Brawl is the best Smash game.

[elliotnz]

Brawl is a better party game. If you want to be rewarded for skill play melee

 

[Blue Warrior]

Let me just remind you, once again, that the main focus here is supposed to be comparing Melee & Brawl. Smash 4 is not involved in this; if I were to talk about why Brawl is superior over Smash 4, that's for a whole new debate topic. I am aware I had the title set for one to believe that I meant the best Smash game overall throughout the whole series, but what I actually meant was mainly between Melee & Brawl, because for one thing, it's kind of common knowledge that Brawl is better than SSB64 (if anyone is willing to defend it though, I don't have a problem with that) as well as Smash 4, but the reason I don't welcome Smash 4 is because it's a tighter comparison and isn't exactly difficult to come up with reasons it could be better. if someone could logically defend Smash 64 over Brawl, especially with the gap between generations each of them were released in, I would be very impressed. Hearing defense over Smash 4 though disinterests me because since it's new (yet still worse than Brawl in my opinion), any fan of Nintendo, which I'd assume you clearly are, is obviously going to like it. In other words, if Nintendo literally made a log of s***, you would buy it. Not me though. If you are reading/read this and are preparing your argument as to why I am wrong, save it, because I don't need to mention again that on this particular forum, Smash 4 is not necessary to get a point across (yours especially) when comparing MELEE & BRAWL. If you want to defend Smash 4 over Brawl, make your own forum.

Okay, I just want to point out real quick that the correct phrase is "make your own topic", not " make your own forum". A forum is what you posted your topic in. We're posting posts in that topic.


"Hearing defense over Smash 4 though disinterests me because since it's new (yet still worse than Brawl in my opinion), any fan of Nintendo, which I'd assume you clearly are, is obviously going to like it. In other words, if Nintendo literally made a log of s***, you would buy it. Not me though."

There we go. So if I'm reading into this correctly, the reason you don't want to talk about Smash 4 in here is because you've already assumed you know that I'm not smart enough for it. You know that I can't hold a logical discussion on it without being enamored by the bells and whistles of a new Nintendo product -- in fact, you've already made yourself superior to me by separating yourself from this mentality you've attached to me.

Hopefully it's easy to see that this is no way to hold a civil conversation; in fact, I think you'd agree that sounds rather pretentious. I am not a blind mob; I am capable of taking in feedback and using reason. You should respect your opponent that way in any civil debate you walk into.

If you really just wanted to focus on Brawl and Melee, the title of your topic should have been "Brawl is better than Melee". But I'm not really even fond of that at this point, because of what you just said about the other two:

"it's kind of common knowledge that Brawl is better than SSB64 (if anyone is willing to defend it though, I don't have a problem with that) as well as Smash 4"

...Uh... No, not really. You seem to have projected that opinion onto an imaginary majority of people in order to make your point. There are many arguments that can be made that 4 is better than Brawl, of which I've made some of the more common and some of the less common ones. I'd even say an argument can be made that SSB64 is better than Brawl. I don't think I would go that far, but 64 does have some definite advantages: better character balance, better match pacing and physics, and a small tight game that's not big on features (but what's there works a lot more solidly).

This whole line of reasoning of yours is running off of a lot of bold assumptions about what other people think about the Smash games. If you really want to defend Brawl against what some people consider the "best", you may as well include the whole spectrum.

Same situation: in that case, you be the chef, and see if people think your food is any better.

No. I am the customer, not the chef. If I don't like your food, I will eat somewhere else.

This idea of yours that I have no right to criticize the game because I haven't made my own is just an appeal to authority. What gives you the credentials to praise the game? Why do you think critics exist?

I understand this simple concept: in your world these things exist. In mine, they don't. I don't see what you see, and just because I don't see something the way you do does not mean I do not understand it.

The fallacy fallacy.

That's actually a good point, partly; it would have been more accurate if I used the anecdotal fallacy. You're saying that because you and your collective group of friends don't see the issue, that proves that it doesn't exist. It doesn't prove that it exists though, and you've dismissed my arguments not with logical counterarguments but with, "Yeah well, we don't see it that way, so that means you're wrong."

Also that wasn't a fallacy fallacy; I defended myself against your claim in which you had "proven" the issues were trivial by using your own logical fallacy. My viewpoint may be right or wrong, but the logic train you used to get to there does not prove anything.

This directly supports my reasoning when I say it's just your opinion. I mentioned that those stages were high-rated by people who downloaded them, so while it may look like nonsense to you, it sure must have been fun to play on according to many others.

...You didn't address my point at all. Ignore my side comment in that blurb and focus on what I said about the stage limitations.

The Great Maze is a well-structured, thought out level in the game that may actually require you to use your head in order to complete it. Anybody could come up with racing against a timer, heck, tons of games on things like the App Store, Google Play, or just your phone in general do things involving "racing against a timer".

If I wanted to do an F-Zero race, wouldn't I just play F-Zero?

Again, that wasn't my complaint. My problem with SSE is that you have to play the entire thing TWICE to beat the campaign, because of the great maze being tagged at the end after all of the levels you already played.

Believe me, I'm cool with Metroidvania structure. Kirby and the Amazing Mirror is like my favorite Kirby game of all time, and that's basically what the Great Maze is. If SSE was just the Great Maze with some bosses, I wouldn't even be mad.

And just because it may not have good theming to you, doesn't mean effort wasn't put into it. I'm sure if you thought about it, you'd agree that Melee's adventure mode is pretty basic. That's not to say I shouldn't do the same with SSE, I did, and neither am I saying that Adventure mode is bad on its own, but when compared to the Subspace Emissary, the adventure that involves a lot more thinking, an actualy story, cutscenes to show off the capabilities of this game and what it's capable of, what can you say?

I don't want to play in generic forests, jungles, robot bases, and desert landscapes. I want to play in cool locations that remind me of why I play this game to begin with. Mario's universe, Kirby's, Samus's, Snake's. Melee's Adventure Mode was basic in terms of its gameplay structure, but the theming was all there. And gameplay-wise, what's there worked. (...okay, most of the time.)

I'm not saying the production value of the story wasn't great. I liked the cutscenes probably more than most people I hear talk about it. But as far as levels go, generic terrain archetypes I've seen in every other game just don't do anything for me.

And just a side note, Smash 4 doesn't even have an adventure mode, so take that for what it's worth.

