Anyone else really worried about the quality of this game?

[VhatDeHel]

Note that you have to do it in rapid succession. Anyone can do it on things like Link's Down B.

It has other issues as well. One is that it's purely technical and offer no strategic application. There is no reason not to do it, so it becomes a useless input. Second, it makes all air moves safe which defetes the purpose. The game becomes stupid when you can just spam moves with no risk. There needs to be an element of risk reward. This is how you separate the game from being pure inputs to being an engaging game.

Okay, but the thing is is if you mess up the input for L-Canceling, it is easier to punish you because of the lag afterwards.

 

[SmashChu]

Okay, but the thing is is if you mess up the input for L-Canceling, it is easier to punish you because of the lag afterwards.

Which is a problem. So the game becomes just execution devoid of any thought or strategy. It's all just muscle memory. This makes the skill gap just one of pure practice which makes the game very unfun for those who work a job or study and pass their classes.

 

[Thane of Blue Flames]

Which is a problem. So the game becomes just execution devoid of any thought or strategy. It's all just muscle memory. This makes the skill gap just one of pure practice which makes the game very unfun for those who work a job or study and pass their classes.

Two things:

a) I agree that L-cancelling is stupid. It's not particularly hard for me in a training room, but if I'm actually trying to dodge and attack and do a bunch of stuff at once it's pretty bad. It's not strategic at all and it should be automated or not exist. Personally I'm a fan of just having as little landing lag as L-cancelling would afford.

b) L-cancelling is hella worse in 64, where it was introduced. Melee halves the landing lag in L-cancelling, in 64 there is NO landing lag. That's the game in which L-cancelling makes your moves completely safe, and it's dumb.

c) I get that you dislike L-cancelling, but is there any reason to post a universal ad hominem attack on anyone who bothered to learn how? I don't think any of us don't put a considerable amount of time into these games. We're all posting on a Smash forum, of course we're all fans who take time out of lives to play Smash. It comes with the territory.

 

[Venus of the Desert Bloom]

Keep the discussion civil and stray away from Melee vs Brawl flame wars and this thread stays open.

 

[SuperShus]

I just started playing smash, I went to my first local tourney last Saturday.

I can't believe how everyone is behaving.

People on both sides feel attacked, no one is being polite, no one is staying on topic... I'm surprised this topic stayed open.

Brawl players are rightfully angry about their game being attacked by melee players... And melee players were attacked directly by Brawl players.

And yet everyone says that the two gamers will never agree and project m is only hurting..
IMO we could all unite under smash64. Everyone likes that game. C:

I love all you guys. Even if you hate on other people just because they play a different game than you, even if you attack people for liking different things than you. I have faith that you'll regret it later and see that it doesn't matter.
And if you laugh at me or think I'm weird that's cool. I'm okay with that. I'm always the weird one where I come from.

After all, I'm a smash player. C:

 

[majora_787]

I just started playing smash, I went to my first local tourney last Saturday.

I can't believe how everyone is behaving.

People on both sides feel attacked, no one is being polite, no one is staying on topic... I'm surprised this topic stayed open.

Brawl players are rightfully angry about their game being attacked by melee players... And melee players were attacked directly by Brawl players.

And yet everyone says that the two gamers will never agree and project m is only hurting..
IMO we could all unite under smash64. Everyone likes that game. C:

I love all you guys. Even if you hate on other people just because they play a different game than you, even if you attack people for liking different things than you. I have faith that you'll regret it later and see that it doesn't matter.
And if you laugh at me or think I'm weird that's cool. I'm okay with that. I'm always the weird one where I come from.

After all, I'm a smash player. C:

As much as I'd love it if everyone united under smash 64, with every year that goes by there are more and more people who've never played it or even considered getting it on the virtual console.

 

[Louie G.]

Am I worried about the quality?
Heh, NO.

 

[Morbi]

I just started playing smash, I went to my first local tourney last Saturday.

I can't believe how everyone is behaving.

People on both sides feel attacked, no one is being polite, no one is staying on topic... I'm surprised this topic stayed open.

Brawl players are rightfully angry about their game being attacked by melee players... And melee players were attacked directly by Brawl players.

And yet everyone says that the two gamers will never agree and project m is only hurting..
IMO we could all unite under smash64. Everyone likes that game. C:

I love all you guys. Even if you hate on other people just because they play a different game than you, even if you attack people for liking different things than you. I have faith that you'll regret it later and see that it doesn't matter.
And if you laugh at me or think I'm weird that's cool. I'm okay with that. I'm always the weird one where I come from.

After all, I'm a smash player. C:

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, directly opposing a game doesn't necessarily mean someone is attacking it (despite users taking detrimental comments personally). I hate Brawl with the burning passion of one million stars; however, I still retain the game, I still play the game daily. In most cases, a lot of people are disappointed because they care. The moderators understand this notion, so inevitably, they wouldn't lock it for some arbitrary reason.

I don't mean to be rude, but it is people like you that really make the problem more overt or apparent. It starts of as an opinion, but escalates once people start directly comparing the games and the players that play the games. No one in their right mind actually hates another user for enjoying a different game. Sometimes hyperbole is erroneously utilized on the forums. This is just something inherently wrong with the internet. I assure you, most members respect each other regardless of what game they play. Welcome to the forums.

 

[Zalak]

Keep the discussion civil and stray away from Melee vs Brawl flame wars and this thread stays open.

whoa whoa hey whoa whoa hey hey whoa

Heheheh... We aren't uhh.. having a flame war... We were just... playin' around.

