Brawl vs. Melee Research Project

[Kuraudo]

Finished my survey.

As someone who plays both games, I really hope to see a 'same page' found between the players. I'm liking the idea behind this. Hope I did good!

...lol, I say that like this was a test. XD;

 

[kirbykid]

KKK there was something I disagreed with in the beginning of your vid. You stated that in Melee combos, in general when on the defensive all you can do is DI but that's not 100% correct. This is technically only true in chaingrabs(which is what you were showing at the time) however in non-grab combo's you also have the ability to Smash DI, wiggle out of hitstun(note for players who dont already know, "wiggling" out of hitstun does NOT decrease the amount of time you're in hitstun, it just gets you out on the first possible frame) and, utilizing Smash DI, tech. Teching is especially important in this case because the opportunity to do it arrives far more often, at least from what i've seen, in melee than in Brawl. By a combination of DIing certain hits and Smash DIing at the right time you can force yourself in position to tech off of certain things like platforms or the ground itself.

Now, this is in no way an attack on Brawl, Brawl equally has all of those options as well, it's the same basic gameplay, however I would be willing to assert that the added hitstun and general lack of floatieness(is that a word? If it is how is it spelled?) make it a more prominent and usable option in Melee. I'd still be willing to accept that Brawl probably has more options while on the defensive due to the multiple air dodge system, but I wouldnt say it's so much more that they even really stand apart from each other.

Don't you consider smash DI and DI practically the same thing? It's the same technique. It's just that smash DI gets more drastic results and is harder to time.

And by saying "in general" that leaves a little wiggle room for cases where you can tech and wiggle. I know what you're saying, and you do bring up a good point.

I also agree that teching is less important in Brawl. I remember when Sakurai wrote something to that effect on his blog before Brawl came out.

Exploring the difference the air dodge system has on Brawl's fighting engine compared to Melee's is an issue of balance. We'll be looking at that subject very closely next week.

Good post. Nice Meteos pic BTW.

Finished my survey.

As someone who plays both games, I really hope to see a 'same page' found between the players. I'm liking the idea behind this. Hope I did good!

...lol, I say that like this was a test. XD;

I hope we can get on the same page too. I'm working on it. We're getting close to the end!

 

[Melomaniacal]

KKK there was something I disagreed with in the beginning of your vid. You stated that in Melee combos, in general when on the defensive all you can do is DI but that's not 100% correct. This is technically only true in chaingrabs(which is what you were showing at the time) however in non-grab combo's you also have the ability to Smash DI, wiggle out of hitstun(note for players who dont already know, "wiggling" out of hitstun does NOT decrease the amount of time you're in hitstun, it just gets you out on the first possible frame) and, utilizing Smash DI, tech. Teching is especially important in this case because the opportunity to do it arrives far more often, at least from what i've seen, in melee than in Brawl. By a combination of DIing certain hits and Smash DIing at the right time you can force yourself in position to tech off of certain things like platforms or the ground itself.

Now, this is in no way an attack on Brawl, Brawl equally has all of those options as well, it's the same basic gameplay, however I would be willing to assert that the added hitstun and general lack of floatieness(is that a word? If it is how is it spelled?) make it a more prominent and usable option in Melee. I'd still be willing to accept that Brawl probably has more options while on the defensive due to the multiple air dodge system, but I wouldnt say it's so much more that they even really stand apart from each other.

That's exactly what I was thinking. The APM output on defense really isn't a big difference between the two games. In the neutral and offensive positions, however, Melee has a significantly larger APM.

I really do want Brawlers to make an APM thread.

 

[kirbykid]

GOOD GAME EPISODE 3

 

[Geist]

Great job with the 3rd episode.

I'm curious as to how many people from the different forums participated in this. Was it split about even between Melee and Brawl players?

depth is a measure of how players can counter each other back and forth.

Like you said, weird definition, but it makes sense. Maybe it's worded strangely, but the 'back and forth' part throws me off. I remember a definition that went somewhere along the lines of 'the amount of presentable options available to each player at any point in time, and each player's ability to counter them.'
You made some good points about depth and complexity, but I don't think the two are completely unrelated. One doesn't guarantee the other obviously, but if complexity allows a wider variety of options, it could lend a hand in creating more depth in some cases.

 

[kirbykid]

Great job with the 3rd episode.

Thanks.

I'm curious as to how many people from the different forums participated in this. Was it split about even between Melee and Brawl players?

I know a lot of Brawl players from the tournaments I used to host and the ones I go to on a regular basis. Only of few of those players actually filled out the survey. And if you've visited the Brawl equivalent to this thread, it's comparably empty of posts.

In episode 2 I showed the distribution of Brawl-Melee/Casual-Tournament players and "Brawl tournament" is the least represented group.

Perhaps I should have done a better job getting the word out, but something like this really thrives on word of mouth and friend-to-friend sharing.

Like you said, weird definition, but it makes sense. Maybe it's worded strangely, but the 'back and forth' part throws me off. I remember a definition that went somewhere along the lines of 'the amount of presentable options available to each player at any point in time, and each player's ability to counter them.'
You made some good points about depth and complexity, but I don't think the two are completely unrelated. One doesn't guarantee the other obviously, but if complexity allows a wider variety of options, it could lend a hand in creating more depth in some cases.

Very true.

As far as the "back and forth part" I think I'll illustrate that clearly in part 2 or the follow up. Thanks for the feedback.

Getting to the bottom of how Smash's complexity relates to its depth will take a very focused look considering all the topics brought up so far. In essence, how a game's content (complexity) relates to it's depth (actual gameplay) is largely an issue of Balance. You can add things that add depth (counters) and variety, or you can add things that decrease these things. This is why I saved balance for last. It's the final and ultimate level of understanding when breaking down and comparing games like Brawl and Melee.

 

[Pink Reaper]

Don't you consider smash DI and DI practically the same thing? It's the same technique. It's just that smash DI gets more drastic results and is harder to time.

And by saying "in general" that leaves a little wiggle room for cases where you can tech and wiggle. I know what you're saying, and you do bring up a good point.

I also agree that teching is less important in Brawl. I remember when Sakurai wrote something to that effect on his blog before Brawl came out.

Exploring the difference the air dodge system has on Brawl's fighting engine compared to Melee's is an issue of balance. We'll be looking at that subject very closely next week.

Good post. Nice Meteos pic BTW.




