Anyone else really worried about the quality of this game?

[BSP]

. 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.

Like what? I'll take random input delay, glitches, wifi could've been much better, more interesting event matches, and tripping (then again, you can get stars and coins randomly in Mario Party by landing on nearly any space, and, to my knowledge, no one screams to take that out), but what else is wrong?

 

[SmashChu]

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.

Let me put it this way. Society doesn't think highly of people who "waste their time" playing a video game. People are not going to think highly off you if you tell them you play in video game tournaments. You wont be able to put your money where your mouth is because the pay is so pitiful for being a competitive Smash player. I believe 1st place at Apex 2013 was $3.5 thousand. To need to make another 7.9 thousand in tournament winnings to stay above the poverty level. Of course, it going to be much harder if you didn't make first. So society is going to look down on you for trying to get good at a video game. Most people don't care about getting good or really learning the game. It should come as no surprise that the large majority of people don't want to have this or this. They want the game to be easy to access.

So this is where the problem from L-Canceling comes from. it's not like shielding or dodging where you can do it or do something else. The player has an option in that regard. L-Canceling should be done after every air attack. It's a forced mechanic and one you have to do VERY often. Since most people don't want technical barriers, it doesn't serve it's user. If you want to stay in business, you need to give the consumer what they want. L-Canceling was removed in Brawl and the game grew to over 11 million in sales. Though they are not directly related, it should at least show that L-canceling was something the majority of people missed. Same goes for wavedashing and a lot of other technical things.

People have different opinions, yes, but the majority will prevail and that is who these companies need to provide for. You may want to get really good at the game and master these technical barriers, but most people don't. Thus, they get removed.

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?

Strategic depth and an understanding of the game can be built organically. It comes after you understand and can play the game. But it's the technical barriers that can stop someone dead in their tracks. If you can't play or enjoy the game because it is too technical, you'll never get to a point where you can enjoy the game and learn the minutia.

 

[Shorts]

Imma say it till the day I die. Namco + Nintendo = Better than Brawl

 

[JesseMcCloud]

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.

From my personal experience, I've seen some close friends and smashers walk away from the game after playing Brawl. And perhaps using SC2 is a bad example.
All I'm trying to say is that, in my opinion, SSB4 can't afford to have glaring issues like Brawl did. They've already addressed the tripping issue, and they will be speeding the game up as well. Some of Sakurai's posts in regards to balancing characters' moves (like the sweetspot meteor on Link's dair) leave me feeling very optimistic though.

 

[SmashChu]

From my personal experience, I've seen some close friends and smashers walk away from the game after playing Brawl. And perhaps using SC2 is a bad example.
All I'm trying to say is that, in my opinion, SSB4 can't afford to have glaring issues like Brawl did. They've already addressed the tripping issue, and they will be speeding the game up as well. Some of Sakurai's posts in regards to balancing characters' moves (like the sweetspot meteor on Link's dair) leave me feeling very optimistic though.

The problem is that your assuming there is a problem, and you're doing it based on anecdotal evidence instead of actual evidence. Here are the facts

Brawl has a 93 review score on Metacritics (which is higher than Melee)

Brawl sold 11.49 million copies

Two years after release, it was one of the most played Wii games
http://kotaku.com/5690654/the-20-most+loved-wii-games-breaking-the-80+hour-barrier

Players have clocked in over 100 million hours with an average of 73 hours per person.

So what problem did Brawl actually have. The numbers don't show one. Smashboards and the Melee cult have made up a fairy tale that Brawl is some how a terrible mistake and the company will suffer if they do it again. Instead, the numbers show it is a success. Starcraft 2 is a perfect comparison. It's a game that appealed specifically to its competitive players. The end results was a significant decline in the series. Legacy of the Void will likely go unnoticed. Smash is successful because it doesn't listen to a small userbase on the internet and, instead, tries to make a game for a larger group of people.

