Brawl will have backwards progression (which is a bad thing)

[UobteX]

Brawl is more of a complex game of chess rather than a fast-paced, combo-packed fighting game. I've found that most of the situations are one-move encounters, and it's slow enough that I find myself thinking beyond the current move like in chess. Melee was more of a reliance on your muscle memory of combos and memorization of hitboxes, etc. The thing about Brawl is that I can't make my character react fast enough to counter whatever I see my opponent going to do next. The physics need some fine tuning to compensate.

 

[Rhubarbo]

Brawl is more of a complex game of chess rather than a fast-paced, combo-packed fighting game. I've found that most of the situations are one-move encounters, and it's slow enough that I find myself thinking beyond the current move like in chess. Melee was more of a reliance on your muscle memory of combos and memorization of hitboxes, etc. The thing about Brawl is that I can't make my character react fast enough to counter whatever I see my opponent going to do next. The physics need some fine tuning to compensate.

Try to make Brawl sound as strategic as possible, but in the recent Nintendo Power, Sakurai himself stated that he was aiming to make Brawl more "accessible".

 

[Gill]

How many more times does Brawl have to be compared to chess before people knock it off?

 

[xpyr0]

in chess theres a million things you can do defensively. in brawl its just sit in a corner and throw projectiles. I'm pretty sure if u start explaining to me the different ways to camp, u dont even come up with 10.

 

[camzaman]

Maybe the competitive players are missing the point - brawl should be casual so they don't waste their lives away playing video games.... if it's a little less addicting maybe you can all do more things that really matter in your lives...

 

[Witchking_of_Angmar]

Maybe the competitive players are missing the point - brawl should be casual so they don't waste their lives away playing video games.... if it's a little less addicting maybe you can all do more things that really matter in your lives...

Last time I checked, most of the top players play Melee maybe once a week.

I've read that PC Chris doesn't even have a GameCube, though that's probably outdated information.

Point is, we don't "waste away our lives" playing a video game, in fact, I think many smashers have made a ton of friends through smash.

 

[Dark Sonic]

Maybe the competitive players are missing the point - brawl should be casual so they don't waste their lives away playing video games.... if it's a little less addicting maybe you can all do more things that really matter in your lives...

Yeah dude, I play smash maybe once or twice a week with my friends. In fact, smash has been a way of breaking the ice for a lot of my friends. I bet we spend a lot less time playing smash than you do watching T.V.

 

[Anth0ny]

Are you kidding me? Waste your life away playing video games? It's a hobby. So what if you play a couple of hours a day... if you wanna be good, then you're going to have to devote time to the game. Maybe in one's eyes that classifies as someone having no life, but to the person playing, it's a fun hobby.

On Topic: Brawl has backwards progression...

 

[RDK]

Maybe the competitive players are missing the point - brawl should be casual so they don't waste their lives away playing video games.... if it's a little less addicting maybe you can all do more things that really matter in your lives...

Value is subjective. What matters to you might not be worth a flying f_ck to someone else.

And no, we don't waste our lives away playing video games--we have social lives, too. But even if we did, it's just as valid as someone who spends hours of the day watching sports on TV, memorizing stats.

 

[Gluttony]

Value is subjective. What matters to you might not be worth a flying f_ck to someone else.

And no, we don't waste our lives away playing video games--we have social lives, too. But even if we did, it's just as valid as someone who spends hours of the day watching sports on TV, memorizing stats.

Despite the fact that I like competitive Brawl this post is right. People need to stop claiming that the hardcore melee pros are nerds that have no lives. This is a fallacy and simply isn't true. For those that are saying to stop comparing Brawl to chess because there's millions of defensive moves in chess.. for the last time, I have always said in my posts that it's not exactly like chess. I never once claimed that it has the same depth (this isn't to you darkstar) the point that I and others make is that it has more in common with it THAN Melee.

This means that defense normally reigns supreme, matches are long, there's no combos, the speed of traditional fighters isn't there, and I'm not going to repeat the rest of the connection. Point is we're not saying it's 100% like chess. We're saying it's not a traditional fighter at all. If you look, Brawl barely resembles melee or any true fighters. So what else is there to compare it to? I just feel that chess with a fighter twist is the closest connection.