I hope we can get on the same page too. I'm working on it. We're getting close to the end!

I dont consider Smash DI and DI the same since they can be done independently of each other AT THE SAME TIME and in fact there are times when you would want to smash DI one direction while DI'ing a different direction.

 

[slartibartfast42]

I don't think that Sirlin's comment about depth was trying to define depth as much as set up a method for detecting it. All in all, good video. I find myself getting less critical of you as I realize more and more that your goal isn't actually to further the debate, but to explain the mechanics behind it.

 

[kirbykid]

I don't think that Sirlin's comment about depth was trying to define depth as much as set up a method for detecting it.

You may be right about Sirlin. The problem is, it's hard to find anyone who defines such terms as far as gaming is concerned. I still have much respect for Sirlin no matter how I comment on his work. He's such an elusive guy too. I'd love to sit down and have a conversation / podcast with that guy, but he always so busy.

All in all, good video. I find myself getting less critical of you as I realize more and more that your goal isn't actually to further the debate, but to explain the mechanics behind it.

Yeah, if I only wanted to explain my thoughts/opinions, I wouldn't need to do all of this work explaining all of these concepts. Then I figured, what's the point trying to further the debate when there's no common ground between most of all.

GOOD GAME EPISODE 3 PART 2

 

[kirbykid]

GOOD GAME EPISODE 4 PART 1

 

[Big-Cat]

Before I start, I just want to say that I'm surprised you have a link to Sean Malstrom on your website. Ugh... Well, that's said; so I'll get to my point.

I got to say that I disagree with you a bit on both your video, and your article on balance.

This might be nitpicking, but I find your choices of identifying characters and their playstyles to be rather odd. For the most part, these are actually based on conventional fighting game playstyles, but some are easier to define than others like Mario obviously being based off of Ryu and Fox being the fast, combo heavy type. The one I found really odd was your Roller archetype. I'm not really sure how that's a style.

Then there's this excerpt from your article.

Sirlin identified several ways designers can "cop out" when balancing their games. Along these same lines, the fail-safe system in Guilty Gear XX seems like a cop out. Any game can be balanced if the designers are willing to add a mountain of complexities on top of their game systems. Filling the game with extra meters and cancels just to get the job done reflects just how strained and dated the core design is. I also find Sirlin's RTS spread sheet balancing cop out example to be interesting. I know that the Advance Wars games are designed around a damage chart where each unit does a different amount of damage to each other. Perhaps Advance Wars is inherently different because it's a turn based strategy game where players are free to check the damage of any encounter before engaging.

Why would you want more complexities to a series that's pretty much considered the hardest 2D fighter out there? Not only that, but there is also the time to be put in to add these complexities and test them. Sometimes, it's just better to just go with a simpler option that will accomplish the same thing.

These "cop-outs", are, to some extent, simple solutions (although I've heard that False Roman Cancels have been accused of making things more complicated than it needs to be) and prevent things that the developers don't catch while playtesting. They didn't want the game to degenerate into "first to get an infinite" wins.

Likewise, other fighting games have other fail-safes, including Street Fighter (as early as the Alpha series) which you said:

If Street Fighter was design around more core dynamics or with a more next-gen interplay/decay design, identifying and correcting minute matchup balance problems wouldn't be so difficult.

For the most part, fail-safes are looking to become standards for at least 2D fighters (I don't know about 3D fighters), and Smash seems to be the only big 2D Fighting series to not employ any true fail-safes (stale moves doesn't really count).

 

[painlord k11]

play melee daily.... brawl under all. haha just kiddin with yas i just play all 3 mostly melee cause that's the 1 my friends play.

 

[kirbykid]

Before I start, I just want to say that I'm surprised you have a link to Sean Malstrom on your website. Ugh... Well, that's said; so I'll get to my point.

I don't know what to say to this. I take it you don't like the guy. I put the link on my blog years ago, but I haven't visited his site in a while. Hmmm

I got to say that I disagree with you a bit on both your video, and your article on balance.

This might be nitpicking, but I find your choices of identifying characters and their playstyles to be rather odd. For the most part, these are actually based on conventional fighting game playstyles, but some are easier to define than others like Mario obviously being based off of Ryu and Fox being the fast, combo heavy type. The one I found really odd was your Roller archetype. I'm not really sure how that's a style.

That part of the video was describing design space. I only touched on it briefly and probably should have included this link. http://critical-gaming.squarespace.com/blog/2009/6/27/for-the-feel-of-design-space-pt2.html

The point is gameplay can only be diverse within the scope of its mechanics, core dynamics, and fiction. Smash has a lot to work with. So when considering how well it fleshes out its design space, you can start by thinking of how high level matches play out. Because players will gravitate toward character moves that are especially good, if you can think of a character that exemplifies every type of move in the game, there's a good chance the game's design space is fairly filled out.

I wasn't sure about "The Roller" either. I just remembered a lot of Lucario players rolling around in the first year or so that Brawl came out. His forward roll is pretty big though.

So it's not how unique the characters or their playstyles are to fighting games as a whole. Rather, it's if each individual game presents enough characters that play differently using various game mechanics.

Then there's this excerpt from your article.
Why would you want more complexities to a series that's pretty much considered the hardest 2D fighter out there? Not only that, but there is also the time to be put in to add these complexities and test them. Sometimes, it's just better to just go with a simpler option that will accomplish the same thing.

These "cop-outs", are, to some extent, simple solutions (although I've heard that False Roman Cancels have been accused of making things more complicated than it needs to be) and prevent things that the developers don't catch while playtesting. They didn't want the game to degenerate into "first to get an infinite" wins.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that I want more complexities in the hardest 2D fighter. And I'm not saying that avoiding the need of such fail-safes would be easy or costly. I was merely talking from a design standpoint.

Sure, some of these solutions are simple enough. But the reason they were implemented is because they already made/settled on a style of game with a design that creates big problems in terms of balancing. Ultimately, I'd much rather have a playable, "balanced" game with cop-outs than a mess of a multiplayer experience. I'm the kind of person who puts gameplay first. I was trying to say, as a designer, there are ways to avoid using such cop-outs but you must design a game more elegantly from the start, which will probably result in a very different type of game.