That does make me sad, actually. It's one of the few real complaints I have about Smash 4; the other two being long stocks and useless Smash Run and boardgame mode nonsense.

If you ask me, it's easier to tell what's going on in Brawl as opposed to Melee, because you can actually keep up with what's going on. To many (and I don't disagree with this tbh), competitive Melee just looks like such a glitchy mess that if anything isn't easy to read onscreen, it's Melee. And the competitive Melee community is microscopic amongst the entire gaming community, who normal plays all-around games, and if they do play competitively, Smash Bros. is it's own category.

The reason why Melee is difficult to keep track of onscreen is because of the actions per second happening onscreen. Granted, wavedash doesn't have much of an intuitive indicator for an outsider looking in, but both games have lots of advanced techniques that aren't intuitive on the surface. What you're talking about is Melee being so fast that it makes your head hurt, but what I'm talking about is visual noise. Assuming neither player is wavedashing in Melee (for argument's sake, they're fairly casual players), you might find the action a little quicker to distinguish than in Brawl due the game's choice of character palettes, among other things.

They were laggy regardless of who you played because it was your connection's fault, not theirs. And if any of your friends whom you've played with have also told you that they're horrendously laggy, that still doesn't mean it isn't your fault, because if one person has a crappy connection, everyone in the match is going to have crappy connection. (Another reason Smash 4 isn't any better, btw.)

I know how netplay works, bro. :V

I've played games online on PC way before Brawl even came out, so I'm plenty accustomed to different types of lag. And I'm telling you, I could play Team Fortress 2, Quake, whatever, and it was always fine, but my track record with Brawl online is so bad and so high in latency (even in matches just with a friend around the block) that I find it difficult to chalk it up to user error. In contrast, I have a significantly worse internet connection now, but I very rarely have problems with 4 online. In fact, outside of trying to fight a few choice individuals, it's been consistently quite lagless. What changed here?

And as far as general knowledge goes, Mario Kart Wii probably worked out a lot better because it just may not have been as popular as Smash Bros. was overall, thereby giving Brawl more online players, making the servers a little bit laggy. Who knows? Maybe in the future Smash 4's online server strength will drop as well once more people have bought the Wii U (if they even do, that is).

Actually, Mario Kart uses a very different kind of netcode than Smash Bros because it's a racing game. You don't need the precision of a fighting game, so the game just lets you do your thing and the server informs you when an event like placement or item collision happens. FPS games do this as well. Smash Bros. is more WYSIWYG, which in the context of netplay means that when you press an input, you get to see how delayed that input actually is. It doesn't "mask" your movements and then correct you later if there's some sort of desynchronization.

Things like tripping and being unpolished are all there for a reason, not because the game is bad.

You're only a third correct. Tripping was a deliberate mechanic that was implemented to fit an intended design plan. That doesn't necessarily mean implementing it was the right choice, and people near-unanimously seem to dislike it.

And being "unpolished" simply means that it hasn't been fine-tuned. Unless you're doing an improv stand-up routine or drawing quick sketches and doodles, "unpolished" is not a good trait for your product to be described as.

If Sakuri wanted to fulfill his dream of making a fighting game that would appeal to all players and make an even matchup between each player no matter who you were playing against, he did what had to be done. Just think about it. If the community didn't turn Melee into what they did today, Brawl would have been just like it. Why? Because nothing needed to be changed.

There will always be uneven matchups between players of uneven skill. Every choice you make has an effect on the match's outcome, and there are many bad decisions and many good decisions the player can make. Bad timing or button precision matters, even in Smash 4, which has very few ATs to speak of compared to the other games. Even items exacerbate the issue of skill rather than rectify it, because good players are better at using items than bad players. The utopian "everybody wins" environment you describe could only ever be accomplished by making the game completely luckbased, and that can never happen. This series may not be Street Fighter, but it isn't Mario Party.

I said this already...

Before you get the wrong impression by that, evaluate all of that and then tell me if you still think my logic in this case is unreasonable.

I think you make a lot of incorrect assumptions at points, and you misunderstand my argument at other points. I'd like to think that you just naturally make logic errors like this and you're not trying to move goalposts, but this whole debate on your half seems pretty intellectually dishonest to me. I hope you address all this so we can clear the air.

 

[trashparent]

It's really all up to the player's preference in what they're looking for in a smash game. Do you want the competitiveness of Melee, or the more expansive Brawl.

Competitively, Brawl is a complete disaster imo. It's way too defensive and campy for my taste and just feels cheap a lot of times. The characters are even more unbalanced in Brawl than they were in Melee. I don't know much about Brawl's tier list but i do know that some characters are complete jokes like Jigglypuff and Ganon, then there are characters like Metaknight and Diddy who can a lot of times just break the game. Melee can be broken at times too but not as nearly as much as Brawl. It can be a task just watching Brawl too because of its defensive campy nature. You can watch a Brawl set and half the time both players will just try to bait one another into attacks, which can make it really boring to spectate unlike Melee.

But from a casual prospective, it's pretty obvious why brawl would be the better game. It has more characters, more stages (including just about every good one from melee), more/better music, and a MUCH better single player mode. When Brawl was in development Sakurai was intentionally making Brawl less competitive than Melee to make it more "accessible" to different people, which was weired to me because Melee was just as accessible.

 

[koKoRoro]

I'm sorry, but you're saying brawl is superior to melee in everything except for gameplay? I'm really sorry, but if that's your point of view on video games in general, that a game should be rated based on it's graphics and new features, then you don't know what true gaming is really about. Because in the end, what's gaming about?

"It's all about the game" -Sgt. Ernie Calhoun

my 2 cents

 

[PK Illuminati]

''Ok, first of all, calm down. You are clearly showing that this isn't something you do for fun and are taking this way too seriously.
Secondly, Brawl was technically Melee's fix. But if you insist nothing changed, you musn't think there's a difference, which, since it was fixed, in this case, there is.
I'm not sure if you even play competitively at all... that's fine, but don't put someone who you know is superior to you down.''
I play Smash because its fun to play it competitively. Brawl was NOT Melee's fix, an unneeded buff to IC's, adding Meta Knight, who is the by far best character in the game, and TRIPPING.
Also wtf? You're defending Brawl on a competitive standpoint and are calling me a casual? I don't play Brawl. It's literally the worst game in the series for competitive. But, alright, LMAO, keep playing your Brawl, have fun tripping and loosing to Meta Knights. Also with 6 minute long campy games.