 

[Dark Sonic]

^^Some people like that, and some people don't. The only problem is that even some of the people who don't enjoy brawl that much right now play brawl simply because the melee scene is disapearing. We're sort of being forced to play brawl because the alternative is disapearing.

I for one say that many of us really should go back to melee, because by fighting game standards it really is a superior game with a superior system. Some people prefer chess over fighting games, and that's fine, but right now our fighting game is dying with this sequel that is nothing like melee or any other fighting game for that matter. They are two completely different games, and I think with enough support both of them could flourish. But what that means is that we need to not let melee die while brawl is developing. Melee has proven itself to us, brawl has made its distinction, and I feel we'd be doing a terrible thing if we let a game as great as melee die out competatively. Brawl's competative scene can develop even without the vetrans' support (though I'm sure we'll support brawl anyway) but melee's newcommers have been cut. I like brawl. I LOVE melee. I don't want to see such a great game, or such a great community, die. Melee can last another 7 years if we just stand behind it. Brawl will last with newcommers with great aspirations. Brawl is being overhyped, while melee is being put down, and we need to stop that.

 

[Raikage]

Despite the fact that I like competitive Brawl this post is right. People need to stop claiming that the hardcore melee pros are nerds that have no lives. This is a fallacy and simply isn't true.

Haha, yeah right.

 

[Gluttony]

Haha, yeah right.

My point is correct. Some of the Melee pros have girlfriends, jobs, and even other hobbies. Sonic, I said that before and I completely agree. The problem is that people who dislike Brawl play brawl because as you said they think that Melee is already dead. The thing is there's a lot of people that enjoy Melee more than brawl and if every single one of those people went back to Melee. The melee scene could survive but to be honest I don't think this is going to happen because to them it's already over. I love competitive Brawl but I also love competitive Melee. I too don't think that Brawl should replace melee because it's just so different. It's not a good replacement imo.

 

[25%Cotton]

Haha, yeah right.

....i'm not a melee pro or anything, but you'd be surprised what people have time for.... at school, i have an enormous amount of friends, most of them not even gamers. and you know what's weird about that? on weekends, i play video games up to 8 hours a day. i also have decent grades (they wouldn't be any better even if i didn't play video games ), my teachers like me, i am the top clarinet-player in the school, i am currently going out with someone..... i could list a lot of extra-curricular stuff i do that takes up a ton of time, too.

 

[Pai]

1. What's a gimp kill (yes, I searched.)
2. There will always be crazy, comboing people who use advanced techniques.
3. Play Melee or another fighting game if Brawl gets all "degenerate". u__u

 

[sevenmorehills]

Alright, I haven't read the whole thread, but in response to the first post, I have a weird solution that may or may not work. What about heavy brawl? It sounds horrific (I know i was thinking a variant of metal when I read the name), but I think it holds some promise. Gimpyfish mentioned that there would be less elaborate combos in brawl. I assume that this is because characters are generally floatier and have multiple air dodges. With heavy on, your opponent will fall more quickly, allowing you to better string together combos. He also mentioned fewer gimp kills. Well, this is easier too with heavy brawl. Just try shinespiking and glorious memories from melee will rush back to your mind. Overall, I haven't tried it extensively (the idea only just came to me yesterday), but I think it could solve a lot of the problems melee proponents have with brawl while keeping all the things brawl fans love about the game. Idk, I could be embarrassingly wrong about this. Try it, tell me what you think.

 

[Cookiez]

1. What's a gimp kill (yes, I searched.)
2. There will always be crazy, comboing people who use advanced techniques.
3. Play Melee or another fighting game if Brawl gets all "degenerate". u__u

1 A gimp kill is a very low-percent kill that can put a really large swing on the outcome of a match. Fox's Shine spike and Marth's d-tilt and spike both are very effective for gimp kills, and Marth's game in particular has become very conducive to a variety of gimp kills recently with the new generation of pros such as Mew2King and KoreanDJ.

(From smashwiki).

Whenever you read it, just think of it as keeping someone off the stage and interuptting/stopping them from recovering.

2. Not in Brawl there won't, unless their opponents are nubs who can't DI / Airdodge /Shield.

3. People can pretty much do whatever they want. Complaning helps things evolve.

 

[ReiGun]

^^Some people like that, and some people don't. The only problem is that even some of the people who don't enjoy brawl that much right now play brawl simply because the melee scene is disapearing. We're sort of being forced to play brawl because the alternative is disapearing.

