Brawl will be as competitive of melee eventually!

[DrkR]

ehh..hi..ppl..if u want my opinion..brawl isnt a bad game..ive play it 3 times..and its pretty good..i dont like most of the chars but well..brawl will be a competitive game..thats for sure..but not as melee...brawl is easy to play...many ppl have said that..plus..most of the veterans are worse..falco suckz here..falcon..sheik..and i have played with them.

In melee u had fast fallers and floaties..now..u onyl have floaties..

brawl is SLOWER than melee..like it or not..is the truth..u wont get any advanced technic that would make the the game faster..the fast fall suckz here too..is a fun game..ubt i get bored in 1 to 1..is just my opinion..thanks..btw..i play Ike in brawl =D see ya in online mode xD!

PS MELEE WILL NEVER DIE XD

 

[Doomblaze]

Dude .. brawl is a new game. you dont know what to look for!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YOU HAVE NO CLUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

STOP ACTING LIKE YOU DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you keep talking about elitism. This is it. Just because you grew up with melee, and helped make up rules for the competitive scene, you automatically KNOW everything about brawl just by playing it for 3 weeks?

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

man, i can only take so much before i crack.

Seriously. The people who were "somebodies" in melee are now "nobodies" in brawl.

Youre opinion doesnt matter to anyone. The only possible thing that is important coming from a melee vets mouth is the way to develop the competitive scene.

i.e.

Look for "this". Don't rely too heavily on doing "this". Play a lot. Blah blah blah.

Don't talk to people like you understand Brawl. Like you know its more simple just because they changed some of the things from melee to make them easier. It just makes you look like a chump.

/harshness off

Actually, being good at melee helps a lot in making you good in brawl. I doubt very highly youve played it yet, cause if you had, you would know that the people who are "somebodies" in melee are STILL "somebodies" in brawl.
Yes, it is different. There is no wavedashing. Shffling is different. Characters are more balanced (but there are still tiers), but it is not as different as tekken, it Still Is Smash Bros and knowing stuff about the game helps.

I can 20 stock my friend here in japan who got the game cause she doesnt rly care about it, prefers wii sports and the like because ive played melee for as long as most of you guys here. I know a lot about it (the fact that she never played it before obviously adds to her being poor, however).

In the first five minutes of me playing it, i was on her level because of my need to wavedash everywhere, but after that I got used to it and quickly got to a point where i could shffl, tech, glide, dash-cancel grab, etc. It takes a day at the most to get used to the mindset, but after that, its like playing melee when everyone knew what the techniques were but few could do them.

I honestly think that you have no clue. Actually, very few people do. Give it a week and everyone will know a lot more about the game.

 

[DrkR]

u are right..i was like that the first time xD trying to w-dash..shffl..JC-grab..i still press L after every move xD but i prefer melee xD maybe later if the game get faster this will be different..and..just one thing..even without the advanced techniques melee is faster than brawl..not much..but it was/is faster..

 

[Meteor!]

IMO Brawl > Melee, and I played Melee competitively.

 

[♡ⓛⓞⓥⓔ♡]

Brawl will ride w/ Melee's competitive success for a while but for how long?

Brawl is not Melee 2.0..

If I hear the term "Melee 2.0" once more I'm gonna shove an melee disc up to my ***

No kidding, you got the point but...I just HATE that term

 

[shadydentist]

Goddammit people, Brawl IS Melee 2.0.

ANY sequel has to be evaluated in reference to the games before it.

 

[Koga]

Goddammit people, Brawl IS Melee 2.0.

ANY sequel has to be evaluated in reference to the games before it.

Yes in refrence to, but not as if it was; its predicessor.

Brawl lacks a few Specific button imputs for advanced exection, big deal, there will be new ones to find. There are alread plenty new techs, they're just not exactly the same as Melee, get over it and move on please.

 

[Catfish_Mike]

Way to refute my points...

I refuted your points in my earlier post. Way to say the same thing over and over though.

Here, I'll simplify it for you.

Tell me this.

If you take away from something, you must add equal or, more, for it to be the same or greater then it was before, right?

Quantitatively, yes. But that's not what we're talking about here. Wave-dashing and L-cancel are gone, boohoo. You lost a couple game mechanics, and instead of adapting and playing Brawl for what it is, some Melee vets would rather complain about what they think it's lacking.

Well since Brawl lost all of the noted above and, seemingly nothing was discovered to be added yet, then isn't it foolish to say that Brawl "will" be greater competitively, correct?

