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

[TheBuzzSaw]

Fun is 100% subjective and always will be. That is why there are billions of humans out there who do not smash at all. So, every attempt to distinguish "fun" and "competition" turns out poorly. For most competitive smashers (myself included), COMPETITION = FUN. I have more fun and gain more personal satisfaction from outsmarting my opponent in a controlled environment than getting a lucky legendary Pokemon and obliterating all three opponents. >_>

 

[KidHellion]

Look, just because a couple techniques were taken out doesn't mean that others don't remain (in fact, we KNOW that some do) or that there won't be new ones (like this "Ink Drop" I've heard about).

Not that it really matters. I mean, Smash Bros. is a series conceived as an easy-to-learn crossover fighting game, and most of the series' revenue comes from casual players. Competitive players need to learn that they do, in fact, make up a tiny portion of the audience that Smash Bros. games are appealing to, and that the series is unlikely to ever be specifically geared toward them over the casuals. ESPECIALLY considering Nintendo's attitude toward appealing to gamers of all ages and levels of experience.

Nintendo is about making fun games that appeal to large audiences. Who CARES if the competitive scene is legendary- aside from competitive players? Brawl will be a commercial success, and likely have years of replayability, like Melee did. Casuals- once again, the LARGEST portion of the target audience- will enjoy it regardless of "legendary" status, and if they enjoy it enough (which, admit it, in all likelihood they will), they will buy the next one when it inevitably comes out for Nintendo's next console.

Super Smash Bros. will never be ESPN material. On the off chance that one day it IS, that's nice, but this really has no bearing on how much CASUALS, who are NINTENDO'S MAIN TARGET AUDIENCE, will enjoy the game. Casuals do not require a competitive scene to enjoy Brawl. Nintendo does not require a competitive scene to make money off of Brawl- only the much larger casual scene.

Therefore, it's just common sense for Nintendo to appeal to casual gamers with Brawl. Sure, they can include some aspects to encourage competitive play, but that should not, and likely will not, be a priority. Not from a marketing standpoint, certainly, and not not from any other logical standpoint. And frankly, if Nintendo can keep distributing Smash Bros. games over the years with each new console, and continue attaining widespread praise from reviewers and, much more importantly, casual gamers (which, ONCE AGAIN, means "most gamers"), then the series will still be pretty **** legendary.

Not that legendary-tude really makes a difference to most of Smash's audience as far as enjoyment is concerned.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

But the competitive aspect instills never-ending quality into their franchises. If Melee were severely limited in depth, I don't know that I would care about Brawl. I am only excited for Brawl after the excitement I gained from Melee tournaments. Competition has more bearing than you give it credit for. Also, the competitive audience probably introduces the game to far more people than casuals do. I know I have made more people hooked and convinced more people to buy the game than a dozen of my casual smasher friends combined. Killing the competitive scene would do more damage than the number of competitive players. Online communities would die, so no one could come discuss the game or see if it is worth buying. Even casual smashers like having a community to smash with. All casuals have a competitive side to them (even if it is with items or whatever; the point is always to WIN).

 

[Sandwich]

But the competitive aspect instills never-ending quality into their franchises. If Melee were severely limited in depth, I don't know that I would care about Brawl. I am only excited for Brawl after the excitement I gained from Melee tournaments. Competition has more bearing than you give it credit for. Also, the competitive audience probably introduces the game to far more people than casuals do. I know I have made more people hooked and convinced more people to buy the game than a dozen of my casual smasher friends combined. Killing the competitive scene would do more damage than the number of competitive players. Online communities would die, so no one could come discuss the game or see if it is worth buying. Even casual smashers like having a community to smash with. All casuals have a competitive side to them (even if it is with items or whatever; the point is always to WIN).

DO. WANT. +10chars

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

DO. WANT. +10chars

I am confused.

 

[KidHellion]

Yes, that's sort of my point. If Melee was limited in depth, YOU might not be interested in Brawl. Casuals still would. And casuals make up teh majority of the audeince.

And I don't know about your idea that competive players are responsible for most people getting the game. I'd say casuals (who, in case you haven't really gotten it, are most of the audience) mostly purchase the games because "hey look cool video game crossover sweeeet" or because they played it at a friend's house and liked it (which is why I got it, and why most of my friends got it, and none of us are competitive at ALL). Most players are unaware that a competitive scene even EXISTS, and yet Melee was the Gamecube's best-seller.

