Bringing Brawl Back to Tournaments?

[Sauron_The_Great]

Brawl has suffered in tournaments, as more and more highly skilled players have switched to the Brawl-melee amalgam, Project M. Brawl has too many nerfs, it's true, but why have people dropped it completely??? Why not just deal with it, and keep playing?? What's so difficult about dealing with tripping? Should We give Brawl a second chance???

 

[Xinc]

I'm probably not correct about this:

Advent of Smash 3ds caused major migration of Brawl player base to go to the 3ds, due to it fixing many numerous flaws inherent in Brawl as well as a lot more content.

The other part of the players moved over to PM for a more fast paced game.

Brawl has many flaws for a fighting game. Random tripping is not a competitive aspect. Furthermore, Brawl's not so good for spectators. Because the game is slow paced and defensively based, depending on one-to two hit combos, Brawl lost a load of popularity.

 

[Gardex]

I just host tournaments with Brawl included because there's interest and I like the game

 

[Smearglangelo]

Here's the way I see it:

Melee is a better fighting game than Brawl, but Brawl is a better Smash Bros game than Melee. The majority of competitive players don't fully embrace Smash Brothers because they fear it's too chaotic and unpredictable to be a true fighting game. After Brawl's release people started to noticed that Brawl had changed a lot from Melee and focused more on being a unique and different from fighting games, a pure Smash Brothers experience. This made the competitive side of the Smash community uncomfortable since many people in other fighting game communities have accused Smash Brothers of not being a real fighting game because of it's unique aspects that made it different from other fighters. A lot of competitive Smash fans viewed Brawl as a threat to their image among the fighting game community and decided that something had to be done to save themselves from the "wreckage". Brawl's community was beginning to thrive, the meta was still in early development, this was the perfect time to strike.
A secret alliance had been formed called the "Melee community" a part of the Smash community that had forsaken Brawl and sought it's destruction. Brawl fans never saw it coming, they foolishly believed that the entire community supported Brawl and that they didn't have to worry about the trolls who gave Brawl a hard time. It seemed to them as if out of nowhere a huge amount of Brawl hate had surfaced and Melee mysteriously became more popular. Competitive Brawl fans had no idea how to counter this, they thought that outsiders where attacking Brawl when in fact it was people working within the Smash community that where attempting to sacrifice it to their fighting game community overlords. When Melee started showing up more Brawl fans thought it was a sign of hope, that more people would support Smash Brothers and that Brawl would be saved. All hope was lost when Brawl fans discovered that the Melee community, their very own brothers in Smash, had stabbed them in the back. It was already too late by the time Brawl fans had begun to fight back.The Melee community had gained too much support to be stopped. Many gave up, too devastated by the ridicule they received for supporting competitive Brawl.
Only a few people remain who openly support Brawl and still play it today.

But that's just a theory. A Game Theory!

Drama aside, I think that Brawl should get a second chance. It never deserved all the hate it received and I would love to see more Brawl tournaments in the future!

 

[9Blades]

Brawl really does need a comeback. Everything people said were "flaws" just made it more unique. I happen to actually enjoy watching Brawl tournaments.

 

[Taytertot]

I agree. I find that its simply a different kind of game. The style and gameplans are completely different.

 

[TheOneOneGamer]

I guess some people just like it being faster and more of a fast game.

 

[Thor]

Brawl has suffered in tournaments, as more and more highly skilled players have switched to the Brawl-melee amalgam, Project M. Brawl has too many nerfs, it's true, but why have people dropped it completely??? Why not just deal with it, and keep playing?? What's so difficult about dealing with tripping? Should We give Brawl a second chance???

I don't know why people would settle for less when they think there is something better. Thus I don't understand the premise of "dealing with it" when alternatives exist.

That said, I still play Brawl because I enjoy it, and I don't think any of the games are better or worse than each other - they each have their own faults, drawbacks, and strengths.

I don't think Brawl has too many "nerfs", although I don't fully understand what you mean by that.

Tripping into a zero-death is kind of stupid - that's why people don't like it [see about 10:00]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mijuVqioX-4 It's not something terribly fun to play around, but for many it's a dealbreaker.

I wish more people around where I'm currently located would give Brawl a second chance.. it would give me people to play with...

 

[GeZ]

Brawl is just kind of tired. The community was too split on it from very early on. It didn't help that Melee made a huge comeback and overtook brawl, kind of removing the ability to coexist.

As it stands now Melee, P:M, and Smash 4 are blossoming, which I think is good. Melee and P:M are distinct enough to stand apart, but I don't think the same could be said for Brawl and Smash 4, and as Smash 4 is overall a better designed smash game, it makes sense for it to be more widely accepted inside and outside the competitive community.

 

[Smearglangelo]

Melee and P:M are distinct enough to stand apart, but I don't think the same could be said for Brawl and Smash 4, and as Smash 4 is overall a better designed smash game, it makes sense for it to be more widely accepted inside and outside the competitive community.

I'm sorry that I find this hilariously ironic, but I guess we just have extremely different opinions.