Anywho, I never said that Brawl was worse than Melee. I just hope they bring some of the aspects from Melee into the new games.

 

[JesseMcCloud]

Starcraft 2 is VASTLY different from Starcraft 1 but that didn't stop everyone from playing it. Not everything was going to be the same as Melee like SSB4 will not be the same as Brawl. Anyone thinking otherwise is is fooling themselves.

This is true, but it's fair to say that StarCraft 2 is losing players at a terrible rate. Developers shouldn't be afraid to try new things, but they can't afford to alienate their fanbase (e.g., Brawl.)

 

[Vintage Creep]

Quality? Nah. Sakurai is top-notch.

Quantity though? A little bit.

 

[majora_787]

This is true, but it's fair to say that StarCraft 2 is losing players at a terrible rate. Developers shouldn't be afraid to try new things, but they can't afford to alienate their fanbase (e.g., Brawl.)

The issue is Smash Bros. target audience. They aren't alienating the people they are selling the game to, they are alienating people who bought the game from out of the target audience and found a different way to play the game outside of what was originally intended.

And even still they are edging back in that direction.

 

[Jumpman84]

This is true, but it's fair to say that StarCraft 2 is losing players at a terrible rate. Developers shouldn't be afraid to try new things, but they can't afford to alienate their fanbase (e.g., Brawl.)

I'm not alienated and I am a HUGE Smash Bros. fan! I'm constantly thinking about the Smash Bros. universe and all these wonderful characters coming together. Heck, I even dream (both daydream and regular) about it and Brawl is my favorite game of the series! Clearly, your implication that Brawl alienated the fanbase is not 100% correct.

 

[Thane of Blue Flames]

The issue is Smash Bros. target audience. They aren't alienating the people they are selling the game to, they are alienating people who bought the game from out of the target audience and found a different way to play the game outside of what was originally intended.

And even still they are edging back in that direction.

Huh?

I'm actually a little confused, I'm not sure what was said here. Could you repeat that with fewer pronouns maybe?

 

[Shorts]

Nothing will be as bad as Brawl, so.

 

[majora_787]

Huh?

I'm actually a little confused, I'm not sure what was said here. Could you repeat that with fewer pronouns maybe?

Sorry. I'm not very articulate.

The target audience of Smash Bros. is not actually a the competitive audience. The competitive audience is something that it picked up in Melee. So it isn't that Brawl was alienating its target audience, it was that it was alienating people it was not actually intended to be marketed for. But with SSB4, they are edging back toward the audience they picked up unintentionally.

Basically, my point was that Smash Bros. is made to be casual with the theoretical ability to be played competitively. Not the other way around.

EDIT: I wish I could dislike posts, but alas.

 

[Jumpman84]

Nothing will be as bad as Brawl, so.

I'm inclined to disagree. Not because I think Smash 4 will be a bad game (far from it), but because Brawl isn't actually a bad game. Although you could have been meaning to say it'll be better than Brawl, which is an opinion I agree with.

 

[Shorts]

I'm inclined to disagree. Not because I think Smash 4 will be a bad game (far from it), but because Brawl isn't actually a bad game. Although you could have been meaning to say it'll be better than Brawl, which is an opinion I agree with.

Brawl is **** in terms of balance. It's modes are okay, and the roster was smaller than planned. It's not that great. Melee and 64 (when you look at them within the context of their time period) are vastly superior.

 

[Jumpman84]

Brawl is **** in terms of balance. It's modes are okay, and the roster was smaller than planned. It's not that great. Melee and 64 (when you look at them within the context of their time period) are vastly superior.

In your opinion, you mean. Nothing you said (except for maybe the roster bit) is factual in the slightest. To me, Brawl is a better game than Melee, which is better than Smash 64. But they are all amazing games, no "vast superiority" between them. Like I said, that's my opinion and you don't have to agree. But you shouldn't pass off your opinion as fact. It simply is not the case.

 

[Shorts]

In your opinion, you mean. Nothing you said (except for maybe the roster bit) is factual in the slightest. To me, Brawl is a better game than Melee, which is better than Smash 64. But they are all amazing games, no "vast superiority" between them. Like I said, that's my opinion and you don't have to agree. But you shouldn't pass off your opinion as fact. It simply is not the case.

My opinions are fact, that's the thing.

 

[majora_787]

My opinions are fact

... Here I thought only Gamefaqs could actually invalidate itself in four words. The terrible attitude. It's spreading.

 

[Ulevo]

It has other issues as well. One is that it's purely technical and offer no strategic application. There is no reason not to do it, so it becomes a useless input. Second, it makes all air moves safe which defetes the purpose. The game becomes stupid when you can just spam moves with no risk. There needs to be an element of risk reward. This is how you separate the game from being pure inputs to being an engaging game.

L-Cancelling is not a 'useless input'. The premise to this overused argument is that technical barriers or technical feats in and of themselves have no benefits, and no place, within a Smash game. This is not only wrong, but its subject to interpretation based on how you view game design and game design philosophy. It's a preference. There are a myriad of games (fighters or otherwise) that have specifically implemented technical barriers put in place to challenge players and give them feats to overcome. There's a lot more going on here than simply dividing your character's landing lag in half.