Online communities are unlikely to wither and die- casuals still enjoy speculating about many of the things competitive players do- characters, stages, features, etc. The only real difference is that they spend less time talking about tiers and advanced techniques, which are hardly requisites for an online community.

And, as a final point, what kind of ridiculous bizarro world are YOU living on, buddy? Yes, casuals like to win. EVERYBODY likes to win. But I'll tell you right now that casual players, at least the ones I play with, can also stand to lose, because it's a freakin' VIDEO GAME and they recognize that that is ALL it is. They do NOT devote hours of their lives to searching the internet for new strategies or "analyzing their metagame" or learning ways to exploit screwy physics.

And yes, casuals like having a community to play with. With Melee, this community was generally referred to as "our friends when they come over on weekends and stuff". With Brawl, this will probably stay the same, but will also expand to include "anonymous people on Wi-FI" and, yes, probably "some guys I met on a forum". Which just goes to prove my earlier point- As long as casuals are enjoying the game, and want to find people they can play with, forums will continue to exist for the game, regardless of competitive players, just so people can get each other's friend and smash codes and talk about their favourite characters and whatnot.

 

[Sandwich]

I am confused.

In other words, agreed.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Yes, that's sort of my point. If Melee was limited in depth, YOU might not be interested in Brawl. Casuals still would. And casuals make up teh majority of the audeince.

I agree, but like I said, you'd lose more than just the competitive community.

And I don't know about your idea that competive players are responsible for most people getting the game. I'd say casuals (who, in case you haven't really gotten it, are most of the audience) mostly purchase the games because "hey look cool video game crossover sweeeet" or because they played it at a friend's house and liked it (which is why I got it, and why most of my friends got it, and none of us are competitive at ALL). Most players are unaware that a competitive scene even EXISTS, and yet Melee was the Gamecube's best-seller.

I didn't say competitive players are responsible for most people getting the game. I just said they are responsible for a substantial amount. Competitive players give the game far more exposure over years of time than casual players do.

Online communities are unlikely to wither and die- casuals still enjoy speculating about many of the things competitive players do- characters, stages, features, etc. The only real difference is that they spend less time talking about tiers and advanced techniques, which are hardly requisites for an online community.

Take a look around you. How many members do you see have a join date in the last few months? Online communities would wither and die. They are upheld by communities who are dedicated to the game. Yes, there are a few "hardcore casuals" who refuse to become competitive but dedicate themselves to an online community (some of the mods here don't even smash anymore). However, I guarantee that these communities are maintained by the competitive players.

And, as a final point, what kind of ridiculous bizarro world are YOU living on, buddy? Yes, casuals like to win. EVERYBODY likes to win. But I'll tell you right now that casual players, at least the ones I play with, can also stand to lose, because it's a freakin' VIDEO GAME and they recognize that that is ALL it is. They do NOT devote hours of their lives to searching the internet for new strategies or "analyzing their metagame" or learning ways to exploit screwy physics.

Is that not what I said? As for "recognizing that it's just a video game", that is your chosen perspective. Basketball is just a recreational sport. Soccer is just a pastime. The same can be said about anything, but they all have competitive followers. Smash is no different. Do not try to reduce this to a "video games are for kids" debate.

And yes, casuals like having a community to play with. With Melee, this community was generally referred to as "our friends when they come over on weekends and stuff". With Brawl, this will probably stay the same, but will also expand to include "anonymous people on Wi-FI" and, yes, probably "some guys I met on a forum". Which just goes to prove my earlier point- As long as casuals are enjoying the game, and want to find people they can play with, forums will continue to exist for the game, regardless of competitive players, just so people can get each other's friend and smash codes and talk about their favourite characters and whatnot.

Yeah, Wi-Fi will definitely give life to online communities, but ultimately, the competitive players will keep them going. Those kind of communities do not survive with players being active for a month, inactive for seven months, and then returning. You're just gonna have to accept that.

 

[KidHellion]

1. I'd argue that casual players and the actual game itself get far more people to play than competitive players, honestly.