Nope, not at all. There is no sufficient evidence to point in either direction, so both viewpoints are completely valid. "We can't wave-dash mindgaems r gone BAAAWWWW!" is not a valid argument. STFU about your lost game mechanics, and develop Brawl's meta-game based on Brawl's strengths and weaknesses.

That's my point.
The people that say Brawl will be less then Melee competitively have reasons to believe so at this time (one month into the game).

While, the people that say that it will be just as good or, greater have absolutely no reasons to believe so (except a sense of faith) at this time.

That's why this tread is completely wrong. Not only does no one have any reason to believe that Brawl will be more competitive but, there's actually reason to believe in the exact opposite.


No one is right, seeing as how it’s only been one month.
However, the pessimist have more reason to believe in their view as opposed to the optimist.
Hence, where the thread fails.

Get the point now?

As I said above, the pessimists have no more backing their opinions than the optimists.

That doesn't mean it's worth playing. Dead or Alive 4 is competitive AND has online, but people ignore it because there are way better fighters out there.
So many people around here are unwilling to even accept the possibility that Brawl could end up less competitive than Melee.

So many people around here are unwilling to even accept the possibility that Brawl could end up more competitive than Melee. =O

I hear so many morons spouting this crap about how the Melee competitive community is going to be "left behind" and how this new group is going to appear and pick up the reigns of Smash.

If the Melee community is unwilling to accept Brawl, then they will be left behind. It's that simple, and you're a moron if you don't get it. The Melee vets will not be the only people developing Brawl's meta-game, I don't get what's so hard to understand here.

Guess what, n00bs. It's the experienced Melee vets like Gimpyfish and Ryoko that will shape the competitive Brawl scene.
Out of their great love and devotion to Smash, they will rip the game apart, analyzing every character, every stage and every frame of every attack. They will decide, through their discoveries, how Competitive Brawl turns out, not some overzealous n00bs.

Who is Gimpyfish? Is he a competitive Brawl player? Has he placed high in a lot of tournaments? What about Ryoko? How do these people have any more bearing on Brawl's meta-game than anyone else? Stop being an ***-kisser, it's disgusting. The "overzealous n00bsLOL" will have just as much to do with the new tournament scene, so you've just demonstrated how ignorant you are.



EDIT: I'll leave all the above garbage posted for posterity's sake, but this is the last I'm gonna say on this issue.

You can't tell me that Brawl won't be competitive, based on the opinions of a bunch of Brawl noobs who happened to play Melee competitively. With a month of play time and no significant tournament experience under their belts, they're no more qualified to tell people how Brawl will be played than anyone else. We don't need advanced techs to play the game, according to what most Melee players will tell you, they're only used to enhance the mind-game options you have. Take them away and, *gasp*, you'll just have to rely on something else.

Brawl will be competitive, if only because of WiFi. You can make the argument of DoA4, but even that game is played in the WCG, so it kinda destroys your point. Look at Halo vs Halo 2. Halo 1 is the superior game in almost all regards, but MLG still picked up Halo 2 instead. Know why? Because it was more popular, due to it's online component. This thread isn't fail because some people are optimistic over Brawl's future. This thread is fail because some people can't get their heads out of the Melee pro's ***** and accept the future. That is all.

 

[Koga]

I aggree with Catfish

 

[Doctor T]

All this arguing over something no one can possibly know at this time.

 

[6footninja]

Its going to be just as competetive and fun as melee. Its just a matter of accepting change

 

[Riolu]

Of course it's going to be as competitive. I'm hoping it's going to be more competitive than Melee was.

 

[6footninja]

All this arguing over something no one can possibly know at this time.

exactly. I salute you, good sir

 

[infernovia]

Lol at the people saying Brawl will be more or just as competitive as Melee.

You guys are even worse then the people saying it won’t be competitive(at lest things seem to be pointing towards their side).

Seriously, no one has any way of proving that Brawl will be competitive. Unless you have a way of predicting the future (which in that case, you should be famous worldwide and, incredibly rich).

I’m not saying it won’t be competitive, we might find out some game breaking techs, but, I am saying that there’s no guarantees.

On that note, this thread title is foolish.

You sir, win at logic.

There is no sufficient evidence to point in either direction, so both viewpoints are completely valid. "We can't wave-dash mindgaems r gone BAAAWWWW!" is not a valid argument. STFU about your lost game mechanics, and develop Brawl's meta-game based on Brawl's strengths and weaknesses.