''What did I post that defies anything I just said, exactly?''
You said,
''Ironically though, in the end none of this really matters because it's just a game; not a life or death situation...not that I can tell you how to play your video games or just how you spend your time in general, but Melee and Brawl both already happened so it doesn't really matter what you do now, but whatever it is you may do, whether it involve being a hardcore competitor or just an all-around player who may not look at it the same way, just have fun.''

The title of you're article is ''brawl is the best smash game'', opening up debate to whether it is or is not ''the best smash game'' to people. It's VERY hypocritical to say ''Ironically though, in the end none of this really matters because it's just a game; not a life or death situation...not that I can tell you how to play your video games or just how you spend your time in general, but Melee and Brawl both already happened so it doesn't really matter what you do now, but whatever it is you may do, whether it involve being a hardcore competitor or just an all-around player who may not look at it the same way, just have fun.'', when you are OPENING UP A DEBATE on what is the best smash game.




You're a casual. I get that you don't play for try hardness, but for anti competitive-fun.
But Smash 4 is superior and Brawl in the casual aspect in every way possible.
Better balanced, better online, just, everything!
The only bad thing it that it doesn't have the SSE, but even without that it's still a MUCH better casual game.
Please make an argument about how Brawl is better than Smash 4, in a casual aspect (which is what you want).

 

[koKoRoro]

If you can't support your argument, might as well consider this case closed

 

[Louis Tursi]

I'm sorry, but you're saying brawl is superior to melee in everything except for gameplay? I'm really sorry, but if that's your point of view on video games in general, that a game should be rated based on its graphics and new features, then you don't know what true gaming is really about. But in the end, what's gaming about?

Well, isn't that the reason people don't like Brawl? Personally, I do not mind Brawl's gameplay. Sure, it wasn't the same "hype train" epic combo-oriented gameplay Melee had, but it doesn't bother me. To be more specific, I don't know about you, but I don't mind things like tripping or slower gameplay, because the same "Smash Bros." oriented gameplay that we all know and love that's been around since SSB64 to Smash 4 is still there, but just because its gameplay, one category out of many in the game, is slightly manipulated to give those who don't always play competitively a chance, I'm not going to drop it completely. This doesn't mean Brawl's gameplay doesn't differ from Melee's in a variety of ways, so because of that, I adjust to each game and master each so that way both Melee & Brawl can be fun to play. Even with the gameplay Brawl has, I recommend giving it a chance. And if you already have, when was the last time you played? You should really give it another shot. If you do, sure, it's going to be tedious to get used to, but once you adjust to both it & Melee, maybe you won't despise it as much. If you are one who plays Melee at a high-level but detests Brawl, then it will take time and patience, but in the end, you may be surprised by the results. (Just a modest suggestion.) I probably would despise Brawl as much as many other people here do if it had more flaws, which in my opinion, it doesn't. I mean, it's not perfect, but I'm satisfied with what it is.
I think that, compared to many other people in the competitive smash community's thoughts, the fact that Brawl's gameplay doesn't trouble me is saying a lot.

Since the gameplay is the main thing people loathe about Brawl, I ask you to take a moment and just pretend that Brawl's gameplay was exactly like Melee's, and tell me, would you still hate it? And if yes, tell me why and if I believe it's logical enough, I wouldn't have a problem with that. I can't tell you or anyone else what games you're allowed and not allowed to like, but it irks me that people don't like the game solely because of its gameplay.
I agree with what you said, that a game should not be rated based on just its graphics and new features, but that doesn't mean it can be rated based on just its gameplay, either.

So in the end, gaming is about the entire thing itself. Gameplay is a very high priority in how a game should be rated, I'm not going to deny that, but so is the rest of its aspects including game modes, graphics, design, its capabilities, limitations, etc.

 

[PK Illuminati]

Well, isn't that the reason people don't like Brawl? Personally, I do not mind Brawl's gameplay. Sure, it wasn't the same "hype train" epic combo-oriented gameplay Melee had, but it doesn't bother me. To be more specific, I don't know about you, but I don't mind things like tripping or slower gameplay, because the same "Smash Bros." oriented gameplay that we all know and love that's been around since SSB64 to Smash 4 is still there, but just because its gameplay, one category out of many in the game, is slightly manipulated to give those who don't always play competitively a chance, I'm not going to drop it completely. This doesn't mean Brawl's gameplay doesn't differ from Melee's in a variety of ways, so because of that, I adjust to each game and master each so that way both Melee & Brawl can be fun to play. Even with the gameplay Brawl has, I recommend giving it a chance. And if you already have, when was the last time you played? You should really give it another shot. If you do, sure, it's going to be tedious to get used to, but once you adjust to both it & Melee, maybe you won't despise it as much. If you are one who plays Melee at a high-level but detests Brawl, then it will take time and patience, but in the end, you may be surprised by the results. (Just a modest suggestion.) I probably would despise Brawl as much as many other people here do if it had more flaws, which in my opinion, it doesn't. I mean, it's not perfect, but I'm satisfied with what it is.
I think that, compared to many other people in the competitive smash community's thoughts, the fact that Brawl's gameplay doesn't trouble me is saying a lot.

Since the gameplay is the main thing people loathe about Brawl, I ask you to take a moment and just pretend that Brawl's gameplay was exactly like Melee's, and tell me, would you still hate it? And if yes, tell me why and if I believe it's logical enough, I wouldn't have a problem with that. I can't tell you or anyone else what games you're allowed and not allowed to like, but it irks me that people don't like the game solely because of its gameplay.
I agree with what you said, that a game should not be rated based on just its graphics and new features, but that doesn't mean it can be rated based on just its gameplay, either.

So in the end, gaming is about the entire thing itself. Gameplay is a very high priority in how a game should be rated, I'm not going to deny that, but so is the rest of its aspects including game modes, graphics, design, its capabilities, limitations, etc.

Even with all of it's non-gameplay oriented features, Smash 4 trumped all of them.


WHY don't you mind slow gameplay and tripping?
Because you are a casual. You are one of the biggest casuals I've ever seen on this site.
Get help - Yeezus

 

[Blue Warrior]

You don't really have a leg to stand on if your best argument right now is "it's only the gameplay that's worse". All of those extra features, game modes, and stages matter less if the core gameplay it's designed for is flawed.

Smash 4 is a better game than Brawl inherently because it preserves a lot of the same features while fixing a vast majority of Brawl's problems.