Likewise, other fighting games have other fail-safes, including Street Fighter (as early as the Alpha series) which you said:
For the most part, fail-safes are looking to become standards for at least 2D fighters (I don't know about 3D fighters), and Smash seems to be the only big 2D Fighting series to not employ any true fail-safes (stale moves doesn't really count).

I'd say the reason fail-safes are becoming the standard for 2D fighters as you say is that most 2D fighters (or the most popular ones at least) are still based on designs that are about 12-18 years old. Instead of updating the design from the ground up, we hold on to what's familiar and try to tweak things using new game design ideas. Some say, why overhaul what works? And I say, yeah it works cause you like it and people keep buying it. But it works to an extent. I think the damage scaling in SF4 and SSF4 is very necessary, but very messy. I'm sure most pros know what combos/strings to use to maximize their damage for a given situation, but the "real time math" still boggles me.

Smash uses less to no fail-safes because it's designed around dynamic interactions at the core. Now, though the same attack has the same animation, it can do less damage on repeated use. Also, at higher damages the opponent will fly farther (typically). And, the opponent can also DI. These three things alone make the game more varied and deeper than most 2D fighter's "hit game." There's no need for fail safes here.

 

[Big-Cat]

I don't know what to say to this. I take it you don't like the guy. I put the link on my blog years ago, but I haven't visited his site in a while. Hmmm

Let's just say his views are very polarizing and his readers give me an impression of strong Nintendo fanboyism and trying to talk business.

That part of the video was describing design space. I only touched on it briefly and probably should have included this link. http://critical-gaming.squarespace.com/blog/2009/6/27/for-the-feel-of-design-space-pt2.html

The point is gameplay can only be diverse within the scope of its mechanics, core dynamics, and fiction. Smash has a lot to work with. So when considering how well it fleshes out its design space, you can start by thinking of how high level matches play out. Because players will gravitate toward character moves that are especially good, if you can think of a character that exemplifies every type of move in the game, there's a good chance the game's design space is fairly filled out.

I wasn't sure about "The Roller" either. I just remembered a lot of Lucario players rolling around in the first year or so that Brawl came out. His forward roll is pretty big though.

So it's not how unique the characters or their playstyles are to fighting games as a whole. Rather, it's if each individual game presents enough characters that play differently using various game mechanics.

Okay, I get what you're saying, but it seems to me that playstyles and mechanics go hand in hand, unless that's what you're saying.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that I want more complexities in the hardest 2D fighter. And I'm not saying that avoiding the need of such fail-safes would be easy or costly. I was merely talking from a design standpoint.


Sure, some of these solutions are simple enough. But the reason they were implemented is because they already made/settled on a style of game with a design that creates big problems in terms of balancing. Ultimately, I'd much rather have a playable, "balanced" game with cop-outs than a mess of a multiplayer experience. I'm the kind of person who puts gameplay first. I was trying to say, as a designer, there are ways to avoid using such cop-outs but you must design a game more elegantly from the start, which will probably result in a very different type of game.

I was referring to how you said that the developers could've achieved balance if they were willing to to add a mountain of complexities on top of their game systems.

I'd say the reason fail-safes are becoming the standard for 2D fighters as you say is that most 2D fighters (or the most popular ones at least) are still based on designs that are about 12-18 years old. Instead of updating the design from the ground up, we hold on to what's familiar and try to tweak things using new game design ideas. Some say, why overhaul what works? And I say, yeah it works cause you like it and people keep buying it. But it works to an extent. I think the damage scaling in SF4 and SSF4 is very necessary, but very messy. I'm sure most pros know what combos/strings to use to maximize their damage for a given situation, but the "real time math" still boggles me.

Funny that you imply that the fighting game design formula is obsolete considering that you have platformers which have kept their basic designs for at least 25 years and no one seems to complain, but it's the fighting games that get called out. Note, I'm not a super fanboy for fighting games, it's an observation.

I'm not sure how you could update the design of a genre from the ground up, especially considering how long it's been around. The closest would be Super Smash Bros., but that's considered to be in its own sub-genre.

Also, using combos that maximize damage aren't always the best. A good number of them may be incredibly impractical or specific to the point it's not worth learning, and then there's stun which can reduce damage depending on the situation.

And what do you mean by "real time math"? I've never heard of anyone doing the math in their head for their combos if that's what you're implying.

Smash uses less to no fail-safes because it's designed around dynamic interactions at the core. Now, though the same attack has the same animation, it can do less damage on repeated use. Also, at higher damages the opponent will fly farther (typically). And, the opponent can also DI. These three things alone make the game more varied and deeper than most 2D fighter's "hit game." There's no need for fail safes here.

The thing is, those mechanics (save for maybe DI) have their own issues. The stale move system can make things worse. In fact, during the development for Brawl+, they removed stale moves because it could lead to infinites like Fox juggling Bowser with UTilt because of bringing back in hitstun. An in-Brawl example would be Sheik's FTilt on Ganondorf, and that move already has low knockback to begin with.

 

[kirbykid]

Let's just say his views are very polarizing and his readers give me an impression of strong Nintendo fanboyism and trying to talk business.

Ah. I know what you mean.

Okay, I get what you're saying, but it seems to me that playstyles and mechanics go hand in hand, unless that's what you're saying.

Playstyles and mechanics are related. But, to not confuse things, I think of playstyles like this...

http://critical-gaming.squarespace.com/blog/2010/1/11/playstyles-design-pt1.html

and here are some Brawl examples...

http://critical-gaming.squarespace.com/blog/2010/3/4/brawl-playstyles-skills-pt1.html

A specialist playstyle can focus on 1 to a few moves to shape their entire game around. In this way, (especially if the move is good) the mechanics definitely help that playstyle happen.

You can play a any character with a variety of playstyles. But chances are, you won't specialize in a character's worse move(s).

I was referring to how you said that the developers could've achieved balance if they were willing to to add a mountain of complexities on top of their game systems.

Oh. I meant... for any game still in development when the designers are seeking to balance the game, there's always the option of continually adding features, moves, and other elements on top of the existing system rather than tweaking what's already there. I didn't mean for that statement to say... "they could have balanced GG if they were willing to add more junk on top."

Funny that you imply that the fighting game design formula is obsolete considering that you have platformers which have kept their basic designs for at least 25 years and no one seems to complain, but it's the fighting games that get called out. Note, I'm not a super fanboy for fighting games, it's an observation.