 

[JesseMcCloud]

The problem is that your assuming there is a problem, and you're doing it based on anecdotal evidence instead of actual evidence. Here are the facts

Brawl has a 93 review score on Metacritics (which is higher than Melee)

Brawl sold 11.49 million copies

Two years after release, it was one of the most played Wii games
http://kotaku.com/5690654/the-20-most loved-wii-games-breaking-the-80 hour-barrier

Players have clocked in over 100 million hours with an average of 73 hours per person.

So what problem did Brawl actually have. The numbers don't show one. Smashboards and the Melee cult have made up a fairy tale that Brawl is some how a terrible mistake and the company will suffer if they do it again. Instead, the numbers show it is a success. Starcraft 2 is a perfect comparison. It's a game that appealed specifically to its competitive players. The end results was a significant decline in the series. Legacy of the Void will likely go unnoticed. Smash is successful because it doesn't listen to a small userbase on the internet and, instead, tries to make a game for a larger group of people.

Wow, man. Just, WOW. You have a real talent for making mountains out of molehills. I'm TRYING to say that deciding between Melee and Brawl became a serious point of contention in my circle of smashers in Montana, none of us being professional or "hardcore" melee fans in any way.
For example, one of my friends mained Samus, and HATED Brawl because of how many tools she lost in comparision to the newer characters' tools.
We looked forward to the Final Smashes, but had to choose between having them in-game, or going back to our no-items policy (guess which way we chose.)
Oh yeah, and tripping, because casual or not, no one likes winning on a fluke.
And now? We hardly ever smash together because we can hardly ever agree on which title to play.
Look at the last part of my post you quoted. I'm EXCITED for SSB4, for all the right reasons. New characters, enhanced gameplay that should strike a pleasant middle ground between both Brawl and Melee camps, HD graphics, and hopefully, better online multiplayer. I WANT it to be good.
And that's why I really want Sakurai to just KILL the execution on SSB4. I want it to shine from every angle, so we can put this rediculous argument YOU keep bringing up to a rest, once and for all.

EDIT: And for the record, you can quote all the sales figures you want; it still doesn't make your logic any less flawed, or have anything more to do with my statements above.

 

[Thane of Blue Flames]

I don't actually care about figures when it comes to Brawl v/s Melee. Yeah, Brawl was more successful, but personally, as in, my opinion, I'd like the new game to be faster paced than Brawl. Like, it's hard to get kills <120% unless you're using characters like Ike or DK I can usually get in two taunts and a full charge on a smash while waiting for someone to slooooowly ... driiiiiiift ... baaaaaack ... frooooooom ... theeeee ... aiiiiiir ...

I actually kid myself when I say I don't love Brawl, I've clocked a ton of hours on it, my favorite characters to use in any Smash game are Ike and Wolf and Smash balls are dope. However, I'd like the fights to actually feel like ... you know ... fights.

 

[SmashChu]

Wow, man. Just, WOW. You have a real talent for making mountains out of molehills. I'm TRYING to say that deciding between Melee and Brawl became a serious point of contention in my circle of smashers in Montana, none of us being professional or "hardcore" melee fans in any way.
For example, one of my friends mained Samus, and HATED Brawl because of how many tools she lost in comparision to the newer characters' tools.
We looked forward to the Final Smashes, but had to choose between having them in-game, or going back to our no-items policy (guess which way we chose.)
Oh yeah, and tripping, because casual or not, no one likes winning on a fluke.
And now? We hardly ever smash together because we can hardly ever agree on which title to play.
Look at the last part of my post you quoted. I'm EXCITED for SSB4, for all the right reasons. New characters, enhanced gameplay that should strike a pleasant middle ground between both Brawl and Melee camps, HD graphics, and hopefully, better online multiplayer. I WANT it to be good.

Wait, hold up. Lets step back. This is the claim statement you made.

All I'm trying to say is that, in my opinion, SSB4 can't afford to have glaring issues like Brawl did.

