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

[DraginHikari]

Sorry if I'm sounding noobish, but what exactly has been changed from Melee to Brawl that decreases the amount of options for competitive level players? If it's wavedash (not trying to start anything here), please enlighten me, because I've heard many people say that the removal of wavedash was a minor setback. It seems like each character in Brawl so far will play very differently from each other, and when you combine that with the variation between every players' own style, and then improved aerial combat strategies, isn't that a good start?

From most that I've seen alot of it has to due with the nature of the Wii system which most 'hardcore' players define as dumming games down for the casual player.

fyi, I use the term hardcore lightly because I find it a rather odd term

 

[MookieRah]

Sorry if I'm sounding noobish, but what exactly has been changed from Melee to Brawl that decreases the amount of options for competitive level players?

There is no way of knowing for sure if the game really does offer a lot of depth or if things have truly been "dumbed down." The demo was a mixed box of sorts, offering some really neat new features, but overall it left some people doubting. The thing that bothers me, is that while I'm optimistic, it is seemingly impossible to have a thread discussing the things that they are worried about without people telling them they suck for not thinking Sakurai is an infallible guy who will make the game awesome for everyone.

 

[flyinfilipino]

There is no way of knowing for sure if the game really does offer a lot of depth or if things have truly been "dumbed down." The demo was a mixed box of sorts, offering some really neat new features, but overall it left some people doubting. The thing that bothers me, is that while I'm optimistic, it is seemingly impossible to have a thread discussing the things that they are worried about without people telling them they suck for not thinking Sakurai is an infallible guy who will make the game awesome for everyone.

That's just the impression the first post gave. For the competitive scene, who knows.

 

[MookieRah]

That's just the impression the first post gave. For the competitive scene, who knows.

That might be the case, but how many other people have come to this thread saying what you have said to the op since then? Seriously, the competitive people in this thread already realize you guys hate us thinking that it might not be that great, so just let them talk about these things in peace.

 

[ValiantVernon]

this game is gonna be awesome no matter what at least i think, if not then ill be sad...but i think with the amount of time they have had they cant screw this up just look at what they did with a very small amount of time!!!

 

[Chaosblade77]

After reading the posts that have been made recently I agree with this more than I did before just because the topic starter was not clear, and it looked more like a complaint about advanced techs from Melee not being in/discovered yet, so in his mind the game was going to be a failure.

I am not sure what I call myself, an optimistic pessimist really. If I have a lot of knowledge about something and can see where it's headed, then I am often pessimistic about it (more "realistic" but people call it pessimism). For Brawl, we can't really say what is going to happen. That is why I am optimistic.

I am a casual player who does not rely on the game's depth to have fun. Brawl has a stage builder, wifi play, and introduces new characters and stages that I can play against my friends with. That is what matters to me. I probably fall in the "hardcore casual" crowd, but still, if the game lacks depth, it does not mean that I won't enjoy it. I have enjoyed Melee for over six years and do not use most of the advanced techniques or "deeper parts" of the game at all.

Really, this is just where a lot of questions come in. For example, do you automatically get a final smash after you play REALLY bad, and it can't be disabled? That is one thing that this thread is making an example of, and I suppose the lack of advanced techniques like wavedashing = lack of depth, but it certainly doesn't mean that advanced techniques won't appear later. Too many people are under the impression that the first week of gameplay is equal to the games entire potential, and it would take years for it to reach that.

It just seems like some of the people in this thread are overly pessimistic in regards to something we still lack a lot of information on, even after the demo and DOJO updates. But hey, everyone is welcome to their own opinions right?

 

[geemann2236]

The game is much more floaty, and Wavedashing is out, but the game still looks like it's gonna be great. I played at E-4-All, and the game is as good competitive wise as melee, but it is a lot slower, and a lot floatier.

 

[Dabble]

I made my account today to say this:

Pessimists and Optimists alike, it doesn't matter. Every last one of you will buy the game. How do I know this? Let's face it, it is Smash.

Now then, something I want to address...

Competitiveness is a natural suit to all fighting games. People are confusing tech junkies with competitors. Just because you do or do not use techs does not make you any less of a competitor than you are when you go to a tournament.