Smash 4 and Brawl are distinct enough to stand apart, but I don't think the same could be said for P:M and Melee.
P:M is a fan-made Melee 2.0 and I would be shocked if you disagreed with this. The mod is extremely similar to Melee and that was most likely intentional given that the mod is called Project: M(elee).

 

[Thor]

Smash 4 and Brawl have so many differences it's startling so many people try to claim the two are the same.

PM is literally designed to be almost 1-to-1 with a lot of characters, who then underwent a few balance adjustments. Then they buffed the bad characters (some a bit too much).

 

[Sauron_The_Great]

I don't know why people would settle for less when they think there is something better. Thus I don't understand the premise of "dealing with it" when alternatives exist.

That said, I still play Brawl because I enjoy it, and I don't think any of the games are better or worse than each other - they each have their own faults, drawbacks, and strengths.

I don't think Brawl has too many "nerfs", although I don't fully understand what you mean by that.

Lets See: Nerfs as in Jigglypuff going from a higher tier spot to the second lowest spot, Ganondorf going from a high spot as well to the last spot in the tier, etc. etc.

 

[Taytertot]

Smash 4 and Brawl have so many differences it's startling so many people try to claim the two are the same.

While the mechanics and physics and characters are very different I feel that Smash4 supports the slow, super careful playstyle of brawl, which would be where the similarity is coming from I imagine.

 

[GeZ]

Actually P:M has been moving to distance itself from Melee, which is why the M in it doesn't stand for Melee anymore.

Even if Melee and P:M are relatively similar, those games are both in higher demand/ enjoyed more/ taken more seriously by the competitive community.

Even if Brawl and Smash 4 are very, very different, they have a similar lack of speed, and it seems that the competitive and casual community have decided that they prefer Smash 4, which is why everyone is very accepting of Brawl's death.

 

[Taytertot]

Lets See: Nerfs as in Jigglypuff going from a higher tier spot to the second lowest spot, Ganondorf going from a high spot as well to the last spot in the tier, etc. etc.

Character nerfs are completely unimportant from one game to the next. that is always going to happen. melee had the exact same thing where the high tier characters are different then those from 64. going into a sequel fighting you should never expect the character tier list to be the same as the previous one.

 

[Captain Zack]

brawl just slows down the other events due to longer matches on average. i played brawl and was decent, but it's not in tourneys now for a reason.

 

[Thor]

Lets See: Nerfs as in Jigglypuff going from a higher tier spot to the second lowest spot, Ganondorf going from a high spot as well to the last spot in the tier, etc. etc.

Ness was buffed, Ice Climbers were strongly buffed, Pikachu was buffed, Toon Link is more or less the best Link out of Brawl, Melee, and 64, Game and Watch was buffed, Kirby was rebuffed... some were nerfed but some moved up as well.

While the mechanics and physics and characters are very different I feel that Smash4 supports the slow, super careful playstyle of brawl, which would be where the similarity is coming from I imagine.

Not true - at least, Falcon dittos seem to promote a lot of fast, tricky movement and stylish play - notice how often they actually shield, and the relatively low amounts of rolling [they just dash instead - also for the record, I think the first game is the least impressive of the 3 games they play]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW7az41Xv_s

There are other intense sets as well from that Youtube Channel.

But if you don't have some of the movement options down, then this statement is more accurate.

Actually P:M has been moving to distance itself from Melee, which is why the M in it doesn't stand for Melee anymore.

Even if Melee and P:M are relatively similar, those games are both in higher demand/ enjoyed more/ taken more seriously by the competitive community.

Even if Brawl and Smash 4 are very, very different, they have a similar lack of speed, and it seems that the competitive and casual community have decided that they prefer Smash 4, which is why everyone is very accepting of Brawl's death.

What does the M stand for then???

See the above video.

Most seem accepting of it, though I know some who still want Brawl (Snake/Wolf/Lucas people mostly) and some who actually don't even care and just want Brawl- (since they feel some recoveries in Smash 4 are still bad and the combos aren't cool enough or whatever).

brawl just slows down the other events due to longer matches on average. i played brawl and was decent, but it's not in tourneys now for a reason.

Slowing down matches has been having shifts made to avoid this (that's why some move to one-stock, and other tournaments don't focus on running them in-sync in the rounds they are at), and I think if more people actually wanted the event, they could ask TOs to hold it.

The problem is that, where I'm located, there aren't too many like me who want Brawl back, so events are being help : [

 

[GeZ]

The M doesn't stand for anything. The game is just called Project M now. I don't think Smash 4 is totally emulative of Brawl, but the movement is similar, and people seem to be going with it now.

Like, it sucks that it's not working out, and I'm sorry for that, but everyone else is moving on, and Brawl just doesn't have the depth to have that same staying power because at its core it is a deeply flawed game.

 

[Thor]

The M doesn't stand for anything. The game is just called Project M now. I don't think Smash 4 is totally emulative of Brawl, but the movement is similar, and people seem to be going with it now.

Like, it sucks that it's not working out, and I'm sorry for that, but everyone else is moving on, and Brawl just doesn't have the depth to have that same staying power because at its core it is a deeply flawed game.