You based this solely on anecdotal evidence. This is why I bring up actual facts. You claim that Brawl has these glaring issues that must be addresses, but the data doesn't show that anything needs to be changed. It was successful on all accounts. Which goes back to what I said. These problems are all in your head. There is no real problem that actually needs to be solved.

After my post 'o facts, you proceed to make the post your podium to complain. I suspect you never had a point and just wanted to complain about Brawl.

And that's why I really want Sakurai to just KILL the execution on SSB4. I want it to shine from every angle, so we can put this rediculous argument YOU keep bringing up to a rest, once and for all.

And what ridiculous argument is this?

EDIT: And for the record, you can quote all the sales figures you want; it still doesn't make your logic any less flawed, or have anything more to do with my statements above.

Let me put it this way. Do you buy things you think you'll like. Or do you buy things you don't like. I assume you'll pick the ladder. And because your not a special snowflake, most people would do the same. You could claim, "well, yeah, but these people could have hated it after they played it." That may be true, but seeing how it had an average play time of 73 hours, it is unlikely. Your not going to play something for 73 hours and then say "THIS GAME SUCKS." on the 74th hour. This is understanding and interpreting facts.

 

[D-idara]

The thing is that most of Brawl's "flaws" are very subjective. For example, the story mode, the slowing down from Melee's frenetic pace, the defensive competitive style (Because if it's not hyper offense then it sucks *sarcasm*).

Oh, and not only casuals want the game to be more like Brawl, you know? I play way too much and get too involved on the gqme to count as a casual, but I still know the true fun in Smash is wacky matches.

 

[Burning Boom]

The tears, they are delicious. Maybe I should troll. Its seems I can really rile people up just stating the obvious.

Wariofan already pointed it out, but the problem was there was a lot of unnecessary hurdles. To list a few

• You couldn't grab the ledge if you were facing backwards. It was also very easy to turn your character around with some recoveries
• You could only air dodge once and you are completely vulnerable afterwards. Even if you don't do a bad dodge, its very hard for the person in the air to get out of harm's way
• Perfect shielding was far harder. It also reflected projectiles for some reason
• L-canceling which is just a pointless tech. Give a huge advantage to neckberd who play the game for 60 hours a week instead of getting a job or passing their classes. Hope you don't have a normal life. Same for Wavedashing
• Longer hitstun (by a lot). Gives you less control over your character
• The speed, though this could be overcome a lot easier than the rest.

• WHAT! You have to put actual effort into recovering!?!
• WHAT!! You can't just spam the airdodge without rhyme or reason! How dare they make it harder to mindlessly camp too!?!
• WHAT!!! Perfect shielding had a point, and that point was a really powerful ability that wasn't nessecary, so they made it hard to do!?!
• WHAT!!!! Someone who puts much more time and effort into the game will be better at it!?! Blasphemy!
• WHAT!!!!! The game actually rewarded offense and not camping in a corner!?!
• WHAT!!!!!! The game was fast and fluid!?!

 

[Renji64]

You gotta lower expectations really really really low and you will be fine.

 

[Renji64]

The problem is that your assuming there is a problem, and you're doing it based on anecdotal evidence instead of actual evidence. Here are the facts

Brawl has a 93 review score on Metacritics (which is higher than Melee)

Brawl sold 11.49 million copies

Two years after release, it was one of the most played Wii games
http://kotaku.com/5690654/the-20-most loved-wii-games-breaking-the-80 hour-barrier

Players have clocked in over 100 million hours with an average of 73 hours per person.

So what problem did Brawl actually have. The numbers don't show one. Smashboards and the Melee cult have made up a fairy tale that Brawl is some how a terrible mistake and the company will suffer if they do it again. Instead, the numbers show it is a success. Starcraft 2 is a perfect comparison. It's a game that appealed specifically to its competitive players. The end results was a significant decline in the series. Legacy of the Void will likely go unnoticed. Smash is successful because it doesn't listen to a small userbase on the internet and, instead, tries to make a game for a larger group of people.