Regardless if Brawl has techs or not, one thing remains certain; people will play competitively early in the game, the techs will come naturally. It's a fighting game, the transition to competition is a natural thing. It will start off small, but grow big, just like with Melee, because it is the FANS that make the game competitive, not the game itself.

So in the end TC, your topic question is right and wrong. Brawl is competitive from the start, because it is a fighting game, making the games greatness solid. Competition is not a single meaning, it has multiple meanings. You play a friend to win? There is competition. You play for money? Competition. You play to who gets to be wingman for swampthing while you hit on lady right? Competition.

However, just because the game may not seem deep does not negate the competition aspect, as the competition aspect will ALWAYS be there...

ALWAYS...

Techs or not, they are just an addon to enhance the game, nothing more.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Holy crap you fail at trolling.

One of the best statements that Tony has ever made.

On topic, however, I have to agree with just about every other person in this topic: The competitive metagame is not the end-all, be all.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Linkster47]

I think the first post should say... Smashes competitive scene will fail if it's not competitive...

It is still has a great one player mode. OOT and MM didn't have multiplayer either and they were fun. In fact most Nintendo games don't have multiplayer and they're fun, even going through them again is fun. Sometimes I'll just play event match records because they're are fun. So the only way Brawl could fail is if it wasn't fun, but according to Gimpyfish and everyone I've heard of who has gone to E for all, it is.

 

[Classic-Black]

THe difference between those games and Smash, is that Smash was meant for muliplayer.

And if it didn't have the depth that drives competition, it wouldn't be a very fun game.

 

[RedKnight]

if the game isnt competitive i will get bored of it in 2 years and not play it for 6+ like i did with melee

the multiplayer, or the fact that it was pretty much the only thing in the game, was what made me NOT want top play the game for the majority of the time I owned it. I pretty much got all the characters and gave up on it. However much later Brawl was announced and I suddenly saw Smash Bros from a new view. I discovered the tournament and professional aspect, tiers, and techs. This mad it much more interesting and I got back into the game. However hype for brawl and tournaments didnt make up for one thing. Smash Bros still lacked much outside simple versus matches, and if you were lacking in friends who could visit often, and siblings who had even a slight interest in video games, the game was pretty bland.


However with much of the information that has been released about Brawl, especially the Subspace Emissary mode, and the different features taking advantage of Wi-Fi, Im really genuinely interested.

My point with all this is that wether Brawl is competetive or not, as long as it provides real fun with some features that give it good replay value it should last you long enough. What defines competitive anyways? Exploitable physics? Tiers? If Brawl has a versus mode with just as much creativity as Melee, I think it will be just fine.

 

[Gomolka]

It is a true statement. What would games be without competition? Sure you get the self satisfaction at beating the game and getting everything... but what is there after that without any multiplayer or online play? I have beaten MP3:C three times... and have just become completely bored with it. It was a great game and all .. but I suggested my friends to not buy it and just to borrow it from me due to lack of multiplayer compatability.

In short... a game's success can be measured by today's standards by it's multiplayer compatabilities (online play / overall competativeness)

 

[RetroRhythm]

I made my account today to say this:

Pessimists and Optimists alike, it doesn't matter. Every last one of you will buy the game. How do I know this? Let's face it, it is Smash.

Now then, something I want to address...

Competitiveness is a natural suit to all fighting games. People are confusing tech junkies with competitors. Just because you do or do not use techs does not make you any less of a competitor than you are when you go to a tournament.

Regardless if Brawl has techs or not, one thing remains certain; people will play competitively early in the game, the techs will come naturally. It's a fighting game, the transition to competition is a natural thing. It will start off small, but grow big, just like with Melee, because it is the FANS that make the game competitive, not the game itself.

So in the end TC, your topic question is right and wrong. Brawl is competitive from the start, because it is a fighting game, making the games greatness solid. Competition is not a single meaning, it has multiple meanings. You play a friend to win? There is competition. You play for money? Competition. You play to who gets to be wingman for swampthing while you hit on lady right? Competition.

However, just because the game may not seem deep does not negate the competition aspect, as the competition aspect will ALWAYS be there...

ALWAYS...

Techs or not, they are just an addon to enhance the game, nothing more.

Wow...

Nice post. Welcome to the forum btw.

I agree with you.

 

[UrajKingofDarkness]

This sounds more like a "If Brawl doesn't play like Melee than it won't be competitive and hence will suck" topic.

