Brawl's Not a Competitive Fighter

[Vermanubis]

Panda is off sometimes, but a commentator can't always know what's happening, and they give their best explanation. Panda is extremely good at public relations and speaking which helps a lot

;]


also i didn't read the thread but eat a ****ing ****

Which would explain why you look like an *** right now, lol.

 

[rhan]

I'm still confused as to why people are arguing about commentary...it doesn't make a video game competitive by any means.

Also, telling us that Soul Cal is competitive and that Melee is not must be a complete joke, rhan.

I was throwing examples of games that are viewed more competitve than Smash. (Just so you know. I only consider SC2 as competitve.) But I digress....

Smash is very kiddy-ish when it comes to the generic view of a fighter. Street Fighter has that quick hard hitting flow to it. Tekken is seqenced combos and BAM in your face kind of *** kicking. Soul Cal is a Tekken with weapons.

Smash IS competitve don't get me wrong. But it's so childish compaired to other fighting games out there. This includes the looks of it, how to play it, the commentary people give the videos, etc.

 

[BEES]

It's true that pros in other fighting game communities tend to think lowly of Super Smash Bros. The only ones that don't are the ones that also play SSB. It's mostly unfounded though.

Melee is a legitimately deep game. Perhaps not as much strategic depth as MvC or Guilty Gear, but it is arguably more technically challenging than any other game. Brawl has workable depth, though I wouldn't consider it a 'fun' game, or 'as deep' a game, there is some subjectivity to that. It certainly has enough depth to be competitive. 64 even less depth, but still enough to be competitive.

People make the chess and checkers analogy - remember that checkers is still a very deep game with a major competitive scene. The best checkers players in the world would utterly mop the floor with newcomers.

 

[Kitamerby]

I was throwing examples of games that are viewed more competitve than Smash. (Just so you know. I only consider SC2 as competitve.) But I digress....

Smash is very kiddy-ish when it comes to the generic view of a fighter. Street Fighter has that quick hard hitting flow to it. Tekken is seqenced combos and BAM in your face kind of *** kicking. Soul Cal is a Tekken with weapons.

Smash IS competitve don't get me wrong. But it's so childish compaired to other fighting games out there. This includes the looks of it, how to play it, the commentary people give the videos, etc.

Childish is bad now?

 

[Maniclysane]

wordswordswords

Could you actually name any of these fighting games?

I hear you keep saying "It's been done a long time ago" or "This isn't unique" without actually telling us what game you're talking about.

I would love to know what fighting game has a survival system like Smash.

 

[Alphatron]

The game probably isn't taken seriously because Pikachu is a playable character. Reasons for why smash isn't viewed as a serious fighter don't need to run deep.

Now, slightly off topic, Mortal Kombat is a bad fighting series and a bad game overall, aside from MK: Armageddon.

*runs the hell out of topic*

 

[Epic Kovumon]

I'm not sure if anybody on smashboards needed convincing that smash is a fighting game...

This is indeed true.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

massive Tl;dr Alert

Oh God This

 

[rhan]

Childish is bad now?

Do you think children are taken seriously in the world?

 

[Hyesz]

Do you think children are taken seriously in the world?

Do you think Soul Calibur is taken very seriously in this world? Herp Derp.

Don't be daft, if you think Brawl is a stupid game to take competitively, Soul Calibur is probably the worst example of game to use as your source. Any scrub can win with Maxi or Raphael, you won't admit it but it's the truth. You should have said er... actually I don't really know. Blazblue?

Too many people under-rate Brawl as a "competitive" game because it's not as "competitive" as Melee.

It may not have the game-play credentials to be a competitive game but my god it has the cult following.

Now, slightly off topic, Mortal Kombat is a bad fighting series and a bad game overall, aside from MK: Armageddon.

I would say that Armageddon is the only bad Mortal Kombat game.

 

[Kitamerby]

Do you think children are taken seriously in the world?

I couldn't hear you over Ultimate Razer taking my money. :<

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

Do not feed the troll.