2. You don't need to bet money on matches, turn off items, learn to wavedash, or operate on the tier system to be dedicated to maintaining or taking part in a forum about Smash. "Look around you" indeed; there are FAR more topics regarding stuff that both casuals AND competitives are interested in (characters, stages, etc.) than ones having to do with purely competitive aspects, and your level of obsession with mastering the game (which, incidentally, I never said was "for kids", but merely implied should not be taken obscenely seriously) has nothing to do with your ability to run or participate in a forum.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

1. I'd argue that casual players and the actual game itself get far more people to play than competitive players, honestly.

I never said that! Honestly, read what I am saying, not what you think I am implying. I am pointing out that the competitive community generates a large chunk, not a majority.

2. You don't need to bet money on matches, turn off items, learn to wavedash, or operate on the tier system to be dedicated to maintaining or taking part in a forum about Smash. "Look around you" indeed; there are FAR more topics regarding stuff that both casuals AND competitives are interested in (characters, stages, etc.) than ones having to do with purely competitive aspects, and your level of obsession with mastering the game (which, incidentally, I never said was "for kids", but merely implied should not be taken obscenely seriously) has nothing to do with your ability to run or participate in a forum.

What you said directly coincides with what I just said. There is a spike in new members because they all want to discuss Brawl. However, just like Melee, 99% of them will vanish when Brawl comes out because there will be no need to speculate anymore. And again, it is not your place to define what "should" and "shouldn't" be taken seriously. If you don't want to take it seriously, that is fine. So be it. Don't tell everyone else they "shouldn't" take it seriously. Also, running a forum from a staff point of view is completely different from members being active. Of course, it is one thing to know how to manage a forum, but if traffic dies (which it DOES in casual instances), new members are less likely to join because it looks dead.

 

[xbrinkx]

Man, this thread is getting heated. I just wanted to remind you guys that this is just SPECULATION.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Man, this thread is getting heated. I just wanted to remind you guys that this is just SPECULATION.

That's not what we are discussing.

 

[KidHellion]

1. Fine, fine. I'll rephrase. I feel that this "chunk" you speak of is not so integral to sales that Nintendo would pander to the smaller competitive demographic as some strange, circituous route to getting people to play the game.

2. It shouldn't be taken seriously. It's a game. I'm not saying agmes can't be competitive (otherwise you'll just drag out that tried and true sports analogy again) but, really, it's a GAME, and I'm not gonna' pretend it's anything more important than that.

3. I still don't follow your crazy theory that casual players are more likely to abandon forums, leaving them inactive wastelands, than competitive players. I could see this being SORT of true with only games like 64 and Melee. After all, without an onlien component, and without the competitive drive to gather on the tournament scene, they have much less to discuss. With the implementation of Wi-Fi for Brawl, though, I think you'll find many of the casual players sticking around to discuss their favourite characters, Subspace Emmisary events, complaints and praises for various game aspects, asking questions about unlockables, scheduling and discussing matches... Almost competitive behaviour, thoguh likely without the obsession toward utilizing exploits in the game, betting money, or to developing tier lists.

3. Regardless of the accuracy of my predictions, and your issues with my take on the controversial theory of "Smash Bros. not being serious bidness" or "casual players depending on competitive players for their continued enjoyment and Nintendo's continued success", the fact is that none of these ridiculously elaborate paths yoru logic is taking are likely the sort of thing to encourage Nintendo to ignore what seems to be generating the most praise and sales in exchange for attempting to create a deeper competitive scene. This is pretty evident from Sakurai's treatment of Brawl (slowing gameplay down to something between 64 and Melee, removing wavedashing and directional airdodging, fewer stages that seem tournament legal, an online mode that doesn't seem particularly friedly to online tournaments and the like and a similarly-treated spectator mode, etc.). The fact is that, regardless of which sect of Smash players you see as more worthy of the developer's attention, casual or competitive, it seems pretty clear that appealing to beginners and those that simply aren't quite as good (or quite as obsessive about developing the skills to become that good) has become Nintendo's marketing strategy, and their modus operandi in nearly all the games they are producing.

It simply makes more sense, and in many gamer's eyes, this treatment and how much the competitive players fret and worry and complain about it will not affect how "great" they perceive the game to be. Even the Melee reviews I've read on many sites seem to direct their praise at the ease of play in this franchise, and the general simplicity of gameplay. There really doesn't seem like any good reason for Nintendo to make the competitive scene one of their major priorities with Smash- they might include a few features and options geared toward it, but this is certainly not their main focus.

