• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Brawl Vs. MvC3

Shats

Smash Rookie
Joined
Apr 4, 2011
Messages
4
Location
NC -- Boone/Charlotte
So I've been playing some MvC3 lately, and checking out SRK, the predominate classic fighter community, and every time I've ever brought up Brawl, a bunch of people just raged, and as one person put it, "is a party game played by a bunch of autists"

I just wanted to leave this here, as they really made me miss smashboards, and the community/game in general.

Brawl takes more skill, IMO.
And you guys are a hell of a lot more friendly. :)
 

MarthTrinity

Smash Lord
Joined
Aug 9, 2007
Messages
1,954
Location
The Cosmos Beneath Rosalina's Skirt
They're two very different games in my opinion directed at different audiences in general.

With that said, MvC3 blows Brawl out of the water in terms of character creativity with characters such as MODOK, Dormammu, Arthur, Chris, Amaterasu and others being VASTLY more creative than -ANYTHING- in Brawl. Pretty much every character in MvC3 is fun to play around with in their own ways whereas there's a ton of the Brawl roster I just don't enjoy playing at all (the Spacies, Sheik, Meta Knight etc). So basically gameplay wise I'd give it to MvC3 but that's just my opinion.

When it comes to having features however? Brawl wins there. MvC3 is so freakin' skimpy on features it's ridiculous. Limited single player modes and online that's nothing spectacular (still way better than Brawl's in my opinion though...) really draw it back whereas Brawl has stuff like Events, Classic, All-Star, Stadium stuff...heck, even the crappy SSE is better than the story MvC3 had (IE: None).

They're both fun games in their own ways; I personally prefer MvC3 though if I had to choose.

EDIT: Also yeah, the people on SRK usually don't give a crap about Brawl because they view it as a party game instead of a fighter.
 

Big-Cat

Challenge accepted.
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
16,176
Location
Lousiana
NNID
KumaOso
3DS FC
1590-4853-0104
You'll get similar opinions here on Smashboards regarding Brawl. Interestingly enough, you have more respect for the first two Smash games over Brawl.

As MarthTrinity said, the two games are very different. They're so different that you can't compare Street Fighter to MvC3 and they're closer in relationship. In terms of gameplay, MvC3 offers way more diversity in its playstyles available. Not only that, but I'd say the diversity is more clear than in Brawl. It's easier to identify what everyone's playstyle is.

Brawl, however, does provide more for the offline playing. Of course, some people don't care about that so it's YMMV.

And as MarthTrinity said, it's commonly viewed not as a fighter on SRK, but like on SRK you'll get people here who'll tell you that Brawl is not a good fighting game.
 

Radian

Smash Rookie
Joined
Feb 12, 2011
Messages
8
Location
Virginia Beach, Virginia
I think MvC3 probably is a better competitive game, but not good game overall. It's already been stated but MvC3 hardly has **** to do on it except vs, online, and 1-player, meaning it's not worth the $60 I spent considering I personally dislike the game and there's nothing else interesting to do. Maybe 2-hours in (Being generous on this note.), you'll unlock the 4 secret characters. Congrats, you just 100% the game. Unless you wanna actually sit there and unlock all the endings and art, which probably isn't worth it or even fun.

Maybe if it were $40, sure. But I feel like I got a waaay better deal with Brawl. $50 with all the **** it has on it? Love it.
 

Matador

Maybe Even...Utopian?
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
5,718
Location
Bowie, MD
Measuring skill is difficult. It's hard to determine which game requires more, especially since they challenge in different areas.

BTW, SRK hates on everything. Brawl especially, but they hate on literally every game...despite not fully understanding them. Just ignore them.
 

Shorts

Zef Side
Premium
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
9,609
3DS FC
3136-6583-3704
They're very different and aren't comparable really. When I look at games like MvC, CvS, and TvC I just think of really competitive players. There isn't much to do in those games but fight non-stop. Which isn't that appealing to me and most casual players. Brawl offers easier to grasp gameplay, with a 4 player option. It has tons of items, music and collectables to try and get, along with it's less combo oriented fighting style.

I like both the Capcom vs. Series and Super Smash Bros Series, but I can't play a Cvs. game for more then two hours straight, and well I can Smash all night. So really, I think smash is more fun in that sense.
 
D

Deleted member

Guest
Like said before, they aren't really comparable. Myself, I personally much prefer MvC3 than Brawl. I find EVERY character fun in their own way, and it's just so addicting. While I agree it may lack any good single player options, honestly the gameplay more than makes up for it to me. I like Brawl, but honestly most of the features in it are somethings I really dislike (SSE, stage builder, online, etc).