You know he Wii Had a way larger installbase than the gamecube and you a casual smash is gonna sell more don't be ********.

 

[FlareHabanero]

I'm not upset over the lack of the advanced techniques from previous games, but more like the modifications that ultimately created a less favorable metagame. One that emphasized a more defensive camping style that discouraged offense. Like an unnecessary buffed shield, much more punishing stale-move negation, and a slowed down gameplay. Camping is not fun, all it does is drown out matches because trying to be aggressive is normally the worse option.

 

[majora_787]

• WHAT! You have to put actual effort into recovering!?!
• WHAT!! You can't just spam the airdodge without rhyme or reason! How dare they make it harder to mindlessly camp too!?!
• WHAT!!! Perfect shielding had a point, and that point was a really powerful ability that wasn't nessecary, so they made it hard to do!?!
• WHAT!!!! Someone who puts much more time and effort into the game will be better at it!?! Blasphemy!
• WHAT!!!!! The game actually rewarded offense and not camping in a corner!?!
• WHAT!!!!!! The game was fast and fluid!?!

I was really amused by that post, especially since you thought Melee was fluid.

Making a game difficult to play and requiring of more effort when it's not actually made to be that way isn't actually good design. If we were talking about a game that is meant to be harder to play and is actually made with competitive players entirely in mind, it'd be another conversation.

 

[SmashChu]

You know he Wii Had a way larger installbase than the gamecube and you a casual smash is gonna sell more don't be ********.

You know there are like three other facts there right? You can ignore the sales numbers but it's hard to ignore the reviews and amount of time people played Brawl.

 

[Burning Boom]

I was really amused by that post, especially since you thought Melee was fluid.

Making a game difficult to play and requiring of more effort when it's not actually made to be that way isn't actually good design. If we were talking about a game that is meant to be harder to play and is actually made with competitive players entirely in mind, it'd be another conversation.

I find this amusing, because you don't seem to understand the nature of Melee's advanced techs. They're not necessary to casually enjoy the game, but they're there if you want to take your play to another level. Now, I'm not gonna BS you and say L-cancelling was a great design decision, no, reduced ending lag would've been much better in my opinion, but all of the other advanced techs serve their purpose, they have a point, they allow you to do things you couldn't otherwise, but the game isn't inherently worse if you don't use them.

Also, yes, Melee was much more fluid than Brawl or 64, 64 was just rough (which is fine considering it was the first outing), and Brawl was floaty, slow, and the game just didn't flow as well. You criticized the post, but you brought no actual arguments to the table btw, which makes your post a waste of space, then again, this entire argument is a waste, as it's been had many times, and it never goes anywhere.

 

[JesseMcCloud]

You based this solely on anecdotal evidence. This is why I bring up actual facts. You claim that Brawl has these glaring issues that must be addresses, but the data doesn't show that anything needs to be changed. It was successful on all accounts. Which goes back to what I said. These problems are all in your head. There is no real problem that actually needs to be solved.
Let me put it this way. Do you buy things you think you'll like. Or do you buy things you don't like. I assume you'll pick the ladder. And because your not a special snowflake, most people would do the same. You could claim, "well, yeah, but these people could have hated it after they played it." That may be true, but seeing how it had an average play time of 73 hours, it is unlikely. Your not going to play something for 73 hours and then say "THIS GAME SUCKS." on the 74th hour. This is understanding and interpreting facts.