 

[Cr5_01]

Brawl's gameplay is fine.The game is definitely slower than Melee/PM, but It's not as slow as people try to say it is.Tripping isn't even an issue because there are ways around it.

 

[Louis Tursi]

Competitively, Brawl is a complete disaster imo. It's way too defensive and campy for my taste and just feels cheap a lot of times. The characters are even more unbalanced in Brawl than they were in Melee. I don't know much about Brawl's tier list but i do know that some characters are complete jokes like Jigglypuff and Ganon, then there are characters like Metaknight and Diddy who can a lot of times just break the game. Melee can be broken at times too but not as nearly as much as Brawl. It can be a task just watching Brawl too because of its defensive campy nature.

Sure, Brawl was unbalanced, but like you said, that's from a competitive perspective. Brawl wasn't supposed to be competitive...neither was Melee in fact, but I mean, you could make Brawl competitive if you wanted to...(after all, that's what people did with Melee.) And it may not be competitive in the same way Melee was but that still doesn't mean you can't. I'm just stating the facts btw, not saying I play Brawl competitively. I'm not necessarily going to disagree with you on how Brawl was a disaster in a competitive aspect, because I don't like Brawl's competitive sense. And if you think I'm being hypocritical since it's Brawl's gameplay I'm defending as a whole throughout this topic, I'm not... sincerely because I don't mind Brawl's gameplay for what it is--(slow-paced, tripping, unbalanced, etc.) not everyone plays competitively, and when it comes to Brawl, I'm no exception. That doesn't mean I don't play it.

You can watch a Brawl set and half the time both players will just try to bait one another into attacks, which can make it really boring to spectate unlike Melee.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=T98uKLWpl9E
↑ (Not Brawl.)

But from a casual prospective, it's pretty obvious why Brawl would be the better game. It has more characters, more stages (including just about every good one from melee), more/better music, and a MUCH better single player mode. When Brawl was in development Sakurai was intentionally making Brawl less competitive than Melee to make it more "accessible" to different people...

I completely agree with all of what you said here.

...which was weird to me because Melee was just as accessible.

...I have a beef with this part, though. The whole reason Sakurai made Brawl less competitive than Melee was because Melee wasn't accessible to everyone...after what people turned it into, of course.

 

[koKoRoro]

I don't detest brawl, in fact, im top 3 best brawl player in my school/crew. i actually still like brawl as a cas game, but you can't defend nintendo and sakurai at all on the topic of brawl. Melee was so big, so popular, it couldve gone so far if nintendo had just made the sequel right. Instead, they COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY shut out the competitive audience, not respecting their contribution to making smash what it is today.

 

[PK Illuminati]

Brawl's gameplay is fine.The game is definitely slower than Melee/PM, but It's not as slow as people try to say it is.Tripping isn't even an issue because there are ways around it.

No there ****ing isn't. Tripping is RNG and to remove it you need to mod brawl which is not allowed at majors like Apex.

 

[Cr5_01]

No there ****ing isn't. Tripping is RNG and to remove it you need to mod brawl which is not allowed at majors like Apex.

It's simple, if you don't want to trip then just don't input a dash, and use c-stick over control stick when inputting tilts/smash attacks, so you don't input a dash on accident.You lose dash attack/dashing but you won't ever trip. I personally don't play this way because I like dash attack, but the option is there.

 

[PK Illuminati]

It's simple, if you don't want to trip then just don't input a dash, and use c-stick over control stick when inputting tilts/smash attacks, so you don't input a dash on accident.You lose dash attack/dashing but you won't ever trip. I personally don't play this way because I like dash attack, but the option is there.

If you are on the ground, in any animation, (except stationary), you WILL trip.

 

[Blue Warrior]

...I have a beef with this part, though. The whole reason Sakurai made Brawl less competitive than Melee was because Melee wasn't accessible to everyone...after what people turned it into, of course.

If you're a ten year old kid and you're playing Melee for the first time, are you really going to be playing against people who are wavedashing and tech chasing? Chances are you're not; you're going to be playing Melee with casual friends, or you're playing by yourself in single player modes, which weren't designed with wavedashing in mind.

Melee was and still is an accessible game. Wavedashing doesn't make it less accessible, it just allows some people to take the game further.

It's like watching someone TAS Sonic 3 & Knuckles. If you see someone take the game you played as a child and do things you've never even thought possible, that shouldn't kill the magic of playing the game.

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

Full disclosure: I never went back Melee when Brawl came out. I've played 64 and Melee a few times in recent years just for nostalgia. I am not a competitive player; I'm more of casual-competitive. I simply enjoy the Smash series and go to a few tournaments to test my own level of skill to see how I measure up.

Brawl is a easy target to hate on because it was geared toward a more casual audience. Anyone who says Brawl is a terrible game isn't being objective. It did improve in many features from Melee. From a competitive aspect however it is not as mechanically deep as Melee and suffers from some severe character balance issues. Melee isn't balanced, but it is not as severe as Brawl.

Which game is better than the other really depends on what you want. For the majority of people Brawl will be the better experience because it has more to offer in terms of unlockables, single player modes, and is easier to reach the skill cap. For the competitive community Melee is hands down better, and it's not even debatable. If that wasn't the case then Project M and other mods wouldn't be as popular (probably).

The few times I've gone back to Melee I've noticed it has aged pretty well, which speaks to the quality of the game and mechanics. I can't really say 64 has aged as well. I think part of that is there are a lot of things missing (side b, air dodge, etc.). I'll have to go back a play Brawl soon and see how it feels since I've switched to Smash 4.

 

[Cr5_01]

If you are on the ground, in any animation, (except stationary), you WILL trip.

Interesting. Are you implying that you can trip from being in a walking state? That's the first time I've heard that.By any chance do you have a source?

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

@ C Cr5_01 @ PK Illuminati I 99% positive you can only trip smashing the control stick. That means only dashing and smash attacks can make you trip (unless they're with the c-stick). Certain attacks and some items of course make you trip.

 

[Cr5_01]

@ C Cr5_01 @ PK Illuminati I 99% positive you can only trip smashing the control stick. That means only dashing and smash attacks can make you trip (unless they're with the c-stick). Certain attacks and some items of course make you trip.

Ah, okay. Thanks for your input. That's also what I thought.

