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

[Meow-Mix]

Bottom Line is that Brawl is going to be VERY popular whether or not its very competitive. You are going to have all kinds of people playing they way they want to anyway. Who knows?, people may figure out a playing style to make Brawl just as, or probably more competitive than Melee, and if its more of a casual friendly game, so what? I'm sure everyone in this topic is going to buy the game anyway. Lets just wait it out and not pass judgment until that disk is spinning in your Wii. I'm sure Brawl will be great and we should enjoy the game for what it will be. I know I will

 

[greenblob]

No one's denying that Brawl will be fun. Everyone who posted here will buy Brawl. The discussion is about whether Brawl is destined for greatness. We want Brawl to be legendary, and that requires a very good competitive scene.

 

[Eternal Neo]

Ok I totally understand where competitive players are coming from wanting the game to be competitive to give it a longer lasting appeal for them. What I don't understand is why people are so convinced that Brawl looks less competitive so far than Melee. Really, the only differences I see are the removal of wavedashing and a very slight reduction in speed as to make the game less based on twitchy movements. In fact, this seems to be made up for by a greater focus on combos and mindgames (and I thought most people considered mindgames to be the reason Melee is as competitive as it is). Why are people so convinced this game is going to be less competitive when the reports from people like Gimpyfish seem to indicate that while different, it's no worse competitively.

As an aside, to all those people saying that a great competitive scene is what will give the game lasting value, I disagree. From personal observations I see Melee and even Smash 64 played by casual players all the time. For most fighting games this may be true, but the Smash series is so well designed that even casual gamers are still playing the old games to today and everything indicates Brawl will be even better. I certainly want to see a good competitive scene emerge in Brawl, but if you honestly think that the game's legacy is going to be determined by whether the 1% who play competitively decide to play Brawl or go back to Melee so they can wavedash...well that's just wrong.

 

[greenblob]

No one's saying that Brawll will be less competitive--the main worry is that it might be less competitive. And considering Nintendo's approach, it does seem like this could be the case.

And plenty of people play Mario Kart 64 too. I'll bet that five years from now there will be many people who still play Wii sports. Longevity isn't the only aspect of greatness.

 

[Takumaru]

Tournaments would be frequent, matches would air on ESPN often, and "best smash player in _____" would be a respected title.

You win your own topic just for that.

 

[PukeTShirt]

I agree, if the game lacks depth and variety, then eventually people will stop playing and start playing new games. Yes they may come back and play brawl once in a while, but it wont be their main game of focus for very long if 2-3 years down the road there is nothing else to do.

 

[Eternal Neo]

No one's saying that Brawll will be less competitive--the main worry is that it might be less competitive. And considering Nintendo's approach, it does seem like this could be the case.

And plenty of people play Mario Kart 64 too. I'll bet that five years from now there will be many people who still play Wii sports. Longevity isn't the only aspect of greatness.

That's a good point, but if there's no evidence saying Brawl will be less competitive so far than why worry? Sakurai is at the helm, not some Nintendo executive who wants to see only casual players enjoy the game and I trust Sakurai to be able to make a game that both casuals and competitive players can enjoy equally. Hey, he already has. Look at melee.

Removing wavedashing isn't really evidence that Sakurai is trying to move away from competitive players. There are plenty of good reasons to remove the technique, mostly that it's aesthetically displeasing and also that it takes away from what Sakurai wants to focus on in Brawl, which is aerial based combat.

 

[Shadowclaw]

No one's denying that Brawl will be fun. Everyone who posted here will buy Brawl. The discussion is about whether Brawl is destined for greatness. We want Brawl to be legendary, and that requires a very good competitive scene.

Do you consider melee to be in that level of greatness you speak of? If the answer is yes, then be assured it will stay true for brawl. It's basically melee with tons of new features.

No one's saying that Brawll will be less competitive--the main worry is that it might be less competitive. And considering Nintendo's approach, it does seem like this could be the case.

And plenty of people play Mario Kart 64 too. I'll bet that five years from now there will be many people who still play Wii sports. Longevity isn't the only aspect of greatness.