My facts may be anecdotal, but your sales figures do not support your argument, nor do putting words in my mouth. If sales were all it took to prove a game's merit, we'd all be playing Call of Duty.
Brawl sold well because of the Wii's install base, and because it was intended to appeal to the more casual fanbase. This was like a slap to the face of the "professional" community. Yes, we are a minority, and Nintendo wants to make money. But I still intend to buy SSB4 in the hopes it will satisfy the "hardcore" fighting game community, and be taken seriously enough to warrant a strong enough fanbase/spectatorbase to merit inclusion at the big tourneys, while still appealing to the casual player as well.
Riddle me this: of the Smash titles out now, which gets the most spectators on Twitch? Which is featured more prominently in gaming tournaments like Evo?
Now, I'm not saying one game is better than the other; I bought and enjoyed both. But even YOU have to admit, each game had its respective flaws (L-canceling in some players' eyes, tripping in others', etc.) What I want is for SSB4 to take the best of each, and remove the weaknesses of each title (as they already have with tripping, for example.)

I'm not upset over the lack of the advanced techniques from previous games, but more like the modifications that ultimately created a less favorable metagame. One that emphasized a more defensive camping style that discouraged offense. Like an unnecessary buffed shield, much more punishing stale-move negation, and a slowed down gameplay. Camping is not fun, all it does is drown out matches because trying to be aggressive is normally the worse option.

Essentially, this. Even Sakurai has said that they "had something special" with Melee.
What it boils down to is: Let's lower the skill level required for all comers to enjoy the game, but maintain the speed and fluidity so it's fun to watch and play at the higher skill levels.

 

[SmashChu]

My facts may be anecdotal, but your sales figures do not support your argument, nor do putting words in my mouth. If sales were all it took to prove a game's merit, we'd all be playing Call of Duty.
Brawl sold well because of the Wii's install base, and because it was intended to appeal to the more casual fanbase. This was like a slap to the face of the "professional" community. Yes, we are a minority, and Nintendo wants to make money. But I still intend to buy SSB4 in the hopes it will satisfy the "hardcore" fighting game community, and be taken seriously enough to warrant a strong enough fanbase/spectatorbase to merit inclusion at the big tourneys, while still appealing to the casual player as well.
Riddle me this: of the Smash titles out now, which gets the most spectators on Twitch? Which is featured more prominently in gaming tournaments like Evo?
Now, I'm not saying one game is better than the other; I bought and enjoyed both. But even YOU have to admit, each game had its respective flaws (L-canceling in some players' eyes, tripping in others', etc.) What I want is for SSB4 to take the best of each, and remove the weaknesses of each title (as they already have with tripping, for example.)

One thing you have to keep in mind is trends. Brawl sold about 5 million units by August. It managed to sell the rest over its lifetime. Were the game so bad, it would have haulted quickly. Word of mouth travels fast. But that didn't happen.

Opinions are one thing, but facts are facts. People will have their own opinions on how good or bad a game is but sales numbers don't lie. And people don't buy games they don't like (they aren't stupid). So sales are the opinions of the market. That is why that matters. Having more hardware units out there helps (though I think the primary cause of the increase was different). This is also why I looked at hours played and critic's rating.

As far as EVO and streams: EVO was only once. Wether or not it stays is another thing. And Melee is a cult so a lot of stream views is not unexpected.
As an aside, I think the games would go farther if the community would actually work together.

 

[Burning Boom]

One thing you have to keep in mind is trends. Brawl sold about 5 million units by August. It managed to sell the rest over its lifetime. Were the game so bad, it would have haulted quickly. Word of mouth travels fast. But that didn't happen.

Opinions are one thing, but facts are facts. People will have their own opinions on how good or bad a game is but sales numbers don't lie. And people don't buy games they don't like (they aren't stupid). So sales are the opinions of the market. That is why that matters. Having more hardware units out there helps (though I think the primary cause of the increase was different). This is also why I looked at hours played and critic's rating.

As far as EVO and streams: EVO was only once. Wether or not it stays is another thing. And Melee is a cult so a lot of stream views is not unexpected.
As an aside, I think the games would go farther if the community would actually work together.

Your using sales to defend your argument, that's really sad. Nobody is saying (at least I don't think so) that Brawl wasn't a well-received game, but Melee was objectively better. Also, of course people are stupid, how naive are you? I suppose COD is the best gaming franchise ever then?

