Brawl's competitiveness will determine it's greatness in the end

[DragonBlade]

Brawl's competitive depth will ultimately decide if it its truly an amazing game or not. Bold claim, you say? It's actually pretty simple if you think about what will happen in the long term.

Imagine a hypothetical situation where Brawl lacks depth and variety in high level competitive games. Some people will play a lot, get good, and then quit because the game is no longer interesting when you play competitively. Most people won't care. They claim they play the game 'casually'. However, some of the casual players will play so much that eventually they will fill the gap left by the competitive players. These casual players will also realize theres no variety or potential for their improvement, and quit. New casual players will also take their spots, and quit shortly after for the same reasons.

The cycle will continue and in the end, only new or really bad players will be left. At this point, only a few of your friends, if any, would be playing, smashboards would be a desert, there would be no competitive community. Now, think to yourself, "Would I still care as much about this game if barely any of my friends played it and there was no competitive community or smashboards?". If you say yes, I applaud your individualism, but for the rest of us I think it would be a disappointment.

Now if Brawl was competitively good, then the community would thrive. Good players will keep playing, and the community will get larger and larger. Tournaments would be frequent, matches would air on ESPN often, and "best smash player in _____" would be a respected title.

All of that could be ruined just by setting the game to the wrong speed, not adding any techniques that require skill or add variety, or trying to control how competitive the game should be. Of course Sakurai wouldn't do that... right?

 

[Dragonbreath]

Worrywart. Brawl's collectible **** alone will keep you happily entertained until the next interplanetary alignment. And E-For-Allers have already told us that the game is lots of fun, and what were they doing if not playing against each other? I'm sure a tournament fella like Gimpyfish would have pointed out any doubts like the one's you're mentioning if he'd noticed them.

Put your faith in Sakurai, my friend. He knows what he's doing.

 

[OmegaXXII]

I think Sakurai stated somewhere on the DOJO that he actually wants to make competative play better, but I have to say good players especially those who play competitive wo'nt necesserily "quit" playing, such as myself, sure Melee may be old, but I find still find it competitavely fun

 

[SolidSonic]

Fact: Brawl's greatness will be determined by the masses initial and lasting impressions. Which will undoubtedly be positive, we just don't know how positive.


Duh.

^_^

X_x

<_<

F**k all the die hard competitive players, they will worship the game no matter what.

 

[Chaosblade77]

Um... I disagree.

You must not be a casual player, because that is not how casual players work. A more realistic scenario would be one where the casual player plays Brawl, likes it, but other games are released and later overshadow it simply because they are new. A true casual player does not care about depth.

Basically, this is just the "OMG WAVEDASHING" argument all over again. Just because some of the advanced techniques are gone does not mean the game is going to go over worse (or better) than Melee did. Melee was great because of it's content and it's replay value.

Fact is, even a casual gamer who really liked Melee would go back and play it with friends, or eventually just do single player stuff after they have no new games. It was simply the games replayability that the general population liked.

Great game + Great replay value = long lasting, great game.

There is also the fact 90% of melee players have never even heard of wavedashing, l canceling, couldn't tell you what an edge guard is, etc. That is just more evidence to back that up. I had not even heard of wavedashing until this summer, and I have been a casual Melee player since the game was released.

I can't say as much for the hardcore crowd, but from what we heard from E for All, there will be advanced techniques. What bothers me is that people are already thinking on that level... but that is for another topic.

 

[Darkurai]

Oh my god, this is the biggest bunch of bull**** I've ever seen.

You act as though the competitive community is the only one. But it's not.
The casual community does exist and does not rely on the competitive community in the slightest.
It wasn't until about two years ago that I learned there actually was a competitive Melee community, and yet Melee was my favorite game. If I could survive so long without knowing of the competitive community, why wouldn't casual brawlers?


EDIT: Matches airing on ESPN? Oh my god, that's ridiculous. That would probably be really awesome, but it's horribly unlikely.

 

[LavisFiend]

....

Yea... ok, tell that to my 6 long years of playing Melee casually...

Self-absorbed fool; you're pessism is utterly pathetic and without ground...