Ultimately what it comes down to is whether or not you prefer to have these technical barriers in place for what they offer. Unfortunately, not only are people not aware of what these benefits are because this topic goes beyond the scope of what is going on within the game itself, but most people in favor of this argument are heavily biased. They're either primarily Brawl players who don't have a positive view of Melee, either due to lack of experience with Melee or bad experiences with its playerbase, or they simply haven't/aren't willing to put in the time in to be good enough at Melee's mechanics in order to have appropriate appreciation, and are used to the instant gratification that comes with Brawls low level requirements.

As for the rest of this post, I'm not even going to bother. The notion that Melee wasn't engaging due to L-Cancelling, and that L-Cancelling makes moves risk free (particularly in a game with moves like frame 1 shines), is hilarious to say the least.

 

[Jumpman84]

My opinions are fact, that's the thing.

Looks like someone has a superiority complex.

 

[majora_787]

Looks like someone has a superiority complex.

That's really not the point.

The point is, there's not actually much of a reason to be concerned about the quality of this game when as far as the actual point of Super Smash Bros. goes, overall each game has been better than the last. And this time, Sakurai is striving for a new experience and quality of gameplay over all else with the help of Namco Bandai, and through a longer development cycle than Brawl.

And the whole attitude of "Brawl was actually a terrible game and Sakurai is 100% incompetent despite what he has actually managed to do" is not even cautiously pessimistic. It's absurdly pessimistic. Not being sure if it will be the best Super Smash Bros. to date is one thing, but to automatically assume this is going to be a terrible game is sort of ridiculous.

EDIT: Especially since things in the game are still changing, we haven't seen much gameplay, and haven't had a gameplay demo or anything to actually go off of. There's a lot we don't know about this other than the effort going in, which is really all that's actually telling.

 

[Jumpman84]

That's really not the point.

The point is, there's not actually much of a reason to be concerned about the quality of this game when as far as the actual point of Super Smash Bros. goes, overall each game has been better than the last. And this time, Sakurai is striving for a new experience and quality of gameplay over all else with the help of Namco Bandai, and through a longer development cycle than Brawl.

And the whole attitude of "Brawl was actually a terrible game and Sakurai is 100% incompetent despite what he has actually managed to do" is not even cautiously pessimistic. It's absurdly pessimistic. Not being sure if it will be the best Super Smash Bros. to date is one thing, but to automatically assume this is going to be a terrible game is sort of ridiculous.

EDIT: Especially since things in the game are still changing, we haven't seen much gameplay, and haven't had a gameplay demo or anything to actually go off of. There's a lot we don't know about this other than the effort going in, which is really all that's actually telling.

Um.... I agree with you and I have been for a while. Why are you yelling at me?

 

[majora_787]

Um.... I agree with you and I have been for a while. Why are you yelling at me?

I'm not yelling at you. I'm making a sad attempt at summarizing my thoughts until I come out fully coherent and sufficiently articulate. It wasn't directed at anyone in particular.

 

[Ulevo]

That's really not the point.

The point is, there's not actually much of a reason to be concerned about the quality of this game when as far as the actual point of Super Smash Bros. goes, overall each game has been better than the last. And this time, Sakurai is striving for a new experience and quality of gameplay over all else with the help of Namco Bandai, and through a longer development cycle than Brawl.

And the whole attitude of "Brawl was actually a terrible game and Sakurai is 100% incompetent despite what he has actually managed to do" is not even cautiously pessimistic. It's absurdly pessimistic. Not being sure if it will be the best Super Smash Bros. to date is one thing, but to automatically assume this is going to be a terrible game is sort of ridiculous.

EDIT: Especially since things in the game are still changing, we haven't seen much gameplay, and haven't had a gameplay demo or anything to actually go off of. There's a lot we don't know about this other than the effort going in, which is really all that's actually telling.

There is a reason to be concerned for those people who have specific expectations of what an ideal competitive Smash game should be. There's a reason people raised $225,000 just to exclusively have Brawl's predecessor at EVO, and not Brawl, and why there was over a 140,000 people watching Melee, and not Brawl, on live stream. These things don't just 'happen.' People play Melee over Brawl because they prefer it, and as much as you say "if you like Melee then play Melee" the reality is that people were more disappointed about being given a competitively poor Smash sequel than they were not being given a re-packaged Melee. It's safe to say that people here wouldn't want to see that happen again. I, and I'm sure many others, would love to see Smash Bros. Wii U at EVO years down the road. It's not going to happen if it follows the same mistakes Brawl did.

This isn't pessimism. It's criticism.

 

[SmashChu]

L-Cancelling is not a 'useless input'. The premise to this overused argument is that technical barriers or technical feats in and of themselves have no benefits, and no place, within a Smash game. This is not only wrong, but its subject to interpretation based on how you view game design and game design philosophy. It's a preference. There are a myriad of games (fighters or otherwise) that have specifically implemented technical barriers put in place to challenge players and give them feats to overcome. There's a lot more going on here than simply dividing your character's landing lag in half.

Ultimately what it comes down to is whether or not you prefer to have these technical barriers in place for what they offer. Unfortunately, not only are people not aware of what these benefits are because this topic goes beyond the scope of what is going on within the game itself, but most people in favor of this argument are heavily biased. They're either primarily Brawl players who don't have a positive view of Melee, either due to lack of experience with Melee or bad experiences with its playerbase, or they simply haven't/aren't willing to put in the time in to be good enough at Melee's mechanics in order to have appropriate appreciation, and are used to the instant gratification that comes with Brawls low level requirements.