This is true, but this isn't like we are comparing apples to oranges here. There is valid point in comparing to what was added or taken out of melee. I mean sure, we might find some mechanic that might add some depth, and maybe the playstyle will be more conductive to depth in the matches. But, at the moment, I don't see what Brawl has done besides taken out a lot of the advanced techs. I mean, why don't I just play melee without advanced techs and see how that works out?

To make this more clear, when you are seeing how the veterans (the returning characters, not the competetive smashers) play, do you throw out all the old melee attack calculations or do you compare them from before or after? Yes, its a whole new game, but comparing still allows us to make a fair judgement of their usefulness and then adjust for brawl's mechanics/physics. This is why these arguments by Yuna and Xengri count as logic and reason.

 

[xyouxarexuglyx2]

Im sure people with reasonable IQs can understand that sentence but dont strain to hard. Unlike most im confident enough not to use spell check.



Saying melee was only competitive due to advance techs,while brawl cant due to the ones it took out would be ridiculous.

Melee was only competitive due to advanced techs.

HAW HAW HAW! Hilarious. As in "stupid".

Brawl will be as competitive as Melee, just based on the fact that it's going online. There will be a lot more people playing and pushing the meta-game to it's limits. If the Melee vets don't want to adapt, then they'll get left behind and a new group of elites will rise in their place. The Smash scene isn't gonna revolve around a bunch of people stuck in the past, move on or step aside.

Because of course the peak of the meta-game of an already overall slowed-down video game is going to be reached by playing even MORE slowly due to the lag over WiFi (I believe they slow the game down to adapt to the lag, do they not?)

 

[Plairnkk]

catfish_mike u do ur best to make a good argument but as i've previously stated u joined in february 2008 so nothing u say has any validity at all.

Not to mention everything you say is stupid anyway.

 

[bayonettrials]

catfish_mike u do ur best to make a good argument but as i've previously stated u joined in february 2008 so nothing u say has any validity at all.

Not to mention everything you say is stupid anyway.

Great comeback.

You, just lost the argument.

 

[Plairnkk]

? Every post they make with no backing to it and only blind faith loses the argument. I've already made my points that are never refuted, why waste my time reposting?

 

[TheMagicalKuja]

Why did the TC sound so desperate in his opening post?

 

[Xengri]

Ahh catfish catfish catfish….

I tried my best to make it as simple as possible for you to understand and, yet you still don’t get it?

You just resort to saying that I’m whining over lost techs.

If you knew me at all (or at lest looked up some of my past post) you would know that, I of all people, couldn’t care less about losing techs.
As long as they are replaced with equal or better techs, I'm fine. But, so far, there's nothing.

The pessimist do have their reasons (you know, those points that you complain about me restating yet, you still refuse to acknowledge them).

No one wants Brawl to be less competitively viable, but, so far all that’s been discovered is that things that use to be used to play at a higher level have been either dumbed down, made useless, or all together removed.
There’s been little to nothing that’s been discovered so far to enhance the meta-game, there for the people pessimistic about Brawl have reasons to be.


It’s only been a month. That’s true. But, that month has only shown negatives.


Of course, no one can tell the future, Brawl game play might be completely revolutionized come a year or, it might not be.

That’s why it’s just stupid to say that Brawl “will” be more/ just as completive as melee.
It makes more sense to say that it won’t be, based on the month so far.
Hence, were this thread and all of the people that have the same mindset as the OP fails.

That’s as simple as I can put it, any sensible person could see my point by now.
Really, if you don’t understand this, despite my attempts, you’re just in denial.

I’m hoping Brawl turns out to be just as good as Melee was, despite what has been seen so far, but being overly optimistic is a horrible mindset.
Especially when there’s more reason to be Pessimistic at this point.



And, if you dare say that I’m restating my self yet again, then how come you can’t understand my point?
So far you’ve just been saying that I’m repeating my (very sound and correct) reasons yet, you have no reasons of your own.
Why do you think Brawl “will” be competitive. What reasons do you have? (Trust me, there's none. I've tried arguing with some pessimist in the past. As time goes by they're just getting more and, more reasons. While, all there is to counter that is blind faith.)
Why do you refuse to acknowledge that so many things that helped Melee’s meta-game, have been taken out of Brawl and that that’s a bad sign?