 

[RedKnight]

You're all arguin, and I dont have the patience to read all your ong post, but I just have to say I agree with the guy who says Nintendo wants to please a wide range of people. This game was made to be fun and competitive. However I don't think they made Melee so that its physics and glitches could be exploited. If they took out stuff like wavedashing, big deal. If Brawl plays like Melee, and by this I don't mean the floatiness is the same and crap like that, I mean If Brawl is about Nintendo All-Stars fighting on a colorful variety of Maps and location, with many fun modes and such, then Im happy.


Then I am happy, and I think others will be too

 

[greenblob]

To clarify my argument, I'll list some examples of great vs. popular in forms other than gaming.

Van Gogh paintings vs. Garfield comics
Mozart vs. Britney Spears
Go vs. Connect Four
Shakespeare vs. a generic romance novel

 

[veil222]

Green... there are alot of examples that are both. Super mario 1-64, the FF series, and others for games, the Mona Lisa, Stephen Kings Dark Tower series... don't use a one sided opinion based argument to back other arguments.

 

[Tony_]

All those who posted here need to quit arguing over greatness of games. The gamers make it what is, not the "competitiveness" of a game. The developers do all they can to make it what it is. Mudslinging a game based on its competitive value only makes you look like a guy who only wants to play it to make money off of it.

Sakurai WANTS people to enjoy a game they made with every fiber of their being, not sling mud at it like its some tool people will use to make a quick buck off of. You can make money other ways too, like, I don't know, getting a job maybe? Only dreamers can hope to play smash as a life long career.

 

[soviet prince]

All those who posted here need to quit arguing over greatness of games. The gamers make it what is, not the "competitiveness" of a game. The developers do all they can to make it what it is. Mudslinging a game based on its competitive value only makes you look like a guy who only wants to play it to make money off of it.

Sakurai WANTS people to enjoy a game they made with every fiber of their being, not sling mud at it like its some tool people will use to make a quick buck off of. You can make money other ways too, like, I don't know, getting a job maybe? Only dreamers can hope to play smash as a life long career.

QFE..

I think there will be a competive scene for Brawl but I won't cry if there is not. The only thing that I am worried about is the fun facter of the game.

 

[KidHellion]

To clarify my argument, I'll list some examples of great vs. popular in forms other than gaming.

Van Gogh paintings vs. Garfield comics
Mozart vs. Britney Spears
Go vs. Connect Four
Shakespeare vs. a generic romance novel

The greateness of some of those people is debateable. For instance, I find Shakespeare to be ridiculously overrated. Garfield USED to be pretty great. Connect Four is fun as hell. Not to mention the fact that all those "great but unpopular" examples WERE extremely popular at one point, and still are in certain places and groups.

 

[soviet prince]

I can not stand Shakespeare, I dread the full week and a half we spent on it in english 3

 

[KirbySSB]

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

 

[Tony_]

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

Good for you. No one cares.

 

[Weed]

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

We all know Brawl won't be competitive in the slightest.
In fact, he should be sometime releasing the removal of "Vs mode"..

 

[Brawl Melee 64]

Geez, you make it sound like the apocalypse

 

[soviet prince]

Geez, you make it sound like the apocalypse

I assume weed is not serious.

 

[WarMachine]

Seems a little doom and gloomy. For one, Smash Boards isn't going to dry up any time soon. And online will keep it interesting even for those of us who don't have friends near us that play.

Brawl is already better than melee for me, mostly because of awesome new characters and online play.

 

[darkNES386]

I think those with doubts need to calm down. I'm not the least bit concerned that this is going to be the Mario Party type. Is everyone forgetting that the smash series is not composed of games that a random person can pick up and even contend with an experienced player? The very design of the series.... damage your opponent until you can send them flying off screen, recover when you are knocked off... requires skill and practice which ultimately leads to competitiveness.

The simple observation to make is... what kind of depth will this game have? Depth = competitiveness.
If the answer is plenty (which it is)... I don't see how you can argue it won't be competitive. Certain attacks have priority over others... the very terminology of hit boxes and frames show how much depth this series has. This series is very special... it's fun for all (unless you're getting rocked) and competitive.
So if you're going to bash Brawl... I feel like you're attacking Melee and 64 as well.

Perhaps, I'm biased because I'm organizing an online tournament upon Brawl's release.

