and i've already discussed how that's completely insipid. brawl is a new game.

Again, nowhere in the original post does it say that anybody dislikes Brawl. These are simply well-thought out explanations as to why Brawl cannot be as competitive as Melee. I want these to be untrue as much as anyone.

Congratulations on using numerous words incorrectly.

Yes, agree with the above post.

If Nintendo released Melee with new characters, updated graphics and more stages... there would be MUCH more uproar than displacing self-proclaimed pros.

I doubt it. I think a graphical update with more stages and new characters would be welcomed as long as some engine changes were implemented. Mechanics like footstool jumping are interesting additions that most people enjoy. It's useless, detrimental additions such as tripping that pisses most people off. I could care less whether or not wavedashing was removed, as long as dash-dancing was still viable to augment ground combat. People don't respond particularly well to change.

It's about as useful as comparing Street Fighter, and Street Fighter Alpha Turbo, comparing Animal Crossing with Animal Crossing: Wild World, comparing Pokemon Red with Pokemon Ranger... Just because it's the same FAMILY doesn't mean it's the EXACT same game.

Animal Crossing and Pokemon aren't valid analogies, they aren't the same genre. On Street Fighter: Though they are from the same family, they aren't direct sequels and weren't expected to be similar. Street Fighter Alpha was basically an attempt on the part of Capcom to cash in on the release of the Street Fighter movie and was received poorly by the fighting game community. It barely counts as a competitive game. Brawl is meant to improve on Melee, and instead it reduces whatever good, competitive aspects the previous game had.

Look at Super Smash Bros. (Original). Are you as good at it as you were? Do you enjoy it more than Melee and Brawl? Do you want the game to be more like that? Or were you happy with the update, to Melee after a while... It was fast at first, but you grew into it. Same goes with Brawl. Give it a chance, and you'll grow into it. It's much more entertaining.

I'm decently good at Smash 64. I'm no Isai, but I certainly don't get 4-stocked every match. Most people were up in arms at Melee because it was nearly impossible to combo in comparison to 64 (among other criticisms), but eventually the game sped up; the opposite of what you're saying. Yes, the metagame will evolve, and we'll be able to enjoy the game more in the competitive community, but the end result is still a game that is less technical and competitive than Melee.

 

[MaverickZer0]

kame, you've never played me, you don't know what my style is nor has any other elitist on this board... so quit claiming I know nothing of the "metagame". You people know nothing of the "metagame" either. Just because you play tournys every waking moment of your lives, doesn't make you any better of a player than someone who plays it with their friends a lot. How do you know those people staying home and Smashing with their friends wouldn't kick your *** in a tourny? Well, they stay home... so I suppose you won't know...

As for the updated Melee... you said it yourself with Street Fighter. THIS GAME IS NOT A DIRECT SEQUEL.

So quit treating it like one! If it were, it would have been called SSB Melee 2. It's a different game in the series, and thus should be tried as one.

Whether or not it's competitive RIGHT NOW is a moot point, because eventually it will become MORE competitive, as melee experts slowly start to develop strategies (as I've seen already start happening...) and actually get into the core "metagame".

If you want to argue semantics, then really Brawl should be compared to the likes of Mario party, rather than Street Fighter... but I digress. As much as people claim they wouldn't have been ****ed off at a Melee 2.0, people would have. A lot have actually claimed that's all brawl is (which is really isn't...). This game is one of itself. Would you consider Melee an Original SSB 2.0? I don't think so. It's a different game, only similiar in the way you win matches.

And I remember the criticism of Melee being too much of a fast paced game. Not fast as you claim as in matches. I remember the constant criticism, which is much similar to that plaguing brawl right now. I've seen matches go by very quickly. I've seen people get KO'd at 80%... so it's about developing a Brawl strategy, not bringing over a Melee strategy and ****ing because it doesn't work anymore.

 

[kamekasu]

kame, you've never played me, you don't know what my style is nor has any other elitist on this board... so quit claiming I know nothing of the "metagame". You people know nothing of the "metagame" either. Just because you play tournys every waking moment of your lives, doesn't make you any better of a player than someone who plays it with their friends a lot. How do you know those people staying home and Smashing with their friends wouldn't kick your *** in a tourny? Well, they stay home... so I suppose you won't know...

You're absolutely right, I haven't played you so I wouldn't know your level of skill. I do know I improved a great deal from playing in tournaments. They give you an opportunity to compete against people who play at a higher level and you learn to adapt. More often than not, it is basic techniques that separates the tournament-goers from the "play for fun" set. People who do not frequent sites such as Smashboards, or do not regularly attend tournaments remain ignorant of these techniques and never improve. It was an unfair assumption, however, for me to say that you don't understand the metagame. That said, I challenge you to prove me wrong. Post a video or something that shows your level of skill, and the rest of this board can evaluate whether or not you would... "kick my ___."

As for the updated Melee... you said it yourself with Street Fighter. THIS GAME IS NOT A DIRECT SEQUEL.

So quit treating it like one! If it were, it would have been called SSB Melee 2. It's a different game in the series, and thus should be tried as one.

Uh... Naming schemes have nothing to do with whether or not a game is a direct sequel. For example, Secret of Mana is a direct sequel of Final Fantasy Adventure, yet they have completely different names. I hardly think Super Smash Bros. Melee 2 or Super Smash Bros. 3 is marketable.

Whether or not it's competitive RIGHT NOW is a moot point, because eventually it will become MORE competitive, as melee experts slowly start to develop strategies (as I've seen already start happening...) and actually get into the core "metagame".

Again, you're right on here. I've already conceded the metagame will evolve, and I am glad. However, the entire premise of the original post is that it will be difficult for it to do so because of inherent flaws in the games mechanics. In the end is a game that is less deep or technical than Melee. This has been said before.

If you want to argue semantics, then really Brawl should be compared to the likes of Mario party, rather than Street Fighter... but I digress.

I have no idea what you're talking about. At least Brawl and Street Fighter are in the same genre.

As much as people claim they wouldn't have been ****ed off at a Melee 2.0, people would have. A lot have actually claimed that's all brawl is (which is really isn't...). This game is one of itself. Would you consider Melee an Original SSB 2.0? I don't think so. It's a different game, only similiar in the way you win matches.

The argument that people make for Brawl being Melee 2.0 is the lack of new characters. Nobody takes this seriously. I never said Melee 2.0 was a good thing, rather that some people would see it as the lesser of two evils. This is not necessarily my viewpoint, it was just a response to your argument.

And I remember the criticism of Melee being too much of a fast paced game. Not fast as you claim as in matches. I remember the constant criticism, which is much similar to that plaguing brawl right now. I've seen matches go by very quickly. I've seen people get KO'd at 80%... so it's about developing a Brawl strategy, not bringing over a Melee strategy and ****ing because it doesn't work anymore.

I'm not really sure how the competitive community received it when it was first released, I only started playing Smash competitively around 2004. It seems to me that the people who complained of it being too fast were mostly reviewers from enthusiast magazines, not competitive gamers.

The speed in which matches end is not the speed that the competitive community complains about. It's the omission of L-canceling and the noticeable floatiness of all characters. If you've seen people get KO'd at 80%, they obviously don't know how to DI or they were edgeguarded, a rarity. I could care less whether or not Melee strategy carries over, new strategies will always be there to replace it. It's the removal of competitive fighting game staples that pisses off the competitive community.

I doubt it'll last long, though. The metagame will continue to evolve, as it does for all games, and this complaining will stop. But it's ridiculous to insult the assertions made in the original post, as they are all valid arguments at this point in time.

 

[MaverickZer0]

People have found strategies already, and are evolving inherent flaws and character traits in Brawl. For example, I've seen on the char. strategies that Peach can wavedash, I've seen that L-Cancel is still in the game, that there are slightly tweaked versions of wavedashing present, ect. It's not that they took out the essential pieces which made Melee competitive, it's simply they have been re-engineered into the game slightly, to make it so that we have to find it out all over again.