 

[Louis Tursi]

"Hearing defense over Smash 4 though disinterests me because since it's new (yet still worse than Brawl in my opinion), any fan of Nintendo, which I'd assume you clearly are, is obviously going to like it. In other words, if Nintendo literally made a log of s***, you would buy it. Not me though."
There we go. So if I'm reading into this correctly, the reason you don't want to talk about Smash 4 in here is because you've already assumed you know that I'm not smart enough for it. You know that I can't hold a logical discussion on it without being enamored by the bells and whistles of a new Nintendo product -- in fact, you've already made yourself superior to me by separating yourself from this mentality you've attached to me.
Hopefully it's easy to see that this is no way to hold a civil conversation; in fact, I think you'd agree that sounds rather pretentious. I am not a blind mob; I am capable of taking in feedback and using reason. You should respect your opponent that way in any civil debate you walk into.

This paragraph in and of itself is a huge assumption that you think I am judging you and that you think I think I know who you are. So no, you did not read it correctly.

If you really just wanted to focus on Brawl and Melee, the title of your topic should have been "Brawl is better than Melee". But I'm not really even fond of that at this point, because of what you just said about the other two:

"it's kind of common knowledge that Brawl is better than SSB64 (if anyone is willing to defend it though, I don't have a problem with that) as well as Smash 4"

...Uh... No, not really. You seem to have projected that opinion onto an imaginary majority of people in order to make your point. There are many arguments that can be made that 4 is better than Brawl, of which I've made some of the more common and some of the less common ones. I'd even say an argument can be made that SSB64 is better than Brawl. I don't think I would go that far, but 64 does have some definite advantages: better character balance, better match pacing and physics, and a small tight game that's not big on features (but what's there works a lot more solidly).
This whole line of reasoning of yours is running off of a lot of bold assumptions about what other people think about the Smash games. If you really want to defend Brawl against what some people consider the "best", you may as well include the whole spectrum.

Not to sound redundant, but I do not want to include the whole spectrum.

This idea of yours that I have no right to criticize the game because I haven't made my own is just an appeal to authority. What gives you the credentials to praise the game? Why do you think critics exist?

So overall...some things here I can actually agree with, due to them partially being my fault, but still some things I struggle complying with too.
First of all, it's called an opinion. If you're telling me that I'm the one who needs to be more civilized here, then tell me why what somebody else thinks bothers you so much. Does the fact that I like Brawl keep you up at night? Because honestly, you really are acting like it is. That's the only problem I still have right now. Not trying to come off rude or with a harsh attitude, but that's the only issue with this debate I do have. I do apologize if I wasn't understanding the point you were trying to get across before, but since this debate began, you were irked from the start.
Now, you're right. The title should have been "Brawl is better than Melee". But...since you know this, why are you still talking in a thread about things you know you shouldn't be? If you want to go debate Smash 4's royalty, then this isn't the place to do so. If I can change the title of this topic, please tell me how and I will. If I can't? Suck it up. It is how it is, and if that means it's click-bait, so be it; at least I know how to attract people to my post so they can read it in full (which I can in fact edit btw, so for the sake of your satisfaction and that of others, I'll proof-read a few things so that they associate with the title better).
So really, as far as what was previously written being applied to the title goes, you had a valid point. So thanks for that actually, if it weren't for you, I wouldn't have recognized this error.

Now that that's cleared up... while you're still here, I'll be glad to address some other things you said still involving my original topic of Melee vs. Brawl.

That's actually a good point, partly; it would have been more accurate if I used the anecdotal fallacy. You're saying that because you and your collective group of friends don't see the issue, that proves that it doesn't exist. It doesn't prove that it exists though, and you've dismissed my arguments not with logical counterarguments but with, "Yeah well, we don't see it that way, so that means you're wrong."

Also that wasn't a fallacy fallacy; I defended myself against your claim in which you had "proven" the issues were trivial by using your own logical fallacy. My viewpoint may be right or wrong, but the logic train you used to get to there does not prove anything.

I hear ya, but let's face it, this is not relevant to the main topic. This is just a tangent. Using "yourlogicalfallacyis.com" is just a diversion tactic.

Again, that wasn't my complaint. My problem with SSE is that you have to play the entire thing TWICE to beat the campaign, because of the great maze being tagged at the end after all of the levels you already played.
Believe me, I'm cool with Metroidvania structure. Kirby and the Amazing Mirror is like my favorite Kirby game of all time, and that's basically what the Great Maze is. If SSE was just the Great Maze with some bosses, I wouldn't even be mad.

...I don't want to play in generic forests, jungles, robot bases, and desert landscapes. I want to play in cool locations that remind me of why I play this game to begin with. Mario's universe, Kirby's, Samus's, Snake's. Melee's Adventure Mode was basic in terms of its gameplay structure, but the theming was all there. And gameplay-wise, what's there worked. (...okay, most of the time.)
I'm not saying the production value of the story wasn't great. I liked the cutscenes probably more than most people I hear talk about it. But as far as levels go, generic terrain archetypes I've seen in every other game just don't do anything for me.

So you have the patience to debate this topic for 2 months, but not to just go through 8 simple hours of gameplay?
Additionally, even if you don't enjoy playing this mode, Classic mode is still there, you know.

The reason why Melee is difficult to keep track of onscreen is because of the actions per second happening onscreen. Granted, wavedash doesn't have much of an intuitive indicator for an outsider looking in, but both games have lots of advanced techniques that aren't intuitive on the surface. What you're talking about is Melee being so fast that it makes your head hurt, but what I'm talking about is visual noise. Assuming neither player is wavedashing in Melee (for argument's sake, they're fairly casual players), you might find the action a little quicker to distinguish than in Brawl due the game's choice of character palettes, among other things.

True, it's an interesting perspective.

You're only a third correct. Tripping was a deliberate mechanic that was implemented to fit an intended design plan.

How would you even know that? I would need proof that tripping was a deliberate mechanic that was implemented to fit an intended design plan.

That doesn't necessarily mean implementing it was the right choice, and people near-unanimously seem to dislike it.

...and that is a huge assumption. Are you referring to all people?

I think you make a lot of incorrect assumptions at points, and you misunderstand my argument at other points. I'd like to think that you just naturally make logic errors like this and you're not trying to move goalposts, but this whole debate on your half seems pretty intellectually dishonest to me. I hope you address all this so we can clear the air.

You're implying that I am a liar. If I am intellectually dishonest, then I'm going to make a bold guess that everybody that shares my point of view is as well. I have no agenda, all I'm doing is stating my opinion that I think Brawl is a better game than Melee.