 

[DragonBlade]

Congratulations if you disagree, I really don't care enough to debate this with you all. I doubt I would get anywhere when it looks like at least half of you posted without fully understanding what I wrote.

I wrote this because I thought the baseless optimism and unimaginable hype seemed silly when the game itself seems like it lacks what made the previous game good. Although, I do admit that it does have some amazing features, and I will be playing this game for several months. It would be disappointing if it was not able to take Melee's place.

 

[TMS]

The first post is hilarious.

 

[Chepe]

Melee is so lasting because its so darn fun to play with almost ANYONE. Yes, even girls like playing it, one of my friends got addicted to it and likes playing every time she comes over (without items to boot o_O). Another friend likes playing because she has fun playing Jiggs.

Most people I know who play it are either casual or semi-competitive, but a free for all is never old...

 

[maxpower1227]

I also played Melee for years without getting bored before I even knew what "wavedashing" was. Same thing goes for Smash 64. In fact, the vast majority of those who buy and play the game (and thus contribute to its success) are not hardcore competitive players.

This game's obscene amount of content and attention to detail will ensure its success, as will the large amounts of nostalgia that the older players will feel. That is the essence of Brawl's appeal to me, at least in part.

 

[GreenKirby]

Congratulations if you disagree, I really don't care enough to debate this with you all. I doubt I would get anywhere when it looks like at least half of you posted without fully understanding what I wrote.

I wrote this because I thought the baseless optimism and unimaginable hype seemed silly when the game itself seems like it lacks what made the previous game good..

And we all know that baseless pessimissm is TOTALLY the way to be rational. M I RITE

This is basically, "I'm afraid of something new" thread. Typical really.

 

[Bigbattle22]

It would be disappointing if it was not able to take Melee's place.

well Brawl looks good and plays good, the stages are cool in their own way, the characters are great, and the music is ****ing great, so I think that gamers will play Brawl for a long time.

 

[Chaosblade77]

I wrote this because I thought the baseless optimism and unimaginable hype seemed silly when the game itself seems like it lacks what made the previous game good. Although, I do admit that it does have some amazing features, and I will be playing this game for several months. It would be disappointing if it was not able to take Melee's place.

Um... right. So ALL that was important to Melee was the advanced techniques that don't exist in Brawl. I so called that, it's the "omg no wavedashing" all over again >.>

 

[GreenKirby]

Again, baseless pessimism. Unless you tell us what Brawl 'lacks.'

 

[Mic_128]

By this logic, games like Half-Life 2 aren't great, right? And all the FF games, Metroids, Zeldas, they're all not great. Because they're not competative.

Such bad logic.

 

[Tony_]

Brawl's competitive depth will ultimately decide if it its truly and amazing game or not. Bold claim, you say? It's actually pretty simple if you think about what will happen in the long term.

Imagine a hypothetical situation where Brawl lacks depth and variety in high level competitive games. Some people will play a lot, get good, and then quit because the game is no longer interesting when you play competitively. Most people won't care. They claim they play the game 'casually'. However, some of the casual players will play so much that eventually they will fill the gap left by the competitive players. These casual players will also realize theres no variety or potential for their improvement, and quit. New casual players will also take their spots, and quit shortly after for the same reasons.

The cycle will continue and in the end, only new or really bad players will be left. At this point, only a few of your friends, if any, would be playing, smashboards would be a dessert, there would be no competitive community. Now, think to yourself, "Would I still care as much about this game if barely any of my friends played it and there was no competitive community or smashboards?". If you say yes, I applaud your individualism, but for the rest of us I think it would be a disappointment.

Now if Brawl was competitively good, then the community would thrive. Good players will keep playing, and the community will get larger and larger. Tournaments would be frequent, matches would air on ESPN often, and "best smash player in _____" would be a respected title.

All of that could be ruined just by setting the game to the wrong speed, not adding any techniques that require skill or add variety, or trying to control how competitive the game should be. Of course Sakurai wouldn't do that... right?

Holy crap you fail at trolling.

 

[LavisFiend]

Congratulations if you disagree, I really don't care enough to debate this with you all. I doubt I would get anywhere when it looks like at least half of you posted without fully understanding what I wrote.