Not obsolete. I really enjoy studying and thinking about Street Fighter HDremix and SSF4. But Sirlin, and other designers have admitted that because of the way SF is designed (sticking to the old formula so to speak) balancing the game is very difficult. Trying to fix one bad matchup by tweaking a character can have hundreds of side effects that are difficult to see let alone control.

The basic design of fighting games (hit stun, animations, hit boxes, etc) is a good ways of going about designing a fighting game. Certainly the industry has explored these options well. Likewise, platformers have creating new challenges using simple foundations like gravity and air control in addition to more wacky, unique, and off the wall foundations.

I wouldn't say "no one" has complained, but I know what you mean. People are still dedicated to these types of games.

Also, I'll say that I have a lot of experience with platforming games. If you haven't, check out this series I did on Mario platfomers. I bet there's not a more comprehensive look at these games anywhere.

http://critical-gaming.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/19/the-measure-of-mario-pt1.html

I'm not sure how you could update the design of a genre from the ground up, especially considering how long it's been around. The closest would be Super Smash Bros., but that's considered to be in its own sub-genre.

Creativity and design have no limitations. Of course it's possible to completely reinvent the fighting game genre from the ground up (at least in theory). The problem is, because many define genres based on what already exist. So even perfectly legitimate examples like Smash gets put into a "sub-genre."

So I offer this small list of fighters that I have experience with. Some may not think of them as fighters or "pure fighters." Each are very different, and each helps me realize that there's so much more that can be done. (I also get lots of ideas from non fighting games too).

Rag Doll Kung Fu
Super Money Ball: Party game "Monkey Fight"
Wii Sports Boxing
Draglade (DS)
Jump Super/Ultimate Stars
Zelda Four Swords: Multiplayer Battle

Also, using combos that maximize damage aren't always the best. A good number of them may be incredibly impractical or specific to the point it's not worth learning, and then there's stun which can reduce damage depending on the situation.

And what do you mean by "real time math"? I've never heard of anyone doing the math in their head for their combos if that's what you're implying.

True. But I didn't mean to imply that everyone seeks to learn the max damage possible. I meant that people generally look to maximize the damage given using their current skills and strategies.

The damage scaling in SF4 & SSF4 is an odd, invisible, math equation that affects all combos. The best way to understand how to get the most damage out of your combo opportunities is to go to training mode and crunch the numbers. Otherwise, there's no way someone can do the math in battle.

The thing is, those mechanics (save for maybe DI) have their own issues. The stale move system can make things worse. In fact, during the development for Brawl+, they removed stale moves because it could lead to infinites like Fox juggling Bowser with UTilt because of bringing back in hitstun. An in-Brawl example would be Sheik's FTilt on Ganondorf, and that move already has low knockback to begin with.

Well, if you start messing with the game code things are bound to get out of whack. Things get even more chaotic when you don't have a firm grasp on what you're messing with. I wouldn't say that they have their own issues. Do you have any other examples?

As for Shiek on Gannondorf, I can't say much about one of the worst characters in the game. But I can say that with repeated hits, the damage goes down. And with repeated hits, a rhythm is set up making it easier to smash DI. Also, like most attacks, at higher damages certain strategies fail to work well or at all.

I think it's safe to say that Sheik isn't too big of a threat/issue in Brawl touranemnts.

 

[painlord k11]

my friend and I were like just playing 4 swords on co-op on the story it was pretty fun

 

[kirbykid]

GOOD GAME EPISODE 4 PART 2

Almost done with this series!

 

[Big-Cat]

A specialist playstyle can focus on 1 to a few moves to shape their entire game around. In this way, (especially if the move is good) the mechanics definitely help that playstyle happen.

You already know who I play in Street Fighter so you should know I agree with this, to an extent, but a large one nonetheless.

Not obsolete. I really enjoy studying and thinking about Street Fighter HDremix and SSF4. But Sirlin, and other designers have admitted that because of the way SF is designed (sticking to the old formula so to speak) balancing the game is very difficult. Trying to fix one bad matchup by tweaking a character can have hundreds of side effects that are difficult to see let alone control.

I think that's just something inherent when you do balancing for anything. I don't think there's anything we can do for that. It's just like making a few changes to a code can have the program running differently.

One person can make a difference indeed.

The basic design of fighting games (hit stun, animations, hit boxes, etc) is a good ways of going about designing a fighting game. Certainly the industry has explored these options well. Likewise, platformers have creating new challenges using simple foundations like gravity and air control in addition to more wacky, unique, and off the wall foundations.

So are you saying that platformers have made new challenges by adjusting the physics? That has worked with games like SMG, but I don't see a difference with that and the changes in fighting games.

The damage scaling in SF4 & SSF4 is an odd, invisible, math equation that affects all combos. The best way to understand how to get the most damage out of your combo opportunities is to go to training mode and crunch the numbers. Otherwise, there's no way someone can do the math in battle.

I already know what this is. On average, each consecutive move in a combo (attack, not multihitters), has it's power decreased by a certain percentage (in increments of 10%) relative to its position in a combo queue.

Well, if you start messing with the game code things are bound to get out of whack. Things get even more chaotic when you don't have a firm grasp on what you're messing with. I wouldn't say that they have their own issues. Do you have any other examples?

You do have a point about changing the game code, but this does show the dangerous potential we have with stale moves as it is.

With your new episode, you did raise some points that Melee has a strong emphasis (because of that stupid L-Canceling) on jump-in moves. I was surprised to see combo videos for the first time and see such an emphasis. I suppose, in a sense, that the diversity where which moves are used has been upped in Brawl. Still, I feel like they went about the changes in the wrong way.

I find the game just too slow in general. I'm not saying Brawl should've been Melee fast, but something that is still fast, but you can still manage, even with the shift. The other thing I want to discuss is hitstun. The biggest problem I see with Brawl's hitstun is that true combos are pretty difficulty to pull off. Not only that, but combos in Brawl, at least by going by your example, is defined by who can guess and read right. This is fine and all, but I think too much emphasis was placed on this and not enough on dexterity and long and short term knowledge (I may have contradicted myself there.).

Another thing is that footsies, to me at least, are virtually dead in Brawl because of that small, but nevertheless present, random trip. Brawl is the only fighting game I know of with this kind of thing that virtually penalizes you for moving which you need to do in footsies anyway.

Overall, I think Brawl, aside from being a rushed game, had some good ideas behind it, but it fell flat on delivering them.