Why are so many people so determined to believe that brawl is losing depth/competitiveness? Just because a game is more "noob friendly" as you call it, doesn't mean it will be less competitive. Ever heard of the phrase "Easy to learn, yet difficult to master"? The game might indeed be more easily played by new players, and they will not be on such a different level than the experienced melee players at first. Keep in mind that this game is different from melee in many ways, so everyone will start more or less at the same level when it comes out. But as time passes, people will start to get good at the game, develop new strategies, discover new techniques, etc. It's just a matter of time before brawl gets as competitive as melee (or perhaps even more, given the possibly increased amount of players). What makes a game competitive is not entirely the game itself; it's the people who play it.

And on a side note, competitiveness is not the only aspect of greatness either, nor is it more important than longevity. Take for example The Legend of Zelda, which is not competitive, yet, is one of the games that you can call "Legendary". Also, if a game has survived for long years and is still played by a fair amount of people, then the game can still be called great. In the end it just relies on how fun the game is. So, ask yourself: Will Brawl be fun? How much fun? That should answer your question about greatness. Refer to melee if you're not so sure.

 

[Phlemingo]

LOL, first post said Brawl might air on ESPN.

 

[PIT_IS_BACK]

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.

QFT ;D

indeed good sir

 

[greenblob]

Do you consider melee to be in that level of greatness you speak of? If the answer is yes, then be assured it will stay true for brawl. It's basically melee with tons of new features.



Why are so many people so determined to believe that brawl is losing depth/competitiveness? Just because a game is more "noob friendly" as you call it, doesn't mean it will be less competitive. Ever heard of the phrase "Easy to learn, yet difficult to master"? The game might indeed be more easily played by new players, and they will not be on such a different level than the experienced melee players at first. Keep in mind that this game is different from melee in many ways, so everyone will start more or less at the same level when it comes out. But as time passes, people will start to get good at the game, develop new strategies, discover new techniques, etc. It's just a matter of time before brawl gets as competitive as melee (or perhaps even more, given the possibly increased amount of players). What makes a game competitive is not entirely the game itself; it's the people who play it.

And on a side note, competitiveness is not the only aspect of greatness either, nor is it more important than longevity. Take for example The Legend of Zelda, which is not competitive, yet, is one of the games that you can call "Legendary". Also, if a game has survived for long years and is still played by a fair amount of people, then the game can still be called great. In the end it just relies on how fun the game is. So, ask yourself: Will Brawl be fun? How much fun? That should answer your question about greatness. Refer to melee if you're not so sure.

Well, that's what I'm hoping--that Brawl will be deep and "easy to learn, hard to master." But Nintendo's approach seems to be "easy to learn, nothing to master," and it's hard to not be afraid that this type of mentality might leak into Brawl.

Also, Zelda is singleplayer. Brawl's main aspect is multiplayer. They're two different things. And I also highly doubt that Brawl's singleplayer will be up to Zelda's standards.

 

[Shadowclaw]

Well, that's what I'm hoping--that Brawl will be deep and "easy to learn, hard to master." But Nintendo's approach seems to be "easy to learn, nothing to master," and it's hard to not be afraid that this type of mentality might leak into Brawl.

Also, Zelda is singleplayer. Brawl's main aspect is multiplayer. They're two different things. And I also highly doubt that Brawl's singleplayer will be up to Zelda's standards.

Again, what makes you think that's Nintendo's approach? Do you have any strong evidence to support that statement?

And no, I was not comparing single player versus multiplayer. I was stating that there are different ways to achieve "greatness", and competitive play is not the only one.

 

[Korpocalypse]

matches on ESPN? no need! now we've got spectator mode! although they might not be proffesional.

 

[ToyzSoldier]

Will Brawl be fun?

YES!!!

...

 

[Caleb Wolfbrand]

Having played Brawl at E for All I can say the game is amazingly fun. I honestly can't see it being more tournament worthy than Melee though. just my opinion. it just felt too slow to me. it didn't give me the same feeling Melee did but that could change in the final product.

 

[Shadowclaw]

Having played Brawl at E for All I can say the game is amazingly fun. I honestly can't see it being more tournament worthy than Melee though. just my opinion. it just felt too slow to me. it didn't give me the same feeling Melee did but that could change in the final product.

Not only that, but you must also take into consideration that some mechanics have changed, specially while airborne. And like someone said in another thread (too lazy to look for it), you just need to get used to the game. Melee was most likely about as fast as brawl is now until people discovered things like the l-cancelling and wavedashing, which make the game look and feel a lot faster. Chances are brawl might be even faster than melee in some way, given that the new l-cancelling removes lag completely.

