Jaedrik
Man-at-Arms-at-Keyboard
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2009
- Messages
- 5,054
Before my horribad essay essay is hammered, I want to say some things. This wasn't written for this community, this was written for my composition class, as such I had to explain quite a few things which you guys already know all about 
. I chose the topic because I felt extremely confident in my ability to evaluate this game series I do so love.
There's quite a few things not addressed in here that I would have liked to add in if not for the 1200 word limit and in some cases by my lack of knowledge on the topic:
********
Composition I – Page 368
12/3/2013
Brawl has lost a significant portion of the depth of Melee in the Smash series's transition to a new generation. Smash, being a two-dimensional fighting game (characters can only face two directions and go up and down) has offered a surprising array of tools for the player to attack his opponents, the primary objective of the game is to 'knock out' one's opponent, 'knock out', unlike most fighting games, meaning sending the opponent flying far enough so that they go out-of-bounds and lose a life. Perhaps the most deep part of Melee was the combo game. In a traditional fighting game, combos, a string of uninterrupted hits on an opponent, are normally about the execution ability of the person performing them, and unlike most fighting games, Smash is very physics-based. Each move, and often multiple times in one move, in addition to causing varying amounts of damage like other fighting games, has degrees of 'knock-back', where the opponent is sent at a trajectory depending on their damage, there is a period of time where the opponent is stunned and they are unable to control their character, this frame of time, known as hitstun, is when Melee players may move to follow their previous hit up and sent the opponent flying again. But they are not helpless, there is a mechanic known by even the most basic Smasher called Directional Influence, and by holding the control stick in a variety of directions they can influence the angle they're sent at to throw the opponent off and facilitate the end of the combo and go back to the neutral position, this metagame—a grand strategic layer of game-within-the-game—of 'reading' and eluding the opponent provides tremendous depth. In Brawl, hitstun is all but dealt away with, and as such combos, and while Directional Influence is still there and plays a role in extending one's life, its power to shape the game is incredibly diminished.
To balance the game's various attacks and create more meaningful choices, many moves have delays before and after they are used, in which the player must be vulnerable to attack. In Melee, if one was able to properly predict their opponent's move, they had a multitude of choices, and space and range of attacks was key. “Wavedashing”, the most poignant example of these, allows the player to glide a short distance along the ground by transferring aerial momentum without delay, this is executed with only a few frames: to jump, and then do a dodge move, but angle the dodge into the ground immediately after jumping. Such fine-tuned movement allows one to place themselves just outside of an opponent's attack range, and while they are busy recovering from the delay after their attack, one has the chance to 'punish' them. This adds yet more metagame, it requiring both precision in execution and a some knowledge of every character's match-ups with other characters, which is another metagame layer in itself. Brawl has completely removed this option and the comparable 'dash-dancing', instead opting for a dodge move that does not incur momentum on the user and thus cannot be angled into the ground. No longer can people effectively dodge moves, instead they are forced to use the built-in shields and dodges, themselves situational. Speaking of the shield, Brawl no longer allows the shield to have varying strengths in exchange for surface area coverage, instead forcing one mode of shield use only, stinting the strategic options once again.
Where Brawl failed completely in depth, it gained tremendously in volume of comparable content. Far more than its earlier entries, it added an array of characters to chose from, at a total of 39 of Nintendo's icons compared to Melee's 26, and made more unique the characters already present, many similarities present in Melee between Fox and Falco, for example, were dealt away with, no longer did they both use exclusively kick attacks in the air, and Captain Falcon and Ganondorf, Ganondorf becoming far less of the Jeet Kun Do / Kung Fu inspired fighter and more of the powerful warlock fighter he was in the Zelda games. this resulted in more varied surface-level choice of play-styles. It also employed a far wider range of Nintendo's excellent music selection, well over two hundred tracks as compared to Melee's fifty or so. The music came along with a multivariate of stages, 41 plus some of Melee's own stages and a custom stage builder, widely varying the experiential decisions one could make in each arena. Further, there were more items, randomly appearing tools of combat which are banned in competitive play due to their random and oft extremely unpredictable/powerful nature, in Brawl than Melee. While each of these additions seems like a mere number count, most often they interacted with each-other in a positive way to create a broader range of enjoyable content.
Both games succeeded in their various ways, but to say which is more important is a difficult and controversial thing. Brawl offers improvements in most every other way, but for a game with a legacy and longevity unmatched and peerless depth, one need look no further than Melee and its array of advanced techniques, deep metagame, and emergent choices.
Works Cited
"George S. Patton." BrainyQuote.com. Xplore Inc, 2013. 3 December 2013.http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgespa143694.html
Portnow, James. "Extra Credits: Depth vs Complexity." YouTube. Ed. Carrie Floyd.YouTube, 31 Jan. 2013. Web. 10 Dec. 2013.
. I chose the topic because I felt extremely confident in my ability to evaluate this game series I do so love.There's quite a few things not addressed in here that I would have liked to add in if not for the 1200 word limit and in some cases by my lack of knowledge on the topic:
- Complexity.
- Complexity and Depth in relation to varying skill levels.
- I would have liked to discuss the stages more in depth.
- Game 'speed'.
- Game 'speed' in relation to complexity and depth at varying skill levels.
- I would have liked to reference frame data showing the various ways Brawl was 'slowed down' in addition to supporting "Game 'speed'".
- Graphics, statistically and artistically.
- More analysis of the music and its awesomeness.
- The various other mechanics / techniques that Melee players abuse / use.
- The various mechanics and techniques from Brawl that I ignored.
- How the two above relate to complexity and depth at various skill levels.
- The wider variety of characters, and their usability at various skill levels.