I wrote this because I thought the baseless optimism and unimaginable hype seemed silly when the game itself seems like it lacks what made the previous game good. Although, I do admit that it does have some amazing features, and I will be playing this game for several months. It would be disappointing if it was not able to take Melee's place.

Few things nimrod...

1) baseless optimism? The past two games were extremely good. Optimism for Brawl has merit.

2) because it may SEEM like it lacks competitive content, does not mean it does.

3) The smash franchise got where it's at through pick-up friendly gameplay and it's loads of replayability, not it's competiveness. Obviously for some, the competitive aspects are what sold the game to certain people, but the number is a mere anthill to the mountain of other reasons it is popular.

4) You can't fool me, I have an eye for this sort of thing...

This IS another **** "wavedash is gone *whine" thread...

 

[brawl1994]

brawl can't be suckish, SSB64 is still great when i play people at my church, even though the speed is slow, melee has lasted for 6 years! brawl WILL last for decades

 

[TheZizz]

What it comes down to is whether or not you believe Brawl will be deeper than the original N64 version.

 

[FireWater]

I disagree with the whole sentiment that you absolutely need a competitive scene to have the game be popular. Often times competitive gamers are probably around 2-10% of a game's actual player base.

If they designed the game for competitive play only, it may not sell as many copies. If the game is more friendly towards the casual community (which pretty much ALL console games are) then it will sell more copies.

A competitive scene will be great, but from the developers mind its probably secondary. That being said, I think the developers as far as I've seen are doing a great job of making things fit in right with both communities. There is no reason that this game can be easy to learn, and difficult to master, and that is probably the greatest combination to have for a multiplayer game.

Anyone can play it, but its the player who determines how far to take it, thats the feeling I get with brawl.

But as far as REQUIRING a competitive scene? Nah I don't think thats necessary for its popularity

 

[greenblob]

I have to agree. A good competitive scene is what separates a great game from a merely good one. If Brawl isn't competitive, it'll merely be a distraction--a small blip in the history of gaming. But if Brawl turns out to be a great competitive game, it'll go down in history as one of the greats, along with StarCraft, Counter-Strike, and Street Fighter.
Of course you don't need wavedashing. I'm pretty sure no one cares THAT much about it being in Brawl. What people are really concerned about is whether Brawl will be a deep fighting game or a shallow party game. Wavedashing isn't necessary for the former to become reality.
There are many fun games that aren't competitive. Many gamers consider them to be among their favorites and go back to them regularly. Two examples of this would be Wii Sports and Mario Kart -_-.
Melee is better than that, and I hope that Brawl will live up to, or even surpass, Melee's standards.

Also, imagine what would happen if one of Nintendo's games gains widespread popularity among the serious crowd early on and throughout its lifetime. Imagine the implications. Would Nintendo take note? Melee's competitive scene bloomed somewhat late in its life and Nintendo took some notice, but not much. With Melee's crowd and the anticipation for Brawl, its tournament scene could become much bigger, with MLG and Evo already looking into it. If the competitive crowd caught Nintendo's attention, it could end up shifting the company's entire view on gaming.

 

[The Hypnotist]

I think Sakurai stated somewhere on the DOJO that he actually wants to make competative play better,

Sakurai doesn't know anything about competitive gaming. He thinks that competitive games don't want a ranking system, he thinks they didn't like wavedashing and he thinks that people should get handicaps for sucking.

 

[Drclaw411]

SSB64 = way slower than melee and not nearly as competetive, yet half my friends like it better. both of the previous games have been wonderful, and brawl will too.

and if you think that lack of wavedash makes brawl not worth buying and really truly believe you wont like the new multiplayer, then i have two words for you that will convince you to still buy brawl: Subspace Emissary.

 

[DragonBlade]

By this logic, games like Half-Life 2 aren't great, right? And all the FF games, Metroids, Zeldas, they're all not great. Because they're not competative.

Such bad logic.

All the games you mentioned are single player games, which are good for different reasons, and competitiveness is not one of them. If you honestly think my logic is bad, your point of view is biased so much you can not accept valid criticisms to the game.

The fact that there are so many flames so quickly suggests that the community is insecure about this possibility that my claims are true. Why would you even bother to respond if my post is based on 'such bad logic'.