Now, I'm not well-versed in the tournament scene, but I could bet that there were already tournaments before the wavedashing and other techniques of the sort were widely known. If that's the case (and to an extent, even if it isn't), Brawl should get as much attention (or even more, who knows?) as melee for tournament schemes. Again, it's just a matter of time.

 

[greenblob]

For a multiplayer game, a very good competitive scene is a requirement for it to be taken seriously as a "legendary" game.

The existence of tournaments doesn't mean that a good competitive scene exists. There are Wii Sports tournaments.

I guess you're right--we don't know whether Brawl will or will not be a viable competitive game until we experiment with it. But it is obvious that the competitive gamer isn't high on the target audience list.

 

[Cless]

Having played Brawl at E for All I can say the game is amazingly fun. I honestly can't see it being more tournament worthy than Melee though. just my opinion. it just felt too slow to me. it didn't give me the same feeling Melee did but that could change in the final product.

What does being tournament worthy have to do with speed? Street Fighter II is one of the slowest games ever. Is that suddenly not tournament worthy now?

 

[NintendoWarrior]

Having played Brawl at E for All I can say the game is amazingly fun. I honestly can't see it being more tournament worthy than Melee though. just my opinion. it just felt too slow to me. it didn't give me the same feeling Melee did but that could change in the final product.

Slow as Smash 64?

 

[Shadowclaw]

For a multiplayer game, a very good competitive scene is a requirement for it to be taken seriously as a "legendary" game.

The existence of tournaments doesn't mean that a good competitive scene exists. There are Wii Sports tournaments.

I guess you're right--we don't know whether Brawl will or will not be a viable competitive game until we experiment with it. But it is obvious that the competitive gamer isn't high on the target audience list.

Eh.. IMO, it mostly depends on what do you consider "Legendary" or "Great". Since there's not a set definition of the sort, the way I see it is how much attention they get. Obviously, the most fun games will get the most attention. Like I said before, competitiveness depends on the people. What will really determine how great a game is will be how fun it is. Even in tournaments, I can assure you that over 90% of the contestants play that game because they find it fun. If they didn't, they wouldn't be playing it, would they?

 

[greenblob]

To clarify, I'm setting the epitome of greatness for multiplayer games to StarCraft. I don't think that really needs much explanation.

Fun and competitiveness are related, but generally, the more competitive a game is, the more fun it is, not the other way around, at least to the competitive crowd.

 

[Cless]

If they didn't, they wouldn't be playing it, would they?

Not with that attitude.

 

[Shadowclaw]

To clarify, I'm setting the epitome of greatness for multiplayer games to StarCraft. I don't think that really needs much explanation.

Fun and competitiveness are related, but generally, the more competitive a game is, the more fun it is, not the other way around, at least to the competitive crowd.

Like I said, it's a matter of perception. A game must be fun in order to play it consistently. When you play consistently, you may develop a competitive mindset, and thus begin to play competitively, whether or not that's the game's focus (whenever that is possible, that is). When you play competitively, it ADDS fun to the game, but it's no different that just playing it with friends in a casual environment. The reason it seems that way is because you are playing with people of your same level, or maybe higher, whereas when playing with friends, if a skill difference appears or develops, it becomes a little more boring. It just depends on the people you play with.

The point is, a boring game does not become fun by competitiveness because of that precisely, it's boring and people decide to not play it. A fun game gets lots of attention, thus generating a competitive environment. The more fun a game is, the more people it will attract, and the more competitive it will be. One thing generates the other, not the other way around.

 

[DragonBlade]

Having played Brawl at E for All I can say the game is amazingly fun. I honestly can't see it being more tournament worthy than Melee though. just my opinion. it just felt too slow to me. it didn't give me the same feeling Melee did but that could change in the final product.

This is exactly what I was afraid of, yet the rest of the smashboards community cannot seem to get beyond the hype.

To clarify, I'm setting the epitome of greatness for multiplayer games to StarCraft. I don't think that really needs much explanation.

Fun and competitiveness are related, but generally, the more competitive a game is, the more fun it is, not the other way around, at least to the competitive crowd.