My only problem now, is that there are still elitists who flat out refuse to admit that there is any evolution happening with Brawl, and simply continue to blindly follow what was known from day zero. Which is now proving to be a hollow argument to hold in front of yourself... Now with proof of valid combos, strategies, glitches and exploits now surfacing all over the place.

 

[VulgarHandGestures]

Of course the original post is 'myopic,' it's only from the viewpoint of competitive play, something that Brawl miserably fails at. You obviously misunderstood the argument. What the post was trying to say is that because of the ridiculous amount of DI, you feel as though you have no control over when your opponent dies. Coupled with the inability to edgeguard effectively, it makes you feel as though "they just die" rather than you killing them.

Brawl is the sequel to Melee. Sequels are meant to improve on previous games. It will always be compared to it's predecessor.

i didn't mean myopic as in "looking from a competitive melee player's standpoint," i meant myopic as in, "i already have my own idea of what this game needs to be, and if it doesn't meet my preconceived expectations, i will 'count off', whether or not i actually enjoy what i do find." i knew from the opening paragraph that this was just going to be a massive *****-fest, with absolutely no word on what brawl does well. (now i'm just waiting for you to tell me that brawl does absolutely nothing well...)

I'd argue the opposite. The hand speed to pull off maneuvers such as shorthop-triple laser or ICs chaingrabs is comparable to something like Renda Canceling in Street Fighter 2. Brawl, on the other hand requires a great deal less technical ability. You obviously didn't play Melee competitively if you're making these comments.

first of all, i did play melee competitively. i was bad (i.e., i never won any of the tournaments i attended), but seeing as how i've never heard of you, it's clear you're not exactly a noteworthy player either.

ok, yes, pulling off shdl in melee and shtl in brawl requires some finger speed. whoop-dee-****ing-doo. that kind of speed isn't required to play the game in any capacity. shdl was a novelty, and my guess is, shtl will be a novelty as well.

Uhh.... Brawl absolutely does move slower than Melee. There is no L-canceling whatsoever. That means there is significantly more lag on all aerials. Lag = slow.

The original post is critiquing Brawl from the viewpoint of the competitive Melee player. If you don't understand this, or are ignorant of competitive Melee, your opinion is more or less invalid.

good job not reading at all. this game is just as fast as melee, in terms of kill time. what you're really whining about is the fact that your character doesn't jerk around like it did in melee, which is NOT THE SAME THING.

aside from that, landing lag on aerials has been naturally reduced to the point that most moves in brawl will end in a time frame similar to if you had l-canceled that same move in melee. you're just looking for things to complain about.

Nobody wants more Melee. What most competitive players want out of Brawl is a game capable of being played just as competitively as previous installations. As the original post articulates intelligently, this is nearly impossible considering the fundamental game mechanics. Of course, there has been little development of the metagame at this point, but the original post makes it clear that this is a critique of Brawl based on observations so far.

which is exactly what i'm taking issue with. THIS GAME HAS BEEN OUT FOR TWO WEEKS IN AMERICA. making a "competitive critique" like this is irresponsible, blatantly pointless, and i think it clearly reflects a desire to simply complain about something. honestly, who the **** is the thread starter? what has he done in melee's competitive scene? what qualifies him to start this thread? who are you? why do you get to call my competitive experience into question?

Again, Melee was an incredibly fast game. It is clear from your posts, and your join date, that you did not play Melee competitively. Nobody denounces Melee in comparison to other fighting games because it is 'slower.' This is because they are different styles of games. These days, there are few platform based 2D fighters. The 'fast' games you're thinking of are twitch-3D fighters with different mechanics and engines. The comparisons between Melee and Brawl are drawn because they are based on a similar engine.

melee was not "incredibly fast" by any stretch of the imagination. it has some speed, yes, but the mere fact that i could follow what was happening removes it from my list of games i would consider "fast."

my join date means nothing. firstly, i had an old account that i simply forgot the password to. second, my first tournament was the first MOAST, back in, ohhhhh... 2004? i forget. when was your first tournament?

Again, nowhere in the original post does it say that anybody dislikes Brawl. These are simply well-thought out explanations as to why Brawl cannot be as competitive as Melee. I want these to be untrue as much as anyone.

Congratulations on using numerous words incorrectly.

these explanations are not well thought out, or intelligent, or articulate. this a *****-fest. this is an unreasonably negative post complaining about how brawl, with it's full month-and-a-half of public play, doesn't have the developed competitive scene that melee has. i mean... honestly? honestly?

what words did i use incorrectly? everything looked fine to me last night, but then again, i was writing at 3:30 in the morning. something tells me you're just looking for something to help you feel superior, though.

 

[kamekasu]

i didn't mean myopic as in "looking from a competitive melee player's standpoint," i meant myopic as in, "i already have my own idea of what this game needs to be, and if it doesn't meet my preconceived expectations, i will 'count off', whether or not i actually enjoy what i do find."

This is the first example of a word you misuse. Myopic means short-sighted, or unable to see from multiple view points.

i knew from the opening paragraph that this was just going to be a massive *****-fest, with absolutely no word on what brawl does well. (now i'm just waiting for you to tell me that brawl does absolutely nothing well...)

Of course it's not about what Brawl does well. The original post makes it quite clear that it was a criticism of what Brawl does poorly. It's not hard to make a list of what Brawl does well, but that wasn't the purpose of the thread. Try and understand this.

first of all, i did play melee competitively. i was bad (i.e., i never won any of the tournaments i attended), but seeing as how i've never heard of you, it's clear you're not exactly a noteworthy player either.

Are you serious right now? Sure, the top 20-30 players in the US are well known, but to play competitively you don't need to be in the upper echelon. I may not be on the Norcal Power Rankings, but b

ok, yes, pulling off shdl in melee and shtl in brawl requires some finger speed. whoop-dee-****ing-doo. that kind of speed isn't required to play the game in any capacity. shdl was a novelty, and my guess is, shtl will be a novelty as well.

As a Fox main, I have to say SHDL was an incredibly useful tool: As support in doubles and when playing defensively or on an approach. That's not even the point. What I'm trying to say is that there are a number of techniques in Smash Bros. that require some significant amount of dexterity.

good job not reading at all. this game is just as fast as melee, in terms of kill time. what you're really whining about is the fact that your character doesn't jerk around like it did in melee, which is NOT THE SAME THING.

That's besides the point. While kills may seem to occur at the same speed, the original post tries to say that most kills feel as if they occur by chance, as though you have no control over them thanks to ridiculous DI/floatiness. You never really refute this point. Instead you try to make the original poster to be some sort of idiot for having this valid opinion.

I still don't really understand what you're trying to say about characters "jerking around." What does that mean?

aside from that, landing lag on aerials has been naturally reduced to the point that most moves in brawl will end in a time frame similar to if you had l-canceled that same move in melee. you're just looking for things to complain about.

I don't really know how to respond to this.... Have you ever L-canceled a move before? Trying playing Link in Melee, and then immediately after play a match with him in Brawl. The lack of L-canceling is crippling.

which is exactly what i'm taking issue with. THIS GAME HAS BEEN OUT FOR TWO WEEKS IN AMERICA. making a "competitive critique" like this is irresponsible, blatantly pointless, and i think it clearly reflects a desire to simply complain about something. honestly, who the **** is the thread starter? what has he done in melee's competitive scene? what qualifies him to start this thread? who are you? why do you get to call my competitive experience into question?

The original poster had the game when it was released in Japan, as did I. A competitive critique is valid after about a month of play. People other than the most well-known pros can form opinions about the future of Brawl's metagame. If you think it's only the Azens and Isais that shape the competitive community, you're sadly mistaken.