I for one say that many of us really should go back to melee, because by fighting game standards it really is a superior game with a superior system. Some people prefer chess over fighting games, and that's fine, but right now our fighting game is dying with this sequel that is nothing like melee or any other fighting game for that matter. They are two completely different games, and I think with enough support both of them could flourish. But what that means is that we need to not let melee die while brawl is developing. Melee has proven itself to us, brawl has made its distinction, and I feel we'd be doing a terrible thing if we let a game as great as melee die out competatively. Brawl's competative scene can develop even without the vetrans' support (though I'm sure we'll support brawl anyway) but melee's newcommers have been cut. I like brawl. I LOVE melee. I don't want to see such a great game, or such a great community, die. Melee can last another 7 years if we just stand behind it. Brawl will last with newcommers with great aspirations. Brawl is being overhyped, while melee is being put down, and we need to stop that.

I'm just quoting because I totally agree with you. Except I would personally switch the like and love between melee and brawl, but that's just my opinion Either way, there's a lot of truth to this post.. There's nothing saying that the two games cant coexist.

 

[Mr.E]

You guys really overplay the whole "camping is unstoppable" thing. Most common strategy at the moment? Surely. Dominant? Perhaps. However, a successful approach still typically yields more than one attack because it knocks the camper into a disadvantaged position where one can continue to apply pressure until they're back to a neutral position. (Usually up and away -- most characters are vulnerable from below, most projectiles fly straight, and you can't shield-grab in the air -- and perhaps off the stage.)

Aggressiveness is clearly not entirely dead if G&W is winning all the early tournaments and MK is shaping up to be a dominant upper-tier character himself, two characters who don't HAVE a camping game. MK isn't even particularly mobile outside of his dash so getting away to set up camp isn't the problem, it's his fantastic ability to constantly keep pressure on his opponent once he catches up because his attacks flow so rapidly into one another. Great you can camp Ganondorf to hell and back, but nobody's advocating Link for top tier either just because he has the same camp-happy projectile game he's always had. Great characters are great characters whether or not they can and do camp.

And while I don't believe the competitive Melee scene is going to survive at this point, the only thing you can do is try. If nobody goes back to Melee because they're afraid nobody else will, you've already lost. ;/ Be the first one to take the plunge and maybe others will follow back too. Try holding a Melee tournament and check the turnout, hold Melee friendlies at Brawl tournies, whatever. Do something! It can't live on its own. And if that sounds like too much effort for what may will be a futile cause anyway, you'll just have to accept it and move on.

"But that's beside the point. The gap between hard-working players and casual players has been lessened by Brawl when it shouldn't have been."

"But still, it's undeniable that Sakurai's intentions were to lessen the skill gap, and it shows."

Why make such a big deal about it? A win is a win. Whether they consistently four-stock their opponent or lose two stock in the process is irrelevant. The more skilled player still usually wins. A large skill gap between two players is still noticeable. If you're consistently winning with 50%+ on your last stock, maybe you're just more evenly matched than you wish to believe.

 

[Adjudicator]

Chess is infinitely deeper than Brawl. Brawl strategy is not hard nor does it take years of knowledge nor does it take a brilliant strategic mind. If anything, Brawl is checkers. "Having lots of time to think about each move" does not make a game more strategic. Just slower. Just like playing tic tac toe with 30 seconds between moves adds absolutely nothing to the game. With the utterly limited options in Brawl its pretty silly to say its more strategic than melee.

Please stop comparing the two

 

[Rhubarbo]

One observation I made: People that defend Brawl have lower post counts. Now I know there are exceptions, but the majority of people that do defend it are new to the forums. I'm not saying you're not entitled to your opinions, nor am I saying that you are "stupid", simply, I'm assuming that you came to these forums recently and entered the Brawl hype. Along with that, I assume that you never got into competitive Melee.

You see, many Brawl defenders constantly defend it with statements like, "Lolz, you just want your wavedashing!", "Having trouble adapting?", "Slower speed means more strategy!", or when they are totally un-educated, "CRY MOOOOOOOAR!".

While anticipating the release for Brawl, I decided to brush up on Melee by reading guides on the forum and playing the hell out of the game. I learned all the ins and outs of it and then when Brawl was given to me, I was deprived of all the things I spent mastering.