Starcraft indeed has everything a good competitive multiplayer game should have: deep gameplay, lots of variety, online, shareable replays, level editor, the ability to customize game settings, and decent balance. Now look at the community that has resulted from this. It shows what game development that tries to give the players options over trying to simplify it can do. Theres no reason Brawl cannot do that same thing. Theres no reason to think that not adding these features in makes it easier for new players to play either.

All it shows to me is a lack of effort and a bad developing ideology if Brawl was not competitive. As an engineer myself, and I can see why I would want to make my product only meet its requirements with the minimum effort. Its called good engineering, but the requirements of the community exceed what the developers seem to think they are for Brawl, so it will not end well if they don't realize that before release.

 

[DragonBlade]

Like I said, it's a matter of perception. A game must be fun in order to play it consistently. When you play consistently, you may develop a competitive mindset, and thus begin to play competitively, whether or not that's the game's focus (whenever that is possible, that is). When you play competitively, it ADDS fun to the game, but it's no different that just playing it with friends in a casual environment. The reason it seems that way is because you are playing with people of your same level, or maybe higher, whereas when playing with friends, if a skill difference appears or develops, it becomes a little more boring. It just depends on the people you play with.

The point is, a boring game does not become fun by competitiveness because of that precisely, it's boring and people decide to not play it. A fun game gets lots of attention, thus generating a competitive environment. The more fun a game is, the more people it will attract, and the more competitive it will be. One thing generates the other, not the other way around.

A fun game does indeed generate a competitive environment from the amount of people it attracts, however as I said in my original post, the good players will reach limit where they cannot get better, and they will quit, because it is no longer fun for them. So really, the competitive mindset, the depth of the game, and fun are really part of the same aspect, even though to some people it may seem competitiveness is independent from fun play.

 

[greenblob]

I just can't see Mario Party becoming a competitive game.

 

[Shadowclaw]

This is exactly what I was afraid of, yet the rest of the smashboards community cannot seem to get beyond the hype.



Starcraft indeed has everything a good competitive multiplayer game should have: deep gameplay, lots of variety, online, shareable replays, level editor, the ability to customize game settings, and decent balance. Now look at the community that has resulted from this. It shows what game development that tries to give the players options over trying to simplify it can do. Theres no reason Brawl cannot do that same thing. Theres no reason to think that not adding these features in makes it easier for new players to play either.

All it shows to me is a lack of effort and a bad developing ideology if Brawl was not competitive. As an engineer myself, and I can see why I would want to make my product only meet its requirements with the minimum effort. Its called good engineering, but the requirements of the community exceed what the developers seem to think they are for Brawl, so it will not end well if they don't realize that before release.

I really hope you're being sarcastic. Lack of effort? That's just plain stupid and ignorant, unless you can prove that Nintendo/Sakurai is indeed slacking off in the production of this game. If they were indeed wanting to "have their product meet its requirements with the minimum effort", they wouldn't have postponed the release date. I would direct you to other threads where things like that have been made clear, but I'm too lazy to look them up. See for yourself.

On the next point.. You're comparing an online Strategy computer game that gets updated frequently with patches to promote balance and add new content, to a console fighting game. Just keep that in mind; those are two different kinds of games, and they attract different crowds. They also work differently. Now, about those comparisons...

Starcraft indeed has everything a good competitive multiplayer game should have: deep gameplay, lots of variety, online, shareable replays, level editor, the ability to customize game settings, and decent balance.

Let's see.. Brawl has lots of variety (25+characters plus whacked items, different stages, play styles and combinations), is online, has shareable replays, has a level editor, has the ability to customize game settings and it should have better balance than melee. The gameplay will be deep; how much, it will be up to the players to discover and practice, just like they did in melee. So, according to your statement, Brawl also "has everything a good competitive multiplayer game should have".

Heck, even melee didn't have online mode, level editor, replays and very poor balance, yet, look at the community that resulted from it. You're not making much sense with those comparisons. I just don't see what point are you trying to get across with them...

Ack, noticed you posted another thing before I finished writing this.. Ah well, makes this a longer post... Btw, next time use the edit button instead of double posting.

A fun game does indeed generate a competitive environment from the amount of people it attracts, however as I said in my original post, the good players will reach limit where they cannot get better, and they will quit, because it is no longer fun for them. So really, the competitive mindset, the depth of the game, and fun are really part of the same aspect, even though to some people it may seem competitiveness is independent from fun play.