My instinct tells me that you are clearly decades older than I am with huge-ass debate experience. I expected to be challenged, but not to this extent. I appreciate it though, as I've learned quite a few things. But either way, it's just a game, dude. Water under the bridge, let's move on.

 

[PK Illuminati]

@ Blue Warrior
Just stop man. He's never going to stop.
The contradictions, hypocrisies, and the fallacies will never stop.

 

[Blue Warrior]

Well, you haven't really addressed most of my arguments about the game itself, so I think this debate's kind of reached a dead end. I'll be brief with my comments.

This paragraph in and of itself is a huge assumption that you think I am judging you and that you think I think I know who you are. So no, you did not read it correctly.

You just said it yourself. Nintendo would put a literal turd onto retail and I would buy it. That's a judgment call you made before this conversation even started.

I know it wasn't your intention to be insulting, but I'm trying to make a point that you're making assumptions about your audience without communicating them effectively.

Not to sound redundant, but I do not want to include the whole spectrum.

Okay, then let me sum up why Melee is a stronger title: while Brawl has more features, Melee has a better core and more polish. If the stage builder, characters, physics, and SSE dazzle you, so be it, but all of these elements could have been handled a lot better. Beyond that, apples and oranges. 4 and Brawl would be more constructive to compare, I think.

So overall...some things here I can actually agree with, due to them partially being my fault, but still some things I struggle complying with too.
First of all, it's called an opinion. If you're telling me that I'm the one who needs to be more civilized here, then tell me why what somebody else thinks bothers you so much. Does the fact that I like Brawl keep you up at night? Because honestly, you really are acting like it is. That's the only problem I still have right now. Not trying to come off rude or with a harsh attitude, but that's the only issue with this debate I do have. I do apologize if I wasn't understanding the point you were trying to get across before, but since this debate began, you were irked from the start.
Now, you're right. The title should have been "Brawl is better than Melee". But...since you know this, why are you still talking in a thread about things you know you shouldn't be? If you want to go debate Smash 4's royalty, then this isn't the place to do so. If I can change the title of this topic, please tell me how and I will. If I can't? Suck it up. It is how it is, and if that means it's click-bait, so be it; at least I know how to attract people to my post so they can read it in full (which I can in fact edit btw, so for the sake of your satisfaction and that of others, I'll proof-read a few things so that they associate with the title better).
So really, as far as what was previously written being applied to the title goes, you had a valid point. So thanks for that actually, if it weren't for you, I wouldn't have recognized this error.

Now that that's cleared up... while you're still here, I'll be glad to address some other things you said still involving my original topic of Melee vs. Brawl.

>"it's called an opinion"
and I'm giving you mine. You seem confused on some of your points, and I hope in responding I can communicate ideas.
> "If you're telling me that I'm the one who needs to be more civilized here, then tell me why what somebody else thinks bothers you so much."
I like participating in debates on forums. I haven't attacked you in any of my posts, I've simply been attacking your arguments. That's important to distinguish.

I hear ya, but let's face it, this is not relevant to the main topic. This is just a tangent. Using "yourlogicalfallacyis.com" is just a diversion tactic.

No it's not. I merely used the website as a frame of reference for my argument.

So you have the patience to debate this topic for 2 months, but not to just go through 8 simple hours of gameplay?
Additionally, even if you don't enjoy playing this mode, Classic mode is still there, you know.

Debating is fun, playing a mundane platformer is not.

Also you forget that I have to play SSE to unlock all of the characters.

How would you even know that? I would need proof that tripping was a deliberate mechanic that was implemented to fit an intended design plan.

Of course it was deliberate. Someone coded tripping into their casual fighting game and said "yeah, that looks good". That's not something I think needs to be "proven".

...and that is a huge assumption. Are you referring to all people?

I said "seem" for a reason, it was an observation. Of course there are people who still play Brawl and don't mind it, but as far as I've witnessed, they're outliers.

You're implying that I am a liar. If I am intellectually dishonest, then I'm going to make a bold guess that everybody that shares my point of view is as well. I have no agenda, all I'm doing is stating my opinion that I think Brawl is a better game than Melee.

Intellectual dishonesty isn't the same as lying. It just means you're using debate tactics that don't address the argument itself.

My instinct tells me that you are clearly decades older than I am with huge-*** debate experience. I expected to be challenged, but not to this extent. I appreciate it though, as I've learned quite a few things. But either way, it's just a game, dude. Water under the bridge, let's move on.

23 years old, and I get in internet debates pretty regularly, lol. Don't take my comments too personally.

 

[PK Illuminati]

Well, you haven't really addressed most of my arguments about the game itself, so I think this debate's kind of reached a dead end. I'll be brief with my comments.


You just said it yourself. Nintendo would put a literal turd onto retail and I would buy it. That's a judgment call you made before this conversation even started.

I know it wasn't your intention to be insulting, but I'm trying to make a point that you're making assumptions about your audience without communicating them effectively.





Okay, then let me sum up why Melee is a stronger title: while Brawl has more features, Melee has a better core and more polish. If the stage builder, characters, physics, and SSE dazzle you, so be it, but all of these elements could have been handled a lot better. Beyond that, apples and oranges. 4 and Brawl would be more constructive to compare, I think.



>"it's called an opinion"
and I'm giving you mine. You seem confused on some of your points, and I hope in responding I can communicate ideas.
> "If you're telling me that I'm the one who needs to be more civilized here, then tell me why what somebody else thinks bothers you so much."
I like participating in debates on forums. I haven't attacked you in any of my posts, I've simply been attacking your arguments. That's important to distinguish.




No it's not. I merely used the website as a frame of reference for my argument.




Debating is fun, playing a mundane platformer is not.

Also you forget that I have to play SSE to unlock all of the characters.





Of course it was deliberate. Someone coded tripping into their casual fighting game and said "yeah, that looks good". That's not something I think needs to be "proven".





I said "seem" for a reason, it was an observation. Of course there are people who still play Brawl and don't mind it, but as far as I've witnessed, they're outliers.





Intellectual dishonesty isn't the same as lying. It just means you're using debate tactics that don't address the argument itself.




23 years old, and I get in internet debates pretty regularly, lol. Don't take my comments too personally.

ayy blue, you got a skype? you seem like a cool guy to hang with

 

[Blue Warrior]

I technically have an account, but skype itself is uninstalled most of the time, lol

I have a steam account, maybe I'll put it in my sig

 

[koKoRoro]

Well, you haven't really addressed most of my arguments about the game itself, so I think this debate's kind of reached a dead end. I'll be brief with my comments.