The original poster has a right to start this thread because he obviously has some experience with competitive Melee and wanted to make predictive arguments about the future of competitive Brawl. I have a right to call your competitive experience into question based on the misinformed, ignorant posts you've made in this thread.

melee was not "incredibly fast" by any stretch of the imagination. it has some speed, yes, but the mere fact that i could follow what was happening removes it from my list of games i would consider "fast."

... ... So you're saying a game is good if you can't follow what's going on? With that argument, Street Fighter, SoulCalibur, VirtuaFighter, SNK, and all other fighting games are "bad." Watch some of Daigo's matches on YouTube. They are incredibly technical and 'slow,' but I doubt you'd be able to pull of the kinds of techniques he is capable of. It takes just as much practice and dedication to becom good at Smash Bros.

my join date means nothing. firstly, i had an old account that i simply forgot the password to. second, my first tournament was the first MOAST, back in, ohhhhh... 2004? i forget. when was your first tournament?

That's a blatant lie. MOAST was established in 2007. Stop lying about your skill in Smash Bros. and actually become good before criticizing people who have actually invested some amount of time into the game.

these explanations are not well thought out, or intelligent, or articulate. this a *****-fest. this is an unreasonably negative post complaining about how brawl, with it's full month-and-a-half of public play, doesn't have the developed competitive scene that melee has. i mean... honestly? honestly?

It's not even that negative. You still misunderstand the point of the post. It's not complaining about the lack of advanced techniques, that will come with time. It's predicting that there will not be a fully developed metagame like Melee due to fundamental faults with the game engine.

 

[Nemireck]

Of course the original post is 'myopic,' it's only from the viewpoint of competitive play, something that Brawl miserably fails at.

You can not make this claim until competitive play actually starts and develops. As of right now, the game has not been out long enough to know whether Brawl's mechanics lead to a better, worse or different competitive game than Melee.

You obviously misunderstood the argument. What the post was trying to say is that because of the ridiculous amount of DI, you feel as though you have no control over when your opponent dies. Coupled with the inability to edgeguard effectively, it makes you feel as though "they just die" rather than you killing them.

This comment is ridiculous, the fact that most characters need to be around or above 100% to be sent flying off the stage makes sense, it is not a detriment to the game, or the competitive atmosphere of the game. When I land a move, I still know whether or not I've killed the person based on how much damage they've already taken, and whether or not I hit them with the sweet-spot of the move. Couple that with the FACT that you can still send people flying off the stage at 80% or less (albeit depending on sweet-spot hits and location of the characters), without a chance of even making a recovery attempt, and your DI argument is shown to be flawed.

I'd argue the opposite. The hand speed to pull off maneuvers such as shorthop-triple laser or ICs chaingrabs is comparable to something like Renda Canceling in Street Fighter 2. Brawl, on the other hand requires a great deal less technical ability. You obviously didn't play Melee competitively if you're making these comments.

This is where your the flaw of your ENTIRE argument is revealed. You are equating technical (actually, physical) skill with competition, and it's a flawed idea to begin with. Look at the game of chess... it requires NO physical talent at all. It is a game based entirely on the mental aspect of competition, yet it STILL requires skill, and is still hugely competitive. If you remove a technique that requires a high level of physical skill (timing, quick fingers, etc.), then it is replaced with either, different physical skills, or mental skills.

Uhh.... Brawl absolutely does move slower than Melee. There is no L-canceling whatsoever. That means there is significantly more lag on all aerials. Lag = slow.

Not significantly... Many aerials have had their lag-time reduced to that of a Melee L-Cancel. Other aerials DO have lag, and that's a balance issue, and one that may have actually increased the level of competition by balancing powerful moves on certain characters. You now have to be much more careful about your move selection, because you can't use an obligatory button-mash to cover up for your mistakes.

The original post is critiquing Brawl from the viewpoint of the competitive Melee player. If you don't understand this, or are ignorant of competitive Melee, your opinion is more or less invalid.

Actually, the original post is a *****-fest from a player complaining because all of his technical crutches that he used to put himself above comparable players have been tweaked or removed from Brawl. For a game to be competitive, ALL that is required is a collection of players who are willing to compete. Nothing more, nothing less. To measure that competitiveness, you simply observe how close in skill-level those players are, and THAT is your competitive level. A game where ONE player dominates for 5 years is NOT as competitive as a game where FIVE different players win throughout those 5 years. Notice that the level of competition is not based on any technical skill, ability, maneuver, tactic, strategy, combo, character, technique, mind-game or even the game/sport/activity being competed at. The ONLY thing 'competition' is based on is the relative skill level of the players involved in the competition.

Nobody wants more Melee. What most competitive players want out of Brawl is a game capable of being played just as competitively as previous installations. As the original post articulates intelligently, this is nearly impossible considering the fundamental game mechanics. Of course, there has been little development of the metagame at this point, but the original post makes it clear that this is a critique of Brawl based on observations so far.

SSB did not have wave-dashing, and it was highly competitive. L-Canceling is not a skill-move and it's removal will have little to no effect on the competitive atmosphere of the game. It could be argued that with the removal of Wave-Dashing, more players are now able to compete at a high level, and thus with a bigger player-pool, the game is actually, by default, MORE competitive.

Again, nowhere in the original post does it say that anybody dislikes Brawl. These are simply well-thought out explanations as to why Brawl cannot be as competitive as Melee. I want these to be untrue as much as anyone.

They are not well-though out, because the entire idea that Brawl cannot be as competitive as Melee is based on a flawed assumption. That is, that the more technical-skill (physical-skill) required, the more competitive the game will be. The reverse is actually true. By making the game slightly easier, MORE players can compete at the top level, which means MORE competition.

Brawl is meant to improve on Melee, and instead it reduces whatever good, competitive aspects the previous game had.

Who says those competitive aspects were "good"? The competitive community of Melee? It's a biased opinion from players who enjoyed the aspects of Melee that you're referring to. There is a large segment of Smash players who felt that wave-dashing ruined their chances of competing, simply because they're better at playing an SSB64-style game where move selection, timing, defense and mind-games are the central focus of competition, not rapid button-mashing to pull off a series of complex, high-skill maneuvers.

Yes, the metagame will evolve, and we'll be able to enjoy the game more in the competitive community, but the end result is still a game that is less technical and competitive than Melee.

You finally hit the nail on the head, and you didn't even mean to. All that your argument boils down to is that Brawl is a less technical game than Melee. And in the sense that it requires less physical-talent and rapid-button pressing than Melee, you are absolutely correct. But to assert that the game will be less competitive because of that is a baseless assumption that actually goes against the reality of competition. And that reality dictates that the easier a game is, the more competitive the game will be, because more players will be able to compete at a similar level. That is why more people play Soccer in the world than play Hockey, Football, Baseball or Golf. That is why basketball is becoming such a competitive sport. The more a game is stripped down to basics, the more competitive that game will be, EVERY time.

PS: Tripping is the worst inclusion in a game ever.

 

[VulgarHandGestures]

This is the first example of a word you misuse. Myopic means short-sighted, or unable to see from multiple view points.

dictionary.com says:

Myopic -
1. Ophthalmology. pertaining to or having myopia; nearsighted.
2. unable or unwilling to act prudently; shortsighted.
3. lacking tolerance or understanding; narrow-minded.

so how is being unable to see brawl for what it can do instead of what it can't do not narrow-minded? there are lots of games that can't do what melee can do, and they are successful all the same, so why are you ripping into brawl because it doesn't have some of the same things melee had? judging a game in a series based on past installments is natural, but it doesn't get anybody anywhere. brawl is a new game; treat it as such, and stop throwing tantrums because not every character can wavedash now.

Of course it's not about what Brawl does well. The original post makes it quite clear that it was a criticism of what Brawl does poorly. It's not hard to make a list of what Brawl does well, but that wasn't the purpose of the thread. Try and understand this.

but i have to ask, WHY? why do you feel the need to do this? why do you think you even CAN do this? did anybody have any idea what melee would turn out to be when we first got it? hell no! so why are you already judging brawl based on a month and a half with the game? you have literally zero idea of what direction this game is going to take, and pretending otherwise is incredibly arrogant. this is just plain old, balls to the wall, no holds barred stupid.