Just my opinion though. Oh and MvC3 has Dante, Wesker, Zero, Amaterasu, Chris, Deadpool, Haggar and more. Brawl has like uh...Lucario and Ike...and that's it for me really.
 

EmperorB-rad2kj

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Messages
131
Location
In your nightmares
In all honesty I just think the replay value for brawl is higher than that of MvC3. I enjoy both but they are different games with different playstyles and you cant just play one and think youll be good at the other just because they're both fighters.

I play both but I play brawl more mostly because im a lot batter at it and Ive had years of brawl experience vs MvC experience.
 

Soldner Kei

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
155
Location
Mexico
NNID
SoldnerKei
at least MvC3 is "balancing " characters in their patches, sumthing nintendo should do, even melee got fixed(falco CG on fox anyone?), why not brawl? that aside, I play both games, and I find Smash over all better than MvC, I'll always say it, it's just smashing buttons in respective order, all the stages are the same, and there is no Jin, how the hell could it be right? Still I enjoy the game, who dosen't? but I can't call it the revelation of the year, neither brawl, so whatever... screw SRK
 

Krystedez

Awaken the Path
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
4,301
Location
Colorado Springs
Honestly, I've found that MvC can be essentially super button mashing, whereas Brawl, the only button masher(s) are possibly Meta Knight and ... well that's it. Unless you guys can think of something. And we all know button mashers just end up being left behind in the dust when it comes to high level play.

MvC3 condones super aggressive bone-headed play
Brawl condones super defense gay/campy play

They're completely different in their own ways, and when they are met right down in the middle, they both shine in particularly awesome ways. I love Brawl's balance of mechanics, but hate it's character balance. I love MvC3's balance of characters, but hate it's mechanics balance (X-factor? uuugh.)
 

Slashy

Smash Lord
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
1,402
Location
Palm Beach
at least MvC3 is "balancing " characters in their patches, sumthing nintendo should do, even melee got fixed(falco CG on fox anyone?), why not brawl? that aside, I play both games, and I find Smash over all better than MvC, I'll always say it, it's just smashing buttons in respective order, all the stages are the same, and there is no Jin, how the hell could it be right? Still I enjoy the game, who dosen't? but I can't call it the revelation of the year, neither brawl, so whatever... screw SRK
Brawl was fixed by fans
 

SmashChu

Banned via Warnings
Joined
Jul 14, 2003
Messages
5,924
Location
Tampa FL
So I've been playing some MvC3 lately, and checking out SRK, the predominate classic fighter community, and every time I've ever brought up Brawl, a bunch of people just raged, and as one person put it, "is a party game played by a bunch of autists"

I just wanted to leave this here, as they really made me miss smashboards, and the community/game in general.

Brawl takes more skill, IMO.
And you guys are a hell of a lot more friendly. :)
"Fighting" game fans have always been jealous of Smash Brothers. If you want to see for yourself, try this little experiment: Go to SRK and say Smash Brothers is a fighting game. No problem right? Most people consider it so. You will see a huge ****storm over the fact that you called it a fighting game. This is despite Wikipedia, Nintendo and all large gaming sites call it a "Fighting game."
 

SupaSairentoZ7℠

Smash Hero
Joined
Nov 27, 2010
Messages
7,555
Location
Norfolk, Virginia
Honestly, I've found that MvC can be essentially super button mashing, whereas Brawl, the only button masher(s) are possibly Meta Knight and ... well that's it. Unless you guys can think of something. And we all know button mashers just end up being left behind in the dust when it comes to high level play.

MvC3 condones super aggressive bone-headed play
Brawl condones super defense gay/campy play

They're completely different in their own ways, and when they are met right down in the middle, they both shine in particularly awesome ways. I love Brawl's balance of mechanics, but hate it's character balance. I love MvC3's balance of characters, but hate it's mechanics balance (X-factor? uuugh.)
I agree to this.
 