Close this.

 

[rhan]

Do you think Soul Calibur is taken very seriously in this world? Herp Derp.

Don't be daft, if you think Brawl is a stupid game to take competitively, Soul Calibur is probably the worst example of game to use as your source. Any scrub can win with Maxi or Raphael, you won't admit it but it's the truth. You should have said er... actually I don't really know. Blazblue?

Too many people under-rate Brawl as a "competitive" game because it's not as "competitive" as Melee.

It may not have the game-play credentials to be a competitive game but my god it has the cult following.

I'm not going to fault you for not reading the entire thread or even my posts, but if you would have then you would have known that I was reffering to BOTH Smash games. Not just Brawl. Melee and Brawl are both childish and simple than other fighters.

Kitamerby: Who?

Gunmaster: I'm no troll. just a guy who speaks his mind.

 

[AuraStUrm]

Is it normal for my eyes to water at a thread like this?

Seriously, though - Smash actually brings more to the table than most other supposedly "competitive" fighters. I don't have a whole lot of fun with other fighters because too many of them are so restrictive. They don't give you much freedom of movement or variety in character or stage strategies. Aren't all these reasons why we love Smash so much?

Based on the mindset of the player, Smash can be competitive or not. Obviously, the way we play here at SWF, we view it as competitive.

 

[Mr.Victory07]

Do you think Soul Calibur is taken very seriously in this world? Herp Derp.

Don't be daft, if you think Brawl is a stupid game to take competitively, Soul Calibur is probably the worst example of game to use as your source. Any scrub can win with Maxi or Raphael, you won't admit it but it's the truth. You should have said er... actually I don't really know. Blazblue?

Any scrub can win in brawl with MK much easier than Maxi (who is low tier btw).

Now into the core of the thread, I think both sides of it have a kind of skewed point of view, because neither is Brawl not competitive at, nor is it as highly competitive as the OP suggests, and I think its due a lot to neither side playing each other's games that much. Before i recently got a PS3 and a chance to own Soul Calibur, Street Fighter, Tekken and Blazblue, i thought a lot like the OP. Now that I've gotten a taste of the other side, I have to say Brawl does pale in comparison to the top games. I think a big fault in Brawl's competitive play is that it's too... slow and defensive. What makes other fighting games more fun (to me atleast) is two things: the pace, and the learning curve. The pace of Brawl really makes it hard to take it seriously sometimes. The game is floaty, and defensive gameplay is overall better than hyper offensive. Brawl is the only game where stalling out the timer for eight minutes is a conceivable way to win, and that makes it a joke to a players of other games. The second thing, is the skill it really takes to play Brawl. Its easier to get good as a player in Brawl because of the lack of things like combos and long movesets to learn. The roof of skill is lower in brawl than in the other games because of the depth of the game. Theres really not so many moves to use in Brawl, so it comes down to similar playstyles. And one last point, Brawl's balancing is crap. In Tekken, you can viably hope to win a tournament with 90% of the roster (which is why the tier list only goes down to c), whereas trying to win a tournament even from around where DK is placed on the list is an uphill battle.

Buuuut, I still like Brawl. I'd say Brawl probably has the best community out there for a fighting game; its very wide and outspread, and theres alot of large national tournaments. Brawl has the very unique ability to play doubles, and the way a stage plays a part in your match is unique and refreshing. And, the freedom of movement is a positive thing, allowing for some mindgames.

 

[TL?]

I would say smash has more POTENTIAL than a lot of competitive fighters. Brawl is a fun game but it isn't balanced very well to be competitive with all the infinites and imbalances (It can still be played competitively though). Melee obviously works much better as a competitive fighter. There are a few infinites and a good portion of the cast is useless, but it does extremely well for a game that wasnt even trying to.