 

[King Funk]

I like how this survey will attract tons of Melee players who are gonna hate on Brawl.

Brawl players prolly won't care about that thread at all.

I'm really enjoying the videos.

 

[Melomaniacal]

Is there a reason why just about every myth being busted is either pro Brawl or against Melee?

Also, I'm not so sure about Brawl being much more balanced between air/ground battles. In Brawl, aerials are still generally better for approaching and following up, with the only big exception I can think of being Snake. Even the clip you showed to demonstrate the balance between air and ground fights was 90% aerial attacks.

Also, what's the difference between "wave sliding" and "wave dashing"?

 

[kirbykid]

I think that's just something inherent when you do balancing for anything. I don't think there's anything we can do for that. It's just like making a few changes to a code can have the program running differently.

One person can make a difference indeed.

Certainly fighters have a very hard time with balance. Other genres present different balancing problems, but as long as they don't have to consider hundreds of complex matchups I think it's easier to balance them.

I think you'll find some interesting alternatives to balance by looking at uncommon fighting games and games of other genre.

So are you saying that platformers have made new challenges by adjusting the physics? That has worked with games like SMG, but I don't see a difference with that and the changes in fighting games.

As far as creating new gameplay challenges, I think both fighters and platformers have many examples that are similar/conservative and some that are very unique/original. Likewise, some games look unique and are practically the same old design, and some games look familiar yet do many new things. It all just depends on which games you look at and from what perspective. But that's a whole different conversation I don't think we need to get into right now.

You do have a point about changing the game code, but this does show the dangerous potential we have with stale moves as it is.

Indeed.

With your new episode, you did raise some points that Melee has a strong emphasis (because of that stupid L-Canceling) on jump-in moves. I was surprised to see combo videos for the first time and see such an emphasis. I suppose, in a sense, that the diversity where which moves are used has been upped in Brawl. Still, I feel like they went about the changes in the wrong way.

I find the game just too slow in general. I'm not saying Brawl should've been Melee fast, but something that is still fast, but you can still manage, even with the shift. The other thing I want to discuss is hitstun. The biggest problem I see with Brawl's hitstun is that true combos are pretty difficulty to pull off. Not only that, but combos in Brawl, at least by going by your example, is defined by who can guess and read right. This is fine and all, but I think too much emphasis was placed on this and not enough on dexterity and long and short term knowledge (I may have contradicted myself there.).

That's an interesting idea/claim. I wonder if we had to power to gradually increase Brawl's speed at what point would it hit that "sweet spot" for you. Also, knowing that you're a Street Fighter, I must say that SF4 isn't what I consider to be a fast game. What do you think about its speed? What do you think about the combat/gameplay? How much of the combat design/gameplay do you think is made possible because of the game speed?

Because I thinkSF4 block strings create very interesting pattern based mixup opportunities especially when you FADC to break up or "syncopate" the rhythm. I think this neat part of SF4's combat would be lost/greatly reduced if the game speed increased.

It's possible to follow up your attacks in Brawl in such a way as to require no guessing/reading. It's more difficult, but you can throw out two attacks in such a way as to achieve a combo whether the opponent air dodges or not. The better everyone gets at the game, the more of this you'll see. If you don't quite have the experience/ LTM to create such solid strategies, then you can simply rely on your ability to read/guess.

I'm not sure if Brawl's balance of dexterity, LTM, and STM are directly related to the capacity for players to successfully follow up hits in "combo" like situations. I think I know what you might be saying, but do elaborate if you can.

On a side note, I've been considering a few tweaks to Brawls design to help the balance a bit more.

Another thing is that footsies, to me at least, are virtually dead in Brawl because of that small, but nevertheless present, random trip. Brawl is the only fighting game I know of with this kind of thing that virtually penalizes you for moving which you need to do in footsies anyway.

Overall, I think Brawl, aside from being a rushed game, had some good ideas behind it, but it fell flat on delivering them.

Brawl footsies use attacks that block each other, walking, rolling, spot dodging, perfect shielding, crawling, shielding, pivot grabs etc. It's all about spacing to a very fine degree on the ground. Dashing is a very small part of Brawl's ground game/footsies.

Tripping is really bad, but there are simple ways to play a version of Brawl without it. So if you really think tripping sucks, then just play without it.

I like how this survey will attract tons of Melee players who are gonna hate on Brawl.

Brawl players prolly won't care about that thread at all.

I'm really enjoying the videos.

Thanks.

I hope that the angriest Melee players at least learn that they don't have to be so angry about Brawl.

I'm having a hard time getting Brawl players to participate.

 

[ranmaru]

Am I late because I just submitted a survey. : ]

 

[Big-Cat]

That's an interesting idea/claim. I wonder if we had to power to gradually increase Brawl's speed at what point would it hit that "sweet spot" for you. Also, knowing that you're a Street Fighter, I must say that SF4 isn't what I consider to be a fast game. What do you think about its speed? What do you think about the combat/gameplay? How much of the
combat design/gameplay do you think is made possible because of the game speed?

I think, if Brawl and Melee's speeds were on a scale with Melee being a 10 and Brawl being a 0, I'd go with a 6. At the same time, drop the buffer to three frames instead of ten.

As for the SF questions, I think that you're asking these questions to the wrong person as the character I play, El Fuerte in case you forgot, plays nothing like the other characters in the game. That being said, I'll answer them:

1. I'm fine with the speed, but this is also my first Street Fighter so I'm not all that aware of the speed differences other than that HD Remix feels slower to me for some reason.
2. In the first SFIV, I found the game to be a little to defensive because some characters had really easy high damage inputs (Ryu, Rufus, and Sagat come to mind). SSFIV made things more offensive by bringing more offensive characters like Ibuki, Dudley, and Adon into the game and by readjusting the damage outputs so that mistakes weren't so punishing.
3. I'm not sure if I can really answer that question. Can you expand on that so I know what you're looking for?

Because I thinkSF4 block strings create very interesting pattern based mixup opportunities especially when you FADC to break up or "syncopate" the rhythm. I think this neat part of SF4's combat would be lost/greatly reduced if the game speed increased.

Block strings are an interesting case as the reversal window in that game has made them a bit more dangerous to do thanks to DP reversals. However, in terms of mixups, I guess the speed is fine. Trying to apply vortexes in that game if it was sinificantly faster would be pretty tough, or Elf's RSF loop for that matter.