EmperorB-rad2kj

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Messages
131
Location
In your nightmares
"Fighting" game fans have always been jealous of Smash Brothers. If you want to see for yourself, try this little experiment: Go to SRK and say Smash Brothers is a fighting game. No problem right? Most people consider it so. You will see a huge ****storm over the fact that you called it a fighting game. This is despite Wikipedia, Nintendo and all large gaming sites call it a "Fighting game."
well smash brothers is a fighting game no? I dont see anything else you can call it other than a party game which it isn't entirely. If the company that made it sais it's a fighting game then nothing no one else says even matters as far as a simple opinion which can be disregarded.
 

otter

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
616
Location
Ohio
MvC3 is my primary game right now. It's actually built for competition unlike Brawl. The only downsides are Phoenix, which is basicly equivilent to Metaknight right now, but the metagame is early so maybe people will figure it out. The other negetive aspect is the lack of features outside of the actual fighting engine. If only Capcom could make an engine and Nintendo could handle the aesthetics!
 

SmashChu

Banned via Warnings
Joined
Jul 14, 2003
Messages
5,924
Location
Tampa FL
well smash brothers is a fighting game no? I dont see anything else you can call it other than a party game which it isn't entirely. If the company that made it sais it's a fighting game then nothing no one else says even matters as far as a simple opinion which can be disregarded.
Which is why it is silly.

They will try to call Smash a "party" game or a "brawler." This shows their green envy.
 

Big-Cat

Challenge accepted.
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
16,176
Location
Lousiana
NNID
KumaOso
3DS FC
1590-4853-0104
I fail to see how they're jealous. They just don't consider it a fighting game, and most of the people at SRK go by the traditional standard. Is Smash a fighting game? Yes, but it's not a traditional fighter.
 

kataridragon

Smash Ace
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
673
Location
TEJAS
As far as the hate that goes on around SRK about Smash. Its pretty normal for fans of one game to hate on another.

Plenty of SSF4 players hate MvC3. There are MvC2 players hate SF2. etc.

I beleive the main problem SRK and the "traditional" fighting game community at large has about Smash is the rules that one must go by to play it competitivly. Stage bans, item bans, all kinds of bans.

Think about it. In ssf4 you just sit down and its best 2 out of 3 matches. No bans or anything, simple. With Smash your limited to what the community has chosen as tournament rules. The "traditional" fighting game community doesnt beleive in bans unless they are gamebreaking (glitches such as a game freezing). The smash community has really cut itself off in this respect. Many also beleive that the smash community tried to make smash like a "traditional" fighter by applying these bans which adds to the fact that it wasn't widely excepted. Trurh is smash is its own thin but it seems as though the community forced it to be that way and thus took away form the tournament scene (which I beleive to be true).

I may be a bit biased however because I was once a competetive smash player but I beleive in items an how one must be a good player in order to use them. While "most" (i assume this because the rules for competive play state no items) beleive items are cheap and "broken". I personally stumbled upon srk searching for item rule tournaments back in 08-09. The same year smash was at evo and that famous smash player got beat. Then many people here on the smashboards said "no way he cant lose items suck even more" (obvious exageration of the fact).

Ya hope that clears some things up.

Ive been on smash boards for a few years, as well as frequented it long before i joined (havent been here in a while though). I also frequent srk often. I have been a smash player since N64. Just for some kind of proof of my banter.

Take this as you will.

I love playing smash with friends and in small tournaments. I dont like playing smash in the tournament scene, it depresses me.


Here is an example/rant:
Some guy who likes fighitng games goes to a tournament (or a completly new player for that matter) goes to a tournament. He sits for his first match and plays some veteran and they play a match and the new guy loses (he is new after all). Then the new guy picks a stage and the veteran says "No I ban that stage" then the new guy is like "what why huh?".
His smash competetive experience was just potentially ruined by what he veiws as "excesssive" and "unusual" rules.
One must admit a new player who wants to play smash competetivly has a lot to deal with and is pretty unfriendly.

Rant rant rant. Im done.
 

KoJ

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Aug 16, 2008
Messages
317
I haven't posted on here for a while <_<

Marvel is more fun for me, and has been ever since I found a MvC2 arcade by our neighborhood theater three months ago. I never liked the single player modes of Smash all that much, and Brawl's gameplay just feels really slow and muddy compared to a lot of other fighters. Marvel vs Capcom 3 is really easy to get into, like Smash, but unlike Smash I always feel like there's something new I can do with the engine. Every time I go into training mode, I feel like I'm learning something. Every time I see a combo video, I think "Why the hell didn't I think of that?"

The cast is also better, IMO. There's a lot of diverse types and playstyles. You've got rushdown with Wolverine, zoning with Arthur, trapping with Trish, etc. Better yet, there's more individual choices within the playstyles, and a lot of the characters can juggle multiple playstyles. The use of teams means that it's difficult to face a real "hard counter" like in Brawl, since the characters can support each others' weaknesses.