Your opinion "Brawl is a deeply flawed game" doesn't somehow make it a fact. I could say "At its core, Melee is a deeply flawed game" and list a variety of reasons (there's a LOT), but all the reasons either of us could cite for that are opinions. The problem is just that Brawl doesn't suit as many people's tastes. Brawl is also incredibly deep, it's just that high-level players duking it out are not moving around as quickly, and therefore for many people it's not as interesting because they don't understand what's going on.

Saying the M doesn't stand for anything doesn't mean it isn't still going to be called Project Melee by a bunch of different people, or somehow change the fundamental nature of the mod (make it Melee). It'll always be "The mod to make it Melee" so I don't know why all of a sudden they're trying to run away from the name "Project Melee", but they're stuck with it.

Smash 4 movement and Brawl movement are VASTLY different - I thought the video would show that, but if you're not clear on it I can outline some major differences.

 

[GeZ]

It's weird then that many of the top Japanese and American players have dropped Brawl. It doesn't suit many players styles because it has very real problems. I'm not saying it doesn't have depth, but M2K, whose inarguably the top Smash player overall, says that Brawl has the capacity to be really really lame, and while he's tired of Melee, it has really ridiculously high potential as a game even ten years later.

I mean, Ally and Otori and plenty of other really high level Brawl players have long fled the game like rats from a sinking ship. Don't you think that says something about the games longevity? That it's top players quit it? That it had to drastically change its tournament rule set to keep interest and that still didn't really work out?

The more differences Smash 4 has to Brawl, the better, I say.

Brawl had tripping, which was a really annoying, and poor design choice which added this random factor. Players have lost grand finals of tournaments because of tripping.

It had really widespread chaingrabbing that didn't require reading DI, which just lead to the invalidation of a large part of the cast.

It had metaknight who really outclasses most of the cast, and is only kept up with by a few gimicky characters.

Now if it's top players want to stop playing and switch to other smash games, and the top overall Smash player rates it as his second least favorite Smash game, right before 64 which he says just has a very niche competitive scene, it's probably not just a difference of opinions between us, is it?

 

[Thor]

It's weird then that many of the top Japanese and American players have dropped Brawl. It doesn't suit many players styles because it has very real problems. I'm not saying it doesn't have depth, but M2K, whose inarguably the top Smash player overall, says that Brawl has the capacity to be really really lame, and while he's tired of Melee, it has really ridiculously high potential as a game even ten years later.

I mean, Ally and Otori and plenty of other really high level Brawl players have long fled the game like rats from a sinking ship. Don't you think that says something about the games longevity? That it's top players quit it? That it had to drastically change its tournament rule set to keep interest and that still didn't really work out?

The more differences Smash 4 has to Brawl, the better, I say.

Brawl had tripping, which was a really annoying, and poor design choice which added this random factor. Players have lost grand finals of tournaments because of tripping.

It had really widespread chaingrabbing that didn't require reading DI, which just lead to the invalidation of a large part of the cast.

It had metaknight who really outclasses most of the cast, and is only kept up with by a few gimicky characters.

Now if it's top players want to stop playing and switch to other smash games, and the top overall Smash player rates it as his second least favorite Smash game, right before 64 which he says just has a very niche competitive scene, it's probably not just a difference of opinions between us, is it?

Running from Brawl? Long quit?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXbSiRlH3oM

Best ICs and best MK are still at it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPrKYGO7WeY

So were they (that's Ally if you don't click the link)... M2K quit because he stopped making money. If Apex 2015 doesn't have Brawl, then I know that this was really the last gasp, but I heard Apex has it scheduled (though I haven't done reading to see if that's true), so I think Brawl will persist, at least in a few majors once in a while, even if it's a side event.

Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaUA94uVoko [there may be more recent, this was just a single youtube search]. And this is like 4 days old or whatever: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0g2HP1xa--A

I think the tournament ruleset thing wasn't fully interest-based, but at least partly Melee players whining that Brawl sets ran longer than Melee sets so the Melee-biased TOs told Brawl tournaments when they wouldn't run the events seperately to shorten it or be cut. So an alternate ruleset came out, but as the above shows, people still use the normal ruleset in big events.

Tripping wasn't great design choice, but it's rarely (never) been the sole cause of a grand finals loss - other errors elsewhere lead to it (if you find me a video of someone who bops ICs but trips into their CGs 9 times, I'll take my words back - otherwise someone could ALWAYS play better). It may have been one factor leading to a stock loss at a bad time, but to say it has caused the loss on its own is simply wrong.