My point is, for all of you Brawl supporters, please try to master Melee. Pick it up, start learning combos, mindgames, and techniques. When you go back to Brawl afterwards, you'll be as bored as heck!

 

[hippochinfat!!]

You'll get no sympathy from Ike.

 

[Nobie]

It's an utter mistake to believe that a game is deeper because it has more options.

A game's depth, be it competitive or otherwise, does not come solely from its options but also its constraints.

You want to know what's one of the most famous video games for competition?

Donkey Kong. And you want to know what your "plethora" of options are in Donkey Kong?

Walk, Jump, Climb Up Ladder. Sometimes you can "Use Hammer."

That's it. No "advanced techniques" and no "mind games" because there's no opponent to perform mind games on, although exploitation of the AI does occur frequently. But those are your constraints: You basically have a joystick for movement, and a button for jumping. And yet the game has been analyzed to death and people are still striving to beat the world record.

Not only that, but Donkey Kong also has an element of randomness to it in that you cannot absolutely control everything that happens. In two different games, the barrels and hazards may end up moving differently and there's nothing you can do about it.

But who are you to say that Donkey Kong's lack of "advanced techniques" and randomness make it any less competitive than Melee? Granted, some would argue that Donkey Kong is MORE technically demanding than Melee, but does that make Melee LESS competitive than Donkey Kong?

The problem with people arguing that more options = deeper game is this: What happens when your number of options approaches infinity and the number of times you can use them also approaches infinity? You'll find that the game isn't competitive at all.

 

[Rhubarbo]

It's an utter mistake to believe that a game is deeper because it has more options.

A game's depth, be it competitive or otherwise, does not come solely from its options but also its constraints.

You want to know what's one of the most famous video games for competition?

Donkey Kong. And you want to know what your "plethora" of options are in Donkey Kong?

Walk, Jump, Climb Up Ladder. Sometimes you can "Use Hammer."

That's it. No "advanced techniques" and no "mind games" because there's no opponent to perform mind games on, although exploitation of the AI does occur frequently. But those are your constraints: You basically have a joystick for movement, and a button for jumping. And yet the game has been analyzed to death and people are still striving to beat the world record.

Not only that, but Donkey Kong also has an element of randomness to it in that you cannot absolutely control everything that happens. In two different games, the barrels and hazards may end up moving differently and there's nothing you can do about it.

But who are you to say that Donkey Kong's lack of "advanced techniques" and randomness make it any less competitive than Melee? Granted, some would argue that Donkey Kong is MORE technically demanding than Melee, but does that make Melee LESS competitive than Donkey Kong?

The problem with people arguing that more options = deeper game is this: What happens when your number of options approaches infinity and the number of times you can use them also approaches infinity? You'll find that the game isn't competitive at all.

So you're saying chess with only pawns would be equally as fun and competitive?

 

[HipsterGarbage]

It's an utter mistake to believe that a game is deeper because it has more options.

A game's depth, be it competitive or otherwise, does not come solely from its options but also its constraints.

You want to know what's one of the most famous video games for competition?

Donkey Kong. And you want to know what your "plethora" of options are in Donkey Kong?

Walk, Jump, Climb Up Ladder. Sometimes you can "Use Hammer."

That's it. No "advanced techniques" and no "mind games" because there's no opponent to perform mind games on, although exploitation of the AI does occur frequently. But those are your constraints: You basically have a joystick for movement, and a button for jumping. And yet the game has been analyzed to death and people are still striving to beat the world record.

Not only that, but Donkey Kong also has an element of randomness to it in that you cannot absolutely control everything that happens. In two different games, the barrels and hazards may end up moving differently and there's nothing you can do about it.

But who are you to say that Donkey Kong's lack of "advanced techniques" and randomness make it any less competitive than Melee? Granted, some would argue that Donkey Kong is MORE technically demanding than Melee, but does that make Melee LESS competitive than Donkey Kong?

The problem with people arguing that more options = deeper game is this: What happens when your number of options approaches infinity and the number of times you can use them also approaches infinity? You'll find that the game isn't competitive at all.

I've always been a firm believer that Donkey Kong would be more fun if there was a way to glitch the game's physics and make it faster. Donkeydashing.

 

[Nobie]

So you're saying chess with only pawns would be equally as fun and competitive?