The game is also flashier in general; even ignoring the graphical difference, stuff like cinematic hyper combos, clever grab resets, or extremely long combos just look pretty. When I watch Brawl matches online, I feel like there's not enough happening; when I watch MvC3 matches online, I feel like everything is happening. Marvel vs. Capcom 2 was the same way: Fast and crazy. Maybe too crazy, but that's just the way I like it.

I like Smash, and I agree that it requires plenty of skill and has plenty of depth. I just prefer Marvel vs. Capcom.
 

professor mgw

Smash Champion
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
2,573
Location
Bronx, NY
NNID
Prof3ssorMGW
Personally i like smash more, I feel that there's more depth to it than MvC. The stage diversity is the main thing to me, the stages play such an important role in smash while in MvC3 stage doesn't matter, its just flashy.

Both games have chars i dont like, but i dislike mvc3 way more for that. Theres a plathora of characters between marvel & capcom, yet there are characters like she-hulk, authur, sentinel :troll:, and c.viper >___> nintendo doesnt have as large of an option for characters, or good chars.

MvC3 to me is more fun to watch than to play. I dont think that brawl is that much better, but i do think it is better. Now when it comes to melee it doesnt compare in anyway to me
 

Krystedez

Awaken the Path
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
4,301
Location
Colorado Springs
As far as the hate that goes on around SRK about Smash. Its pretty normal for fans of one game to hate on another.

Plenty of SSF4 players hate MvC3. There are MvC2 players hate SF2. etc.

I beleive the main problem SRK and the "traditional" fighting game community at large has about Smash is the rules that one must go by to play it competitivly. Stage bans, item bans, all kinds of bans.

Think about it. In ssf4 you just sit down and its best 2 out of 3 matches. No bans or anything, simple. With Smash your limited to what the community has chosen as tournament rules. The "traditional" fighting game community doesnt beleive in bans unless they are gamebreaking (glitches such as a game freezing). The smash community has really cut itself off in this respect. Many also beleive that the smash community tried to make smash like a "traditional" fighter by applying these bans which adds to the fact that it wasn't widely excepted. Trurh is smash is its own thin but it seems as though the community forced it to be that way and thus took away form the tournament scene (which I beleive to be true).

I may be a bit biased however because I was once a competetive smash player but I beleive in items an how one must be a good player in order to use them. While "most" (i assume this because the rules for competive play state no items) beleive items are cheap and "broken". I personally stumbled upon srk searching for item rule tournaments back in 08-09. The same year smash was at evo and that famous smash player got beat. Then many people here on the smashboards said "no way he cant lose items suck even more" (obvious exageration of the fact).

Ya hope that clears some things up.

Ive been on smash boards for a few years, as well as frequented it long before i joined (havent been here in a while though). I also frequent srk often. I have been a smash player since N64. Just for some kind of proof of my banter.

Take this as you will.

I love playing smash with friends and in small tournaments. I dont like playing smash in the tournament scene, it depresses me.


Here is an example/rant:
Some guy who likes fighitng games goes to a tournament (or a completly new player for that matter) goes to a tournament. He sits for his first match and plays some veteran and they play a match and the new guy loses (he is new after all). Then the new guy picks a stage and the veteran says "No I ban that stage" then the new guy is like "what why huh?".
His smash competetive experience was just potentially ruined by what he veiws as "excesssive" and "unusual" rules.
One must admit a new player who wants to play smash competetivly has a lot to deal with and is pretty unfriendly.

Rant rant rant. Im done.
I really liked your post up until your example, honestly. It's all a mattter of preference and education.

If you are not educated about the fact that Smash Brothers has stages that would be considered ******** to play on based on skill and experience, then you really don't need to be surprised or hurt if someone says "oh, sorry, we can't play on that stage because I striked/banned it."... Face it, even newbies to the game will understand the point of a counterpick and ban system, along with why rediculous stages are banned right off (like 75M).

If the newbie picked Final Destination, and is told "Sorry I banned that", um, well, it should be the other way around.

If the person said "I ban FD" and you were about to pick it, you'd say that I guess "Wait what huh?", but still, you can then be educated that it's a right for you to ban a stage too. The reason I say a newbie would understand this system is, well, I'm sure EVERYONE has just at least ONE stage on the counterpick and starters list they totally hate and have their own justifications for it. Now that selective ban doesn't look so bad, now, huh?
 