One thing I like about Smash is it's one of the few true console fighters. The controls were designed to be played on a controller and not an arcade stick. I hate motions in games like SF4. It just makes combos unnessesarily complex. A game like SF4 is too centered around MEMORIZING and practicing asanine button combos. Even if you can outsmart and outpredict an opponent, if they know better combos than you then you'll lose. Example: You predict/punish your opponent 3:2 but he does twice as much with his combos. The only time it's about mind games are when both have mastered the combos, so what is the point then?

These combos always work too. You could close your eyes and consistently do SF4 combos if you've spent the time learning them. Smash(melee or B+) easily has a more complex combo system (Yes, I went there). It's centered around predicting DI and creating combos as you go rather than memorizing them. Character weight, gravity, size, DI, % and stage layout all contribute to what combos can be performed and when.

I like the % and "ring out" system over healthbars. It can make a lot of moves situational. A move may be really good at lower % for combos but useless to finish an opponent off. It makes most projectiles not able to finish an opponent off. It forces you to set up for a risky move or keep damaging the opponent untill a less risky move can KO them. Look at a character like Brawl or B+ falco. It's easy to rack up damage all day but landing the Usmash or Bair aren't always easy.

And, yes smash does have a very unique roster. I'm not saying other games don't but Smash really has lots of unique characters. Look at the ice climbers, they're 2 characters in one. Lucario gets stronger has he gains damage. There are moves like Rest, Thunder, Kirby's copy ability. Shiek and zelda can switch back and forth between each other.

 

[Problem2]

I'm going to speak my mind. Smash can be a competitive fighter, but unlike most fighting games, it is not LIMITED to being a tournament like "win or lose" game. Smash is a sandbox like fighter with plenty of gizmos and toys to keep you entertained while it is still a fighter with strategies and tactics at it's core.

 

[Kitamerby]

Can't we all just get along?


Smash is its own unique take on the fighting game genre. Saying it's similar to any other fighting game outside of one or two vague traits is foolhardy. It has all the tools necessary for proper competition and more. Sadly, we need to ban some of the "and more" to make it viable for proper competition.

For the most part, I can't see anything really degenerate about the game itself outside of the fact that it looks silly and is easy to learn on the most basic of levels (hold the control stick towards the bad guy and press A to hit him), which attracts younger players. Everything from proper risk/reward, to excessive hype in the community, to proper mix-up options and competitive tools is present in the series. I'm not exactly sure what turns people off from the game other than that it's different.

...And at least Brawl doesn't sound like a Japanese pornography. (Lookin' at you, Arcana Heart!)

 

[xepherthree]

After reading everything that's been said, I honestly think TL? and Mr.Victory07 are both extremely on point.
I haven't played other fighters, but from what I do know about them they sound pretty good.
I agree with Kita, I don't think you can exactly say one game is better than the other, as it all comes down to personal preference.
This is not entirely accurate, but from the few experiences I've had with Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat, I actually like how slow brawl(and to a lesser extent) and melee are. While I'm not saying other fighters don't have this, I think the speed of smash lead to an overall more strategic game, giving you more time to react to your opponents moves. I agree with the fact that brawl's moves can be used differently; a good example of this is ROB(bias xD). Traditional ROBs are campy, and use their moves to GTFO their opponents and then run back to the other side of the stage. I play more of an aggro ROB, however, and alot of the same moves used for camping can also be used for playing aggro. Camping, a laser is useful for racking up damage and slowing your opponents approach. Aggro, the laser is a great close range move that is rarely seen coming. Instead of, for camping, Laser>Gyro>repeat till opponent is close>bthrow>run to other side of the screen, an aggro could go bair>ftilt>laser>gyro, using what could be a stalling tool as followup and options preventer.
I think the fault the majority of people on this thread have is that they try comparing brawl to another fighting game; the problem is that they're not the same game. It's almost like comparing mario to pokemon, as there's no real similarity in that excels over another.

=/=

Of course, I'm not even going into aerial combat.