Options and constraints, my friend.

Options and constraints.

Actually, I should clarify.

Chess with only pawns might be less fun, and I know I'd find it less fun, but let me turn the statement around.

What if Chess was all Queens with the ability to also move like Knights?

Would it be just as fun and competitive?

 

[Rhubarbo]

Options and constraints, my friend.

Options and constraints.

I understand where you're coming from, but if you compare the two, there is no doubt which one requires more skill. Using facts from with in Smash, you can see that Brawl is much less...

 

[Rhubarbo]

Options and constraints, my friend.

Options and constraints.

Actually, I should clarify.

Chess with only pawns might be less fun, and I know I'd find it less fun, but let me turn the statement around.

What if Chess was all Queens with the ability to also move like Knights?

Would it be just as fun and competitive?

The thing that would happen would be that people wouldn't value their pieces. Playing chess like that is like playing Special modes in Smash.

 

[Spellman]

The thing that would happen would be that people wouldn't value their pieces. Playing chess like that is like playing Special modes in Smash.

Uh, you don't have any more options in any of the Special Brawls from my understanding. It's the same thing except your metal or fast or something. The point of all queens is having an infinite amount of options.

 

[Jack Kieser]

The thing that would happen would be that people wouldn't value their pieces. Playing chess like that is like playing Special modes in Smash.

Oh, you mean like how taking speed is kind of like Lightning Brawl for real life?

...Uh... I mean... <_< , >_> , <_<... Never mind.

(EDIT: Oh, and to reply to the post at the top of the page: I'm supporting Brawl, and I played Melee ever since day one (and yes, I've played competitively for years now, have been to, and have played in tournaments). And I may have a low post count, sure, but I've lurked for a while.)

 

[Rhubarbo]

Yeah, post count matters sometimes, but if you say you have the experience, I'll take your word for it. I just don't understand how you can value Brawl more than Melee...

 

[Jack Kieser]

Yeah, post count matters sometimes, but if you say you have the experience, I'll take your word for it. I just don't understand how you can value Brawl more than Melee...

Easy... I don't. People think I do because I'm not always all 'Melee is sooo much better than Brawl'. I like the games equally. I'll never stop playing/loving Melee, but Brawl is something fresh and different (read: plays differently from what I've played for the last 7 years). I appreciate Brawl expressly for not being the same as Melee (or SSB64), regardless of how it's different.

I'm a very liberal thinker, though. I usually welcome change.

 

[nitro-blazer]

I know Melee is better than Brawl, deeper than brawl, etc. I'm average at Melee. Not pro, no but I wouldn't say I'm bad at the game. But, I still find myself enjoying brawl... a lot, and I really hope despite it's shortcomings compared to melee it still retains a competitive scene. I'm hoping I'll be able to play both, and they'll be realized as different games. I don't want Brawl to be Melee's successor, because I still like Melee as well.

I'm hoping something comes along that will help deal with the camping, though. =X

 

[Gluttony]

Yeah, post count matters sometimes, but if you say you have the experience, I'll take your word for it. I just don't understand how you can value Brawl more than Melee...

If you look at my previous posts you'll see that I've been defending Brawl, however, I haven't said anything completely outrageous about Melee. Like Jack you'll find that those of us that understand Melee and have played it competitively are very unlikely to claim that Brawl dominates Melee. I enjoy both games equally. I might have a lower post count but that's because I've been browsing the forums. I've been to various local tournaments but didn't have the time to travel out of state. So everything I've done has been in this one in the general area.

There's been no need to actually join the forums because I had no input that would advance the Melee scene. However, I know how to do the advanced techniques. I know the skill that it takes to master them as well as the reflexes/quick thinking skills that are necessary to compete in Melee. This is why I have told people repeatedly that it has nothing to do with Melee 2.0 or even losing the advanced techniques. Brawl is very different from Melee but it's that very difference that makes me still enjoy the game just as much.

Basicly what I'm saying is that if I want to play a traditional fighter I pop in the Melee disc. When I want to play a defensive heavy game I play Brawl.

*Edit* Like the poster above me I don't see Brawl as Melee's successor. It's too far from Melee to be considered as such. It's the complete opposite of Melee and I hope both games can coexist competitively but in order to do that Melee players that can't stand Brawl must all not give up, leave Brawl, and continue to show interest in Melee.