 

[Monshou_no_Nazo]

Even with less depth, I am very sure Brawl will develop a strong community of players anyway. Team Fortress 2 is has far less depth than its predecessors, and many hardcore Team Fortress Classic fans shun it for such lack of depth, but Team Fortress 2 still managed to become very popular (with the exception of lack of tournaments). Brawl will be an extremely popular game due to many people being able to play it with others now, and it will likely have tournaments for people who are more familiar with Brawl than they are with Melee or Smash 64.

 

[Miharu]

Nope, not at all. There is no sufficient evidence to point in either direction, so both viewpoints are completely valid. "We can't wave-dash mindgaems r gone BAAAWWWW!" is not a valid argument. STFU about your lost game mechanics, and develop Brawl's meta-game based on Brawl's strengths and weaknesses.

I don't understand why every stupid sack of **** flooding the Brawl boards likes to use this as a main point in their argument. Using it only serves to put your ignorance on your display.

As I said above, the pessimists have no more backing their opinions than the optimists.

Except for the fact that the majority of said optimists happen to use the logic of 3 year olds to try to refute facts.

So many people around here are unwilling to even accept the possibility that Brawl could end up more competitive than Melee. =O

Nah. It's just that it's pretty bleak at the moment.

If the Melee community is unwilling to accept Brawl, then they will be left behind. It's that simple, and you're a moron if you don't get it. The Melee vets will not be the only people developing Brawl's meta-game, I don't get what's so hard to understand here.

I don't see how anyone's disagreeing with you here. If you haven't noticed, most of the Melee community will be moving on to Brawl, with the exception of a few.

Who is Gimpyfish? Is he a competitive Brawl player? Has he placed high in a lot of tournaments? What about Ryoko? How do these people have any more bearing on Brawl's meta-game than anyone else? Stop being an ***-kisser, it's disgusting. The "overzealous n00bsLOL" will have just as much to do with the new tournament scene, so you've just demonstrated how ignorant you are.

Gimpy's won 3 out of the last 4 major Socal SSBB tournaments.

You can't tell me that Brawl won't be competitive, based on the opinions of a bunch of Brawl noobs who happened to play Melee competitively. With a month of play time and no significant tournament experience under their belts, they're no more qualified to tell people how Brawl will be played than anyone else. We don't need advanced techs to play the game, according to what most Melee players will tell you, they're only used to enhance the mind-game options you have. Take them away and, *gasp*, you'll just have to rely on something else.

By the same logic, we shouldn't even be acknowledging the trash that you're posting because not only are you a "Brawl noob," but it seems that you didn't have any experience playing Melee competitively either. Where the **** does that leave you? You're just the next troll spewing out the same blatantly incorrect **** over and over again.

It gets old.

Brawl will be competitive, if only because of WiFi. You can make the argument of DoA4, but even that game is played in the WCG, so it kinda destroys your point. Look at Halo vs Halo 2. Halo 1 is the superior game in almost all regards, but MLG still picked up Halo 2 instead. Know why? Because it was more popular, due to it's online component. This thread isn't fail because some people are optimistic over Brawl's future. This thread is fail because some people can't get their heads out of the Melee pro's ***** and accept the future. That is all.

Good **** doing the same thing that you're calling the rest of us out for: making stupid assumptions about a game that's only out for about one month.

You're also failing to realize that the mechanics changes from SSBM to SSBB were far more drastic than the ones from Halo to Halo 2. And you're comparing this to a shooter? Good ****.

This thread is ****ing fail because ******* like you try to push their arguments by trying to pass off opinions as fact.

 

[Yuna]

Even with less depth, I am very sure Brawl will develop a strong community of players anyway. Team Fortress 2 is has far less depth than its predecessors, and many hardcore Team Fortress Classic fans shun it for such lack of depth, but Team Fortress 2 still managed to become very popular (with the exception of lack of tournaments). Brawl will be an extremely popular game due to many people being able to play it with others now, and it will likely have tournaments for people who are more familiar with Brawl than they are with Melee or Smash 64.

No one's claiming it won't have a large following. The question is at hand is, though, whether or not it will be as competitively viable as Melee.

 

[What's The Point]

Two different things are being argued.

"Brawl will be competitive" side is arguing that based popularity and Melee history, Brawl will have a competitive scene.

"Brawl probably won't be as competitive" side is arguing that if you compare in game mechanics between Melee and Brawl, you'll see that Brawl lacks the 'competitive' options that Melee had.