You just said it yourself. Nintendo would put a literal turd onto retail and I would buy it. That's a judgment call you made before this conversation even started.

I know it wasn't your intention to be insulting, but I'm trying to make a point that you're making assumptions about your audience without communicating them effectively.





Okay, then let me sum up why Melee is a stronger title: while Brawl has more features, Melee has a better core and more polish. If the stage builder, characters, physics, and SSE dazzle you, so be it, but all of these elements could have been handled a lot better. Beyond that, apples and oranges. 4 and Brawl would be more constructive to compare, I think.



>"it's called an opinion"
and I'm giving you mine. You seem confused on some of your points, and I hope in responding I can communicate ideas.
> "If you're telling me that I'm the one who needs to be more civilized here, then tell me why what somebody else thinks bothers you so much."
I like participating in debates on forums. I haven't attacked you in any of my posts, I've simply been attacking your arguments. That's important to distinguish.




No it's not. I merely used the website as a frame of reference for my argument.




Debating is fun, playing a mundane platformer is not.

Also you forget that I have to play SSE to unlock all of the characters.





Of course it was deliberate. Someone coded tripping into their casual fighting game and said "yeah, that looks good". That's not something I think needs to be "proven".





I said "seem" for a reason, it was an observation. Of course there are people who still play Brawl and don't mind it, but as far as I've witnessed, they're outliers.





Intellectual dishonesty isn't the same as lying. It just means you're using debate tactics that don't address the argument itself.




23 years old, and I get in internet debates pretty regularly, lol. Don't take my comments too personally.

Damn we got an internet vet over here. Sorry dude, you dont stand a chance in a logical argument with this guy

 

[PK Illuminati]

Damn we got an internet vet over here. Sorry dude, you dont stand a chance in a logical argument with this guy

--< frequent /pol debater
lmaojk

 

[Trieste SP]

Well... Brawl had the best single player mode of all the Smash games.

 

[koKoRoro]

Well... Brawl had the best single player mode of all the Smash games.

true....

 

[NocturnalQuill]

I think Brawl has a lot of issues but I think the reasons people hate on it are stupid. A lot of Melee fans hate it because it doesn't have techs like wavedashing. What they fail to realize is that those things were glitches/exploits/unintended consequences of the game engine, and whether you feel that they improved the experience and skill level, were not meant to be leveraged the way they were. The community should have known on day 1 that they would not be in the sequel. My main issues with Brawl are the balance and the physics. Balance in Brawl was awful in my opinion (I still want to know what Sakurai took when he made MK) and the floaty physics made for a slower paced game overall. On the solo front, SSE was trash and a waste of development resources.

Smash 4 is a superior game to both of them in nearly every regard, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[PK Illuminati]

I think Brawl has a lot of issues but I think the reasons people hate on it are stupid. A lot of Melee fans hate it because it doesn't have techs like wavedashing. What they fail to realize is that those things were glitches/exploits/unintended consequences of the game engine, and whether you feel that they improved the experience and skill level, were not meant to be leveraged the way they were. The community should have known on day 1 that they would not be in the sequel. My main issues with Brawl are the balance and the physics. Balance in Brawl was awful in my opinion (I still want to know what Sakurai took when he made MK) and the floaty physics made for a slower paced game overall. On the solo front, SSE was trash and a waste of development resources.

Smash 4 is a superior game to both of them in nearly every regard, as far as I'm concerned.

Nope. Sakurai found wavedashing early in development and kept it in as a neat trick. L canceling has been around 64, it was intended and called smooth landing I think it was called. They were abused, but they were intended in the game. Sm4sh is garbage. It rewards campy defensive gameplay with wayyy too good airdodge removing most aerial combat or leads to baiting out airdodges (which sucks), also patch after patch removing and adding things to characters that messes people up, and almost ZERO shieldstun! MY main gripe with sm4sh is how defensive it is! rip my dreams

 

[Dhillz521]

Holy **** you guys. All you are saying that Brawl is a bad game because of the Causal style.That just go's to show that NO ONE in this thread (except for the OT) can play brawl without PM (sad isn't it)
1.Melee and Brawl is good in its own ways and because you guys can't play brawl without PM I'll say own ways again.
1 cont. Brawl had new stuff like Online play and SSE. Melee had faster gameplay.
2. NO ONE TAKE THIS A OFFENSE but **** Melee's competive gameplay. Why do people still even play Brawl and Melee.
We have WiiU and 3DS now !
Oh and Louis that Thread Title is SO untrue N64,Melee,Brawl.......NONE are the best smash games. 3DS and WiiU are.
So tothe People that hate Brawl and ABSOULETLY NEED PM or Melee. I would like you to do one thing.
TELL SAKURAI YOU CAN'T PLAY HIS GAMES WITH OUT MODS!!!!

 

[PK Illuminati]

Holy **** you guys. All you are saying that Brawl is a bad game because of the Causal style.That just go's to show that NO ONE in this thread (except for the OT) can play brawl without PM (sad isn't it)
1.Melee and Brawl is good in its own ways and because you guys can't play brawl without PM I'll say own ways again.
1 cont. Brawl had new stuff like Online play and SSE. Melee had faster gameplay.
2. NO ONE TAKE THIS A OFFENSE but **** Melee's competive gameplay. Why do people still even play Brawl and Melee.
We have WiiU and 3DS now !
Oh and Louis that Thread Title is SO untrue N64,Melee,Brawl.......NONE are the best smash games. 3DS and WiiU are.
So tothe People that hate Brawl and ABSOULETLY NEED PM or Melee. I would like you to do one thing.
TELL SAKURAI YOU CAN'T PLAY HIS GAMES WITH OUT MODS!!!!

i can tell you're a casual player but wiiu/3ds are garbage, 3 hit combos at best, rewarding campy and defensive gameplay

melee is superior competitively by far

this is smashboards, we play the games competitively, and brawl is garbage fro that standpoint

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

i can tell you're a casual player but wiiu/3ds are garbage, 3 hit combos at best, rewarding campy and defensive gameplay

melee is superior competitively by far

this is smashboards, we play the games competitively, and brawl is garbage fro that standpoint

I usually do not like the term, "superior competitively"

Since it seems to imply there are strict values we are comparing to or a set criteria, like it needs x, y, z or it sucks.