As for the rest of this post, I'm not even going to bother. The notion that Melee wasn't engaging due to L-Cancelling, and that L-Cancelling makes moves risk free (particularly in a game with moves like frame 1 shines), is hilarious to say the least.

By game design philosophies, you mean "lack of business sense." Let me put it this way. What if I made a platforming game where you have to push the jump button after every time you land. Essentially, you are bracing your fall and if you don't press the button at the right time, you break your legs. Would you want to play that? Probably not. So why does Melee get a pass for the exact same mechanic?

The primary reason people play these games is for enjoyment and not to "overcome" things. That's what real life is for. Barriers for barriers sake doesn't work and that's exactly what L-canceling is. It it just a redundant motion that you have to do after ever air attack and it give players who can do it a significant advantage. It basically just causes issues as all it's there is to make you do something else. It makes the game less engaging because rather than adapt, strategize think, it makes the game one of muscle memory. It makes the game overly technical and removes most of the risk.Moves should have some lag and you shouldn't be able to spam moves because once you hit the ground, you can jump and do it again with little to no lag time.

I think the reason the Melee cult loves the game so much is because it is almost all inputs. Brawl removed the input requirements. You can't be the best by just pushing buttons faster than the other guy. Sakurai has said that Melee was too hard and he is likely refering to things like this. Brawl and Smash Brothers going forward was normalized.

Looks like someone has a superiority complex.

When you're as much of a baller as Shortie, you get to do that.

This is true, but it's fair to say that StarCraft 2 is losing players at a terrible rate. Developers shouldn't be afraid to try new things, but they can't afford to alienate their fanbase (e.g., Brawl.)

Its interesting that you mention it because the reason SC2 is dying is because if focused too much on the competitive community. The primary feature of multiplayer was the ladder which mostly focused on 1v1 matches. The 1v1 map pools were changed and updated the most and were all very similar towards the end (main, natural, 2nd expansion ect). Maps with unique elements (like Jungle Basin) where removed and changed for "balanced" maps. The people who like the ladder are torunament players. You see, no matter what, you go 50/50. If you get better, you fight better players (and matches are more stressful). People get better because they want to win more matches. In Starcraft 2, it ws to gain prestige. So it attracted the wrong crowd.

There is a reason why Sakurai cares so much about not making this game too "hardcore." There is also a reason it is so popular.

 

[mimgrim]

L-Cancelling is not a 'useless input'. The premise to this overused argument is that technical barriers or technical feats in and of themselves have no benefits, and no place, within a Smash game. This is not only wrong, but its subject to interpretation based on how you view game design and game design philosophy. It's a preference. There are a myriad of games (fighters or otherwise) that have specifically implemented technical barriers put in place to challenge players and give them feats to overcome. There's a lot more going on here than simply dividing your character's landing lag in half.

On the subject of L-cancel. A sorta recent discussion I had with Suicide Fox sorta changes my views on L-cancel. I understand the importance of it in Melee much better now. However I feel it could be handled better. I feel L-cancel should come back it should become more of a balance check. I see L-cancel as a primary way to balance out heavy characters/laggy aerials compared to lighter characters/not so laggy aerials. So with this in mind I think it would be better if L-cancel wasn't put onto every aerial move that exists in Smash but rather only possible to preform for the laggy moves/heavy characters but not so much that the become better then lighter/less laggy things but so that they can be put on a more even plane with them without the other getting a advantage as well as the latter is already advantageous. Basically this would make heavy character be on par with light characters but require more work to get done, of course the reduced lag for the heavy characters/laggy moves that is makes them far more powerful then lighter characters. I think it would be a good way to implement it if it returns. What on your thoughts on that?

 

[Jumpman84]

There is a reason to be concerned for those people who have specific expectations of what an ideal competitive Smash game should be. There's a reason people raised $225,000 just to exclusively have Brawl's predecessor at EVO, and not Brawl, and why there was over a 140,000 people watching Melee, and not Brawl, on live stream. These things don't just 'happen.' People play Melee over Brawl because they prefer it, and as much as you say "if you like Melee than play Melee" the reality is that people were more disappointed about being given a competitive poor Smash sequel than they were not being given a re-packaged Melee. It's safe to say that people here wouldn't want to see that happen again. I, and I'm sure many others, would love to see Smash Bros. Wii U at EVO years down the road. It's not going to happen if it follows the same mistakes Brawl did.

This isn't pessimism. It's criticism.

But why should the rest of us who actually like the Smash series for what it is have to suffer just because a small portion of the fanbase complains the loudest? Why should we allow them to insult us and call us idiots under the guise of "criticism"? No one is forcing them to play Brawl, but they insist on forcing other people to hate Brawl as much as they do and if those people won't, they start the name calling and the elitist attitudes like Mr. Shortiecanbrawl's up there.

No one is forcing them to play Brawl, nor did anyone force them to play Melee. They made the choice to not play Brawl and play Melee instead. Instead of attacking the Brawl fans or calling Sakurai incompetent, maybe they could take responsibility for their own decisions. Besides, Project M clearly shows that they're willing and able to make Smash into the game they want, so there's no excuse for their behavior. If you want to play a game that's not Brawl, go play Melee or Project M and leave us alone.

 

[majora_787]

The issue with Project M is it's not even their own game. It's taking someone else's work (Sakurai's) and making it into something they want, and then claiming it to essentually be a part of the Smash Series, and the best one at that.

But I won't get into Project M, since there is literally no way I can without getting off topic. And it'll go nowhere good really fast.