It's possible to follow up your attacks in Brawl in such a way as to require no guessing/reading. It's more difficult, but you can throw out two attacks in such a way as to achieve a combo whether the opponent air dodges or not. The better everyone gets at the game, the more of this you'll see. If you don't quite have the experience/ LTM to create such solid strategies, then you can simply rely on your ability to read/guess.

I was talking about sequencing more than two attacks, but whatever.

I'm not sure if Brawl's balance of dexterity, LTM, and STM are directly related to the capacity for players to successfully follow up hits in "combo" like situations. I think I know what you might be saying, but do elaborate if you can.

Well, we have DI in these games which allow you to change your trajectory. I don't know how much variation you can have in one DI, but I'll assume for simplicity's sake to be two (reduced and untouched). When you get them with an attack, they can either DI or don't. You using LTM and STM have to decide what attack is the best choice for continuing the combo string and you execute with dexterity, doing it quickly before they can recover.

On a side note, I've been considering a few tweaks to Brawls design to help the balance a bit more.

Really? You should take a look at my sig. I think the rest of us there will be more than happy to have you around.

Brawl footsies use attacks that block each other, walking, rolling, spot dodging, perfect shielding, crawling, shielding, pivot grabs etc. It's all about spacing to a very fine degree on the ground. Dashing is a very small part of Brawl's ground game/footsies.

You don't have to define this stuff for me as footsies have similar traits in all sorts of fighters.

That being said, I wasn't referring to stuff like dash dancing which is indeed a part of footsies, but tripping can occur even if you're just walking, and I believe even when you attack.

Tripping is really bad, but there are simple ways to play a version of Brawl without it. So if you really think tripping sucks, then just play without it.

LOL I don't play Brawl anymore. I'd try the mods, but my Wii crashes every time I load a stage outside of Classic Mode.

I'm having a hard time getting Brawl players to participate.

This might be a testament to the dedication of the Brawl players. It might be a good thing though that it has been rather dead by comparison. I don't need a certain poster to come in and kill the thread with his hypocritical, cherry picking, misrepresenting of facts posts.

 

[King Funk]

Hey KirbyKid. I'm sorry for my sarcastic reaction to your thread. When I saw the words "Brawl vs Melee" and then clicked on the survey to see the questions, I thought it'd end up being a complete flamefest full of "Brawl sucks" comments by angry Melee players along with others finding 10000 reasons to Melee > Brawl. It's only when I saw the videos that I truly grasped what you were trying to do, and I'd like to applaud you for that.

I'm a smasher who plays all three games, because they are smash games. As you explained, 80% of the core remains and that what counts for me. The game I'm best at is actually is smash 64 although the most fun for me is Melee. I still enjoy Brawl a lot and see it as a great game.

Keep doing this it's great.

 

[kirbykid]

Is there a reason why just about every myth being busted is either pro Brawl or against Melee?

Also, I'm not so sure about Brawl being much more balanced between air/ground battles. In Brawl, aerials are still generally better for approaching and following up, with the only big exception I can think of being Snake. Even the clip you showed to demonstrate the balance between air and ground fights was 90% aerial attacks.

Also, what's the difference between "wave sliding" and "wave dashing"?

The reason there are so many "anti Brawl" myths is because I took the statements straight out of the quotes from the survey. Furthermore, the survey is mostly Melee supporters many of whom were kind of "angry."

I say that Brawl and Melee share 80%+ of their design, which is why I like to explain how similar the two are in various aspects. We already concluded that both games are very complex, deep, and skillful so on this final topic (balance) we're getting real specific/nitpicky. Though many think more balanced and diverse is better, this is largely just a preference. So even if Melee isn't as balanced as Brawl in different aspects, that could be a great thing for you.

I think there are definitely characters designed in the Melee "groove" in Brawl. Squirtle, Marth, and Fox, and Peach love their aerial approach. I also think there are characters that are more ground focused (Snake, DDD, Olimar, Bowser, Charizard). Perhaps the difference between a good air vs ground approach character is the versatility of their forward air vs ground moves. There are also air focused character like, MK, Jiggs, Wario, etc.

Also, pivot grabbing and perfect shielding are effective ground counters to air approaches which naturally means one character is up while the other is down.

To clarify, I mainly define the 3 zones as ground, SHFFL, and air. Full hopping (not pressure drop), double jumping, and beyond count as air battles.

If you still need more convincing and the movement maps I drew in episode 4 part 1 aren't enough, I think exploring this topic in detail would be very worth while.

In the meantime, I think there are a lot of vids in the Brawl v Melee playlist on my channel that show off Brawls air and ground game styles.

Am I late because I just submitted a survey. : ]

Late to possibly get your quote in an episode, but definitely not late to be a part of the debate/discussion. This is only the begining.

Hey KirbyKid. I'm sorry for my sarcastic reaction to your thread. When I saw the words "Brawl vs Melee" and then clicked on the survey to see the questions, I thought it'd end up being a complete flamefest full of "Brawl sucks" comments by angry Melee players along with others finding 10000 reasons to Melee > Brawl. It's only when I saw the videos that I truly grasped what you were trying to do, and I'd like to applaud you for that.

I'm a smasher who plays all three games, because they are smash games. As you explained, 80% of the core remains and that what counts for me. The game I'm best at is actually is smash 64 although the most fun for me is Melee. I still enjoy Brawl a lot and see it as a great game.

Keep doing this it's great.

I'm glad the videos were so convincing for you.

 

[INSANE CARZY GUY]

Hey some data I think may be useful is to watch people playing like their faces/movements/reacts. looking at their faces i very neat. I'm very serious when playing melee and i've seen other melee players they are also very serious when not laughing. Ifi'm serious it's very clear by my face. i'e seen a serious brawler looked like he was watching tv.

 

[ranmaru]

Ah ok that is fine. : D Also King of Funk I prefer melee, but I am open to BOTH. So you'd probably like my answers. I'm not an angry melee player. : ] I even want to get better at brawl as well, I just don't have a Wii haha.

 

[kirbykid]

Hey some data I think may be useful is to watch people playing like their faces/movements/reacts. looking at their faces i very neat. I'm very serious when playing melee and i've seen other melee players they are also very serious when not laughing. Ifi'm serious it's very clear by my face. i'e seen a serious brawler looked like he was watching tv.