At worst Brawl will just be a spin-off of melee... resulting in a game just as good but not better. More than likely though, this game will make it even more obvious who's been playing and practicing and who just touched Brawl for the first time.

Some people won't want to make the switch from Melee to Brawl. But for those that do, I'm sure the competitive scene will be just as strong and arrive almost instantly after the game's release.

This community's continuous growth only further supports that WE WILL MAKE this game competitive.

 

[AttackstorM]

The players make the discoveries to unleash the depth in a game. It is more up to the players whether a games depth is discovered. I am sure this game will have a depth to be discovered due to the simple fact that there are such a wide variety of moves, characters and stages. Even a simple game like checkers has depth.

What people don't understand is they have to imagine the amount of people that will be playing this game. The wii is the largest selling console in the known world and is doing way better than the Gamecube could ever dream of doing. There will be way more people playing brawl. There is a certain phenomena that happens when there are a large amount of people playing a game...every strategy, glitch, exploit, and trick that you can imagine gets milked out of it. Even now that it is online these things will spread even faster.

My personal prediction is that this game will have an even deeper meta game than melee

 

[MookieRah]

I'm thinking this thread should be locked down. It's obviously another casual vs competitive mindset thread.

@Casual players:
Not everyone is as optimistic as you guys are. Gimpy was hardcore optimistic about his E for All impressioons; however, everyone seems to not realize that Hugs wasn't nearly as optimistic. They are both high end players and both had ample time playing the demo. There are a lot of things discovered in the demo that are obviously not a good idea. A lot of these things are the "balance" issues that you guys tote around. It's pretty apparent that the game, at it's lowest state, isn't close to being balanced. Yes, it is a demo, but this late into the development more than likely they aren't putting their emphasis on character balance and instead are trying to make Sonic's homing spin dash work as well as all the other minor glitches that are prevalent.

You guys need to realize that Sakurai isn't infallible and more than likely the game will be just as balanced as melee, which honestly isn't that bad as you guys make it out to be. The competitive players realize these problems, and whenever we bring up things like this we get flamed for even considering that the game might not be that great.

It's also foolish to say that a game as competitive as this (I knows I said this was a competitive game) would be as epic with or without deep gameplay. That's obviously not true. The competitive scene is the minority, that's for **** sure, but if a game has a thriving competitive scene there is a chance that it could be taken to the media. Look at Halo and MLG, they had their own tv show for a while, and Melee was on Halo's coattails. There is a chance that Brawl could push the series into the competitive gaming limelight, and if that is the case the game would get a lot more press and the sequel to brawl will be even more anticipated.

 

[DragonBlade]

Good for you. No one cares.

Actually, a lot of people care. It just happens to be that General Brawl Discussion has turned into Brawl Fanboy Discussion, so it seems like the entire community thinks that the game will be nothing but amazing regaurdless of what we hear.

If its not at least at competitive as Melee or somewhat close, we will see the Brawl community decline, because of reasons I mentions in my original post, so it does affect the whole community. Don't think casual players won't feel the affect if Brawl is oversimplified.

 

[flyinfilipino]

If you care so much, then it'll be up to you discover the depth of the game yourself when you get to play it.

 

[DragonBlade]

If you care so much, then it'll be up to you discover the depth of the game yourself when you get to play it.

Theres nothing we'll be able to do if theres no depth. I could trying to discover more depth in tic tac toe all day long, but there won't be any more depth after a certain point. Its up to the creator of the game to allow for depth. The players can only find what is there.

 

[flyinfilipino]

Theres nothing we'll be able to do if theres no depth. I could trying to discover more depth in tic tac toe all day long, but there won't be any more depth after a certain point. Its up to the creator of the game to allow for depth. The players can only find what is there.

That's kind of like what I'm saying. When Melee first came out, I don't think everyone instantly recognized all the 'depth' we see now, so certainly it wasn't intentionally 'put in' by the developers. The competitive scene was pretty much made by the players, so it's up to them to create the 'depth' of high level play.

 

[Winged Messiah]

flying is actually agreeing with you DragonBlade .

I'm really hopeing the online scene is good...

 

[flyinfilipino]

flying is actually agreeing with you DragonBlade .

I'm really hopeing the online scene is good...

Kinda sorta. What I'm saying is that you can't blame the developers for anything when the competitive players are the ones who will determine the amount of 'depth' there is. The developers only want to guarantee a good time. Even if things turn out to be a little different than they were in Melee, we should all have fun trying to adjust to this new flavor of Smash. If higher level players will always beat strictly casual players no matter what, then there's no problem, right?