 

[Ulevo]

By game design philosophies, you mean "lack of business sense." Let me put it this way. What if I made a platforming game where you have to push the jump button after every time you land. Essentially, you are bracing your fall and if you don't press the button at the right time, you break your legs. Would you want to play that? Probably not. So why does Melee get a pass for the exact same mechanic?

The primary reason people play these games is for enjoyment and not to "overcome" things. That's what real life is for. Barriers for barriers sake doesn't work and that's exactly what L-canceling is. It it just a redundant motion that you have to do after ever air attack and it give players who can do it a significant advantage. It basically just causes issues as all it's there is to make you do something else. It makes the game less engaging because rather than adapt, strategize think, it makes the game one of muscle memory. It makes the game overly technical and removes most of the risk.Moves should have some lag and you shouldn't be able to spam moves because once you hit the ground, you can jump and do it again with little to no lag time.

You're comparing the idea of having your characters legs break due to a failed input over having your recovery time twice as long? If you're going to bother debating with me, use more tasteful, cohesive argumentative comparisons.

Also, you have a very narrow minded, childish view of what people perceive as enjoyment, and what people look for in the games they play. For many people, sense of accomplishment through overcoming obstacles, mechanical or otherwise, is worth playing the game for in and of itself. That isn't to say that that's the only reason you play Melee, since it's not. And obviously Melee offers way more than that. But I mean, it doesn't even have to represent itself mechanically. Developers put in obstacles in games all the time for the player to work towards overcoming so that the player can feel a sense of challenge and, when they finally rise to the top of their pursuit, achievement. It's been imbedded in gaming since the very first Super Mario Bros., and likely even before that.

The idea that you believe having to rely on muscle memory to perform an action removes most of the risks and strategy from the game, especially as it pertains to Melee, just shows that you're ignorant to the games inner workings, information, and relative melee game sense. I don't even believe you've stopped to sit and think about what you're trying to convey here.

But why should the rest of us who actually like the Smash series for what it is have to suffer just because a small portion of the fanbase complains the loudest? Why should we allow them to insult us and call us idiots under the guise of "criticism"? No one is forcing them to play Brawl, but they insist on forcing other people to hate Brawl as much as they do and if those people won't, they start the name calling and the elitist attitudes like Mr. Shortiecanbrawl's up there.

No one is forcing them to play Brawl, nor did anyone force them to play Melee. They made the choice to not play Brawl and play Melee instead. Instead of attacking the Brawl fans or calling Sakurai incompetent, maybe they could take responsibility for their own decisions. Besides, Project M clearly shows that they're willing and able to make Smash into the game they want, so there's no excuse for their behavior. If you want to play a game that's not Brawl, go play Melee or Project M and leave us alone.

The "rest of you?" Those of you who "actually like the Smash series for what it is?" What's ironic here is that Melee players are often regarding as elitists, which is often in tandem with the idea that people believe Melee players have a sense of self importance. And yet this is what I'm reading? As if this self disclosed portion of the community is somehow more important? Please.

For one, you don't even have numbers to put to the amount of people who even sympathize with your single, personal opinion. Let alone numbers for those who disagree with you. So let's not put things out of perspective here when you have nothing to go on. No one is going to rightfully call you an idiot unless you talk out of your ass. If you refrain from doing that, I'm sure you'll be fine. If you can't, then I don't know what to tell you.

As for everything else you've mentioned, no one is going to crucify you for playing Brawl. I'm sure most people don't care. And they likely don't mind that you play it either. It doesn't mean that people have to be comfortable with the idea that Brawl effectively took the place of a potentially better sequel for reasons that have already been discussed to death. And you know what? Those reasons have been discussed to death probably because appropriate criticism is necessary if you want to see change occur. We're already seeing it now, apparently, as Sakurai is making attempts to keep both ends of the spectrum happy, even if it doesn't wind up successful. But I think it's important that we paint the picture clearly here, and it's irritating when specific Brawl advocates go on tangents about non-sense to discolor that picture all because they get their panties in a knot for being partial to a game that some people really didn't like.

 

[Jumpman84]

The "rest of you?" Those of you who "actually like the Smash series for what it is?" What's ironic here is that Melee players are often regarding as elitists, which is often in tandem with the idea that people believe Melee players have a sense of self importance. And yet this is what I'm reading? As if this self disclosed portion of the community is somehow more important? Please.

For one, you don't even have numbers to put to the amount of people who even sympathize with your single, personal opinion. Let alone numbers for those who disagree with you. So let's not put things out of perspective here when you have nothing to go on. No one is going to rightfully call you an idiot unless you talk out of your ***. If you refrain from doing that, I'm sure you'll be fine. If you can't, then I don't know what to tell you.

Wow... You can't possibly be serious with this post. You really think that the people who prefer Melee are the majority? That's kinda sad. 145,000 of 11 million is not a majority, no matter how you slice it. And how is it my single personal opinion when there are people in this very topic who have stated that they prefer Brawl over Melee? Troll better, please.

As for everything else you've mentioned, no one is going to crucify you for playing Brawl. I'm sure most people don't care. And they likely don't mind that you play it either.

So I just hallucinated the other posts in this thread, particularly the one that referred to his opinion as being fact and that he was "vastly superior"? I don't think so...