Its unfortunate I have to make such extreme and negative comments to a game I have been looking forward to for years, in order to get the point across.

 

[GreenKirby]

Good grief you're dumb, Hyp

Ranking systems: Usually people disconnect when they're about to lose. Hell, someone might not play another person because of his/her record.
Handicaps: For goodness sake, it was in Melee. It's for BEGINNERS. I'm pretty sure you were a beginner once. You wasn't born with all knowledge in your head
Wavedashing: Wow. Other advance techs seem to in.

You phail so hard, all the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put you back together again.

 

[flyinfilipino]

All the games you mentioned are single player games, which are good for different reasons, and competitiveness is not one of them. If you honestly think my logic is bad, your point of view is biased so much you can not accept valid criticisms to the game.

The fact that there are so many flames so quickly suggests that the community is insecure about this possibility that my claims are true. Why would you even bother to respond if my post is based on 'such bad logic'.

Its unfortunate I have to make such extreme and negative comments to a game I have been looking forward to for years, in order to get the point across.

What you're trying to talk about is Brawl's competitive scene, which unfortunately is not all there is to the game.

 

[SolidSonic]

Um... I disagree.

You must not be a casual player, because that is not how casual players work. A more realistic scenario would be one where the casual player plays Brawl, likes it, but other games are released and later overshadow it simply because they are new. A true casual player does not care about depth.

Basically, this is just the "OMG WAVEDASHING" argument all over again. Just because some of the advanced techniques are gone does not mean the game is going to go over worse (or better) than Melee did. Melee was great because of it's content and it's replay value.

Fact is, even a casual gamer who really liked Melee would go back and play it with friends, or eventually just do single player stuff after they have no new games. It was simply the games replayability that the general population liked.

Great game + Great replay value = long lasting, great game.

There is also the fact 90% of melee players have never even heard of wavedashing, l canceling, couldn't tell you what an edge guard is, etc. That is just more evidence to back that up. I had not even heard of wavedashing until this summer, and I have been a casual Melee player since the game was released.

I can't say as much for the hardcore crowd, but from what we heard from E for All, there will be advanced techniques. What bothers me is that people are already thinking on that level... but that is for another topic.

All of that was bull**** as well. Strict generalizations FTL.

 

[shadydentist]

Also unfortunately, ssb64 is not less competitive than Melee. They both posess a lot of depth, they're just different games.

 

[LavisFiend]

All the games you mentioned are single player games, which are good for different reasons, and competitiveness is not one of them. If you honestly think my logic is bad, your point of view is biased so much you can not accept valid criticisms to the game.

The fact that there are so many flames so quickly suggests that the community is insecure about this possibility that my claims are true. Why would you even bother to respond if my post is based on 'such bad logic'.

Its unfortunate I have to make such extreme and negative comments to a game I have been looking forward to for years, in order to get the point across.

Nimrod...

Brawl is no longer just a multiplayer game.


You are getting flamed because your logic is idiotic and baseless.

 

[Drclaw411]

guys, brawl is it's own game, it's no more SSBM than it is Final Fantasy 7.

seriously who cares if wavedashing is out. I mean the Melee discs wont evaporate and I know, just as I still play N64 Smash, I will play all three regularly. You'll still be able to wavedash to your heart's content in Melee. quit crying because you cant to it with the new characters, because that is basically the only difference. besides...Wario, Dedede, and possibles like K. Rool and Olimar would look weird wavedashing anyway...

 

[Takalth]

There is some truth to the original post, though if he intended what I plan to say, it could have been said better. GreenBlob touched on several of my points, but I'm going to expand it a bit.

For comparison, I'll take Mario Kart. It's generally considered to be a great and highly successful game, but how many people still spend 3+ hours playing it in an average week (who have owned it for a couple years or more)? Smash still has tons of people spending 5-10 hours per week on it.

What's the difference? After 30-60 hours of play, Mario Kart hits that point where there's nowhere to go. You have all of the tracks memorized, you've tried them in different cars, etc.