 

[LouisLeGros]

It's an utter mistake to believe that a game is deeper because it has more options.

A game's depth, be it competitive or otherwise, does not come solely from its options but also its constraints.

You want to know what's one of the most famous video games for competition?

Donkey Kong. And you want to know what your "plethora" of options are in Donkey Kong?

Walk, Jump, Climb Up Ladder. Sometimes you can "Use Hammer."

That's it. No "advanced techniques" and no "mind games" because there's no opponent to perform mind games on, although exploitation of the AI does occur frequently. But those are your constraints: You basically have a joystick for movement, and a button for jumping. And yet the game has been analyzed to death and people are still striving to beat the world record.

Not only that, but Donkey Kong also has an element of randomness to it in that you cannot absolutely control everything that happens. In two different games, the barrels and hazards may end up moving differently and there's nothing you can do about it.

But who are you to say that Donkey Kong's lack of "advanced techniques" and randomness make it any less competitive than Melee? Granted, some would argue that Donkey Kong is MORE technically demanding than Melee, but does that make Melee LESS competitive than Donkey Kong?

The problem with people arguing that more options = deeper game is this: What happens when your number of options approaches infinity and the number of times you can use them also approaches infinity? You'll find that the game isn't competitive at all.

You also have to consider the nature of the game and the competition. Games that are based on competing against the game are much different from games which are based around versus play. Beating a high score and beating a person are quite different.

Tic-Tac-Toe is a game that pits you against another player, but it is as shallow as it gets... it doesn't even have the randomness of Rock Paper Scissors. This type of competition would be closer to smash.

Peg Solitaire is another extremely shallow game, but it works more like Donkey Kong. The objective is to have as few marbles on the board as possible (ideally one in the center of the board). There are a few ways to do this, and then rotating the board would give you more solutions, but still essentially be the same. Sure you could compete at it, but it would be like a spelling bee where you are given the words before hand and must recite the spelling as quickly as possible.

options & constraints can be against a game. Brawl has constraints on offense, this doesn't mean it is taking away overall depth or competitive merit. However, Brawl also grants the player a lot of powerful defensive options. Having a strong defensive aspect by no means a game has no competitive merit. This combined with the constraints on the offensive and movement options makes the game lean towards a few particular options.

In a game like Donkey Kong these kind of constraints and options don't mean much. However, with smash that has a versus tournament style competitive scene these things effect the game differently.

So yes, constraints in a game can be great for competitive play(Tetris). Options also can be bad for competitive use (Steel Battalion... or well its controls were so complex that people couldn't figure it out). However, we have to look at these things and take the nature of the game in question into consideration.

 

[Spellman]

So yes, constraints in a game can be great for competitive play(Tetris). Options also can be bad for competitive use (Steel Battalion... or well its controls were so complex that people couldn't figure it out). However, we have to look at these things and take the nature of the game in question into consideration.

That's true.

 

[Nobie]

You also have to consider the nature of the game and the competition. Games that are based on competing against the game are much different from games which are based around versus play. Beating a high score and beating a person are quite different.

Tic-Tac-Toe is a game that pits you against another player, but it is as shallow as it gets... it doesn't even have the randomness of Rock Paper Scissors. This type of competition would be closer to smash.

Peg Solitaire is another extremely shallow game, but it works more like Donkey Kong. The objective is to have as few marbles on the board as possible (ideally one in the center of the board). There are a few ways to do this, and then rotating the board would give you more solutions, but still essentially be the same. Sure you could compete at it, but it would be like a spelling bee where you are given the words before hand and must recite the spelling as quickly as possible.

options & constraints can be against a game. Brawl has constraints on offense, this doesn't mean it is taking away overall depth or competitive merit. However, Brawl also grants the player a lot of powerful defensive options. Having a strong defensive aspect by no means a game has no competitive merit. This combined with the constraints on the offensive and movement options makes the game lean towards a few particular options.

In a game like Donkey Kong these kind of constraints and options don't mean much. However, with smash that has a versus tournament style competitive scene these things effect the game differently.

So yes, constraints in a game can be great for competitive play(Tetris). Options also can be bad for competitive use (Steel Battalion... or well its controls were so complex that people couldn't figure it out). However, we have to look at these things and take the nature of the game in question into consideration.