Spoiler

aka the entire point of brawls changes from melee

 

[Kitamerby]

After reading everything that's been said, I honestly think TL? and Mr.Victory07 are both extremely on point.
I haven't played other fighters, but from what I do know about them they sound pretty good.
I agree with Kita, I don't think you can exactly say one game is better than the other, as it all comes down to personal preference.
This is not entirely accurate, but from the few experiences I've had with Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat, I actually like how slow brawl(and to a lesser extent) and melee are. While I'm not saying other fighters don't have this, I think the speed of smash lead to an overall more strategic game, giving you more time to react to your opponents moves. I agree with the fact that brawl's moves can be used differently; a good example of this is ROB(bias xD). Traditional ROBs are campy, and use their moves to GTFO their opponents and then run back to the other side of the stage. I play more of an aggro ROB, however, and alot of the same moves used for camping can also be used for playing aggro. Camping, a laser is useful for racking up damage and slowing your opponents approach. Aggro, the laser is a great close range move that is rarely seen coming. Instead of, for camping, Laser>Gyro>repeat till opponent is close>bthrow>run to other side of the screen, an aggro could go bair>ftilt>laser>gyro, using what could be a stalling tool as followup and options preventer.
I think the fault the majority of people on this thread have is that they try comparing brawl to another fighting game; the problem is that they're not the same game. It's almost like comparing mario to pokemon, as there's no real similarity in that excels over another.

Spoiler

aka the entire point of brawls changes from melee

I never said you couldn't compare different games. It's rather obvious that Street Fighter is a more competitive fighting game than Viewtiful Joe: Red Hot Rumble, for example. I just said that the Smash series doesn't have too many degenerative qualities (lolc-c-c-combobreaker) to offset its unique joys, and that the idea that Smash is a shallow series because of the reasons given was foolhardy. Also, you're wrong about Smash being more strategic than other fighters. They have just as much strategy and versatility involved as Smash does, it's just less obvious than it is in Smash. Just trust me on this one. You can't really explain these things too well without actually having played them yourself.

Also, Melee's aerial combat was amazing. The only thing Brawl did for the aerial combat concept was make everyone as floaty as Jigglypuff, which imo hurt the game more than it helped, but meh.

 

[xepherthree]

I never said you couldn't compare different games. It's rather obvious that Street Fighter is a more competitive fighting game than Viewtiful Joe: Red Hot Rumble, for example. I just said that the Smash series doesn't have too many degenerative qualities (lolc-c-c-combobreaker) to offset its unique joys, and that the idea that Smash is a shallow series because of the reasons given was foolhardy. Also, you're wrong about Smash being more strategic than other fighters. They have just as much strategy and versatility involved as Smash does, it's just less obvious than it is in Smash. Just trust me on this one. You can't really explain these things too well without actually having played them yourself.

Also, Melee's aerial combat was amazing. The only thing Brawl did for the aerial combat concept was make everyone as floaty as Jigglypuff, which imo hurt the game more than it helped, but meh.

Personally, I don't think Brawl is as competitive as Street Fighter, but you can't say its not competitive. I agree with you after that, and I'm sorry for the strategy comment. I haven't played other games, and this may also be wrong because of that, but I think that there's a bit of a different strategy aspect as you have more time to think, giving both you and your opponent numerous options. What I'm really trying to say is that while maybe not as competitive as other fighters, that doesn't necessarily mean it's worse as a game.

I haven't played melee in so long xD

 

[WoodyWiggins]

Personally, I don't think Brawl is as competitive as Street Fighter . . .

I agree. Brawl has way too much **** going on for it ever to be competitive. Melee on the other hand is just as competitive, if not more than street fighter. (I'd rather play Melee than Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo) Brawl should have been a build on the Smash archetype, Melee in particular, rather than an attempt to re-invent the Smash series by making Brawl something new and "exciting". In terms of food, Brawl is like eh . . .Golden Corral. All this SSE and Stadium games and Coin launcher and Masterpiece theatre. It's just too much ****.

 

[Woozle]

 

[☆_Mutha-Foxin GangstaKirby_☆]

get real vermascrub.