As a Fox main, I have to say SHDL was an incredibly useful tool: As support in doubles and when playing defensively or on an approach. That's not even the point. What I'm trying to say is that there are a number of techniques in Smash Bros. that require some significant amount of dexterity.

there are techniques like that, i agree. but they're not what made the competitive scene. things like shuffling made the competitive scene, and shuffling, as far as technical demand in the gaming world, is nothing.

That's besides the point. While kills may seem to occur at the same speed, the original post tries to say that most kills feel as if they occur by chance, as though you have no control over them thanks to ridiculous DI/floatiness. You never really refute this point. Instead you try to make the original poster to be some sort of idiot for having this valid opinion.

that's because it's a completely moronic thing to say. i heard ken di'ed his way out of three rests in melee, and that move was a 2hko at worst on gigabowser, who is much heavier than marth. i mean, that's beyond ridiculous. rest is supposed to be a 1hko on any player character, but ken took three due to di? but no, it's just BRAWL'S di that is overpowered, everything was perfect in melee, waaah, waaah...

this "kills occur by chance" stuff is completely out-of-this-world. seriously. as though it's an accident... good lord. a thought like that has never once crossed my mind as i've played brawl. go ahead, tell me it's because i'm just bad at video games and don't know what i'm doing at all.

I still don't really understand what you're trying to say about characters "jerking around." What does that mean?

by "jerking around" i'm referencing the unnatural, spastic movements you could make in melee. one of the guys in my area plays a peach who looks like she's just kind of tumbling across the stage, due to his liberal use of dd'ing, rolling, wd'ing, and spotdodging even as he's making his approach. characters don't move like that in brawl. and i understand if that makes you upset, but that's still not the same thing as "slowing the game down."

I don't really know how to respond to this.... Have you ever L-canceled a move before? Trying playing Link in Melee, and then immediately after play a match with him in Brawl. The lack of L-canceling is crippling.

link is a bad character as it is, so i would say that example is bordering on invalid. that aside, i recognize that some moves in brawl still have significant lag upon landing, which is why i made it a point to qualify my statement in my last post. i was mostly going off my experiences with the characters i use (of which, link is not one), with whom my landing lag, on most attacks, is not terribly detrimental. it's there, but it seems to have been reduced.

i think the first post in this thread confirms this, as well.

The original poster had the game when it was released in Japan, as did I. A competitive critique is valid after about a month of play. People other than the most well-known pros can form opinions about the future of Brawl's metagame. If you think it's only the Azens and Isais that shape the competitive community, you're sadly mistaken.

that's not what i said. i just think that any random "competitive" player doesn't necessarily have a right to go spouting off about this or that because he attended an mlg tournament. of course the top 20 players aren't driving the entire community, but does that mean the random kids who discovered wavedashing in 2007 ARE?

The original poster has a right to start this thread because he obviously has some experience with competitive Melee and wanted to make predictive arguments about the future of competitive Brawl. I have a right to call your competitive experience into question based on the misinformed, ignorant posts you've made in this thread.

so because i disagree with your assessment on brawl's competitive future, i'm ignorant.

that's great.

... ... So you're saying a game is good if you can't follow what's going on? With that argument, Street Fighter, SoulCalibur, VirtuaFighter, SNK, and all other fighting games are "bad." Watch some of Daigo's matches on YouTube. They are incredibly technical and 'slow,' but I doubt you'd be able to pull of the kinds of techniques he is capable of. It takes just as much practice and dedication to becom good at Smash Bros.

no, that's not what i'm saying. you're intentionally misinterpreting what i'm saying, at this point...

That's a blatant lie. MOAST was established in 2007. Stop lying about your skill in Smash Bros. and actually become good before criticizing people who have actually invested some amount of time into the game.

blatant lie? are you high? i don't even know how to respond to this... good lord.

It's not even that negative. You still misunderstand the point of the post. It's not complaining about the lack of advanced techniques, that will come with time. It's predicting that there will not be a fully developed metagame like Melee due to fundamental faults with the game engine.

i don't know how you're not getting this. there are no "fundamental faults with the game," it's just a new game. so any game that has differences from melee is "faulty"? and that's not a negative outlook?

 

[Metaphist]

The following statement needs to be stickied on the entire internet for all competitive gamers to see.

...You are equating technical (actually, physical) skill with competition, and it's a flawed idea to begin with. Look at the game of chess... it requires NO physical talent at all. It is a game based entirely on the mental aspect of competition, yet it STILL requires skill, and is still hugely competitive. If you remove a technique that requires a high level of physical skill (timing, quick fingers, etc.), then it is replaced with either, different physical skills, or mental skills...

... For a game to be competitive, ALL that is required is a collection of players who are willing to compete. Nothing more, nothing less. To measure that competitiveness, you simply observe how close in skill-level those players are, and THAT is your competitive level. A game where ONE player dominates for 5 years is NOT as competitive as a game where FIVE different players win throughout those 5 years. Notice that the level of competition is not based on any technical skill, ability, maneuver, tactic, strategy, combo, character, technique, mind-game or even the game/sport/activity being competed at. The ONLY thing 'competition' is based on is the relative skill level of the players involved in the competition.

...Brawl is a less technical game than Melee. And in the sense that it requires less physical-talent and rapid-button pressing than Melee, you are absolutely correct. But to assert that the game will be less competitive because of that is a baseless assumption that actually goes against the reality of competition. And that reality dictates that the easier a game is, the more competitive the game will be, because more players will be able to compete at a similar level. That is why more people play Soccer in the world than play Hockey, Football, Baseball or Golf. That is why basketball is becoming such a competitive sport. The more a game is stripped down to basics, the more competitive that game will be, EVERY time.

 

[thespoiler]

Many people cry about tripping (which I see is the only thing detrimental to Brawl's engine) when it really isn't the worst thing to happen to Super Smash. Just look at Poker, it is an extremely competitive game. It's also a very random game, and you can't always get the cards you want. Still, the top players will prevail. That's how I see tripping in Super Smash. The top players will prevail.

Also, stop trying to divide this community. Some people in here are giving the impression that if you don't play tournaments 24/7, you can't commit to the metagame. Well, if it wasn't for us nOOb players, than this wouldn't be a community, Smash Brothers would've never grown into the competitve game it is today, and chances are YOU wouldn't have any tournaments to attend due to it's unpopularity.

Finally, let me say that everything involves skill. It invloves skill to play Pac Man, Asteroids, Pong, and anything else you want to add in there. Just because you can't L-cancel in every game in life, doesn't mean that every other game than melee shouldn't be played competitively. Give Brawl one more year.

 

[xyouxarexuglyx2]

The following statement needs to be stickied on the entire internet for all competitive gamers to see.

The second paragraph of that post is the reason that I, although I despise/detest Brawl, believe it will be competitive.

 

[RBinator]

Many people cry about tripping (which I see is the only thing detrimental to Brawl's engine) when it really isn't the worst thing to happen to Super Smash. Just look at Poker, it is an extremely competitive game. It's also a very random game, and you can't always get the cards you want. Still, the top players will prevail. That's how I see tripping in Super Smash. The top players will prevail.

I wouldn't go as far as to say people are crying about tripping, but more like criticizing the "feature". The thing about tripping is, it's a luck factor, that from the view point of many players (myself included), it's a bad design decision that just gets in the way. The only way to control it is not to do any actions to cause it. How much can you really do on the ground without dashing at some point? There's even a few reports of tripping in mid air. At least with other luck factors like items and stage elements, they can be controlled, by turning them off and not picking the stage.