Melee lasted for many years, and there is also a limit to how much better can players get at mastering a game, but that limit cannot be reached easily. It takes lots of practice to master a game, and the more you practice, the better you get; it's very hard to reach a point where you can't get better in a fighting game. There are always new strategies and combinations to try and discover. Besides, there's also what people call "Mindgames", which affect the outcome of matches as well, meaning that no one can just "reach the top" and be unbeatable, quitting afterwards because there are no good challenges. Like I said, people slowly get better and people can lose practice as well. Even if you reach said limit (considering it exists), you will slowly start to decay if you don't practice often, while other people will get better than you. As long as you have a good challenge, it's unlikely for a game to become boring enough as to quit it.

 

[MookieRah]

Lack of effort? That's just plain stupid and ignorant, unless you can prove that Nintendo/Sakurai is indeed slacking off in the production of this game. If they were indeed wanting to "have their product meet its requirements with the minimum effort", they wouldn't have postponed the release date. I would direct you to other threads where things like that have been made clear, but I'm too lazy to look them up. See for yourself.

Way to completely miss the point there. He wasn't saying that they aren't putting in a lot of effort into the game, but they may not have put enough effort into making the game deep enough to really nurture the competitive community. While Starcraft is a different genre, the principle behind it is still resoundling the same. They chose to not only make a game the masses will enjoy, but to also make it thoroughly enriching for a competitive scene. It's easy to learn, but incredibly hard to master the nuances of the game. If Sakurai and his team put enough effort into this portion of the game then Brawl could not only be a huge success in general, but they could have a hugely popular competitive scene as well. Now they may *have* put in that kind of effort, but we can't be sure, and to blast on someone for being pessimistic about it sure is dumb, seeing how a lot of the supposed "balance fixes" for some characters don't make any sense at all (all of Samus's ranged game is nerfed, wth?).

I'm positive about my outlook on Brawl, but I can understand why people are pessimistic as well. Learn to live with other peoples opinons and please don't bash them for thinking differently, unless of course they are talking incoherently and obviously put no thought behind their words.

 

[nindgod]

Maybe for you, but not for me.

 

[DragonBlade]

I really hope you're being sarcastic. Lack of effort? That's just plain stupid and ignorant, unless you can prove that Nintendo/Sakurai is indeed slacking off in the production of this game. If they were indeed wanting to "have their product meet its requirements with the minimum effort", they wouldn't have postponed the release date. I would direct you to other threads where things like that have been made clear, but I'm too lazy to look them up. See for yourself.

On the next point.. You're comparing an online Strategy computer game that gets updated frequently with patches to promote balance and add new content, to a console fighting game. Just keep that in mind; those are two different kinds of games, and they attract different crowds. They also work differently. Now, about those comparisons...


Let's see.. Brawl has lots of variety (25+characters plus whacked items, different stages, play styles and combinations), is online, has shareable replays, has a level editor, has the ability to customize game settings and it should have better balance than melee. The gameplay will be deep; how much, it will be up to the players to discover and practice, just like they did in melee. So, according to your statement, Brawl also "has everything a good competitive multiplayer game should have".

Heck, even melee didn't have online mode, level editor, replays and very poor balance, yet, look at the community that resulted from it. You're not making much sense with those comparisons. I just don't see what point are you trying to get across with them...

Ack, noticed you posted another thing before I finished writing this.. Ah well, makes this a longer post... Btw, next time use the edit button instead of double posting.


Melee lasted for many years, and there is also a limit to how much better can players get at mastering a game, but that limit cannot be reached easily. It takes lots of practice to master a game, and the more you practice, the better you get; it's very hard to reach a point where you can't get better in a fighting game. There are always new strategies and combinations to try and discover. Besides, there's also what people call "Mindgames", which affect the outcome of matches as well, meaning that no one can just "reach the top" and be unbeatable, quitting afterwards because there are no good challenges. Like I said, people slowly get better and people can lose practice as well. Even if you reach said limit (considering it exists), you will slowly start to decay if you don't practice often, while other people will get better than you. As long as you have a good challenge, it's unlikely for a game to become boring enough as to quit it.

You completely missed all my points. Maybe I wasn't clear.