It doesn't mean that people have to be comfortable with the idea that Brawl effectively took the place of a potentially better sequel for reasons that have already been discussed to death. And you know what? Those reasons have been discussed to death probably because appropriate criticism is necessary if you want to see change occur. We're already seeing it now, apparently, as Sakurai is making attempts to keep both ends of the spectrum happy, even if it doesn't wind up successful. But I think it's important that we paint the picture clearly here, and it's irritating when specific Brawl advocates go on tangents about non-sense to discolor that picture all because they get their panties in a knot for being partial to a game that some people really didn't like.

That's another thing flawed with your argument. The Smash Bros. series doesn't HAVE sequels. It has INSTALLMENTS. The games are meant to be different from each other. Brawl was never meant to be Melee 2 or it'd be called that. If Nintendo wanted to just make a Melee sequel, Iwata wouldn't have coerced Sakurai into working on it back in 2005. They would have just went through with their Melee 2.0 plan instead of having it as backup should he have said no.

As majora said earlier, Smash is not supposed to be a competitive fighting game. You can use it that way, but if that was what it was meant for, then why put items in if they're not supposed to be used? Why put in stages that are going to be banned anyway? It simply does not compute. So claiming that competitive players are the primary and majority audience is simply ignorant on your part. And I'm just one of the vocal people. There are countless others who don't go onto SmashBoards who very likely feel the same way. We don't know for sure, but they're not here complaining about Brawl. So they must have liked it to SOME degree.

Long story short, people like Melee better and people like Brawl better. I'm not saying one is right or wrong. I'm saying that those who think Melee is better should stop forcing their opinions down the Brawl people's throats. I don't care that you think Brawl is garbage and I'm sick and tired of having to hear about it everywhere I go. In my opinion, if Brawl was really as bad as they make it out to be, then it wouldn't be sitting at an average of 93 on Metacritic. In turn, if you leave me alone, I'll leave you alone. Sounds fair, right?

 

[VhatDeHel]

Which is a problem. So the game becomes just execution devoid of any thought or strategy. It's all just muscle memory. This makes the skill gap just one of pure practice which makes the game very unfun for those who work a job or study and pass their classes.

Sorry this is late, but I disagree because there are ways to counter mindlessly throwing out aerials. One example is shield grabbing. At a Melee tournament at my college, I kept trying to attack a Marth as Falcon by coming in with air attacks and he would just block and immediately grab me.

 

[Uffe]

I don't have high expectations for this game. I don't expect it to be better than Melee and I'm not going to be surprised if it ends up being better than Brawl.

 

[SmashChu]

You're comparing the idea of having your characters legs break due to a failed input over having your recovery time twice as long? If you're going to bother debating with me, use more tasteful, cohesive argumentative comparisons.

If you want to have a debate, how about actually debate my points. Actually bring up a counter argument instead of just trying to brush it to the side.

Also, you have a very narrow minded, childish view of what people perceive as enjoyment, and what people look for in the games they play. For many people, sense of accomplishment through overcoming obstacles, mechanical or otherwise, is worth playing the game for in and of itself. That isn't to say that that's the only reason you play Melee, since it's not. And obviously Melee offers way more than that. But I mean, it doesn't even have to represent itself mechanically. Developers put in obstacles in games all the time for the player to work towards overcoming so that the player can feel a sense of challenge and, when they finally rise to the top of their pursuit, achievement. It's been imbedded in gaming since the very first Super Mario Bros., and likely even before that.

Like I said, normal people play games as a past time, not to find a sense of accomplishment. Society views people who find accomplishments in video games to be sad. Most people look at accomplishments though their work, their family and marriage, and their activities in the community. They don't find accomplishments though pressing L after every air attack.

Again, games are made as a past time. Making the game technically demanding doesn't work because people don't want to put the time in to learn the mechanics. You can get away with this for strategic depth, not not mechanics.

The idea that you believe having to rely on muscle memory to perform an action removes most of the risks and strategy from the game, especially as it pertains to Melee, just shows that you're ignorant to the games inner workings, information, and relative melee game sense. I don't even believe you've stopped to sit and think about what you're trying to convey here.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

I love how you can write a ton of stuff but have no actually content. But it's OK, maybe people will take you seriously if you throw out insults that make you seem smart. Oh, debating with you guys is so fun. I don't even have to make point but just call you on your bull****.

 

[BSP]

This is true, but it's fair to say that StarCraft 2 is losing players at a terrible rate. Developers shouldn't be afraid to try new things, but they can't afford to alienate their fanbase (e.g., Brawl.)

I'm sure I'm late on this, but who do you think the fanbase is?

I'd out money down that the largest # of people at a smash tournament, including the spectators, isn't even .1% of the total # of games sold. For all intents and purposes, the competitive scene doesn't matter. Ninty just does us favors.

I agree with SmashChu regarding people enjoying challenges and what not. We've got to remember that the competitive player, who actually tries to improve at a video game and competes in it, is a rare thing. Most people just sit down with a game and play for the lulz, thinking nothing of it, let alone improving at it. We're talking about the company that makes Mario Kart and Mario Party.

 

[Zalak]

@Jumpman

We haven't actually criticized you for playing brawl, or for playing casually. You're really coming off as kind of elitist. Just because we don't play the game the same way you do, doesn't mean we are playing it wrong. Melee was designed as a fighting game. While most fighting games a competitive by nature, smash bros was meant to be played by casual players, and competitive players alike. There's a reason you can wave dash, and there's a reason you can fight with items.