You seem to use a lot of sweeping generalizations, others have as well in here from both sides.

People say Melee has more polish but I disagree on a number of levels, ledges on battlefield are pretty terribly made with the ledge grab box.

Melee has a stiff feeling to it if you didn't start with it first, and a lot of that is the hyper sensitivity and sometimes awkward movement to what some would call streamlined movement.

PM and Smash 4, at least to me, feel more smooth when I try to play them. Even if I prefer Melee to PM.

I really would ask what people value and what they enjoy, since that seems to be more important than whatever people try to label as "objective" from here, league vs Dota 2, Street Fighter vs MvC3 etc.

If someone thinks there is, I'd like to hear it.

But for my thoughts on this, I suppose I could whip up something tomorrow but overall I don't like the dishonesty behind your last paragraph.

 

[NocturnalQuill]

Holy **** you guys. All you are saying that Brawl is a bad game because of the Causal style.That just go's to show that NO ONE in this thread (except for the OT) can play brawl without PM (sad isn't it)
1.Melee and Brawl is good in its own ways and because you guys can't play brawl without PM I'll say own ways again.
1 cont. Brawl had new stuff like Online play and SSE. Melee had faster gameplay.
2. NO ONE TAKE THIS A OFFENSE but **** Melee's competive gameplay. Why do people still even play Brawl and Melee.
We have WiiU and 3DS now !
Oh and Louis that Thread Title is SO untrue N64,Melee,Brawl.......NONE are the best smash games. 3DS and WiiU are.
So tothe People that hate Brawl and ABSOULETLY NEED PM or Melee. I would like you to do one thing.
TELL SAKURAI YOU CAN'T PLAY HIS GAMES WITH OUT MODS!!!!

Brawl, compared to the rest of the series, is the least viable competitively both from a player and spectator perspective. On the player front, it doesn't have nearly the same number of techs or the same skill level required in Melee. For spectators, slower-paced games are generally less fun to watch. This doesn't make Brawl a bad game as a whole. Brawl is an excellent casual fighter. It just wasn't made with competitive play in mind.

I don't particularly like Melee, but I can very easily see why it's popular in the competitive community. Highest skill floor of the series by far, very tech-heavy, most unforgiving, very demanding in terms of button mashing and reaction time. Personally I'm not a fan of that sort of gameplay, but that doesn't invalidate why other people enjoy it. Melee's community can be a bit unrealistic in what they expect from future Smash games. There will never be another Melee, period. Other than that, the community is perfectly fine.

Smash 4 is my favorite personally, because I feel that it's the best balance between Melee and Brawl and was developed with consideration for competitive play. That said, I can see why other people prefer Melee.

i can tell you're a casual player but wiiu/3ds are garbage, 3 hit combos at best, rewarding campy and defensive gameplay

Campy people can be dealt with easily. Even as Ness.

 

[Blue Warrior]

I think Melee will always be the better competitive title, but Smash 4 isn't competitively "garbage". There is still a lot of emphasis on reads and strategy, and the character balance is much better than any of the official Smash games predating it, which keeps the meta healthy. The gameplay is definitely more defensive, but competitive matches always seem to keep moving in spite of this.

 

[FrankTheStud]

Smash 4 is my favorite of the franchise at the moment. Having played them all quite a lot, I found myself always playing the newest installments, and still going back and loving them all the way through my years of gaming. No Smash game is perfect, but no Smash game is bad, either. Play what you want and how you want, just realize that every Smash IS different, and if you're expecting to play any two the same, you're going to be severely disappointed.
I love Smash 4 competitively, just as much as I love Melee competitively. Brawl was a bit more casually focused, but I liked it's competitive scene for a long while, but to be honest my biggest gripe with it was the tripping mechanic, as it left competitive matches up to chance quite often, so I watched less and less.
With that beig stated, Smash 4 is probably the most balanced Smash of the series, and I'm hoping that it evolves to a more skill-based game than it's predecessors, and less of a tier-list + skill based game. This would mean quite a lot for the series as a whole, as balancing has always been an issue in the competitive scene, even to the extent of bans being used at one point. (MK in Brawl).
I know this tread is pretty much over, just giving my two cents on it's way out.

 

[PK Illuminati]

Smash 4 is my favorite of the franchise at the moment. Having played them all quite a lot, I found myself always playing the newest installments, and still going back and loving them all the way through my years of gaming. No Smash game is perfect, but no Smash game is bad, either. Play what you want and how you want, just realize that every Smash IS different, and if you're expecting to play any two the same, you're going to be severely disappointed.
I love Smash 4 competitively, just as much as I love Melee competitively. Brawl was a bit more casually focused, but I liked it's competitive scene for a long while, but to be honest my biggest gripe with it was the tripping mechanic, as it left competitive matches up to chance quite often, so I watched less and less.
With that beig stated, Smash 4 is probably the most balanced Smash of the series, and I'm hoping that it evolves to a more skill-based game than it's predecessors, and less of a tier-list + skill based game. This would mean quite a lot for the series as a whole, as balancing has always been an issue in the competitive scene, even to the extent of bans being used at one point. (MK in Brawl).
I know this tread is pretty much over, just giving my two cents on it's way out.

I think that there is a tie between Smash 4 and 64 being the most tied. There really isn't no ''non-viable'' character in 64, but I guess we'll have to see how the Sm4sh meta grows in the balance aspect, so I think it's unfair to judge its balance as of now, but pretty balanced noneoftheless, good post.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I doubt smash 4 will make 52+ characters all equally viable.

If you can pull that off, you are a god of game design and balance.

 

[FrankTheStud]

I doubt smash 4 will make 52+ characters all equally viable.

If you can pull that off, you are a god of game design and balance.

Perhaps not "equally viable," as certain character's kits naturally do well against others. (Marth against Doctor Mario, for example). But instead of tilting the scales heavily, maybe Marth only has a 60/40 or 55/45 chance of winning, ya know? I understand that differences in kit will make 50/50 balancing for everyone impossible, but I do believe Smash 4 has been doing a very good job of balance so far, and hopefully will continue it as the game evolves. It's also up to the player, however, to make wise choices for counter-picks in both the character and stage department. You lose to Marth on FD as Doc? Maybe go Ness or Pikachu next round, and/or pick a different stage, etc, etc--But that's a whole other conversation!