Poker and Smash are very different, to the point I don't think comparing them makes much sense. You're basically comparing gambling and video games, with the former being defined by luck. I'm not denying that Poker doesn't requires skills, just saying that luck is a defining factor of gambling. This argument comes up a lot when luck is discussed in a competitive field. No one is saying that the best Brawl players won't be the best because of tripping, but it's a game play "feature" that nonetheless can mess you up at little to no fault of your own. Since it isn't gonna go away, all we can do is figure out how to deal with it when it happens.

 

[VulgarHandGestures]

honestly, tripping is not the worst thing in the world. it's stupid, but it doesn't dent brawl's competitive potential in the slightest.

when i played soul calibur 2, i used to be able to watch my weapon go through the other character without causing any sort of damage or hitstun or anything (which was shocking, initially... and then the glitch became downright frustrating), yet that game still developed a tournament scene.

tripping is really, really lame, but it's not so bad that it's going to crash all competitive development.

 

[kamekasu]

People have found strategies already, and are evolving inherent flaws and character traits in Brawl. For example, I've seen on the char. strategies that Peach can wavedash, I've seen that L-Cancel is still in the game, that there are slightly tweaked versions of wavedashing present, ect. It's not that they took out the essential pieces which made Melee competitive, it's simply they have been re-engineered into the game slightly, to make it so that we have to find it out all over again.

Wha-? Peach cannot wavedash. You're confusing wavedash with a gliding toss. L-cancel is not in the game in any form. Gimpyfish's discoveries at E4All have been removed in the final version.

At least you're right about new techniques being discovered in the future...

My only problem now, is that there are still elitists who flat out refuse to admit that there is any evolution happening with Brawl, and simply continue to blindly follow what was known from day zero. Which is now proving to be a hollow argument to hold in front of yourself... Now with proof of valid combos, strategies, glitches and exploits now surfacing all over the place.

Nobody ever denied that there is any evolution happening in Brawl! I still fail to see any evidence of true combos. Strategies, glitches, and exploits will always be discovered with a community this large, but the point is, it will be difficult with the engine Brawl has at this point. That is the only point this thread is meant to make. Not that it will never become a competitive game, but rather that it is inherently less competitive than Melee. It's not bad to draw comparisons from previous games.

---------

You can not make this claim until competitive play actually starts and develops. As of right now, the game has not been out long enough to know whether Brawl's mechanics lead to a better, worse or different competitive game than Melee.

You're right. It was wrong of me to make such a comment. At this point, it looks like Brawl will be less technical game than Melee, but it's too soon to tell. I'd love to be proven wrong.

This comment is ridiculous, the fact that most characters need to be around or above 100% to be sent flying off the stage makes sense, it is not a detriment to the game, or the competitive atmosphere of the game. When I land a move, I still know whether or not I've killed the person based on how much damage they've already taken, and whether or not I hit them with the sweet-spot of the move. Couple that with the FACT that you can still send people flying off the stage at 80% or less (albeit depending on sweet-spot hits and location of the characters), without a chance of even making a recovery attempt, and your DI argument is shown to be flawed.

I was just trying to back up the initial post in response to a few incoherent arguments. My argument is that moves that should kill characters at certain percents without DI, cannot kill until that damage is almost doubled thanks to ridiculous amounts of DI. Marth's tippered F-smash still didn't kill a Wolf at 120% thanks to DI and airdodge momentum cancel on Final Destination. This isn't necessarily a detriment to the game, it's just something to get used to in the future.

This is where your the flaw of your ENTIRE argument is revealed. You are equating technical (actually, physical) skill with competition, and it's a flawed idea to begin with. Look at the game of chess... it requires NO physical talent at all. It is a game based entirely on the mental aspect of competition, yet it STILL requires skill, and is still hugely competitive. If you remove a technique that requires a high level of physical skill (timing, quick fingers, etc.), then it is replaced with either, different physical skills, or mental skills.

This is taking my argument completely out of context. I was responding to somebody else's assertion that Smash Bros. requires no technical skill/speed. I was simply providing examples to the contrary. Mind games still play a huge part, as do basic techniques.

Not significantly... Many aerials have had their lag-time reduced to that of a Melee L-Cancel. Other aerials DO have lag, and that's a balance issue, and one that may have actually increased the level of competition by balancing powerful moves on certain characters. You now have to be much more careful about your move selection, because you can't use an obligatory button-mash to cover up for your mistakes.

Many aerials have had their lag-time reduced, that much is true. However, there are many more moves that are no longer viable for combos because of the omission of L-cancel. It may be a balance issue, but at this point it looks like there was no rhyme or reason as to which moves had lag decreased or increased. I'm not really sure what you're saying about an obligatory button-mash, but I generally agree with what you're saying here. You still have to admit that combo game is significantly slower without L-canceling.

Actually, the original post is a *****-fest from a player complaining because all of his technical crutches that he used to put himself above comparable players have been tweaked or removed from Brawl. For a game to be competitive, ALL that is required is a collection of players who are willing to compete. Nothing more, nothing less. To measure that competitiveness, you simply observe how close in skill-level those players are, and THAT is your competitive level. A game where ONE player dominates for 5 years is NOT as competitive as a game where FIVE different players win throughout those 5 years. Notice that the level of competition is not based on any technical skill, ability, maneuver, tactic, strategy, combo, character, technique, mind-game or even the game/sport/activity being competed at. The ONLY thing 'competition' is based on is the relative skill level of the players involved in the competition.

Again, I agree with what you're saying. The Smash community is much larger at this point, and I have faith that the metagame will evolve to create the competitive fighting game we want. I just think it's unfair to call out the original poster when he wasn't even particularly whiny about his complaints. They were outlined clearly and backed up by evidence.

Unfortunately you're wrong in your analysis of 'competition.' The relative skill level of players in a competition is based on their technical skill, abilities, maneuvers, tactics, strategies, combos, and mindgames. I still don't understand the argument you're trying to make.

SSB did not have wave-dashing, and it was highly competitive. L-Canceling is not a skill-move and it's removal will have little to no effect on the competitive atmosphere of the game. It could be argued that with the removal of Wave-Dashing, more players are now able to compete at a high level, and thus with a bigger player-pool, the game is actually, by default, MORE competitive.

Highly competitive yes, but not nearly as much as Melee. Wavedashing, believe it or not, is not really that important. Most pros would adapt easily to a world without it. L-canceling is completely different. It's removal has a huge impact on the competitive atmosphere of the game because, coupled with the reduction in hitstun, numerous combos that would otherwise have been viable are now impossible to achieve. L-canceling is a technique that exists in a number of competitive fighting games. The ability to combo has been drastically reduced in Brawl.

You can't quantify how competitive a game is. Just because more people are able to play it now, doesn't mean it's more or less competitive.

They are not well-though out, because the entire idea that Brawl cannot be as competitive as Melee is based on a flawed assumption. That is, that the more technical-skill (physical-skill) required, the more competitive the game will be. The reverse is actually true. By making the game slightly easier, MORE players can compete at the top level, which means MORE competition.

That's not what I got out of the initial post. My analysis was that, based on impressions of the basic game engine, the game will be less technical, and therefore less conducive to a competitive atmosphere. More players at the top level means more competition, but it comes at a cost of redefining our notions of competitive Smash Bros.

Who says those competitive aspects were "good"? The competitive community of Melee? It's a biased opinion from players who enjoyed the aspects of Melee that you're referring to. There is a large segment of Smash players who felt that wave-dashing ruined their chances of competing, simply because they're better at playing an SSB64-style game where move selection, timing, defense and mind-games are the central focus of competition, not rapid button-mashing to pull off a series of complex, high-skill maneuvers.

I don't mean "good" as in better for the game. I mean "good" as in they lend themselves well to high-level, tournament play. If people aren't willing to invest the time required to understand the metagame, they shouldn't be competing at the top level. Dave Sirlin outlines these trends in "Play to Win."