As for unbalanced stages, they were created for people who wanted to play for fun. (Not that competitive play isn't fun.) Stages like Battlefield, and Final Destination exist because of competitive play. Imagine if Halo 5 had items spawn randomly in every map. The people who played for the joy of beating another team in a perfectly fair capture the flag match would be completely cut off. Now imagine if they removed any sort of game mode customization or level editing, casual players wouldn't be able to enjoy the game nearly as much. Sakurai added a ton of content for both groups of people, not one. L canceling, Smash Balls, Short hopping, Wario Ware Inc, Perfect blocks, Starmen, Hitstun, ect.

After the drastic changes made with Brawl, people (myself included) are worried that there won't be much support for competitive play. Sure, I can enjoy playing with items, but it's not really why I love smash bros. No one complained that Melee was hard to play back in the day. I don't see any reason that the next smash bros game can't appeal to both competitive and casual players.

 

[Jumpman84]

@Jumpman

We haven't actually criticized you for playing brawl, or for playing casually. You're really coming off as kind of elitist. Just because we don't play the game the same way you do, doesn't mean we are playing it wrong. Melee was designed as a fighting game. While most fighting games a competitive by nature, smash bros was meant to be played by casual players, and competitive players alike. There's a reason you can wave dash, and there's a reason you can fight with items.

I never said that people who play Smash competitively are playing it wrong. I was simply saying that the game was not made specifically for a competitive audience, like the Street Fighter or Tekken games are. The competitive players discovered Smash could be played this way and went with it, just like how other people discovered sequence breaking in Super Metroid. Obviously, the game wasn't intended to be played that way, it was something unintentional that was discovered by the fanbase, much like the competitive Smash scene was.

I don't know about me being elitist. Again, I'm not the one saying that my opinion is fact or that I'm vastly superior to everyone else, like that Melee player from earlier in this topic was. And Melee players were the ones that started the whole Melee vs. Brawl thing in the first place. I don't think it's too much to ask that they respect our opinions as they would want their own opinion respected. But they specifically go out of their way to attack Brawl and its fans at every opportunity. What else can a Brawl fan do but fight back?

After the drastic changes made with Brawl, people (myself included) are worried that there won't be much support for competitive play. Sure, I can enjoy playing with items, but it's not really why I love smash bros. No one complained that Melee was hard to play back in the day. I don't see any reason that the next smash bros game can't appeal to both competitive and casual players.

But Melee isn't really geared to a casual player. Technically, the term "casual player" didn't even exist until the DS and Wii generation, when Nintendo was expanding the audience by going through the "blue ocean". Melee was a game created at a time when gamers were the only demographic. Brawl was designed with the Wii's audience in mind. A game that's too technical will alienate potential newcomers to the series or to fighting games in general. History has proven that less technical games are better to grow an audience. That's why the first video game, the overly complicated Computer Space, was a flop and the next attempt, Pong, was a runaway hit and created the video game industry. So by making Brawl less technical, it allows people who have been turned away from fighting games before to give it a shot. If they like it, they'll not only keep an eye out for the next Smash game, but maybe try out some other fighting games or Nintendo games they had stayed away from before. It makes no sense for people to be against this, as expanding the audience of Smash means more sales and more installments and keeps the series alive.

I'm sure that neither Sakurai nor Nintendo could have imagined that these changes made to Brawl would cause such an outcry from a portion of the fanbase. Honestly, I'm surprised that Brawl could be such a loathed game myself. And while they are a small portion of the fanbase, their voices have been heard, even as recently as EVO earlier this year. Sakurai specifically went out of his way to say that Smash 4 would be in between Melee and Brawl, that tripping was not returning, and that they would put a bigger emphasis on balancing, even doing game patches if necessary. He also apologized in advance for any characters that end up being cut while stating that they're trying to put in as many characters as possible. These are the biggest things the Melee players disliked about Brawl and Sakurai was extending an olive branch to them, a "Sorry you didn't like these things in Brawl, I'm making improvements for Smash 4" kind of deal. And what do they do? They yank the olive branch away, snap it in two, toss it in the garbage, and continue insulting Brawl, its fans, and Sakurai. That is what I consider elitist behavior. They should not get a free pass just because they got into EVO and Brawl didn't. Everyone should be held to the same standards of decency, regardless of their game preference.

 

[Ulevo]

Wow... You can't possibly be serious with this post. You really think that the people who prefer Melee are the majority? That's kinda sad. 145,000 of 11 million is not a majority, no matter how you slice it. And how is it my single personal opinion when there are people in this very topic who have stated that they prefer Brawl over Melee? Troll better, please.

There are a lot more people than 145,000 people that enjoy competitive and semi-competitive Melee. You can't use a streams peak time as anecdotal evidence and say "ah ha!" The reality is we don't know how many people, statistically speaking, enjoy the game casually versus competitively. It's mostly irrelevant anyway because we're on a competitive forum discussing things in regards to competitive Smash.

So I just hallucinated the other posts in this thread, particularly the one that referred to his opinion as being fact and that he was "vastly superior"? I don't think so...

Well I'm not going to go and speak for others, but your powers of observation aren't exactly the greatest. I'll leave it at that.

That's another thing flawed with your argument. The Smash Bros. series doesn't HAVE sequels. It has INSTALLMENTS. The games are meant to be different from each other. Brawl was never meant to be Melee 2 or it'd be called that. If Nintendo wanted to just make a Melee sequel, Iwata wouldn't have coerced Sakurai into working on it back in 2005. They would have just went through with their Melee 2.0 plan instead of having it as backup should he have said no.

Ah, yes. The crux argument everyone falls back on. The good ol' Melee 2.0 fallacy.