 

[CRASHiC]

Did somebody call Street Fighter fast? Go watch a Street fighter 4 tournament, just as if not more defensive and slow as Brawl.

 

[Signia]

Hopefully I can articulate well enough that this may be the "go-to" post if you ever want to suckerpunch someone in the shame gland for talking out of their *****.



Let's start off with the primary objective in most fighters. Each opponent is given a health bar, and you have to find a way to deplete your opponent's before they deplete yours. Once you hit the opponent enough, they die and you win. Pretty vanilla. Now let's look at variables that can affect this or make it more interesting. There are none. It comes down to simply putting out more force. Due to restrictions such as being grounded, and not moving very fast, this removes a major could-be facet from the fray of most fighting games. It comes down to working in a little box in close quarters. A Judo match would be a good analogy. This brings up a few more points.

Stages. The stages in most fighters change almost none, with the exception of minor stage hazards. In Soul Calibur we have ring-outs, which are the gayest thing God ever put on this earth. In DoA we have the occasional electric fence that you can wall combo someone on to death with Jan Lee. Again, nothing too special; nothing that forces the players to adapt and cope. Lastly, we take a look at unique characters. The one thing that arguably ties fightings games together in the most meaningful way, is how the characters operate. The only thing separating most of these games though, is not how unique the characters are, rather, what system the characters fight with.

A direct-counter system like Soul Calibur. A pressure system like Street Fighter. A combo-heavy system like Mortal Kombat. A juggle system like Tekken. But what is always kept the same, is the similarities that tie each character together. Every character has a basic set of moves that don't deviate from one another: punch and kick variations (such as high/low kick, strong/weak punch, etc.) with a character specific special move set. Ryu and Ken's Hadouken, Cyrax's cyber net and detonators, etc. Most of the time, speed is not applicable, due to a confined setting. These are just a few of many character unique traits that are absent from a lot of fighters.

All that said, let's recapitulate in an abridged version. Fighting games as we know them adhere to a strict pattern. Differences between characters usually go only as far as special moves, and similar moves with slightly different functions. The dimensions of the game remain confined to close-quarters fisticuffs, which automatically alleviates potential dimensions. It does, ultimately, boil down to outputting more force than your opponent.

The general fighting game archetype has been tweaked here and there, but it has almost never changed. You are confined to an unremarkable arena, in which you're forced to strongarm your opponent in close range. There are just, plain and simply, a lot of restrictions, especially in movement and freedom. Trademarks include what I like to call "dial-a-combo", in which a button sequence results in a combo. Oftentimes, a combo's intended implementation is unrealistic to execute, but its pseudo-complexity belies its unrealistic nature. Killer Instinct Gold is a good example. Fulgore had at least 50 auto-doubles, and 100 combos, but none but one were ever used. Why? Because it was the strongest, and covered the most bases. In other words, just because a game like Soul Calibur has 8,000 different combinations, does not mean it is complex, despite it giving that illusion. If you ever watch an SCIV match, you'll see Hilde trying to do her auto-ring-out and a Yoshimitsu trying to spam her to death.

Overall, some fighters have a lot to offer. But the reality is that many of them are one-in-the-same in many regards. Each one operates on a rock-paper-scissors system, and that system alone. Each one only modifying the archetype slightly.

WHAT MAKES SMASH UNIQUE

Now for the interesting part. As we discussed before, almost every fighter out there gives its own flavor of ice cream, but that's the problem: they're all still ice cream. With Smash, it takes the general concept of implementing an arsenal of moves to defeat your opponent, but removes the restrictions of the fighting game archetype. Let's explore a bit what these restrictions are, and how Smash transcends them to add a whole new level of gameplay.

Let's just make a quick list of unique traits that Smash possesses above other fighters. Forgive me if I miss a few.

-Unique stages
-Completely unique characters
-Counterpicks
-Range and priority playing a huge role due to unique character traits
-Survival and recovery
-Free-roam
-Creativity methodologies
-DI
-Tier Lists

Now, time to delve into each facet.