Miyamoto has been known to evaluate how his games are progressing by looking at playtester's faces. You can tell if you game is great by the smile on their faces.

I'd love to do something like this, I doubt I'd get too many volunteers. lol.

I'd use multiple cameras to observe their body language/facial expression during a match.

 

[INSANE CARZY GUY]

I'm going to do it next time I can maybe this saturday I won't tell them of course.

 

[kirbykid]

I'm going to do it next time I can maybe this saturday I won't tell them of course.

Be careful. There are laws against doing things like that.

 

[King Funk]

There's a type of argument I noticed a lot in the first few pages:

Because the funny thing is... I'll bet about 80-90% of this Melee board tried Brawl, didn't like it, moved back to Melee, so they HAVE some valid opinions on the matter...

GA big factor is because many Melee players gave Brawl a shot for at least a few months before going back to Melee, so they have experience playing both games at a tournament level and can give a more informed opinion.

Though it IS true that most of us here played Brawl and hated it. I played Brawl competitively then switched to Melee, so I can relate. We disliked Brawl so we went back to Melee. Simple as that.

As you can see, they all talk about how many players tried to pick up Brawl and ended up not liking it. But we have to ask ourselves lots of questions... When did that happen? At the beginning of the Brawl metagame? At a time where people used f-smash a lot with Snake? Who did those people play against? Against people who did random stuff they weren't used to and won? Against people who used cheap but punishable tactics (Falco 08' metagame laser to phantasm)? Did they try too much to do what they could do in Melee and not anymore in Brawl? Was it the lower hitstun? Did they think it was the only way for a smash game to work? Didn't a lot of the people who loved 64 dislike Melee at first? Most importantly, what if they played the game today, against excellent players in our actual metagame?

Kirbykid, since you made a video about the evolution of the Melee metagame, I hope that's an interesting thing to consider about Brawl.

In my opinion, it's reception by loving Melee players was too impatient and shortsighted. Every game takes time to get to a point where it gets more interesting.

Actually, only Nintendude conceded something about the Brawl metagame.

Yes, the Brawl metagame has changed considerably, but I feel like Brawl's fundamentals have remained somewhat static.

I definitely disagree. The Brawl metagame has changed to a point where it's barely recognizable. But I'm too tired atm to describe it.

 

[Melomaniacal]

Yes, Brawl's metagame has changed. The point is that Brawl rewards defensive play more than offensive play. Brawl is more slow and campy compared to Melee. There is no denying this. Many people do not like this style of gameplay. That's it. When he says that the fundamentals have remained static, he means that Brawl is still more campy and defensive, and this is true. Maybe to a lesser extent than what it used to be, but we still see people timing each other out even at the top of the metagame.

I played Brawl in tournaments up until a month or two before Genesis. I have seen the metagame evolve, and I still don't like it.

 

[King Funk]

A month or two before Genesis is too old, already. That's like... more than one year! =D

I'm pretty sure it's possible to time out people in Melee. Most people just don't think about doing it more, because indeed Melee offers more means to win "normally" (who the **** cares anyway, play to win). But the game certainly offers you the means to time out your opponent.

 

[Deleted member]

Removed by Moderator

 

[Melomaniacal]

^ Pretty much my thoughts.

After the first video, I decided to give it a chance. But every video since has been the same way.

 

[Big-Cat]

Come to think of it, I don't recall seeing much of anything in regards to the relative balance of the characters in terms of matchups, just their moves. I didn't really feel like I got an answer as to which is more balanced in that regard.

That being said, I just found this very nice post on SRK regarding balance.
http://shoryuken.com/f2/truth-about-capcom-balancing-games-246896/index2.html#post9334207

TL;DR: If you have a character that is balanced in terms of having a solid overall game play (think Master of None) becoming the top tier, you likely have a good game because no particular aspect has a dominating presence. Ideally, in SSB's case, this should be Mario.

MK is top tier in Brawl because of the floaty gameplay and he has very fast and untradable attacks. Not only that, but combining his multiple recovery options with the lower hitstun make mistakes for him less of a deal.

Even though Melee was an accident and so was L-Canceling, Fox became top tier because of the strong offense presence.

Note, this is my interpretation based on that post, so I can be completely wrong here.

 

[BigD!!!]

hey i'm like, way, way late, but i'd like to point out that the commonly heard statement as to there being evidence in debug mode or w/e that wavedashing was intentionally put into the game is not true

wavedashing shows up in debug mode as "landfall special", but that also shows up any time you land on the ground while in the helpless animation. so if you up b off the level, then land, youll get "landfall special", which, in the eyes of the programmers, was the same as wavedashing

wavedashing was an accident

 

[Melomaniacal]

Wavedashing was not really an accident. First off, it is an exploit of the physics that they put into the game. Most importantly, they said themselves (I can find the quote if you would like) that they knew about wavedashing while testing the game and kept it in. It was only an accident in the sense that they did not know beforehand that the physics would act that way. But they knew about it, it is not a glitch, they chose not to remove it.

 

[kirbykid]

There's a type of argument I noticed a lot in the first few pages:

As you can see, they all talk about how many players tried to pick up Brawl and ended up not liking it. But we have to ask ourselves lots of questions... When did that happen? At the beginning of the Brawl metagame? At a time where people used f-smash a lot with Snake? Who did those people play against? Against people who did random stuff they weren't used to and won? Against people who used cheap but punishable tactics (Falco 08' metagame laser to phantasm)? Did they try too much to do what they could do in Melee and not anymore in Brawl? Was it the lower hitstun? Did they think it was the only way for a smash game to work? Didn't a lot of the people who loved 64 dislike Melee at first? Most importantly, what if they played the game today, against excellent players in our actual metagame?

Kirbykid, since you made a video about the evolution of the Melee metagame, I hope that's an interesting thing to consider about Brawl.

In my opinion, it's reception by loving Melee players was too impatient and shortsighted. Every game takes time to get to a point where it gets more interesting.

Actually, only Nintendude conceded something about the Brawl metagame.

I definitely disagree. The Brawl metagame has changed to a point where it's barely recognizable. But I'm too tired atm to describe it.