Case in point, I don't give a **** Brawl wasn't Melee 2.0. Most people who waited for Brawl's release didn't either. I care it was a bad game, and that it subsequently caused a divide in the community. Regardless of whether it was an "installment" or "sequel", there's no reason for a back track in game quality. I'm not interested in semantic arguments.

As majora said earlier, Smash is not supposed to be a competitive fighting game. You can use it that way, but if that was what it was meant for, then why put items in if they're not supposed to be used? Why put in stages that are going to be banned anyway? It simply does not compute. So claiming that competitive players are the primary and majority audience is simply ignorant on your part. And I'm just one of the vocal people. There are countless others who don't go onto SmashBoards who very likely feel the same way. We don't know for sure, but they're not here complaining about Brawl. So they must have liked it to SOME degree.

What makes you believe there aren't also advocates of the competitive side who aren't also forum goers? I'm tired of you forum monkeys perpetuating nonsense instead of critically thinking for yourselves. Why are you even on these boards if you're even going to bother justifying your argument over developer intention? This is a competitive Smash forum and you're advocating your points based on the idea that Smash isn't supposed to be a fighting game? As if it even matters?

Here. www.gamefaqs.com That's where you should be. You can have your casual fun with your casual friends and talk about how much you don't want Smash to be competitive because it wasn't supposed to be competitive there.

And to add on to this, developer intention means diddly squat. Combos in fighting games were an accident that made it through the developer tests on a whim, and without that circumstantial point in history, we might not be enjoying Smash or other fighting games as they are today. You don't see people arguing over whether or not combo's were intended or not as a means to justify their inclusion in games, or even that fighting games are oriented around it. What matters is what kind of an experience it brings.

No one cares at the end of the day whether Sakurai purposely made Melee for the hardcore crowd (which he did) or if he got drunk off his ass one night and accidentally made this "party game" by a complete fluke. What matters is that Smash overall is a fun competitive experience, and it can be without compromising casual player integrity. As long as it continues to do that, I see zero downsides.

Long story short, people like Melee better and people like Brawl better. I'm not saying one is right or wrong. I'm saying that those who think Melee is better should stop forcing their opinions down the Brawl people's throats. I don't care that you think Brawl is garbage and I'm sick and tired of having to hear about it everywhere I go. In my opinion, if Brawl was really as bad as they make it out to be, then it wouldn't be sitting at an average of 93 on Metacritic. In turn, if you leave me alone, I'll leave you alone. Sounds fair, right?

I can't speak for other people and their actions. And to be fair, I think that people who criticize others for playing or enjoying Brawl are in the wrong. But when people bring up legitimate concerns about Brawl as it pertains to future Smash games to come, that isn't as a means to make people who play Brawl feel bad. And it would be a lot easier if some people came to terms with the idea that competitive or not, there were a lot of things that were done poorly and incorrectly as far as Brawl is concerned that many people would not like to see repeated.

If you want to have a debate, how about actually debate my points. Actually bring up a counter argument instead of just trying to brush it to the side.

You can't counter argument an argument that has no logical basis to it. Your comparison was a gross hyperbole that didn't have any meaning. You can't equate the idea of breaking your characters legs to not halving your characters landing lag if you miss a single button within a few frames of input. That's ridiculous. You're looking for sympathetic acknowledgement, not intellectual acknowledgment.

Like I said, normal people play games as a past time, not to find a sense of accomplishment. Society views people who find accomplishments in video games to be sad. Most people look at accomplishments though their work, their family and marriage, and their activities in the community. They don't find accomplishments though pressing L after every air attack.

Normal people? Who would you define as normal, exactly? Sounds like you're talking from a pretty self proclaimed point of view. And why are we bringing societal views in to this? Video games on a whole have always been controversial, and yet here we are debating on a video game forum. Like, seriously?

Not to mention that a large foundation of video games are built on accomplishment. You say people play games as a 'past time', but what the hell does that even mean? People play video games for enjoyment, and enjoyment is achieved through different means depending on the audience the game targets and the sense of enjoyment the player is seeking. Video games for a long, long, long time have vastly catered to the idea of giving the player a sense of achievement and accomplishment through trial and tribulation, and overcoming obstacles. That's what Mario was about. That's what Sonic was about. That's what Donkey Kong was about. They were all about getting to the next level of the game, as with all platformers. Even with games that are more about alternative aspects, such as story telling in RPG games like Final Fantasy, or the Tales of series, they all have intrinsic aspects of levels of achievement, like a leveling system, or item rewards. ****, XBox Live and PS Network have an achievement and trophy system to provide even further incentive to the player.

The most popularly played PC game in the world derives its playerbase through competitive achievement. World of Warcraft does this through materialistic achievement.

This is very, very, very easy to see. I don't even know why I'm having to argue about this.

Again, games are made as a past time. Making the game technically demanding doesn't work because people don't want to put the time in to learn the mechanics. You can get away with this for strategic depth, not not mechanics.

Why? Because somehow strategic depth is more satisfying than mechanical prowess? Because strategic thinking is somehow easier or more difficult, or more or less rewarding, then someone's ability to execute a move or a combo? Has it never occurred to you that people derive their enjoyment from different things?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

I love how you can write a ton of stuff but have no actually content. But it's OK, maybe people will take you seriously if you throw out insults that make you seem smart. Oh, debating with you guys is so fun. I don't even have to make point but just call you on your bull****.

Since you seem to be enjoying this so much, I guess this is your pass time? I'm simply envious.