 

[DraginHikari]

Heh, there something funny you've got to realize about any competitive scene is that those that are aren't in the middle of it are always going to be extremely critical of things even if they have no idea what they're talking about. Take a look at Football as a decent explain, even if they are fans of a team, many assume they always know what they're talking even more the players and coaches involved, Human nature bites again. Humans are naturally adapted to bite at anything we don't completely understand, and this kind of falls into the same category as I put this post even with the competitive players.

As a casual, (Even if I wanted to there are few places for tournaments here XD) I'm not one to say that there is anything wrong with the competitive scene because there isn't. To each his own really, but my issue for this particular topic is more of assumption based on a four day demo of the game. I know we gained alot of information and I am grateful to those that went for the information they provided. But if I recall right, alot of the tricks from Melee weren't discovered that quickly either. I prefer to take things as they come and find out on my own whether you consider that blatant optimism or not I suppose that's your opinion.

Just like any game there always going to be things in the game system that can be used in the advantage of players that can find a use for it. I mean in Melee I've figured out Wavedashing, however really I can't use it in a manner that makes it of any use to me (my timing is pretty bad XD) but is a godsend for the right player.

As far as the views on televised tournament, those are still in infancy stages are far as being accepted, most people still don't view Video Game Competitions as a valid form of competition. A few games seem to be the exception Halo and games like that. If Nintendo would push the possibility of that it would be more likely, but I don't necessarily see that either

My amount worth anyhoo…

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Once again, MookieRah comes flying in with reinforcement on what I tried to say earlier. He looks at my brain and then responds without realizing whose brain he glanced at.

 

[DragonBlade]

If higher level players will always beat strictly casual players no matter what, then there's no problem, right?

The problem isn't the skill difference between casual and competitive players. The difference in skill will be large even if Brawl is simplified.

The problem arises in high level competitive play. No two players play the exact same way. There are always some subtle differences in technical skill, use of mind games, and some bias toward specific moves. Even when people seem like they are at the same skill level, they are not, because of these variations.

However, if the game was simplified so there were fewer viable moves, techniques, and just less options over all, that combined with slower gameplay would lower variation in play styles greatly. This would make the game approach a "rock, paper, scissors" type battle, instead of a more dynamic, unpredictable battle like in Melee. Once the gameplay becomes purely "rock, paper, scissors", I think most competitive players would get bored of it quickly. In a way, luck becomes more pronounced when the variation and options in the combat system are lowered.

 

[greenblob]

The complaints aren't based on the demo specifically; we're just saying that it very well could happen. And it's not like the Brawl team is actively trying to cater to the competitive crowd by making it very deep--then we would just be kidding ourselves.

Imagine a majestic mountain nirvana of gaming. At its peak are fulfillment, “fun,” and even transcendence. Most people could care less about this mountain peak because they have other life issues that are more important to them, and other peaks to pursue. There are a few, though, who are not at this peak, but who would be very happy there. These are the people I’m talking to with this book. Some of them don’t need any help; they’re on the journey. Most, though, only believe they are on that journey but actually are not. They got stuck in a chasm at the mountain’s base, a land of scrubdom. Here they are imprisoned in their own mental constructs of made-up game rules. If they could only cross this chasm, they would discover either a very boring plateau (for a degenerate game) or the heavenly enchanted mountain peak (for a “deep” game).

I don't want to climb the SSBB mountain to only find a plateau.

 

[flyinfilipino]

The problem isn't the skill difference between casual and competitive players. The difference in skill will be large even if Brawl is simplified.

The problem arises in high level competitive play. No two players play the exact same way. There are always some subtle differences in technical skill, use of mind games, and some bias toward specific moves. Even when people seem like they are at the same skill level, they are not, because of these variations.

However, if the game was simplified so there were fewer viable moves, techniques, and just less options over all, that combined with slower gameplay would lower variation in play styles greatly. This would make the game approach a "rock, paper, scissors" type battle, instead of a more dynamic, unpredictable battle like in Melee. Once the gameplay becomes purely "rock, paper, scissors", I think most competitive players would get bored of it quickly. In a way, luck becomes more pronounced when the variation and options in the combat system are lowered.

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?