I'm not saying Sakurai and his team is slacking off. I'm saying that if Brawl released and is only fun for new players and does not have satisfactory upper level content, then it shows that there was a lack of effort it that area. For me, that area is the most important, so I would consider that a lack of effort. Of course we can't be 100% sure either way at this point, but the comments from demo do suggest that it may less competitive that Melee, and thus there was lack a of effort. Basically, too much effort in the wrong area when other important areas are lacking, is a lack of effort in the other.

The Wii has a hard drive which sufficient size for patches (512 MB, patches would be 5-20 MB), and integrated wireless. It even has the SD card port which could be used. The point is, Nintendo has the technology to patch their games, if they choose not to it is indeed a lack of effort.

The variety I am referring to is the the combat system - the amount of options that are available to any given character at any given time, and the amount of feasible combos and KO moves. Items did not add to competitive play in Melee, and I think it remain like that. More stages would be nice, but by looking at the stages so far, there are only about 4-5 that can be used for competitive play.

Yes, smash games, Brawl and Melee, have a lot of the same features that made starcraft good. Melee lacked online and shareable replays, which prevented it from reaching many people. I listed starcraft's features to show how similar they were to Brawl, and if Brawl would only have the most important two (deep gameplay and lots of variety in the combat system) Brawl could be one of the best games of all time for EVERYONE.

You are greatly underestimating how smart good players are. We played Melee this long when we started playing without the idea of how deep the would get. People will start playing Brawl with this mindset, and the mechanics of the game may reach its limit a lot faster. Thus, to provide the same level of challenge as Melee, Brawl would have to require even more precise timing, have a larger variety of usable techniques and do it at a much faster speed, yet it has come short in all 3 of these areas from the demo.

Way to completely miss the point there. He wasn't saying that they aren't putting in a lot of effort into the game, but they may not have put enough effort into making the game deep enough to really nurture the competitive community. While Starcraft is a different genre, the principle behind it is still resoundling the same. They chose to not only make a game the masses will enjoy, but to also make it thoroughly enriching for a competitive scene. It's easy to learn, but incredibly hard to master the nuances of the game. If Sakurai and his team put enough effort into this portion of the game then Brawl could not only be a huge success in general, but they could have a hugely popular competitive scene as well. Now they may *have* put in that kind of effort, but we can't be sure, and to blast on someone for being pessimistic about it sure is dumb, seeing how a lot of the supposed "balance fixes" for some characters don't make any sense at all (all of Samus's ranged game is nerfed, wth?).

I'm positive about my outlook on Brawl, but I can understand why people are pessimistic as well. Learn to live with other peoples opinons and please don't bash them for thinking differently, unless of course they are talking incoherently and obviously put no thought behind their words.

You beat me to it.

 

[Shadowclaw]

Way to completely miss the point there. He wasn't saying that they aren't putting in a lot of effort into the game, but they may not have put enough effort into making the game deep enough to really nurture the competitive community. While Starcraft is a different genre, the principle behind it is still resoundling the same. They chose to not only make a game the masses will enjoy, but to also make it thoroughly enriching for a competitive scene. It's easy to learn, but incredibly hard to master the nuances of the game. If Sakurai and his team put enough effort into this portion of the game then Brawl could not only be a huge success in general, but they could have a hugely popular competitive scene as well. Now they may *have* put in that kind of effort, but we can't be sure, and to blast on someone for being pessimistic about it sure is dumb, seeing how a lot of the supposed "balance fixes" for some characters don't make any sense at all (all of Samus's ranged game is nerfed, wth?).

I'm positive about my outlook on Brawl, but I can understand why people are pessimistic as well. Learn to live with other peoples opinons and please don't bash them for thinking differently, unless of course they are talking incoherently and obviously put no thought behind their words.

My apologies on that one. I don't usually bash people nor am I bothered by other's opinions, but reading that they're putting no effort on making this game just sounded like a stupid comment considering all the work they've put into it. I guess I got a bit off..

Like you said, we still don't know what will they do on regards to the competitive scene, but I'm not blasting on pessimism (or at least, it's not my intention) just by saying that brawl has as much competitive potential as melee, if not more, even if they took out a few things, due to the other things that we got in exchange, and the other things that we have not discovered yet. I'm just trying to share some optimism, not bashing people for thinking otherwise. And on a side note, it's curious that you tell me to learn to live with other people's opinions.. I was saying pretty much the same thing in another thread.

I just can't see Mario Party becoming a competitive game.