- Lastly, an enumeration of the broader emergent gameplay strategies at the various skill levels.
********
Composition I – Page 368
12/3/2013
Evaluation of a Fighting Game
“Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best; it removes all that is base. . . . The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. Duty is the essence of manhood” (Battle). George S. Patton was one of the greatest generals to ever live, borne of the many hard battles won and fought in World War II, but his wisdom does not stop at mortal battle, indeed, there are many reflections of this in competitive gaming. Though, sadly, there are people who perform “Johns”, or excuses as to their failure (or even success) in a competition in the Super Smash Brothers community, those people are usually not the top players, or do not stay top for long if they have the baseness that Patton spoke of. Those participant in sport competition can be said to be the most passionate about their respective game, and they do represent one of the higher forms of fans of a series, so when weighing the success of a game it is necessary to examine the competitive potential of the game. According to James Portnow of Extra Credits, a premier translator of video game design philosophy, depth is the amount of “Meaningful choices that come out of one ruleset” (Depth). Depth is usually highly inter-related with the competitive potential and fun in general. Of course, it is not proper to discount the 'casual' yet passionate fan whose competitive sphere does not involve the rest of the more mechanically advanced community, and to that effect a key component of a game's success is the volume of its content. Among the community it is possible to find countless commentaries of comparison between two Smash games: Melee and Brawl. One thing is certain, though, Brawl trades off a significant amount of depth that its predecessor, Melee, had for a much larger volume of content in every comparable way.Brawl has lost a significant portion of the depth of Melee in the Smash series's transition to a new generation. Smash, being a two-dimensional fighting game (characters can only face two directions and go up and down) has offered a surprising array of tools for the player to attack his opponents, the primary objective of the game is to 'knock out' one's opponent, 'knock out', unlike most fighting games, meaning sending the opponent flying far enough so that they go out-of-bounds and lose a life. Perhaps the most deep part of Melee was the combo game. In a traditional fighting game, combos, a string of uninterrupted hits on an opponent, are normally about the execution ability of the person performing them, and unlike most fighting games, Smash is very physics-based. Each move, and often multiple times in one move, in addition to causing varying amounts of damage like other fighting games, has degrees of 'knock-back', where the opponent is sent at a trajectory depending on their damage, there is a period of time where the opponent is stunned and they are unable to control their character, this frame of time, known as hitstun, is when Melee players may move to follow their previous hit up and sent the opponent flying again. But they are not helpless, there is a mechanic known by even the most basic Smasher called Directional Influence, and by holding the control stick in a variety of directions they can influence the angle they're sent at to throw the opponent off and facilitate the end of the combo and go back to the neutral position, this metagame—a grand strategic layer of game-within-the-game—of 'reading' and eluding the opponent provides tremendous depth. In Brawl, hitstun is all but dealt away with, and as such combos, and while Directional Influence is still there and plays a role in extending one's life, its power to shape the game is incredibly diminished.
To balance the game's various attacks and create more meaningful choices, many moves have delays before and after they are used, in which the player must be vulnerable to attack. In Melee, if one was able to properly predict their opponent's move, they had a multitude of choices, and space and range of attacks was key. “Wavedashing”, the most poignant example of these, allows the player to glide a short distance along the ground by transferring aerial momentum without delay, this is executed with only a few frames: to jump, and then do a dodge move, but angle the dodge into the ground immediately after jumping. Such fine-tuned movement allows one to place themselves just outside of an opponent's attack range, and while they are busy recovering from the delay after their attack, one has the chance to 'punish' them. This adds yet more metagame, it requiring both precision in execution and a some knowledge of every character's match-ups with other characters, which is another metagame layer in itself. Brawl has completely removed this option and the comparable 'dash-dancing', instead opting for a dodge move that does not incur momentum on the user and thus cannot be angled into the ground. No longer can people effectively dodge moves, instead they are forced to use the built-in shields and dodges, themselves situational. Speaking of the shield, Brawl no longer allows the shield to have varying strengths in exchange for surface area coverage, instead forcing one mode of shield use only, stinting the strategic options once again.
Where Brawl failed completely in depth, it gained tremendously in volume of comparable content. Far more than its earlier entries, it added an array of characters to chose from, at a total of 39 of Nintendo's icons compared to Melee's 26, and made more unique the characters already present, many similarities present in Melee between Fox and Falco, for example, were dealt away with, no longer did they both use exclusively kick attacks in the air, and Captain Falcon and Ganondorf, Ganondorf becoming far less of the Jeet Kun Do / Kung Fu inspired fighter and more of the powerful warlock fighter he was in the Zelda games. this resulted in more varied surface-level choice of play-styles. It also employed a far wider range of Nintendo's excellent music selection, well over two hundred tracks as compared to Melee's fifty or so. The music came along with a multivariate of stages, 41 plus some of Melee's own stages and a custom stage builder, widely varying the experiential decisions one could make in each arena. Further, there were more items, randomly appearing tools of combat which are banned in competitive play due to their random and oft extremely unpredictable/powerful nature, in Brawl than Melee. While each of these additions seems like a mere number count, most often they interacted with each-other in a positive way to create a broader range of enjoyable content.
Both games succeeded in their various ways, but to say which is more important is a difficult and controversial thing. Brawl offers improvements in most every other way, but for a game with a legacy and longevity unmatched and peerless depth, one need look no further than Melee and its array of advanced techniques, deep metagame, and emergent choices.
Works Cited
"George S. Patton." BrainyQuote.com. Xplore Inc, 2013. 3 December 2013.http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/georgespa143694.html
Portnow, James. "Extra Credits: Depth vs Complexity." YouTube. Ed. Carrie Floyd.YouTube, 31 Jan. 2013. Web. 10 Dec. 2013.