As for chaingrabbing, it boils down to 4 characters - ICs (who could do it in Melee too, so that's a game flaw in Melee as well), Dedede (the worst offender probably, with a 20-30% CG at any percent, but it was no infinite, except on a few characters who could remap their D-pads to avoid the infinite thanks to his terribly slow pummel required to do the infinite until extremely high percents - it sort of wrote his MU chart for him actually), Falco (whose CG was a boon but it didn't zero-death anyone except a Wolf with bad DI or if you couldn't meteor cancel - his lasers were a bigger problem for many than his CG, and he himself suffers from CGs), and Pikachu (who has very percent-specific ones like Falco, and whose infinites are mostly irrelevant, safe as another counter to Wolf since his MU against ICs isn't terrible, unlike most others who are CG'd by Pikachu). Grab releases were also kind of silly, but they either worked on MK (yay?), worked on Wario (very potent character, and this only truly affects one or two of his MU), and Lucas and Ness (who are defined by them - though Ness sucked in Melee too and still comparatively got better in Brawl). Sure Melee didn't have as many of them, but Melee had Sheik, which is Dedede who is fast. And not solidly beat down by a variety of characters, unlike Dedede, meaning you have a decent variety of advantageous secondary options for Dedede, but not so much for Sheik.

Fox and Falco outclass the entire Melee cast, and only Samus and Marth can truly run even with them - everyone else has to fight a losing MU, just like MK in Brawl with Pikachu and arguably a few flat stages + a few select characters. But in Melee you need to ban 3 characters to avoid a character with no losing MUs (Fox, Falco, and Jigglypuff since Fox is banned), while in Brawl banning MK gives every single character leftover a losing MU.

Melee had crouch-cancelling, which made some characters horribly invalid and made several moves unsafe on hit. People complain about Ganondorf dair being unsafe on hit, and I know Ripple (top PM player, got like 7th at TBH4) has said no move should be unsafe on hit, ever (I'll go find the thread if need be). Crouch-cancelling makes moves (like Marth side+B, various ftilts, everything named Roy) unsafe on hit.

It also had L-cancelling, a design choice originally made by the dev team to make shielding after an aerial occur faster. However, hitting shield triggers while getting close to the ground is a prerequisite for high-level Melee play, and it adds nothing to the game - there is never a time you shouldn't L-cancel, and it could have been entirely subverted by simply halving landing lag and removing the mechanic.

Dash-dancing is also a toxic mechanic - I know a top Melee player in our area quit because moving didn't have commitment - he finds pretty much every other fighting game more fun (and now is rapidly improving in Street Fighter, although he admits he has a long way to go) because in every game except Melee (and 64, and in some ways Smash 4 actually), moving is a commitment - you have to think when you move. There is no commitment to wiggling the control stick back and forth while waiting for a getup attack from someone on the ledge with no options - and while you can crowd someone in a fighting game without getup attacks, getups are 100% safe, which isn't the case in Melee.

Fox (and Falco, and a few other characters) also fundamentally invalidate the rock-paper-scissor nature of attack/shield/grab that is fundamental to pretty much every other fighting game (and Brawl and Smash 4). Fox can literally just keep using shine (rock) to actually beat paper (shield), which makes shielding a bad option at all times against Fox in many matchups, contributing to his ridiculous matchup spread and invalidating characters with poor OoS options (Link and G&W come to mind).

All that said, I still love Melee (and for what its worth, the DDing argument is one I've read elsewhere, and what I can remember from it - I think there were nuances I'm missing) [and also, I kind of like DDing, but I think overall movement should have slightly more commitment than it does in Melee, especially when you also can wavedash out of a dash and therefore only ever be 10 frames away from standing still - maybe one of them is good but two is probably too much in my opinion]. And the statement "It's a deeply flawed game" is still an opinion, regardless of how many people hold that opinion, and it's one I disagree with [kind of like how in the 1950s, tons of people, including many top people in the US (Congress, etc.) stated that "black people are inferior to white people." Tons of people believed it and acted as though it was a fact, but I disagree with this statement - someone could've said it was more than a difference of opinion back then too, and they'd have been wrong then as well]. I can start throwing dictionaries around in here if need be, but most people don't seem to like that.

I can't tell if you're referencing Zero or M2K, but Zero outclasses M2K in PM, Brawl, and probably Smash 4 by now, while still being high-level in Melee. And I think you're referencing M2K. I don't think M2K is the overall top Smash player. Another difference of opinion.

 

[Ripple]

and I know Ripple (top PM player, got like 7th at TBH4) has said no move should be unsafe on hit, ever (I'll go find the thread if need be). Crouch-cancelling makes moves (like Marth side+B, various ftilts, everything named Roy) unsafe on hit.

I was talking about DDD's neutral-b, if I said attack I meant throw.

 

[Thor]

I was talking about DDD's neutral-b, if I said attack I meant throw.

That clears that up then.

Although I don't know why someone would want attacks to be unsafe on hit - you read your opponent and get punished for landing a blow? Yet... CCing does that... hm... I lost my train of thought but I think there may be an argument here.

 

[Strong Badam]

Quite a few attacks are unsafe on hit in any smash game due to the nature of knockback growth, and the dynamic nature of the game. Doing a rising nair against even a non-CCing opponent with Sheik will get you punished; this does not mean Sheik's nair is designed poorly, it means the user used the move incorrectly. CCing has a lot of counterplay (meteors, multi-hit moves, grabs, well-spaced attacks, etc.) and without it a lot of things would be pretty stupid, several top tiers benefiting the most. Rapid jabs would just work until SDI'd out, Sheik's Ftilt would just work, Marth's Fair would require no spacing vs grounded opponents, etc.. It also makes the low percent game notably different from the mid and high percent games, so there's certainly quite a lot of depth added thanks to it.
Could the mechanic use some refinement? Probably. But to just dismiss it as objectively bad overall because it conceptually "rewards a player for getting hit" (or any other phrasing) is shallow. It's not anywhere on the level of things like Lucario Aura.