You finally hit the nail on the head, and you didn't even mean to. All that your argument boils down to is that Brawl is a less technical game than Melee. And in the sense that it requires less physical-talent and rapid-button pressing than Melee, you are absolutely correct. But to assert that the game will be less competitive because of that is a baseless assumption that actually goes against the reality of competition. And that reality dictates that the easier a game is, the more competitive the game will be, because more players will be able to compete at a similar level. That is why more people play Soccer in the world than play Hockey, Football, Baseball or Golf. That is why basketball is becoming such a competitive sport. The more a game is stripped down to basics, the more competitive that game will be, EVERY time.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Consider your own analogies. Yes, soccer and basketball are played by nearly everyone in the world. However, the children that play in local leagues or just with their friends can never match up to those in the NBA. You might consider their mentality to be "competitive," but without inherent physical ability and talent, and time invested in becoming the top of the game, they will never be at the top. The techniques required to be the best at soccer and basketball are intricate and difficult, and not easily learned. The same applies to Smash Bros.

PS: Tripping is the worst inclusion in a game ever.

Agreed.


---------

dictionary.com says:

Myopic -
1. Ophthalmology. pertaining to or having myopia; nearsighted.
2. unable or unwilling to act prudently; shortsighted.
3. lacking tolerance or understanding; narrow-minded.

so how is being unable to see brawl for what it can do instead of what it can't do not narrow-minded? there are lots of games that can't do what melee can do, and they are successful all the same, so why are you ripping into brawl because it doesn't have some of the same things melee had? judging a game in a series based on past installments is natural, but it doesn't get anybody anywhere. brawl is a new game; treat it as such, and stop throwing tantrums because not every character can wavedash now.

Arguing semantics doesn't advance this debate. Yes, Brawl is a new game. Yes, Brawl will be played differently from Melee. Yes, Brawl has the potential to be just as competitive if not more so than Melee. The point is, this thread was created as an attempt to evaluate Brawl from the viewpoint of a Melee pro, as a comparison to the Melee engine.

Not once in this thread have I complained about the removal of wavedashing. Don't make the assumption that everyone is up in arms about its removal. Just to clarify: Not one character can wavedash. You seem to be under the impression that some characters can.

but i have to ask, WHY? why do you feel the need to do this? why do you think you even CAN do this? did anybody have any idea what melee would turn out to be when we first got it? hell no! so why are you already judging brawl based on a month and a half with the game? you have literally zero idea of what direction this game is going to take, and pretending otherwise is incredibly arrogant. this is just plain old, balls to the wall, no holds barred stupid.

Again, nobody is pretending to know what direction Brawl will take. You still fail to understand the purpose of this thread. It's critique of Brawl's gameplay in comparison to Melee. Yes, the metagame will grow and evolve, but that's not the point of the thread.

there are techniques like that, i agree. but they're not what made the competitive scene. things like shuffling made the competitive scene, and shuffling, as far as technical demand in the gaming world, is nothing.

Yet another person taking my argument out of context. You said that no techniques in Melee required any amount of hand speed or dexterity. I just listed those to prove to you that there are a number of techniques that do.

that's because it's a completely moronic thing to say. i heard ken di'ed his way out of three rests in melee, and that move was a 2hko at worst on gigabowser, who is much heavier than marth. i mean, that's beyond ridiculous. rest is supposed to be a 1hko on any player character, but ken took three due to di? but no, it's just BRAWL'S di that is overpowered, everything was perfect in melee, waaah, waaah...

Uh, first of all, rest isn't an OHKO. It deals an amount of knockback relative to your opponents damage. If Ken DIed out of three rests, he was most likely at low percents and quarter-circle DIed every hit. The reason rest was so useful on Giga Bowser was because he had a huge hitbox, and the AI didn't know how to recover when he was hit by it over and over again. The problem is that Brawl's DI is too great. The original poster says he, personally, feels that he has no control over his kills because his opponent will always DI.

this "kills occur by chance" stuff is completely out-of-this-world. seriously. as though it's an accident... good lord. a thought like that has never once crossed my mind as i've played brawl. go ahead, tell me it's because i'm just bad at video games and don't know what i'm doing at all.

It's the posters opinion, which he is entitled to. That's no reason to make personal attacks. It's just another thing to get used to in Brawl.

by "jerking around" i'm referencing the unnatural, spastic movements you could make in melee. one of the guys in my area plays a peach who looks like she's just kind of tumbling across the stage, due to his liberal use of dd'ing, rolling, wd'ing, and spotdodging even as he's making his approach. characters don't move like that in brawl. and i understand if that makes you upset, but that's still not the same thing as "slowing the game down."

The reason they look "spastic" is because they want an unpredictable approach that is difficult to defend against. Nobody spotdodges while they're approaching. Characters don't move like that in Brawl because these kinds of techniques haven't been discovered yet. Over time, the speed will increase, like in Melee. When I fox-trot with Marth, he looks unnatural while moving forward, but it's a small price to pay for a more useful approach.

link is a bad character as it is, so i would say that example is bordering on invalid. that aside, i recognize that some moves in brawl still have significant lag upon landing, which is why i made it a point to qualify my statement in my last post. i was mostly going off my experiences with the characters i use (of which, link is not one), with whom my landing lag, on most attacks, is not terribly detrimental. it's there, but it seems to have been reduced.

Well, it depends on what characters you're using. Sure, there are some characters with little startup lag on all their moves, and some who move so slowly it's difficult to land a hit against faster characters. It's not detrimental to gameplay now, but in a tournament setting characters who can't land a hit won't be used... until some way of getting around significant lag is discovered.

that's not what i said. i just think that any random "competitive" player doesn't necessarily have a right to go spouting off about this or that because he attended an mlg tournament. of course the top 20 players aren't driving the entire community, but does that mean the random kids who discovered wavedashing in 2007 ARE?

I don't understand what you're saying here. The original poster obviously has a deep understanding of Melee. Doesn't that make him qualified to draw early comparisons from Melee to Brawl, a game he has been playing and learning for the past month? Who discovered wavedashing in 2007? Wavedashing was discovered by Toadbanjoconker in 2002.

so because i disagree with your assessment on brawl's competitive future, i'm ignorant.

that's great.

I was saying that you can't criticize his comparisons of Melee and Brawl when you don't understand how Melee worked. When you're ignorant (lacking knowledge, uninformed) of one game, you can't make a qualified assessment.

no, that's not what i'm saying. you're intentionally misinterpreting what i'm saying, at this point...

If somehow I misinterpreted what you're trying to say, please clarify instead of accusing me of doing it intentionally.

blatant lie? are you high? i don't even know how to respond to this... good lord.

I'm am not high. You lied flat out about your Smash Bros. ability. You said you played in a MOAST tournament in 2004. You live in Texas, so you probably heard about MOAST from one of your tournament-going friends. MLG removed Brawl from its lineup in 2007, so KishPrime helped to establish independent leagues around the country to take the place of MLG tournaments. MOAST was one of these independent leagues. It wasn't created until 2007. You lied, in front of hundreds of people who know better. Why should anybody take you seriously at this point?

i don't know how you're not getting this. there are no "fundamental faults with the game," it's just a new game. so any game that has differences from melee is "faulty"? and that's not a negative outlook?

I'll clarify: There are fundamental changes in Brawl's engine that make it inconducive to a competitive environment. The original post isn't declaring any truths, it's just predictive of a less-than-ideal future in which Brawl is not as technical as Melee.

 

[RBinator]

honestly, tripping is not the worst thing in the world. it's stupid, but it doesn't dent brawl's competitive potential in the slightest.

when i played soul calibur 2, i used to be able to watch my weapon go through the other character without causing any sort of damage or hitstun or anything (which was shocking, initially... and then the glitch became downright frustrating), yet that game still developed a tournament scene.

tripping is really, really lame, but it's not so bad that it's going to crash all competitive development.

I don't like it when people take what I say the wrong way, especially when others can easily jump to the same wrong conclusions.