A game can be as competitive or casual as you make it. They aren't lowering the number of moves in the game, so I can't see the premise of saying it'll be "simpler". I'm certain from what I've heard that you won't be able to just play it like Melee, but then again Melee couldn't just be played like 64, which turned off a lot of old 64 players in the beginning.

To put it simply, you're trying to set standards for a game most people here haven't played yet. Don't try to tie the franchise to expectations you've decided on. It's ultimately up to the community to decide on whether a game can be competitive or not, and I think too many "smash pros" are stressing the competitive side of Brawl far too soon.

Give the game time to actually be released, and be PLAYED, before you start trying to turn it into a freaking sporting event. It'll grow legs in time, but it can't learn to walk before it's even hatched.

Also I am aware that my metaphors are all over the place.

 

[Igneous42]

I think the first post should say... Smashes competitive scene will fail if it's not competitive...

It is still has a great one player mode. OOT and MM didn't have multiplayer either and they were fun. In fact most Nintendo games don't have multiplayer and they're fun, even going through them again is fun. Sometimes I'll just play event match records because they're are fun. So the only way Brawl could fail is if it wasn't fun, but according to Gimpyfish and everyone I've heard of who has gone to E for all, it is.

actually with a lot of nintendo games they are fun because they aren't about multiplayer. I love Nintendo but really, other than smash their multiplayer games are broken, unbalanced party games that are still a blast.

But brawl will be great, people will compete at brawl and love it.

 

[SirroMinus1]

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?

dont jump the gun gun jumper

 

[Hmaal]

He kinda right and kinda unsure because at this point in popularity most people who have played the series know of Brawl's talents and will by the game regardless but a lot of people play it because of the competitiveness so you could be right.

 

[brawlmaniac]

If it's even the same competitiveness as melee I will play it for years to come. After hearing that the makers of brawl have over 10,000 matches on their games, I'm pretty confident that they will do everything in their power to make Brawl the best it can be.

 

[Saor Gael]

Correction to the title: Brawl's FUN factor will be what makes it great.

Even if it is competitive, if it was not fun then people will not play it. Even if it is not competitive but fun, people will still play it for long periods and think it awesome.

 

[Hmaal]

True but some people buy it based on competitiveness. But im positive in saying most people on this forum will buy it because its Brawl.

 

[5150]

Brawl is competitive from the start, because it is a fighting game, making the games greatness solid.

stupidest thing i've read on the forum in a LONG time

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

....

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...

The success that is mentioned is the one upon the competative community, and you playing for 6 yeras uninformed of playing competatively doesn't necessarily affect anyone but yourself.

Few things nimrod...

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

Yes, the games were of great quality, but due to your blantant ignorance and inability to detect the target's demographic, you failed to understand that this topic wasn't aimed towards the casual community, but the competative community. There have been several games in a series that have failed to deliver in the competative community. Hypothetically Brawl can possibly become a statistic, but this really isn't the case as of now

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

It actually can lack competative features based on how the engine is done. Technical aspects in competative gaming are half of the competative game sceen. The other half is intelligent playing. If a game is bound to limitations on either one of these aspects, the competative nature of the game may become shallow.

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.

The success of the Smash Bros. franchise will come as an inevitability amoung the casual community, but that doesn't make things better for the competative community. In general, everything you're saying at this point doesn't even relate towards the competative success of Smash Bros. Knowing why the game was popular (To rekindle the obvious) isn't significant in any manner. The ccompetative Smash community is some what "underground", but it shouldn't have to boast towards a massive international community to be as important.

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

Mindgames, son!!!

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

Did you even read the main post?

 

[PaperLink]

I don't think it matters how competitive the game is; it has online, so people will play it a lot; ppl play it a lot, it has replay value; a game has great replay value, it is great (most of the time); We don't need people who play it competitively for the community to thirve; compeitive players just let us know that the game is good enough that it's worth being good at.

 

[greenblob]

Maybe we're using different definitions of "greatness" here. Your definition seems like "greatness=fun" or "greatness=$$$." My definition goes a bit further. I guess the best way to measure greatness with my definition is how it's accepted by the "serous gamers," like the SF/MvC/VF/GG etc. crowd (the people who overlooked Melee as a "party game" until Evo 2007) and the pro gaming scene.