SmashChu

Banned via Warnings
Joined
Jul 14, 2003
Messages
5,924
Location
Tampa FL
I fail to see how they're jealous. They just don't consider it a fighting game, and most of the people at SRK go by the traditional standard. Is Smash a fighting game? Yes, but it's not a traditional fighter.
That is the definition of being jealous. There shouldn't be an argument about a freaking genre, but they will make it one. Why would it be hard to say "Smash Brothers is a fighting game." Yet, they will argue that.

That is jealousy

As far as the hate that goes on around SRK about Smash. Its pretty normal for fans of one game to hate on another.

Plenty of SSF4 players hate MvC3. There are MvC2 players hate SF2. etc.

I believe the main problem SRK and the "traditional" fighting game community at large has about Smash is the rules that one must go by to play it competitivly. Stage bans, item bans, all kinds of bans.

Think about it. In ssf4 you just sit down and its best 2 out of 3 matches. No bans or anything, simple. With Smash your limited to what the community has chosen as tournament rules. The "traditional" fighting game community doesnt beleive in bans unless they are gamebreaking (glitches such as a game freezing). The smash community has really cut itself off in this respect. Many also beleive that the smash community tried to make smash like a "traditional" fighter by applying these bans which adds to the fact that it wasn't widely excepted. Trurh is smash is its own thin but it seems as though the community forced it to be that way and thus took away form the tournament scene (which I beleive to be true).

I may be a bit biased however because I was once a competetive smash player but I beleive in items an how one must be a good player in order to use them. While "most" (i assume this because the rules for competive play state no items) beleive items are cheap and "broken". I personally stumbled upon srk searching for item rule tournaments back in 08-09. The same year smash was at evo and that famous smash player got beat. Then many people here on the smashboards said "no way he cant lose items suck even more" (obvious exageration of the fact).

Ya hope that clears some things up.

Ive been on smash boards for a few years, as well as frequented it long before i joined (havent been here in a while though). I also frequent srk often. I have been a smash player since N64. Just for some kind of proof of my banter.

Take this as you will.

I love playing smash with friends and in small tournaments. I dont like playing smash in the tournament scene, it depresses me.


Here is an example/rant:
Some guy who likes fighitng games goes to a tournament (or a completly new player for that matter) goes to a tournament. He sits for his first match and plays some veteran and they play a match and the new guy loses (he is new after all). Then the new guy picks a stage and the veteran says "No I ban that stage" then the new guy is like "what why huh?".
His smash competetive experience was just potentially ruined by what he veiws as "excesssive" and "unusual" rules.
One must admit a new player who wants to play smash competetivly has a lot to deal with and is pretty unfriendly.

Rant rant rant. Im done.
I think that was very well said. I do think the ban nature of competitive Smash has garnered some hate.

I really liked your post up until your example, honestly. It's all a mattter of preference and education.

If you are not educated about the fact that Smash Brothers has stages that would be considered ******** to play on based on skill and experience, then you really don't need to be surprised or hurt if someone says "oh, sorry, we can't play on that stage because I striked/banned it."... Face it, even newbies to the game will understand the point of a counterpick and ban system, along with why rediculous stages are banned right off (like 75M).

If the newbie picked Final Destination, and is told "Sorry I banned that", um, well, it should be the other way around.

If the person said "I ban FD" and you were about to pick it, you'd say that I guess "Wait what huh?", but still, you can then be educated that it's a right for you to ban a stage too. The reason I say a newbie would understand this system is, well, I'm sure EVERYONE has just at least ONE stage on the counterpick and starters list they totally hate and have their own justifications for it. Now that selective ban doesn't look so bad, now, huh?
I would disagree. The argument you presented does not look at the situation from outside a competitive mindset. Heck, I could argue that FD should be banned because it does not demonstrate skill (There is nothing to dodge. It's too easy).

A new player is going to want to pick stages that they are good at (if they are trying to win). They will be surprised to be told "You can't go there." They will be upset because they are trying to chose the stage because it is one they are good at (negating their advantage and the whole point of counterpicking in their eyes). This is always going to risk driving new players away because it is counter intuitive to what the game is.

The important thing is going to be that you can clearly defend the position. Only than will you achieve acceptance. I think that with a lot of the stuff in the game (like item), this is not the case, thus the backlash from those outside the community.
 

KoJ

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Aug 16, 2008
Messages
317
I wouldn't mind a future Smash game going ridiculously over the top in terms of moves in the same way Marvel did, or even a character assist mechanic (Outside of items). It would make four player party style games even more frenetic.