I think the first point is more important. Brawl is likely to be the (far) more popular game with online options (and MLG support), that, while not being as 'advanced' as Melee, has nothing in it that prevents or even hinders competitive play (Glitches that render it unplayable, or unbelievable balance issues).

 

[Chimeiookami]

I don't agree that the advanced techs made Melee competitive. AT, of course, helped digging the pit between pros and newbs. But still...

I remember playing Melee without AT for a long time and still i was seeing it as very competitive.
Some Pros don't the wavedash in Melee.
In times when I did not wavedash/L-cancel, I've beaten people who did.

As long as people still want to win. It will draw out all of our testosterone. That's what makes it competitive.

Not as fast? That's for sure.
Less advance techniques... Probably. (But as mentioned before, we can't see the future.)

And in one month, it was already proven that you can be incredibly better than others. That separate good players from not-so-good from not-good-at-all players.

Then I think it got all it needs to be a good competitive game.
Not as hard to master than Melee, maybe, but with more characters, a better balance in characters,
I choose Brawl.
Competiveness won't be the problem....

 

[Yuna]

I don't agree that the advanced techs made Melee competitive. AT, of course, helped digging the pit between pros and newbs. But still...

For the love of kittens...

What did the ATs do? Give us more options and depth. What defines how competitively viable a game is on a sliding scale? The amount of options and depth it has.

I remember playing Melee without AT for a long time and still i was seeing it as very competitive.
Some Pros don't the wavedash in Melee.
In times when I did not wavedash/L-cancel, I've beaten people who did.

1) Anyone can play something on a low level and still consider their game competitive.
2) Wavedash is not the pinnacle of ATs some people seem to think it is (at least not for moving around).
3) And? Those people are hardly among the top layer of competitive players.

As long as people still want to win. It will draw out all of our testosterone. That's what makes it competitive.

It still won't make it as competitively viable as Melee.

Not as fast? That's for sure.
Less advance techniques... Probably. (But as mentioned before, we can't see the future.)

Too... tired... to... repeat... stale... arguments.

Then I think it got all it needs to be a good competitive game.
Not as hard to master than Melee, maybe, but with more characters, a better balance in characters,
I choose Brawl.
Competiveness won't be the problem....

Who made up this claim that Brawl is more balanced than Melee?

 

[Miharu]

I don't agree that the advanced techs made Melee competitive. AT, of course, helped digging the pit between pros and newbs. But still...

The willingness to work for an end is what separated those who played competitively and those who played casually. Advanced techniques just happened to be one of those end goals.

I remember playing Melee without AT for a long time and still i was seeing it as very competitive.

How so?

I just remember it degenerating into rollspamming csticking scrubfests that turned out to be very, very repetitive.

Some Pros don't the wavedash in Melee.
In times when I did not wavedash/L-cancel, I've beaten people who did.

Then those people weren't so great. Knowing how to wavedash/L-cancel doesn't automatically make you good at this game; they're just "advanced" techniques, and if you don't know how to utilize them properly, they'll do nothing for you.

As long as people still want to win. It will draw out all of our testosterone. That's what makes it competitive.

True to a certain extent, but the limits of the game will play certain limits on just how competitive Brawl can potentially be.

Not as fast? That's for sure.
Less advance techniques... Probably. (But as mentioned before, we can't see the future.)

And in one month, it was already proven that you can be incredibly better than others. That separate good players from not-so-good from not-good-at-all players.

Examples of this?

Then I think it got all it needs to be a good competitive game.
Not as hard to master than Melee, maybe, but with more characters, a better balance in characters,
I choose Brawl.
Competiveness won't be the problem....

Don't state your opinions/speculations as fact. We don't even know if it's harder to master than Melee or not, or if it's better balanced than Melee.

Two different things are being argued.

"Brawl will be competitive" side is arguing that based popularity and Melee history, Brawl will have a competitive scene.

"Brawl probably won't be as competitive" side is arguing that if you compare in game mechanics between Melee and Brawl, you'll see that Brawl lacks the 'competitive' options that Melee had.

I think the first point is more important. Brawl is likely to be the (far) more popular game with online options (and MLG support), that, while not being as 'advanced' as Melee, has nothing in it that prevents or even hinders competitive play (Glitches that render it unplayable, or unbelievable balance issues).