Unique characters: In most fighters I've ever seen, as mentioned in the previous section, characters differ, but how much? Minor differences do exist, such as a different animation for the same class of move, but they're often too negligible to notice. Smash, again, takes the core concept to the next level by giving the characters differing, well, everything. No single character has a single similar trait aside from clones. Ike is, by all means, the antithesis of Fox. Ike's move implementations are completely alien to what Fox's are. The only similarity is the general direction in which each attack goes. Same goes for every character. These differences include weight class, KO moves, trajectories, framerates, planes, gravitation (falling speed, etc.), size, hitboxes, range, etc. I could go on for hours. The characters are fettered by models only in the sense that they have the same amount of moves and each move corresponds with the direction which is pushed, i.e. forward = fair.

By and large, Smash is Smash primarily due to the vast uniqueness of each and every character. This makes it so a player has to adapt to not only a playstyle, but the character accompanied by it as well. Each one necessitates a new way of thinking and playing. Due to the variables given by the stages and other characters, every match-up is infinitely different and each move interaction has to be known, adding quite a lot of depth to the equation.

Counterpicks: Smash is probably the only fighter in the world that has such a vivid counterpick system. Due to each character transcending uniformity, and every mode of attack being available through any given character, a system consequently arises that feeds one character's strength and the other's weakness in a large way. Sure, there are other fighters with counterpick systems, no doubt, but due to aforementioned reasons, I find it difficult to believe as they're... shall we say "intimate". What I mean by intimate is that each character interacts on the minutest of levels, whereas in many other fighters, counterpicks are based more on countering styles from my experience.

Precision: Hitboxes in Smash come in all shapes and sizes. Their knockback power no different. What these unique hitboxes and priorities create is a rock-paper-scissors system for each move. It adds the dimension of precision and prediction and vivifies them. If your opponent is above you, and his dair ***** your uair, then you find a way around it, or use a less conventional move by being creative.


Creative Methodologies: Again, hearkening back to the uniqueness of each character's moves, Smash allows for something most games do not: attacking out of context, if you will. What I mean by this is since you are granted such freedom of movement, an attack that would normally not be used in a certain context can be used to catch an opponent off-guard. A good, yet simple example is Ganon's fair. Most good Ganon users won't attack with it as it's "intended", which is when facing the opponent. Instead, they will jump behind them, shattering the opponent's expectations, which means they drop their shield and eat fair from behind. Most other fighters, you don't need to anticipate anything other than a high/low/grab attack, since most combat is about-face and full-frontal.

The reality is that in a lot of fighters, since you are fully-frontal, you can't really catch someone off guard with much but cross-ups. "Attacking out of context" isn't really an option, since you're always facing forward and have no stage exploits at your disposal.


Tier Lists: Ever wondered why tier lists are such a big deal? It's because along with Smash's unique gameplay, a unique imbalance gets mixed in. Sure, other games have tier lists, but Smash's is different I believe. I've never seen an entire community get hyped up and get into 10,000+ reply debates on why a character shouldn't be where he/she is in relation to another character. What makes Smash so incredibly fun is overcoming obstacles. Finding ways to circumvent hindrances and use everything in your ability to emerge the victor despite unfavorable odds.

Lol, this the go-to thread to show how little "Brawlers" like you know about fighting games. You've made sweeping generalizations on differing fighting games that often only apply to a few of them.

Don't lump together 2d and 3d, they are very different. 2d fighters are NOT always up in your face, there is a HUGE range/zoning element in every 2d fighter except 3rd Strike. The fireball makes the 2d fighter.

Everything you're saying about Soul Calibur is false. The ringouts add depth as now you have to pay attention to stage positioning. They make those useless combos you were talking about viable if they send them in different directions, improving stage position. The stages are as distinctly different in Soul Calibur as they are in legal Smash stages. The locations of walls and edges are different, and you need to know where they are at all relative to your character at all times. Just as in Smash, you play differently when near an edge. Ringouts are analogous to gimps.