The vast majority of fighting games have moves that are negative on hit, btw, I'll list some examples in SF4 (the only traditional fighting game I know enough about to discuss). Doing like, a rising jumping short with many characters will get you bodied, a lot of close versions of Fierces and Roundhouses on characters with great far ones are negative (like Cammy's cl.HK). Doing a poorly timed Divekick will also get several characters grabbed even on hit. The game is designed to not only reward hitting your opponent, but hitting your opponent well, with a level of finesse, otherwise a lot of approaches would be more or less brainless and make the neutral game have significantly less depth. The same is true for the Melee engine. It's not perfect but no Smash game is.

On the subject at hand, generally a smash game with a sequel only gets a resurgence in popularity when some conditions are met. The sequel needs to be perceived as either significantly worse than its predecessor (many people felt Brawl was worse than Melee in a lot of respects; this caused a split in the community where several continued to play Melee, others moved on to Brawl, and others still decided to play both), or the games need to both be considered very different while still being good. I'm not the Brawl community, but it currently seems that many people who played Brawl throughout its entire lifetime feel Smash 4 is ~objectively better than Brawl, or improves upon it so much that whatever negatives it may come with are negligible. Many issues that plagued Brawl are fixed, such as chaingrabs, ledge stalling, and the top tier from Brawl seems nerfed or redesigned to play in a more interactive manner. Perhaps people will grow to hate the rage mechanic, vectoring, or other mechanics, but it's doubtful as Brawl's community seems open to change in new games (unlike Melee's). I've no clue whether or not the top tier meta of Smash 4 will end up being more oppressive than Brawl's, but if it doesn't, I personally do not expect Brawl to be played with anywhere near the amount of enthusiasm as it did before Smash 4's release.

 

[JayWon]

hmmmmmmmmmm

 

[GeZ]

SB addressed a lot of what I wanted to say so I'll just respond to a few things that irk me;

Dash-dancing is also a toxic mechanic - I know a top Melee player in our area quit because moving didn't have commitment - he finds pretty much every other fighting game more fun (and now is rapidly improving in Street Fighter, although he admits he has a long way to go) because in every game except Melee (and 64, and in some ways Smash 4 actually), moving is a commitment - you have to think when you move. There is no commitment to wiggling the control stick back and forth while waiting for a getup attack from someone on the ledge with no options - and while you can crowd someone in a fighting game without getup attacks, getups are 100% safe, which isn't the case in Melee.

Fox (and Falco, and a few other characters) also fundamentally invalidate the rock-paper-scissor nature of attack/shield/grab that is fundamental to pretty much every other fighting game (and Brawl and Smash 4). Fox can literally just keep using shine (rock) to actually beat paper (shield), which makes shielding a bad option at all times against Fox in many matchups, contributing to his ridiculous matchup spread and invalidating characters with poor OoS options (Link and G&W come to mind).

Dash-dancing isn't a toxic mechanic, and anyone who says that moving is a commitment in standard fighting games is super wrong.

Some forms of movement are, like jumping and dashing in most fighters, but in Street Fighter, which is really considered the classic, basic movement, that being walking forward and backwards, is without risk. It'll act exactly as you want it too. Complete control over the whole process. What seperates a good player form a bad player in SF is their understanding of that tenant of the game. That the safest and best thing you can do is walk forward and backwards. Melee has it's own style of this, but in essence DD is the same as walking forwards or backwards in SF.

Also saying rock-paper-scissors interactions are fundamental to most fighting games is super wrong. The only one that really works like that is Soul Calibur 4, and the comments on its rock paper scissors gameplay were used as critique. Fighting games work off of vast toolsets and specific character interactions. What makes a character good in Street Fighter is their options. Akuma is the best character, or character with the most potential because he can do everything, and best characters after him are characters with near complete tool sets. In Melee it's not how many options but the weight of their options. I won't defend shine as good design, but I don't think Melee is as bad as you think. Players like A Rookie and QERB winning really ridiculously tough matchups at really high levels support that Melee has a lot of potential to let lower tier characters struggle to victory. It's not a fair fight by any means, but it is doable.

 

[GeZ]

The double post fairy did me dirty :v

 

[Smearglangelo]

I'm not the Brawl community, but it currently seems that many people who played Brawl throughout its entire lifetime feel Smash 4 is ~objectively better than Brawl, or improves upon it so much that whatever negatives it may come with are negligible.

I played Brawl throughout its entire lifetime and I feel that Smash 4 is cut from a different cloth than Brawl. It doesn't have as much improvements as it does differences from Brawl.

And I'm still deciding whether I like Smash 4 better than Brawl. Since I've played Brawl a lot more than Smash 4 I'm leaning more towards the Brawl side, but I'm going to wait for the Wii U version and give Smash 4 a fair chance.