That is the definition of being jealous. There shouldn't be an argument about a freaking genre, but they will make it one. Why would it be hard to say "Smash Brothers is a fighting game." Yet, they will argue that.

That is jealousy[
]

It's probably not jealousy. While Smash has a professional scene, so do both of the Capcom fighters that receive heavy representation on SRK. SSF4 and MvC3 are both attracting a lot of attention for EVO.

It's more SRK posters really just enjoy complaining about everything (Even the games they absolutely love), and they all have their own individual definitions of what a ''real" fighting game is, from Tekken 6 to Arcana Hearts. They're all right, they're all wrong, they just like beating the tar out of each other on a screen.
 

otter

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
616
Location
Ohio
I think jealousy would require a little more commitment than Smash gets from fighting game fans. Maybe their jelous of the sales and casual appeal of Pikachu, but the game itself? Their not interested enough to be jelous even if it were warranted.
 

Sariku

Smash Master
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
4,384
Location
Biloxi, Mississippi
So I've been playing some MvC3 lately, and checking out SRK, the predominate classic fighter community, and every time I've ever brought up Brawl, a bunch of people just raged, and as one person put it, "is a party game played by a bunch of autists"

I just wanted to leave this here, as they really made me miss smashboards, and the community/game in general.

Brawl takes more skill, IMO.
And you guys are a hell of a lot more friendly. :)
As a competitive fighter, I think MvC3 blows Brawl out of the water. I'll leave the rest of my comments behind so I don't get infractions.

But I don't think Brawl takes more skill by any means. Brawl takes a certain type of skill, but it doesn't measure up to the amount of tech skill and quick thinking you need to play MvC3. Just look at a match of Brawl with the top players and the WF5 match of Justin Wong in the grand finals. You can see there how much more talent that takes to play.

Brawl is still fun, but I disagree with your points.

But we are the nicer community, yes.
 

FireBall Stars

Smash Ace
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
714
Location
Brazil, South America
well said stuff
Your post basically reinforced what I have been thinking for years why there's that hate.

Everything you said makes sense.

In the end, what sustains hate towards Smash Bros. in general is the fact that most people think that a Fighthing Game must be exclusively built to be competitive.

That's not the case of Super Smash Bros. that from 64 to Melee were made to please both publics, so it has editable rules and people can play in the way they feel like.

People found that some rules that could be more competitive and used them in tourneys, many things were given a try, even items had tourneys with them on for a short period, people found that they are what they are and had taken them out.

Outside game rules were made to complement the in-game ones, it isn't as simple as in traditional fighters, Stages can make a huge difference.
In a game which comes exclusively for competitive audience, everything is already set to go for the best competition the game has to offer, but in a game that wasn't made specifically to that audience, things go more complex to set the best rules for competition.

The hate comes from the fact that competitive Smash is simply different of what they think a competitive fighter should be, through preconceived conclusions as nearly all the hatred against a particular group of people, also the fact that as Smash has more famous characters and a cartoonish approach, there's more attraction for younger players although they aren't the ones that actually plays the game in high levels.

It may not seem like, but Smash takes a very similar approach when you talk about bans, once the competitive rules are set, banning additional elements from the already ready rules (with elements that doesn't suit a competitive ruleset have been taken out) is taken very seriously and only acceptable when it is really game breaking.

No stage is banned from a ruleset without discussion, no character has been banned since 64 to Brawl and no tactics or techniques are banned without have really being proven to be game breaking. Items haven't being banned without discussion either.

Although things have been mimicking the traditional fighters rules, such as 1 on 1 fight, that's just because it's the more appropriated way to fight in competition. Although there's the doubles category to be taken in consideration, it's great for competition and is very unlike traditional fighters way of play.
 

link2702

Smash Champion
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
2,778
mv3 is a more balanced game character wise.

but it pretty much doesnt' have much else.


brawl is a trainwreck when you try and look at its balance of characters.

but brawl has way more content and its not pretty much just strictly the fighting.



as for the stages/items discussion above(just skimmed through it a bit, so forgive me if its already been discussed...don't feel like going through 15-20 WoT posts)

no one should ever really consider items and some of the insanely random deadly events that happen on some stages, a good way of determining "skill"

there does come a point where these things get *so* random, and SO luck based that it literally could not determine which player is more skilled when these factors are added...at all.
 
Top Bottom