Smash has basic sets of moves and characters have similar tools at their disposal with a few unique ones to differentiate them from the others. Just like every other fighting game...

I don't know why you don't like a rock/paper/scissors system... if there were no counters to things there would be zero depth... you wouldn't have to pay attention to what your opponent is doing because there is nothing they can do about it anyway. And every fighting game requires excellent and precise spacing so don't even go there.

Every game forum has huge tier list debates. It's only 10000+ on smashboards because there are more people on these boards, and most are either kiddie, noob, or troll posts.

You only think you can't be creative in other games because you can't play them. "Can't do anything to catch them off-guard" Lol.

You don't know wtf you're talking about! I mean, you had one or two good points about Brawl as an innovative fighter, (they did have a lot of disguised stupidity in between: "they add a great deal of longevity to matches" just say "they make matches longer"... and realize how ******** you sound to people who aren't awe of your vocabulary... you're not fooling me) but you need to be more specific and knowledgeable about what you're talking about before you make these comparisons. Also you make conclusions like "brawl has counterpick stages" and you don't explain why these are good..

 

[CRASHiC]

Every game forum has huge tier list debates. It's only 10000+ on smashboards because there are more people on these boards, and most are either kiddie, noob, or troll posts.

No. At any moment of the given day there are more people on SRK.

 

[rhan]

Reading Signia's post makes me tingle inside. :3

 

[GreenFox]

It's competitive its just extremely easy to play compared to other fighters but it takes awhile to learn it and be competitive but not as long as other fighters. I dont really care smash is the funnest of the bunch to me.

 

[rhan]

Metaknight sure did take me a awhile to pick up..... I usually never pick up any character in 7 days.....

 

[KoRoBeNiKi]

Metaknight sure did take me a awhile to pick up..... I usually never pick up any character in 7 days.....

Have you visited an actual good tournament or were you playing vs cpu's or some friends who say that they were actually good at smash while in fact they were johning scrubs. Because cpu's are bad regardless of fighting game. Or was it online, which is a horrible excuse for thinking that your gameplay was good.


Regardless of whether a character can be characterized as broken, it does not matter if someone who just picks up a game plays it. A good ganondorf can beat the average c-stick and nado spamming metaknight if the Ganon has a clue how to play the matchup. It's called spacing and spacing is what defines a good player from a bad one.

Its why tier lists are based off of the highest level of play. I have personally beaten Game and Watches, Snake's, Marth's, and Metaknights in tournaments regardless of the matchups just because I was an overall better player. Its not like the tier list says, "If I use this character I will automatically win." You spam Nado and Down smash vs my Luigi. I n-air and up b that bad spacing and win a match. You counterpick some good metaknight stage, I switch to a character that I also am fine there and win as well.

Of a side note, of course brawl is overall less competitive than melee (and even in some ways compared to smash 64 in the tech skill and balance department). Its like comparing some of the less competitive street fighters or Mortal Kombat to the others. There isn't an instance of two games from the same series being so equally competitive that there isn't a difference outside of complete rehashes where nothing was changed.

Just to wonder, are there any techniques in any fighting games outside of smash that take frame by frame tech skill such as:

Drop canceling in smash 64 and perfect DJC's in melee.

Not to mention that there are other techniques in melee and smash 64 that take very quick hand speed and are required to be done in competitive play. Can you personally SHFFL in melee or SHZ in smash 64? Can you also use these techniques in actual competitive games which means non just tech skill videos. That is what separates the average player from an actual good player. I don't care if you have the greatest tech skill in the world. If you play bad vs an opponent, you are going to lose because you played worse.

 

[gnosis]

A few valid points, but it's mostly just garbage you'd realize was blatantly false if you had any experience with other good competitive fighters (i.e. Not MK!). So I suggest you try some out!