 

[Thor]

Quite a few attacks are unsafe on hit in any smash game due to the nature of knockback growth, and the dynamic nature of the game. Doing a rising nair against even a non-CCing opponent with Sheik will get you punished; this does not mean Sheik's nair is designed poorly, it means the user used the move incorrectly. CCing has a lot of counterplay (meteors, multi-hit moves, grabs, well-spaced attacks, etc.) and without it a lot of things would be pretty stupid, several top tiers benefiting the most. Rapid jabs would just work until SDI'd out, Sheik's Ftilt would just work, Marth's Fair would require no spacing vs grounded opponents, etc.. It also makes the low percent game notably different from the mid and high percent games, so there's certainly quite a lot of depth added thanks to it.
Could the mechanic use some refinement? Probably. But to just dismiss it as objectively bad overall because it conceptually "rewards a player for getting hit" (or any other phrasing) is shallow. It's not anywhere on the level of things like Lucario Aura.

The vast majority of fighting games have moves that are negative on hit, btw, I'll list some examples in SF4 (the only traditional fighting game I know enough about to discuss). Doing like, a rising jumping short with many characters will get you bodied, a lot of close versions of Fierces and Roundhouses on characters with great far ones are negative (like Cammy's cl.HK). Doing a poorly timed Divekick will also get several characters grabbed even on hit. The game is designed to not only reward hitting your opponent, but hitting your opponent well, with a level of finesse, otherwise a lot of approaches would be more or less brainless and make the neutral game have significantly less depth. The same is true for the Melee engine. It's not perfect but no Smash game is.

On the subject at hand, generally a smash game with a sequel only gets a resurgence in popularity when some conditions are met. The sequel needs to be perceived as either significantly worse than its predecessor (many people felt Brawl was worse than Melee in a lot of respects; this caused a split in the community where several continued to play Melee, others moved on to Brawl, and others still decided to play both), or the games need to both be considered very different while still being good. I'm not the Brawl community, but it currently seems that many people who played Brawl throughout its entire lifetime feel Smash 4 is ~objectively better than Brawl, or improves upon it so much that whatever negatives it may come with are negligible. Many issues that plagued Brawl are fixed, such as chaingrabs, ledge stalling, and the top tier from Brawl seems nerfed or redesigned to play in a more interactive manner. Perhaps people will grow to hate the rage mechanic, vectoring, or other mechanics, but it's doubtful as Brawl's community seems open to change in new games (unlike Melee's). I've no clue whether or not the top tier meta of Smash 4 will end up being more oppressive than Brawl's, but if it doesn't, I personally do not expect Brawl to be played with anywhere near the amount of enthusiasm as it did before Smash 4's release.

This is... a far more detailed response than I'd expect, especially considering you hadn't said anything at all (Ripple showing up too was a bit surprising, although less so since I did mention him).

I never dismissed it as a bad mechanic because I presented a single side of the argument - to do so is poor form for assessing a mechanic overall. I didn't discuss the pluses or minuses to anything, because GeZ was doing most of that work (although the relatively easy Brawl CGs help to even some MUs - I think (wish) D3's CG worked on MK to make it more even, and am glad Falco and Pikachu (and Peach and others, although I know those two the most) have limited CGs on MK because they make the MU more doable and thus make those characters slightly better). I said CCing has downsides. But CCing can make even moves that would seem to be the perfect chance to use them (ex: Marth ftilt max spacing, Falco ftilt max spacing, etc.) unsafe on hit, regardless of percent. For a move to be unsafe on hit, even when used "correctly" [as a poke] strikes me as silly.

I also find Lucario Aura amusing for a variety of reasons, adding a lot of strategy choices and interesting methods of balancing (especially in mods) that makes the game more unique, but I won't go into that because it seems mostly irrelevant.

Again, I understand some attacks are negative on hit (Fox lasers : ] ) but I think a move that would be used as would seem intended (various ftilts, well-spaced) should be safe on hit. Maybe what I'm saying is that I think ftilts should all break CCs if they are sweetspotted? I don't mind CCing aerials nearly as much, since those are about trying to time them to overcome that, etc., but for a move to unsafe when used well just because your opponent can CC it seems rather silly to me. [Also like I said, I didn't fully develop this line of thought, or consider it from all angles. That's why I left it incomplete before, and have thought it over since.]

Rapid jabs and Sheik's ftilt just work in Smash 4, but they added counter-measures - Sheik ftilt is only low percents and SDI, and rapid jabs have a natural pushback to the user if extended, so even against a wall you can't keep going forever.

I assume the "~" means "not literally", or else I'll have to go get the dictionary (which will of course make people mad that they don't use English well <_< but that's not my fault ^_^). The things you cite as "issues" are only issues based on how you view them and come with several advantages (thogh I'm sure you don't care, as an example, ledgeplay in Smash 4 is arguably worse - being offstage high up is actually way safer now than being on the edge... Marth, for instance, utterly destroys people on the ledge - dtilt their fingers, or jump up to fair [or fsmash] a ledgehop, outrange and fsmash getup attack, neutral getup, and jump on aerial, and turnaround fsmash ledge roll...he can cover everything by standing still in one place, which is pretty scary... in Brawl you have some time to think and bait and refresh I-frames - not so in Smash 4...).