As is commonly said, the game's been out for a bit over 1 month. How can you say that there aren't going to be any balance issues? It's the exact same argument that you're applying when you say "Give people more time to find stuff out in Brawl."

 

[What's The Point]

As is commonly said, the game's been out for a bit over 1 month. How can you say that there aren't going to be any balance issues? It's the exact same argument that you're applying when you say "Give people more time to find stuff out in Brawl."

I meant as of right now, there has been no discovery to show that, say, Marth and Meta are the only competitively viable characters because of certain moves they can do that obsolete the rest of the cast entirely.

I don't know what will be discovered, but I'm betting that this discovery won't happen.

 

[ComradeSAL]

What defines how competitively viable a game is on a sliding scale? The amount of options and depth it has.

To me this seems wrong. I think you are missing a critical component of "competitively viable":

In all competitively viable games, players need to want to start playing the game competitively. If no one wants to play a game, it is not competitively viable, because much of a competitive game's depth comes from the innovation of the pooled minds of all of its players.

 

[Chimeiookami]

I've been misunderstood
I never stated anything as a fact ( if it sounded like it, I wasn't intentional)
Whatever we say, we are all speculating here.
Those who think the hold the truth doesn't belong to a discussion forum anyway.

And I know The people I've beaten we not so good. Anyway I'm not that good either.

I just want to point that what makes competition is the players, not the game. It's true that the limits of the game can limits is viability. But I think (As in "I speculate") that those limits, even if they're closer than those of Melee, are not close enough to prevent a great competitive scene.

Roll spamming and c-sticking around was never a good way to win. Not in my circle that is. AT or not.
I find Brawl more balanced, I can be wrong, but I'm not alone in my opinion.

 

[Miharu]

I meant as of right now, there has been no discovery to show that, say, Marth and Meta are the only competitively viable characters because of certain moves they can do that obsolete the rest of the cast entirely.

I don't know what will be discovered, but I'm betting that this discovery won't happen.

That's my point; anything we say right now is pretty much speculation.

On that note, I'll not be arguing over whether Brawl will be balanced/imbalanced. We'll let the game speak for itself in a year or so.

 

[Chimeiookami]

To me this seems wrong. I think you are missing a critical component of "competitively viable":

In all competitively viable games, players need to want to start playing the game competitively. If no one wants to play a game, it is not competitively viable, because much of a competitive game's depth comes from the innovation of the pooled minds of all of its players.

That's the best post I've read today.

 

[Plairnkk]

im so amazing

 

[Xengri]

To me this seems wrong. I think you are missing a critical component of "competitively viable":

In all competitively viable games, players need to want to start playing the game competitively. If no one wants to play a game, it is not competitively viable, because much of a competitive game's depth comes from the innovation of the pooled minds of all of its players.

First of all. Punk, GTFO my avatar.

Jokes aside, I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you.
As of right now, Brawl has less depth then Melee. Even if one is more popular, that has nothing to do with the competitive potential in a game.

Chess and Checkers as a example.

They’re similar, yet, chess gives players more options and has more depth.

It doesn't matter how many checker players minds you put together. They could never make checkers as deep and, tactical as Chess.

Chess simply gives players more options making it a more competitive game.

Samething with Melee and Brawl.

Even if Brawl were to have more minds together to try and, make it more competitively viable.
Melee will always offer more because it allows players more options.

(Of course, this is all based on what we've discovered so far)

 

[hopp]

Wave dashing..?
Perfect shielding..?

! Infinite dodge !

 

[ComradeSAL]

First of all. Punk, GTFO my avatar.

Jokes aside, I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you.
As of right now, Brawl has less depth then Melee. Even if one is more popular, that has nothing to do with the competitive potential in a game.

Chess and Checkers as a example.

They’re similar, yet, chess gives players more options and has more depth.

It doesn't matter how many checker players minds you put together. They could never make checkers as deep and, tactical as Chess.

Chess simply gives players more options making it a more competitive game.

Samething with Melee and Brawl.

Even if Brawl were to have more minds together to try and, make it more competitively viable.
Melee will always offer more because it allows players more options.

(Of course, this is all based on what we've discovered so far)

I'm not saying that popularity is everything, just that it is an important factor. Yes, Chess vs. Checkers is an example of how increasing depth increases competitiveness, holding popularity relatively constant. However, there are countless examples of strategically complex games that are not competitively viable because no one plays them. They might be too boring, under-advertised, or just too much of a hassle to learn.