Smash is great but it hasn't created a whole new level of depth in fighting games, and if you like Smash for the reasons you said (character variety, different styles of play like offensive vs. defensive, emphasis on precision, etc.), you'd probably have a lot of fun with other fighting games if you gave them a chance!

Smash does have more freedom of movement though, but if that's what you like most about Smash you should be playing Melee, not Brawl! :D

 

[rhan]

Have you visited an actual good tournament or were you playing vs cpu's or some friends who say that they were actually good at smash while in fact they were johning scrubs. Because cpu's are bad regardless of fighting game. Or was it online, which is a horrible excuse for thinking that your gameplay was good.

Local tourney in my area about 2 months ago. Probably the biggest Brawl tourney here. Anyway, people there tried so hard in "training" for it. I played Metaknight for three days and read a few tricks and tried them out in training mode.

Went to the tourney and got 5th. Note: I DO NOT AT ALL PLAY BRAWL let alone train in the game. I just went for the Melee friendlies afterwards, but the only way to actually do that was to pay for the tourney. All Brawl is is out gaying the other person and thinking ahead.

And spam.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Local tourney in my area about 2 months ago. Probably the biggest Brawl tourney here. Anyway, people there tried so hard in "training" for it. I played Metaknight for three days and read a few tricks and tried them out in training mode.

Went to the tourney and got 5th. Note: I DO NOT AT ALL PLAY BRAWL let alone train in the game. I just went for the Melee friendlies afterwards, but the only way to actually do that was to pay for the tourney. All Brawl is is out gaying the other person and thinking ahead.

And spam.

Good for you your good at fighting games, so is my friend Nacho who never played smash for 3 months and still take 1-3rd at a local I go to.

Why? Because he is smart and knows how these games work. Ally was the same way only playing wifi for a while and look where he is now. If your going to generalize to bash on Brawl, try something more legit.

the "Gaying your opponent out and spam" comment just makes me LOL.

 

[AllyKnight]

Eveyr fighting game is stupid anyhow, it's not like it takes a lot of skills to make combos in SF4, they are pretty much given if you hit the person so yeah **** Street Fighter yes I said it, ITS FOR SCRUBS. AND JUMPING ******S TO COMBOS.

 

[BEES]

In terms of movelists and decisions, GGX2 Accent Core Plus is possibly the deepest fighting game.

Hard to compare it to Smash Bros though. I guess if you compared it to Melee - it has a much longer list of attacks, but then Melee has that freedom of movement, and it is more challenging for the fingers. They're similar speed-wise.

Would still give the edge to AC, and not because I'm better. I'm quite a lot better at Melee. I played Melee for a long time before I ever dipped the proverbial toe into other fighting games. Credit where credit is due though - I like the more offensive focus of some 2d arcade fighters.

 

[BEES]

And, yes smash does have a very unique roster. I'm not saying other games don't but Smash really has lots of unique characters. Look at the ice climbers, they're 2 characters in one. Lucario gets stronger has he gains damage. There are moves like Rest, Thunder, Kirby's copy ability. Shiek and zelda can switch back and forth between each other.

on the other hand... this guy

 

['V']

Smash is a horrible excuse for a competitive fighter. It just wasn't built for that kind of purpose. There's way too much going on for it to ever even come close to being considered balanced or whatever. It's completely inconsistent.

 

[Jonas]

Whatever fighting game you're playing, you'll inevitably argue that yours is the best. You just can't bring "facts" to the table, because in the end it all comes down to personal preferences.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Smash is a horrible excuse for a competitive fighter. It just wasn't built for that kind of purpose.

None of the smash games were built for competitive play, this is a fact. It's far from a joke, if the game wasn't even remotely competitive we wouldn't be getting the turn outs at tournaments we get. Each game has ballance.

Try playing Marvel vs Capcom 2, it's infinitely worse than Smash as a competitive fighter.

There's way too much going on for it to ever even come close to being considered balanced or whatever. It's completely inconsistent.

How is it inconsistent? The better player wins in competition, that's not inconsistent.