I'm also not stating "Brawl will make a huge resurgence", I'm contesting the claim that it will cease to exist at all major tournaments (and also sort of complaining that there aren't any events where I'm located). I also contest the claim "X is objectively better than Y", both on a content basis, and very soon probably on a definitional basis applied to the situation at hand.

SB addressed a lot of what I wanted to say so I'll just respond to a few things that irk me;


Dash-dancing isn't a toxic mechanic, and anyone who says that moving is a commitment in standard fighting games is super wrong.

Some forms of movement are, like jumping and dashing in most fighters, but in Street Fighter, which is really considered the classic, basic movement, that being walking forward and backwards, is without risk. It'll act exactly as you want it too. Complete control over the whole process. What seperates a good player form a bad player in SF is their understanding of that tenant of the game. That the safest and best thing you can do is walk forward and backwards. Melee has it's own style of this, but in essence DD is the same as walking forwards or backwards in SF.

Also saying rock-paper-scissors interactions are fundamental to most fighting games is super wrong. The only one that really works like that is Soul Calibur 4, and the comments on its rock paper scissors gameplay were used as critique. Fighting games work off of vast toolsets and specific character interactions. What makes a character good in Street Fighter is their options. Akuma is the best character, or character with the most potential because he can do everything, and best characters after him are characters with near complete tool sets. In Melee it's not how many options but the weight of their options. I won't defend shine as good design, but I don't think Melee is as bad as you think. Players like A Rookie and QERB winning really ridiculously tough matchups at really high levels support that Melee has a lot of potential to let lower tier characters struggle to victory. It's not a fair fight by any means, but it is doable.

The difference is that walking in SF IS walking in Smash - you can do whatever at any time walking back and forth, and that's fine. But instantly transitioning to a full-speed dash in SF? I don't know if such a thing exists, yet it also has zero commitment in Melee. In SF, every type of movement has its own risks and rewards - jumping has advantages and disadvantages, and I'm sure dashes/command dashes do too. DDing removes that aspect of the game entirely, making movement lack any sort of commitment (you can't cover all of someone's options just walking back and forth in SF [they have 100% safe getups anyway, for their own reasons (so I've heard)] and it's harder to in Smash, but DDing makes it much easier - I think that's a poor design choice). Because of this, walking is an almost obsolete movement option, which is in my opinion rather poor design [and I think the main reason people argue against DDing]. And unlike in every other fighter, moving quickly is a commitment - that's only not true in Melee.

Also to be fully honest, I'm on the fence about DDing - I definitely see the downsides, and I function fully well in games without it, but it does look cool and make some things that would otherwise not be very feasible much easier - so eh. I brought it up because I've read it elsewhere and find the argument intriguing (and was curious what you thought of it).

Brawl has the walking back and forth as the safest movement option too, and dashing has (slightly) more commitment. People just find it boring to watch I guess.

You claimed that RPS is not how fighting games work. My point isn't that it's literally RPS, but that at the end of the day, certain options are designed to beat certain options (the movesets and toolsets and character interactions) and the problem I cited is that the best and designed defense against an attack (shield) loses to Fox's attacks. Akuma has the best tools, and I have heard he's broken, but I would guess he doesn't have a repeatable attack string that can be looped on block and can't be grabbed or counter-attacked on block - Fox does [although I think Fox might counter Fox in this respect, but many have no answer whatsoever].

Yes people can beat high tiers with low tiers - we all know this. RRR took T65th at TBH4, which is crazy. My point was that Melee has balance flaws too, nothing more (after all, I think Ryo or San took like 9th at one of the Apexes at some point in Brawl - it's doable there too).

The real point with everything I stated was that Melee and Brawl are not games that people can't find fault with, then it's about how you assess and weigh what you don't like with one relative to what you don't like with the other to determine which game you prefer. Most people do this and prefer Melee. I find myself liking both, although people who push me to like only Melee make me want to stop playing with them. Both are valid analyses. Or something like that.

I'm sort of sick of typing this post so I'm just going to post it now...

 

[Mangoh862]

Brawl is awesome! that's that (you can't deny it! haha) sure melee is the superior title, and Sm4sh has the best roster, but nothing beats brawl for me, it was my first game so i gradually like it more (but dont get me wrong i LOOOOVE melee too! and PM, great Mod, not even a mod, more like a full game on its own!! but brawl will always be my favorite, because I grew up on it (oh i guess smash64 was my first but brawl was when i actually started playing competitively)

 

[_A1]

I don't agree with the "first game" argument. Brawl was my first smash game and got me into the series, but I dislike the game and moved on entirely from it. Nostalgia doesn't make a game good.

 

[Smearglangelo]

I don't agree with the "first game" argument. Brawl was my first smash game and got me into the series, but I dislike the game and moved on entirely from it. Nostalgia doesn't make a game good.

People need to take off their Nostalgia Goggles and love a game for what it is. Melee was my first Smash game, but I still prefer to play Brawl.