Again, comparing different kinds of games.. And this one is very obvious, people don't play it competitively because the game is mostly based on luck. I'm sure you know that competitive players don't like scenarios where luck can change/affect and outcome. Why do you come up with such a response?

If you're referring to what I said about the fun-competitive relationship, if you read the post carefully, I also said that the competitive scene is generated when it's possible. That is, when the game mechanics work in such a way that the players can get good at the game and beat other players who have not practiced enough. Here, luck is a factor that most competitive players dislike and try to keep to a minimum. Once again, it's the people that make a game competitive, so luck based games are unlikely to fit in that category, given that no one likes to lose because of a twist of luck.

 

[GreenKirby]

Of course, Melee;s current competitive scene didn't just appear out of nowhere.

It seems that you want Brawl's competitive scene to do that though. It won't happen automatically. It'll take like a 1 and a half at LEAST!

 

[MookieRah]

It seems that you want Brawl's competitive scene to do that though. It won't happen automatically. It'll take like a 1 and a half at LEAST!

No it won't. It won't because the competitive scene from melee is going to make the crossover. The competitive scene will be around from day 1, and it will be strong from day 1. It won't be crazy until things are discovered, but there will still be big tournaments and all that jazz.

 

[Shadowclaw]

Ugh.. This turned out longer than I thought.. It's better that I don't quote on this one. Long read ahead!

Exactly what aspects of the Demo suggest that Brawl will be less competitive than Melee? The game indeed has different mechanics and whatnot, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it lacks depth. Different does not equate bad (nor worse). I'm sure I don't need to say this again, but anyways, it was just a Demo, and people were only able to get a couple hours of gameplay. It took -years- of playing to make melee what it is now, depth-wise (at least, it took years for its depth to become apparent). Don't expect Brawl to be easy to master in a day or two just because you have mastered melee. A new game must have new depths to explore, else it would be just a remake of the original.

Yes, Nintendo has the means to make patches to the game, but if you take a moment to view it from their perspective, what benefit would they get from doing so? That's considering they would be free, since we don't have to pay to be able to go online, so why would they spend time figuring out if something needs balancing after the release? Again, it would only be to please the competitive community, which is the minority, and doesn't represent a big loss or gain in doing so. Don't get me wrong, though, as much as I'd love to get balance updates and whatnot, it's unlikely for them to keep working on that after the release. It is the hope of many that during this extra time they have, they make the game as balanced as possible, so that there is no need for patches. It's not entirely a lack of effort; it's just unnecessary post-release effort that I hope they make up for with the pushback.

About the variety, brawl has the same amount of moves that melee did, so let's move on to combos.. In smash, there are no "defined" combos, unlike in many other games. You just need to get creative, and the aerial combat helps that. Like I said before, with the new L-canceling, there are tons of potential new combos to discover and try out. From my point of view, it would seem that there will be more freedom than in melee in that sense. Also, from what I've read, items were banned mostly for the exploding crates, so there is a chance they may be allowed in brawl; don't count them out just yet. And about the stages, that's the best part about that nice feature called Stage Editor. If you don't have enough stages viable for competitive play, then create your own! There is no reason to complain about stages with that feature.

How am I underestimating the smartness of good players? I don't understand what do you mean by that. And by the way, creativity doesn't have limits, even if the game does have them. Let's say you do "reach the limit" and master every technique the game has to offer (which I highly doubt will happen for a long while, anyways). Does that suddenly mean that there are no more challenges? Not quite. Perhaps the game itself has no more challenges for you, but the other players do. Other players can get as good as you (or better) and beat you. You have to take in other factors besides the game mechanics, such as reflexes, strategy, etc, all of which can be improved/changed.

On the last 3 things, again, variety so far seems better than in melee in some aspects. How can you say that brawl requires less timing than melee, though? IMO, the timing used in melee is already very good and brawl should at least be the same; there are other things that can be improved. Finally, about the speed.. I hope you're not one of those people still complaining about the wavedash -.-. Did you actually play the Demo? Or do you base your comment on the vids? According to gimpy, they figured out the l-cancel until the last day, so most videos (if not all) are not using l-cancelling at all. The reason you see everything going "slower" is because you're most probably used to battles where the wavedash and l-cancel are abused, thus making the game look a lot faster. Once people get the hang of the new l-canceling, I'm very sure that the game will start to look faster once more.