Yeah, I can totally agree with all this.

All I was really taking issue with was people throwing around MORE OPTIONS like it was a holy grail of game depth.

 

[Pink Reaper]

You also have to consider the nature of the game and the competition. Games that are based on competing against the game are much different from games which are based around versus play. Beating a high score and beating a person are quite different.

Tic-Tac-Toe is a game that pits you against another player, but it is as shallow as it gets... it doesn't even have the randomness of Rock Paper Scissors. This type of competition would be closer to smash.

Peg Solitaire is another extremely shallow game, but it works more like Donkey Kong. The objective is to have as few marbles on the board as possible (ideally one in the center of the board). There are a few ways to do this, and then rotating the board would give you more solutions, but still essentially be the same. Sure you could compete at it, but it would be like a spelling bee where you are given the words before hand and must recite the spelling as quickly as possible.

options & constraints can be against a game. Brawl has constraints on offense, this doesn't mean it is taking away overall depth or competitive merit. However, Brawl also grants the player a lot of powerful defensive options. Having a strong defensive aspect by no means a game has no competitive merit. This combined with the constraints on the offensive and movement options makes the game lean towards a few particular options.

In a game like Donkey Kong these kind of constraints and options don't mean much. However, with smash that has a versus tournament style competitive scene these things effect the game differently.

So yes, constraints in a game can be great for competitive play(Tetris). Options also can be bad for competitive use (Steel Battalion... or well its controls were so complex that people couldn't figure it out). However, we have to look at these things and take the nature of the game in question into consideration.

It should be noted, that while this is all very true, whoever attempted to equate Donkey Kong to Smash is a ******. Donkey Kong is played to get a score, not to beat an opponent. This post should be posted EVERYWHERE as people don't seem to realize that you cant compare two completely unrelated things. You have to be able to think in context of the game.

 

[crazygoose]

Gimpyfish, I was wondering when your whining and general butthurtery would insue.

I had a sort of countdown going from when that horrid 1up piece was released. Nice to see I was nearly on target here.

Oh well. Enjoy your Melee with the 10 other people in the US who still play it.

 

[PK-ow!]

One observation I made: People that defend Brawl have lower post counts. Now I know there are exceptions, but the majority of people that do defend it are new to the forums. I'm not saying you're not entitled to your opinions, nor am I saying that you are "stupid", simply, I'm assuming that you came to these forums recently and entered the Brawl hype. Along with that, I assume that you never got into competitive Melee.

You see, many Brawl defenders constantly defend it with statements like, "Lolz, you just want your wavedashing!", "Having trouble adapting?", "Slower speed means more strategy!", or when they are totally un-educated, "CRY MOOOOOOOAR!".

If you're going to say that, I can say this:

"I've noticed that the people who rag on Brawl have higher post counts. Now I know there are exceptions, but the majority of people who have deep issues with it are veterans of the forums. I'm not saying you're irrationally stubborn, nor am I saying that you're "old," simply, I'm inferring that you've taken the series seriously for a long time and have become attached to parts of previous incarnations of the game, likely as a result of having gotten into competitive Melee or 64."

Now, I don't like where this kind of reasoning goes. It seems to lead to what a mentor of mine called "a shouting match," something that consists only in statements whose import is understood differently by both sides. This does not add content to a debate, although it deviously always seems to, to both sides. I propose we mutually agree this line of attack is illogical and discontinue it posthaste.

While anticipating the release for Brawl, I decided to brush up on Melee by reading guides on the forum and playing the hell out of the game. I learned all the ins and outs of it and then when Brawl was given to me, I was deprived of all the things I spent mastering.

My point is, for all of you Brawl supporters, please try to master Melee. Pick it up, start learning combos, mindgames, and techniques. When you go back to Brawl afterwards, you'll be as bored as heck!

Now this would be a powerful statement. But, and it's a sad thing, arguments that call for empirical work to be done, but have to be qualified with 'but you may not be able to succeed', usually don't end up working.
Moreover, calling for me, say, to just put Melee grinding in my schedule, and get back to you in four or five years, to answer the question of whether Brawl is boring... has an element of absurdity, in the practicals of it. I'd have to play not-Brawl to become bored with Brawl? Nah, see I'd rather play Brawl now, and happily for the next 4-5 years.