 

[Ningildo]

Your using sales to defend your argument, that's really sad. Nobody is saying (at least I don't think so) that Brawl wasn't a well-received game, but Melee was objectively better. Also, of course people are stupid, how naive are you? I suppose COD is the best gaming franchise ever then?

You're only attacking a part of his argument and not the entirety of it. That's sad.

Also, while it is true that people make...questionable decisions, saying that people are ******** in every decision they make (or every game they buy) is stretching it. If people are so stupid, why do we get many decent games (and some great games every now and then) if designers don't need to change anything in the next installment because people are too stupid to notice they're playing the same game? Honestly, bringing up COD is just stupid (mainly cause I believe every COD game could just be MW3 with a different color scheme and plot with no mechanic changes and it will still sell well, but that's besides the point).

 

[1MachGO]

One thing you have to keep in mind is trends. Brawl sold about 5 million units by August. It managed to sell the rest over its lifetime. Were the game so bad, it would have haulted quickly. Word of mouth travels fast. But that didn't happen.

Opinions are one thing, but facts are facts. People will have their own opinions on how good or bad a game is but sales numbers don't lie. And people don't buy games they don't like (they aren't stupid). So sales are the opinions of the market. That is why that matters. Having more hardware units out there helps (though I think the primary cause of the increase was different). This is also why I looked at hours played and critic's rating.

As far as EVO and streams: EVO was only once. Wether or not it stays is another thing. And Melee is a cult so a lot of stream views is not unexpected.
As an aside, I think the games would go farther if the community would actually work together.

For someone who likes to boast the need to draw conclusions from facts, you seem to do a really good job of misinterpreting them.

Here is a trend: A piece of media with a great reputation makes sequels highly marketable. However, if expectations aren't met, then subsequent sequels don't sell as well.

Just look at really hyped films that weren't as good as the originals. Star Wars: The Phantom Menace made way more money than the original 3 films... but was it as "good" as its predecessors? No. As a result, the following two prequels didn't make as much money.

So when examining Brawl's sales, you have to consider that Brawl benefits from Melee's reputation. If we are going to make judgments about consumer-satisfaction regarding Brawl, the sales for Smash 4 would actually be more helpful. Of course, I am not saying that Brawl has a horrendous enough reputation to drive down sales or that there aren't any other factors to consider (such as console sales) but my main point is that the logic you are using is wrong.

Another thing you don't acknowledge is that, while Brawl and Melee are probably equally loved by the casual fanbase, Melee, thus far, has been a more successful competitive game. Its longevity and its resurgence in popularity speaks for itself. Also, to call Melee a "cult" is needless. All competitive followings for smash games are "cult" fanbases. However, Melee's is probably bigger than Brawl and 64's.

 

[Burning Boom]

You're only attacking a part of his argument and not the entirety of it. That's sad.

Also, while it is true that people make...questionable decisions, saying that people are ******** in every decision they make (or every game they buy) is stretching it. If people are so stupid, why do we get many decent games (and some great games every now and then) if designers don't need to change anything in the next installment because people are too stupid to notice they're playing the same game? Honestly, bringing up COD is just stupid (mainly cause I believe every COD game could just be MW3 with a different color scheme and plot with no mechanic changes and it will still sell well, but that's besides the point).

Buying Brawl is not a "********" decision, it may be worse than Melee, but it's still a great game in its own right. And yes, people are stupid, every single person on this planet is stupid or ignorant on some topic or another, yet most like to pretend otherwise. Video games are a medium with a lot of this being prevalent in its consumers. Either way, I'm not here to argue philosophy, and I shouldn't have brought it up. The point I was trying to get across is, most people don't care about the specifics of what they're buying. I handed Melee and Brawl to my freinds, and the only difference they could see was characters and graphics. Most people who buy Smash, don't CARE about the nuances of the gameplay, so why are we consulting them on that topic?