And one last thing.. Even if all that you say were true and brawl lacked the timing, speed and variety that you want... People would still play it! People would still play it competitively too! Why? Because as stated before, this game is lots of fun, and it is essentially the same as melee, but with new features and such. The game will still be competitive, given that you can eliminate luck factors almost completely, thus, allowing skill and strategy to speak for themselves. Even if it weren't the perfect game for whatever reason, it would still be a great game and would have a big competitive community, even if some people that don't want to adapt decide to get left out. Like you said, more people will take their place, but I don't see the community dieing that easily. Besides, people would go back to it sooner or later. Good enough proof for that is that a good amount of people still play SMB64, which doesn't nearly have said depth.

-Deep breath-

Bottom line... Cheer up! This game will be awesome! For all we've seen, whether or not you'll like it is not up to the creators at this point, it's up to you. If you'd like a piece of advise, if you're being negative, things will must likely end up negative as well (or at least, it will seem that way for you); if you try to keep a positive mind, you'll be able to enjoy things more, even if they're not as good as they could be. It's all up to you, anyways.

 

[Teeb147]

Wow this thread is heated up.

Competitivity does make one want to play the game more, but not everyone is competitive, so I think the 'fun' factor applies more.

It won't lack depty, Ive seen the future, case closed.

 

[DraginHikari]

Hehe...

You know when I first posted in this thread I was being serious, but I'm having an awfully hard time not laughing at some of these posts anymore. Really casual and competitive both... a bunch of you are making an awful alot of theories based on very little. Just a little life lesson I've learned in the last few years: There are simply some things not worth getting worked up about.

 

[darkNES386]

Ugh.. This turned out longer than I thought.. It's better that I don't quote on this one. Long read ahead!

Yes, Nintendo has the means to make patches to the game, but if you take a moment to view it from their perspective, what benefit would they get from doing so? That's considering they would be free, since we don't have to pay to be able to go online, so why would they spend time figuring out if something needs balancing after the release? Again, it would only be to please the competitive community, which is the minority, and doesn't represent a big loss or gain in doing so. Don't get me wrong, though, as much as I'd love to get balance updates and whatnot, it's unlikely for them to keep working on that after the release. It is the hope of many that during this extra time they have, they make the game as balanced as possible, so that there is no need for patches. It's not entirely a lack of effort; it's just unnecessary post-release effort that I hope they make up for with the pushback.

I know that many of you will be disappointed by this news, but please understand that the extra development time will enable us to make the game the best it can be. It is my earnest hope that you will all be enjoying this game for many years, and we are all working very hard toward that goal. - Mr. Sakurai

Probably not planning right now on doing patches, either way, I'm pretty confident that they want the game to be as balanced as possible. I know it's not realistic to "eliminate a tier list for brawl" but I'd like to think that this is a reason why the game is being delayed from a DEVELOPMENT/TESTING standpoint... not the marketing aspect of Brawl... that obviously can sell any time of the year, so why detract from all the other Wii / DS games that are coming out this Christmas.

 

[soviet prince]

wheateher it's a competive game or not I am still playing the game. Competive scene is nice but as long as the game is fun that's all that matters.

edit: reworded the sentence and fixed the grammer.

 

[error_alt_delete]

why does everyone think that everything must be cometitive?
what happened to the fun factor?
(I didnt spend the time reading all of those 2 page length posts)
I personally think fun>competitiveness.
and I personally think that eliminateing/reduceing the effects of tier lists would be a plus for brawl, that way, nobody would say"you only won be cause you used so-so".

 

[Takeshi245]

why does everyone think that everything must be cometitive?
what happened to the fun factor?
(I didnt spend the time reading all of those 2 page length posts)
I personally think fun>competitiveness.
and I personally think that eliminateing/reduceing the effects of tier lists would be a plus for brawl, that way, nobody would say"you only won be cause you used so-so".

There'll be a tier list regardless. Some characters will be better than others. That's absolute. Oh, and people have fun in different ways, whether having fun with items or playing competitively. Melee did a great job with providing both. Why shouldn't be for Brawl? That would be quite ridiculous if they didn't. Besides, that's why Melee has such appeal to both. From what I've read off of Gimpyfish, Brawl's looking great, and we shouldn't be suprised if it is.