 

[Mangoh862]

People need to take off their Nostalgia Goggles and love a game for what it is. Melee was my first Smash game, but I still prefer to play Brawl.

well said!

 

[Watchful_Eye]

I was not one of the Brawl haters, but SSB4 makes Brawl look like Windows Vista in comparison. SSB4 is just brawl as it should be and more, and while I also prefer Brawl over Melee, it at least isnt completely outclassed by another smash game.

 

[Fatmanonice]

Brawl is just kind of tired. The community was too split on it from very early on. It didn't help that Melee made a huge comeback and overtook brawl, kind of removing the ability to coexist.

As it stands now Melee, P:M, and Smash 4 are blossoming, which I think is good. Melee and P:M are distinct enough to stand apart, but I don't think the same could be said for Brawl and Smash 4, and as Smash 4 is overall a better designed smash game, it makes sense for it to be more widely accepted inside and outside the competitive community.

Pretty much this. You know, despite it's flaws, Brawl had a good run. For a game that people have lambasted since it came out and who many people claimed would be dead competitively in a year or less, it's technically still alive after nearly 7 years, which is pretty fantastic since not a lot of fighting games have appeal that lasts that long. People may gloat about Brawl tournaments being kind of anemic now-a-days but it certainly lasted a whole lot longer than a lot of its critics said it would.

 

[Taytertot]

tbh i like brawl a lot better then smash4. i realize that isnt a popular opinion but im not likin the art style as much in smash4, especially the animations when a player gets hit by a semi-beefy hit. I also havent really enjoyed any of the matches ive seen in tourneys yet and maybe thats because the metagame is still very undefined but thus far i actually havent been impressed. I love brawl, it got me into competitive smash and I actually happen to enjoy the defensive nature of it. Not that i dont like the more aggressive melee and PM matches (ive been playing only PM for a while now), I just find brawl to be a different type of fighting game. I think defensive play can be taken just as far as offensive play so i just kind of got used to the idea that brawl is in a different fighting game realm. smash4, thus far, has appeared to be somewhere in between the two and that hasnt grabbed me, but i realize that that is just my personal opinion.

 

[SSS]

I feel like Thor is always making long posts because he thinks longevity is indicative of correctness.

If you want to bring Brawl back to tournaments, host some Brawl tournaments, and advertise it. If people go, baller! You just brought Brawl back to tournaments. If they don't, oh well.

/thread

 

[Nuttre]

Hosting tournaments is one thing, getting people to participate is another. People will not enter brawl tournaments because it is brawl, which is unfortunate. Tournaments serve no purpose if there are no entrants.

That, in itself is a different problem. It is a matter of view, a view that is tainted by high ranking members of a (local) community screwing with the brawl players, bashing on it in such a way that people begin to dislike it too. This is just the view of the uneducated and the ignorant. Brawl is a deep, technical game at its roots, even though this is hidden beneath the numerous horrible metaknight dittos. This is because of the style of play people used when they picked up the game, the attitude they had when they saw the game: "This isn't melee"

This issue isn't truly an issue with players, or TO's; it is an issue with the communities themselves: Individuals do NOT make tournaments happen, communities do. That is why your post is misleading SSS

If you want to bring Brawl back to tournaments, host some Brawl tournaments, and advertise it. If people go, baller! You just brought Brawl back to tournaments.

 

[Darklink401]

I love playing Brawl, but watching it being played IS rather monotonous, and the same can't be said for Melee.

Nonetheless, Brawl still has more APEX entrants than every other non-smash game, so at least there's that. It can't compare to Melee, but it doesn't have to. It's already proven itself by outselling Melee, and winning people's hearts at home.

 

[S_B]

For me, Brawl was an amalgamation of all the very worst things a SSB game could be: laggy-as-**** online play, garbage roster choices, the main game shipping with a number of game-breaking bugs (laser locking, Bowser's off the stage vanishing act, etc.)...

And then there was Sakurai blowing most of the game's budget on the craptacular SSE. Meanwhile, Miyamoto warned him not to focus too much on the single player aspect in a multiplayer game. Sakurai's response? "**** you, old man."

Smash 4 is an improvement in every possible way: the online is a BILLION times better, with actual options for instant 1v1s instead of playing team Brawl online. The roster is better (except for lack of ICs, of course). The stage selection is better. And the gameplay itself is quick enough that reflexes matter but not sluggish like Brawl's was.

Also, Smash4 has yet to find a "Metaknight" on its roster, and we've seen some balance patches already and I'm guessing that if infinites become an issue, we'll see them patched out (not to mention DLC).

Oh yeah, and no tripping.

Brawl just seemed like Sakurai was being a whiny child about how people were supposed to play HIS games: tripping was intentionally added so that Brawl would never be competitive, and the SSE was full of gratuitous fanservice as his characters repeatedly saved the day. Not to mention the inclusion of Snake as a personal favor to Kojima (who complained incessantly about how much Nintendo sucked, then begged to get his character put into SSB...).

So yeah, I know some folks like it, but I stopped playing Brawl years ago due to how bad it was and I'm seeing the Brawl forum grind to a halt now that SSB4 is out. I think I know why...