I'm not making it out to be game breaking. I was just saying it's bad enough to lead to minor problems. Also, it has been reported to happen with an 1% chance, which is hardly enough to affect the game that much unless you're really unlucky.

 

[J0K3R]

In b4 this thread is flooded with n00bs saying "Brawl isn't Melee 2.0" and "It's too soon to tell".
I hope someone actually tries to refute the logical arguments presented in this thread instead of discrediting the poster (ie. engaging in an ad hominem attack).

PROTIP: No one wants Brawl not to be as competitive as Melee, but it just doesn't seem like it will be.

BRAWL ISNT MELEE 2.0 !!!!!1!1one!11!!!!!!(jk)

I agree with the protip

 

[MaverickZer0]

Actually, Peach can wavedash...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMzMuBaM-zA

 

[kamekasu]

Actually, Peach can wavedash...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMzMuBaM-zA

Uh, actually that's just auto-floating and dropping down. This was discussed at great length when somebody from WB or something was convinced he'd come up with something game-breaking, but actually had rehashed a (useless) technique from Melee.

Thanks for ignoring everything I said and only focusing on one unrelated technicality.

 

[VulgarHandGestures]

EDIT:

I don't like it when people take what I say the wrong way, especially when others can easily jump to the same wrong conclusions.

I'm not making it out to be game breaking. I was just saying it's bad enough to lead to minor problems. Also, it has been reported to happen with an 1% chance, which is hardly enough to affect the game that much unless you're really unlucky.

oh, i wasn't trying to start an argument with you about tripping, i was just sharing an anecdote for those who feel like it will hurt brawl competitively. i didn't mean to make it seem like i was attacking you for mentioning tripping.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arguing semantics doesn't advance this debate. Yes, Brawl is a new game. Yes, Brawl will be played differently from Melee. Yes, Brawl has the potential to be just as competitive if not more so than Melee. The point is, this thread was created as an attempt to evaluate Brawl from the viewpoint of a Melee pro, as a comparison to the Melee engine.

Not once in this thread have I complained about the removal of wavedashing. Don't make the assumption that everyone is up in arms about its removal. Just to clarify: Not one character can wavedash. You seem to be under the impression that some characters can.

Again, nobody is pretending to know what direction Brawl will take. You still fail to understand the purpose of this thread. It's critique of Brawl's gameplay in comparison to Melee. Yes, the metagame will grow and evolve, but that's not the point of the thread.

i'm not arguing semantics; you said i used a word incorrectly, and i pulled out the dictionary.

Uh, first of all, rest isn't an OHKO. It deals an amount of knockback relative to your opponents damage. If Ken DIed out of three rests, he was most likely at low percents and quarter-circle DIed every hit. The reason rest was so useful on Giga Bowser was because he had a huge hitbox, and the AI didn't know how to recover when he was hit by it over and over again. The problem is that Brawl's DI is too great. The original poster says he, personally, feels that he has no control over his kills because his opponent will always DI.

i've seen people get ko'ed at 0% from rest. rest has an amount of knockback that effectively makes it a ohko.

i disagree that brawl's di is "too great". it feels different from melee's di, and that is likely weirding the original poster out, but we will all eventually get used to it and nobody will have that complaint anymore.

i honestly can't comprehend this "i don't feel like i have any control over my kills" stuff. i understand the words that you're using... but i just can't grasp the feeling you're trying to convey.

The reason they look "spastic" is because they want an unpredictable approach that is difficult to defend against. Nobody spotdodges while they're approaching. Characters don't move like that in Brawl because these kinds of techniques haven't been discovered yet. Over time, the speed will increase, like in Melee. When I fox-trot with Marth, he looks unnatural while moving forward, but it's a small price to pay for a more useful approach.

i know that's WHY they do that in melee, what i'm saying is people are mistaking their displeasure with the current fight dynamics of brawl for displeasure with the overall speed of brawl. a match in brawl takes up the same amount of time, it just feels different because (all together now!) brawl is a new game.

I don't understand what you're saying here. The original poster obviously has a deep understanding of Melee. Doesn't that make him qualified to draw early comparisons from Melee to Brawl, a game he has been playing and learning for the past month? Who discovered wavedashing in 2007? Wavedashing was discovered by Toadbanjoconker in 2002.

i wasn't saying the thread starter discovered wavedashing last year. what i meant by "random kids who discovered wavedashing" was a general reference to anyone who found out about the competitive smash scene only within recent months/years.

i don't know what you mean by "deep understanding of melee." it's obvious the thread starter knows about the advanced techniques of melee, but i have been given no reason to take his assessment of brawl as any kind of accurate.

I was saying that you can't criticize his comparisons of Melee and Brawl when you don't understand how Melee worked. When you're ignorant (lacking knowledge, uninformed) of one game, you can't make a qualified assessment.

i have knowledge of melee. i don't know why you think i have no idea how to play melee above the level of a bunch of teens at temple with items on.

If somehow I misinterpreted what you're trying to say, please clarify instead of accusing me of doing it intentionally.

i said that melee, in the grand scheme of things, wasn't that fast (and at some point earlier in the discussion i called those who claimed to love melee for it's speed hypocrites) you responded with something that opened up with "... ... So you're saying a game is good if you can't follow what's going on?", which is the exact opposite point i was trying to make.

I'm am not high. You lied flat out about your Smash Bros. ability. You said you played in a MOAST tournament in 2004. You live in Texas, so you probably heard about MOAST from one of your tournament-going friends. MLG removed Brawl from its lineup in 2007, so KishPrime helped to establish independent leagues around the country to take the place of MLG tournaments. MOAST was one of these independent leagues. It wasn't created until 2007. You lied, in front of hundreds of people who know better. Why should anybody take you seriously at this point?

i'm the only one of my friends interested in smash. the moast that was in 2007 was moast3, which i also attended (isai won singles, last match was at onett; i was taken out by some guy called zeros or something who eventually took, i believe, seventh overall). the first moast had 27 people in the singles tournament if i remember correctly. i was taken out of the tourney by robfalco (or whatever he's calling himself).

it's possible i'm remembering the name of the tournament incorrectly, but i very distinctly remember it being called moast when i found out about it. it was a big deal because it was expected to be a local attempt at fostering a hardcore competitive scene, but it attracted a handful of out-of-staters, one of whom was a peach from michigan or something who completely dominated me

i've removed a lot of your comments in my response because i'm covering it all in this section:

i understand what the point of this thread was. the point i'm trying to make is that that point is unnecessary, counterproductive, and stupid.

the thread starter is saying he doesn't see much competitive potential in brawl. the problem is, nobody knows how brawl's metagame will unfold, and claiming that it doesn't have the potential melee did is completely unfounded, and i get the feeling it's just an attempt at fostering discontent and keeping melee as our main competitive game.

did ANYone have ANY idea, in 2001, what melee's competitive scene would look like in 2006? people had complaints about melee's differences from smash64 when it debuted, and yet here we are fighting about how brawl is a failure compared to melee. giving your impressions on brawl's competitive future is just. plain. dumb. you have no reason to have such a bleak outlook, and spreading your negativity around like this is irresponsible.

i understand the point the original poster is trying to get across, but it's a foolish point to make. does anyone know how our technological advancements will unfold? does anyone know when they'll get married? does anyone know how they'll die?

we have no reason to follow this guy's assessment of brawl's future. it may look bleak now, if that's how you truly feel, but making an assumption about the future like this, especially when history tells us we can expect major changes, is idiotic, plain and simple.

 

[Nemireck]

Unfortunately you're wrong in your analysis of 'competition.' The relative skill level of players in a competition is based on their technical skill, abilities, maneuvers, tactics, strategies, combos, and mindgames. I still don't understand the argument you're trying to make.

My analysis of 'competition' is dead-on. YOU'RE analysis is that of the 'relative skill-level of players', and it's 100% correct. Their skill levels ARE based on all those things, my point is that the less of those things there are to master, the MORE players that will be able to compete at the top level.