Those are all good questions to ask in order to get to the bottom of how an individual formed their opinion about Brawl. Taking a new game and developing the metagame takes a lot of work. It's like solving the most complicated and hardest puzzle game you can imagine. There are so many pieces and options to consider trying to figure out how to play better, smarter, stronger. Smash has so many complexities that it takes years and years of development from thousands of players to evolve. This is no simple feat. So for those who expected super great things even within the first year and a half of Brawl probably weren't there at the beginning of Melee where we all played like losers (comparatively).

I made the melee metagame video because youtube wasns't around back then, and I was sitting on years of footage. Now to do a history of Brawl's metagame, I can get all the video footage I need from youtube.

Yes, Brawl's metagame has changed. The point is that Brawl rewards defensive play more than offensive play. Brawl is more slow and campy compared to Melee. There is no denying this. Many people do not like this style of gameplay. That's it. When he says that the fundamentals have remained static, he means that Brawl is still more campy and defensive, and this is true. Maybe to a lesser extent than what it used to be, but we still see people timing each other out even at the top of the metagame.

I played Brawl in tournaments up until a month or two before Genesis. I have seen the metagame evolve, and I still don't like it.

Are some people calling zoning camping? I know that zoning is considered a legit strategy in Street Fighter, yet some people here seem to really not like it in Brawl. There's so much interplay and variation with Brawl zoning too. I love the zoning. What better way to show of your moving and fighting capabilities than by navigating a "projectile obstacle course" to get in close to your opponent.

I got timed out and camped by Fox, Peach, and Falco players all the time in Melee. It also kinda happens to me in Brawl too. I don't like it in either game. I'd design Brawl and Melee so that this couldn't happen if I had the power.

I'm sorry to say this, but I'm beginning to suspect that this whole thing is some kind of cover for being able to start a "Why I think Brawl is better than Melee" thread without getting it locked.

It's extremely clear that most of the arguments made in the videos are about one of 2 things.

1. Brawl isn't as bad compared to Melee in x aspect as many people say.
2. Brawl is better than Melee in y aspect.

Some non-scientific (but certainly suspicious) evidence of this is the fact that pretty much every post in either threads that has been saying how they agree with everything comes from pro-Brawl people, while nearly every post disagreeing with you comes from pro-Melee people.

It's funny how you bring up the idea of me having such an agenda all along. I designed all the episodes around the research from my blog. I designed all the myths around answers submitted to the survey. I honestly expected a lot more Brawl people to contribute, but it turns out I got a lot more Melee people. With that said, there are a lot of Melee people that say a lot of very bold things about the Brawl v Melee topic.

So one thing I wanted to straighten out is the language we use. I can only hope you like my definitions of complexity, skills, depth, and balance and that my work helps you formulate clear thoughts/statements about video games.

This whole idea of "better" is really getting in the way of really communicating here. Even after everything I said ( Brawl has more complexities, and lengthier timings, and more move balance) this doesn't necessarily make it "better." It makes it different from Melee. Understanding how individual elements and small differences affect the whole is what I want everyone to start considering.

After all, if you're a dexterity, fast paced, combo type of fighting game fan, then Melee will definitely be "better" for you. Personally, I generally don't like having a ton of complexities in my games. I also like using lots of dexterity skill for different tasks.

So even if you think the videos are showing off Brawl, if you don't disagree with the statements then what's the problem? Even if I say Brawl is 1% better than Melee, what does that really matter when they're both great and offer different types of (similar) experiences? Either way, you should have a nice launching off point to start really talking about specific Melee topics in a detailed and clear way.

hey i'm like, way, way late, but i'd like to point out that the commonly heard statement as to there being evidence in debug mode or w/e that wavedashing was intentionally put into the game is not true

wavedashing shows up in debug mode as "landfall special", but that also shows up any time you land on the ground while in the helpless animation. so if you up b off the level, then land, youll get "landfall special", which, in the eyes of the programmers, was the same as wavedashing

wavedashing was an accident

I'll have to check debug mode myself, but the point you make is interesting.

Still, I've been a part of the whole "getting paid to debug Nintendo games" process. I'm telling you, there's no way the playtesters didn't spend hours testing the air dodge with every angle possible and into every surface (stage / platforms) possible. They knew about wave dashingn. It's part of the game. They programmed the slide and the puff of smoke that comes up. They may not have realized how much we'd use it to compete, but that's another issue.

If you can imagine what it's like to program a video game (cause I do have experience with this) even if by some miracle you accidentally programed something like waevdashing into your game and it didn't freeze/glitch everything up, you'd definitely know about it after spending hundreds of hours playtesting your own work.

wavedashing is not an accident.

 

[BEES]

Also, knowing that you're a Street Fighter, I must say that SF4 isn't what I consider to be a fast game. What do you think about its speed? What do you think about the combat/gameplay? How much of the combat design/gameplay do you think is made possible because of the game speed?

I wish I could draw a chart grouping fighting games on an axis of speed and offensive/defensive tactics, but people would disagree with some of my choices because there is some subjective element to it, and obviously a game you're worse at will seem slower.

I think we could all agree that Melee would be in the upper right hand quadrant somewhere, probably chilling with the Guilty Gear series.

Soul Calibur is definitely a slower series, but it has combos and such, so it could go in the upper left. I can't think of anything that would go in the lower right. Then in the lower left you would have Brawl all by itself, possibly with PowerStone (at the complete bottom of the chart, since it's a game with no multi-attack combos at all)

I hope that the angriest Melee players at least learn that they don't have to be so angry about Brawl.

I'm having a hard time getting Brawl players to participate.

I can't not be angry about Brawl. It is a very blatant statement by Nintendo that they don't want the series to be associated with the fighting genre. The fact that you can still play it competitively means nothing. It is a game with very few and very short combos. It is a game where they very deliberately, meticulously rearranged knockback distances, angles, falling speeds, movement speeds, and attack cooldown times to prevent followups, thus ensuring the items would be the most effective offense.

If they had some sort of creative vision where they wanted a fighting game, but with different physics so the old players wouldn't alienate newcomers, that easily could have been done. You could take Brawl as it is, and add a series of cancels and movement techs for people to discover that allow for deeper offense. It would be a totally different game than Melee, but equally deep. That's not what they did.

Brawl's legacy will be to 'otherise' fans of the gameplay in 64 and Melee from the Nintendo sphere. Unless it was just the weather that year, and HAL develops a very different attitude for the next game, we have nothing to look forward to. Melee/64 players should wake up and embrace the hacks because that's all we're gonna have. That's the future of Smash, pretty much.