Smash, on the other hand, always offers some new skill to develop. Even casuals put at least some effort into developing new skills, and the great depth of Smash provides grounds for them to do so. Plus, while the hardcore tournament-goers make up a very small percent of Smashers, most players are at least semi-competitive. If the game hits a point where it is offering too little room for improvement, it'll sit next to the four-year-old copy of Mario Kart. Something to pull out and play once in a while, but certainly not regularly. Sure, Mario Kart was a great success, but it pales next to Smash.

That being said, I'm confident in the amount of depth we'll see in Brawl. In fact, reports from E for All increased my hopes instead of dashing it (if you really want to know why, I can explain it, but this post is already long).

Oh, and BTW, people. Stop trying to turn this into a wavedash thread. The OP didn't mention it, and it's debatable whether he implied it, so get out of your "all competitive players worship wavedashing" mode of thinking and discuss what has actually been said.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Even if Brawl were to lack depth in singles, doubles competition rejuvenates the depth since the possibilities are endless when two people work together.

 

[flyinfilipino]

Smash has a lot of depth because there's so much freedom in movement and attacking and fighting. Brawl will take the basic Smash formula, make a few tweaks to it, and add some different ones. Regardless of what 'advanced techniques' made Melee such a competitive game remain, there should still be plenty of 'depth' to work with.

 

[LavisFiend]

There is some truth to the original post, though if he intended what I plan to say, it could have been said better. GreenBlob touched on several of my points, but I'm going to expand it a bit.

For comparison, I'll take Mario Kart. It's generally considered to be a great and highly successful game, but how many people still spend 3+ hours playing it in an average week (who have owned it for a couple years or more)? Smash still has tons of people spending 5-10 hours per week on it.

What's the difference? After 30-60 hours of play, Mario Kart hits that point where there's nowhere to go. You have all of the tracks memorized, you've tried them in different cars, etc.

Smash, on the other hand, always offers some new skill to develop. Even casuals put at least some effort into developing new skills, and the great depth of Smash provides grounds for them to do so. Plus, while the hardcore tournament-goers make up a very small percent of Smashers, most players are at least semi-competitive. If the game hits a point where it is offering too little room for improvement, it'll sit next to the four-year-old copy of Mario Kart. Something to pull out and play once in a while, but certainly not regularly. Sure, Mario Kart was a great success, but it pales next to Smash.

That being said, I'm confident in the amount of depth we'll see in Brawl. In fact, reports from E for All increased my hopes instead of dashing it (if you really want to know why, I can explain it, but this post is already long).

Oh, and BTW, people. Stop trying to turn this into a wavedash thread. The OP didn't mention it, and it's debatable whether he implied it, so get out of your "all competitive players worship wavedashing" mode of thinking and discuss what has actually been said.

The fears of a depthless Brawl only come up when a person is rubbed the wrong way about WD being removed. This is a large whine about WD is gone thread, he just disguised it better.

I think Brawl will far surpass Melee because of all the new content. After all, we can create maps now, and for those who don't want to, are guarenteed a new map everyday.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Gimpyfish agrees with me that the game only seems slow during first impressions. Melee was the same way. When we first start playing the game, we play at a comfortable (albeit slow) pace. For a while, we think we've hit the peak velocity, but over time, every character seems to become faster and more agile. Sure, we won't be used to the new physics for a while, but I have no doubts that this game will be every bit as deep as its predecessors.

 

[greenblob]

I can imagine a few scenarios in which Brawl could lack depth...
My Brawl nightmare is a game in which long low%-to-death combos are non-existent.

 

[TheMagicalKuja]

Takalth outdoes the TC in his own thread and game.

I think you've got the best point on everyone in the thread. Still, I think Brawl will not disappoint so long as you don't herald it as the next coming of God.

 

[LavisFiend]

Gimpyfish agrees with me that the game only seems slow during first impressions. Melee was the same way. When we first start playing the game, we play at a comfortable (albeit slow) pace. For a while, we think we've hit the peak velocity, but over time, every character seems to become faster and more agile. Sure, we won't be used to the new physics for a while, but I have no doubts that this game will be every bit as deep as its predecessors.

Not to mention they were fighting without techs...

Of course it will be slower.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Not to mention they were fighting without techs...

Of course it will be slower.

Exactly my point. ^_^