Yes, soccer and basketball are played by nearly everyone in the world. However, the children that play in local leagues or just with their friends can never match up to those in the NBA. You might consider their mentality to be "competitive," but without inherent physical ability and talent, and time invested in becoming the top of the game, they will never be at the top.

You're right, the less-skilled players are still not able to compete in Soccer or Basketball, despite the games being easier to play than, say, hockey. BUT, that's not the point. The point is that Soccer and Basketball, at the top level of competition, are MUCH MORE competitive than a game like Hockey. This is because Soccer and Basketball have MORE highly talented players than hockey. And this is for 3 reasons... 1) Hockey is expensive because you need skates and protective equipment, 2) Hockey requires a multitude of skills that you'll NEVER need to master in a game of, say, Soccer: skating, stick-handling, balance on ice, hitting, and a few others I can't think of, and finally, and also most important 3) MORE people play, which means more POTENTIAL in the pool of players.

Expanding on this thought... And I'm going to stop talking about basketball here, because in the world of sport, it's still relatively new and the USA has JUST started losing it's singular hold on the top spot. Instead, I'll focus on Soccer, what I consider the 'purest' sport in terms of the skills required to succeed. In Soccer, the skills required to succeed are raw and available to anyone: run, jump, ball control... Everything is controlled by your own body, that you live in 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In hockey you need to learn skills that you don't learn naturally, and you use equipment that you'll only use when playing or practicing hockey. You need to learn to control your movement on skates, how to control a puck using a stick, etc. And it leads to a tougher game to master, which leads to less players playing, and thus less competition, because the player-pool is smaller, and a smaller player-pool leads to there being less POTENTIAL in that pool. This is why 4 countries dominate international hockey (Canada, Russia, Sweden, USA). Sometimes other countries blip the radar, but 9 times out of ten, three of these teams are going to be in the top 4, and Canada and Russia are going to be in the top 3. What do these 4 countries all have in common? MORE people play hockey in these countries than in any other country. Now look at soccer, while it DOES have it's dominant countries, the teams that aren't in that top-tier are able to put up much more of a fight than the middle and bottom-tier teams in Hockey. Where the top 4 teams in hockey smash anyone who aren't in the top tier 8-2 game after game, top-tier teams in soccer will still win their match, but maybe 1-0, 3-2, 2-1, 2-0, 3-0... Heck, I see middle and bottom-tier teams battling to a draw against the top-tier teams, ALL THE TIME. You just don't see the obscene blow-outs in soccer that you do in the less competitive sports between top and middle-tier teams. This is because the skill-set in soccer is easier to master, and more people play soccer than any other sport in the world, which leads to a more competitive sport, because all of the potential in the player-pool, who might play other sports if soccer were more difficult (or expensive) to play, continue to play soccer. Finally, because the skills in soccer are available for anyone to master, in Soccer, it's tactics, more often than pure-skill, that decide the game, because the skill-levels of the professional players in soccer are so comparable. Brazil may have the rawest, high-skilled team in soccer, and it would be hard to argue against that, but it was still the highly disciplined, defensive-minded, and less 'skilled' Italian team that won the last World Cup. Now, using sports as a comparison to video-games isn't 100% fair, obviously, because sports demand that players have advantages that people have no control over, and that have no bearing on a video game, such as height or weight, but the point still stands.

Stripping a game down to basics, in addition to leveling the playing field, also allows for more tactical options. For instance, in Melee, playing an overtly defensive game probably meant you took longer to lose the game, but in Brawl, playing an overtly defensive game can win you the match! With the removal of some of the obscene offensive options in Melee, an entirely different play-style has been made viable, along with a collection of previously non-viable characters, who all have their own unique strategies and tactics. This simply wasn't possible in the '4 characters in the top-tier' Melee, where the rule of the win says you must attack, and attack well. In fact, Smash Bros' huge success in general can be attributed to the fact that Nintendo stripped an entire GENRE down to basics to begin with. By eliminating all of the complex button-patterns required to perform the best moves in the game (making ALL the moves very easy to use), and instead focusing purely on timing, spacing, and move selection, Smash Bros opened the door to a truly competitive fighting game that was open to many more players than a niche-game like Street Fighter or Tekken. Rather than making more skill-intensive maneuvers, Nintendo incorporated platform elements into the game that WORK, stages that are more than a flat piece of ground you move left and right on, which added more depth to the game than any advanced technique ever will. Players who never played a fighting game seriously in their life played Smash Bros, and became dedicated fans! And have I mentioned that players who might have been capable of mastering Melee, but didn't because their favoured character(s) were not viable, might now play Brawl because their characters are now able to compete? To me, character balance is the biggest, and most important aspect of a fighting game, and thus the biggest and most important improvement in Brawl. If removing L-Canceling and Wave-Dashing is what it took to do it, then it's a fantastic thing those techniques have been removed.

 

[baheffron]

YES! Just read the OP, and I see that it basically sums up all of the complaints I've had for Brawl. Nice post, bravo!

I really hope that melee takes back over the competitve scene once everyone realizes how boring Brawl is.

And to repsond to the above poster:
You say that taking out offensive options has deepened the game? That makes no sense at all. Now the game is reduced to camping and either dodging or shield grabbing the opponents move. If you are on the offensive, you have very few options to limit the effectiveness of the opponent's camping. Now, you say that it is good to open up a defensive strategy. I say that it is stupid, because even though you are making defensive strategies more useful, you are limiting the fun of the game. Do you seriously think it is more fun to camp than play offensively?
Games where the only viable strategy is to camp always end up failing because camping gets boring, very quickly. Now look at melee. Because of the numerous way to approach your opponent, the game was more focused on taking advantage of your opponents mistakes and using that to kill them. Now that sounds more like a sport than Brawl's camp fest. Look at just about any sport: if you take advantage of the opponent's mistakes, you win. In brawl, there is nothing to take advantage of. If a player makes a mistake, they will just recover instantly to allow for another defensive attack. Nintendo purposefully did this to allow noobs at the game a fighting chance.

Another thing you say is that the characters are much more balanced because of lack of l cancel and wavedashing. This also makes no sense. I love playing as Ganondorf in Brawl. But guess what? His landing lag from aerials makes him completely useless. If I miss an aerial, I am basically screwed because I can't l cancel it to a shield or attack. If l cancelling were stil in, Ganondorf would be a much better character. And in melee, characters like Ice Climbers and Luigi were made far more viable because of wavedashing.

Finally, another thing you say is that, by dumbing the game down, you get more people able to compete at a higher level. The downside is that the game is much more boring because of it. By dumbing the game down, the developers have destroyed the point of high level competition: to have fun. In melee, people strove to learn all the ATs and better their game because it was fun playing on a higher level. More fun than playing on a basic level. In Brawl, there is no incentive to get better because it just isnt as fun.

In conclusion, the logic that stripping down offensive capabilities balances the game and makes it more competitive is just plain wrong. You cannot take advantage of your opponents mistakes because it is almost impossible to combo. In fact, by giving every character insane recover time, its almost like the game awards you for getting hit. You get hit? No problem, just hit the other character if they try to follow up with an aerial. Or, just air dodge. This reduces the game, like the OP stated, to trading hits, which is not fun, AT ALL.

 

[MaverickZer0]

It's already being proven that the game is NOT just trading hits... people should really read around the forums too...

I've played online, and if it was really as big a problem as everyone claims, I would have lost to a handful of "n00bs"... I controlled the first half of the matches I played, literally controlled. Not, trading hits, I was juggling 3 players offensively. Not with somebody speedy either, I was using Ike... my 3rd best.

 

[Emerald_Dream]

The OP pretty much sums up my opinion of brawl.

 

[VulgarHandGestures]

you know, it's funny that people keep calling brawl boring, because i've laughed more in my weeks with brawl than i ever did with melee :/

not counting falcon's knee, at least. i miss that...