 

[Ningildo]

Buying Brawl is not a "********" decision, it may be worse than Melee, but it's still a great game in its own right. And yes, people are stupid, every single person on this planet is stupid or ignorant on some topic or another, yet most like to pretend otherwise. Video games are a medium with a lot of this being prevalent in its consumers. Either way, I'm not here to argue philosophy, and I shouldn't have brought it up. The point I was trying to get across is, most people don't care about the specifics of what they're buying. I handed Melee and Brawl to my freinds, and the only difference they could see was characters and graphics. Most people who buy Smash, don't CARE about the nuances of the gameplay, so why are we consulting them on that topic?

We're not. I was just pointing something out to be honest.

But imo, at the end of the day, we're all just going to pick what we enjoy playing. Some will pick Melee due more fluid battles/less camping and NO TRIPPING and others will pick Brawl due easier AT's and more characters. Honestly, the first one to start yelling "YEAH BRAWL SUCKS BECAUSE CAMPING AND TRIPPING LOL!" or "MELEE TAKES YEARS TO MASTER WTF!?" are the ones that start these rather pointless discussions that only divide the community and create knee-jerk reactions for people that have these discussions frequently. If you want to get a point across, try to do so without biting each others head off, unless the other guy WANTS this to happen (maybe he gets a kick out of it idk) at which point you just say "well, ok w/e" and walk away.

It's just too bad it's human nature to try and prove that you are right 100% of the time.

Man, **** the server overloading like half the day

 

[SmashChu]

For someone who likes to boast the need to draw conclusions from facts, you seem to do a really good job of misinterpreting them.

Here is a trend: A piece of media with a great reputation makes sequels highly marketable. However, if expectations aren't met, then subsequent sequels don't sell as well.

Just look at really hyped films that weren't as good as the originals. Star Wars: The Phantom Menace made way more money than the original 3 films... but was it as "good" as its predecessors? No. As a result, the following two prequels didn't make as much money.

So when examining Brawl's sales, you have to consider that Brawl benefits from Melee's reputation. If we are going to make judgments about consumer-satisfaction regarding Brawl, the sales for Smash 4 would actually be more helpful. Of course, I am not saying that Brawl has a horrendous enough reputation to drive down sales or that there aren't any other factors to consider (such as console sales) but my main point is that the logic you are using is wrong.

Another thing you don't acknowledge is that, while Brawl and Melee are probably equally loved by the casual fanbase, Melee, thus far, has been a more successful competitive game. Its longevity and its resurgence in popularity speaks for itself. Also, to call Melee a "cult" is needless. All competitive followings for smash games are "cult" fanbases. However, Melee's is probably bigger than Brawl and 64's.

First, remember how I pointed out that about half of the sales where made after the first few months. Movies are only in theaters for a month or two. If the game was so bad, word of mouth would have stopped it dead in its tracks. It also wouldn't explain why the game was played an average of 73 hours per person.

The "cult" topic is too big to get into now. But take a look at both the zealous love for Melee and the hate

Your using sales to defend your argument, that's really sad. Nobody is saying (at least I don't think so) that Brawl wasn't a well-received game, but Melee was objectively better. Also, of course people are stupid, how naive are you? I suppose COD is the best gaming franchise ever then?

Consider what you're implying for a minute. You are implying that people don't know what they like and bought COD anyway despite the fact they don't even like it. How is that even realistic.

Your opinions aren't the right one. You may not like games like COD, but the general populous does and that is there opinion. Melee isn't objectively better.

 

[Venus of the Desert Bloom]

Yeeeeah,

I said don't discuss Brawl vs Melee or else it's going to be locked. While in all honesty, this thread brought up valid points and does raise some important questions but this is not the place for talking about Melee vs Brawl. People flame each other, troll one another, and ignorant stances concerning both parties.

So I'm closing this.