I'm not saying that Brawl will be more competitive than Melee because of an increased competitive fanbase. I'm just saying that more depth does not always lead to a more competitive game if the increased depth leads to a decreased competitive player base. If you play poker with a 50000 card deck and everyone gets 200 hole cards to make their hand, you might have a more complex game but not a more competitively viable one.

 

[OrlanduEX]

I'm not saying that popularity is everything, just that it is an important factor. Yes, Chess vs. Checkers is an example of how increasing depth increases competitiveness, holding popularity relatively constant. However, there are countless examples of strategically complex games that are not competitively viable because no one plays them. They might be too boring, under-advertised, or just too much of a hassle to learn.

I'm not saying that Brawl will be more competitive than Melee because of an increased competitive fanbase. I'm just saying that more depth does not always lead to a more competitive game if the increased depth leads to a decreased competitive player base. If you play poker with a 50000 card deck and everyone gets 200 hole cards to make their hand, you might have a more complex game but not a more competitively viable one.

The fan base of a game has nothing to do with how viable a game is in competitive play.
The competitive viability of a game depends on the design of the game itself.
We discover things about the game the more we play, but we don't make the game and we don't decided how competitively viable the game is.

Lets take rock paper scissors for example. No matter how much we like the game or how much we try, it will never become more than just a guessing game. How much we play it doesn't change it's viability as a competitive game unless we change the rules to make it another game entirely.

I think that many people are unwilling to accept the possibility that Brawl may not be as competitively viable as Melee.

 

[Mordraug]

Im sure people with reasonable IQs can understand that sentence but dont strain to hard. Unlike most im confident enough not to use spell check.

Clearly...

I have no problem with the competitive scene sticking with melee. After all, leaves more room for me on top
The only thing I hate are the whiny ***** elitists who are demanding brawl not be taken seriously. I really don`t see how since we haven`t discovered a way to manipulate a character`s movement (i.e wavedashing, L-cancelling) in a time period of a little over a month automatically =fail. Don`t you think this would cause player skill and strategy to be more of a factor in who wins? I for one will quite enjoy seeing more than Fox/Falco v.s. Captain Falcon/Marth matches on Final Destination.
And besides, we always have Lightning/High Gravity mode to kick it up to Melee intensity.

 

[ComradeSAL]

The fan base of a game has nothing to do with how viable a game is in competitive play.
The competitive viability of a game depends on the design of the game itself.
We discover things about the game the more we play, but we don't make the game and we don't decided how competitively viable the game is.

Lets take rock paper scissors for example. No matter how much we like the game or how much we try, it will never become more than just a guessing game. How much we play it doesn't change it's viability as a competitive game unless we change the rules to make it another game entirely.

I think that many people are unwilling to accept the possibility that Brawl may not be as competitively viable as Melee.

Rock Paper Scissors is an example of a game that will not be competitively viable no matter how many people play it (it's not deep enough). 200-hole-card Texas Hold-em is an example of a game that will not be competitively viable no matter how deep it is (no one will play it).

Grossly oversimplifying, the formula looks something like this:

competitive viability = popularity * depth

...and no, I am not one of the people that believes that Brawl must be more competitive. I am just trying to point out a logical fallacy based on a flawed metric.

 

[Froilen]

cookingmama is competitive!!! also Rock-Paper-Scissors!!

the japan people make tournaments of it... everiting can be played competitive

That doesn't mean it's worth playing. Dead or Alive 4 is competitive AND has online, but people ignore it because there are way better fighters out there.
So many people around here are unwilling to even accept the possibility that Brawl could end up less competitive than Melee.

I hear so many morons spouting this crap about how the Melee competitive community is going to be "left behind" and how this new group is going to appear and pick up the reigns of Smash.

Guess what, n00bs. It's the experienced Melee vets like Gimpyfish and Ryoko that will shape the competitive Brawl scene.
Out of their great love and devotion to Smash, they will rip the game apart, analyzing every character, every stage and every frame of every attack. They will decide, through their discoveries, how Competitive Brawl turns out, not some overzealous n00bs.

I am not shure if you agree whit me or no... but I like to make an adicional point:

Well If some one like cooking mama a half that much we like melee, He/she will be Predisposed to go/organize a tournament about it! and if enough people like cooking mama
well, this could be the forum for cookingmama instead of smash... besides, there are rock-paper-scisors tournaments http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_rLjIhKxTI

so, I dont see why brawl wont be competitive