Does a lack of "true combos" hurt Brawl?

[Big-Cat]

That's actually one thing that has annoyed me. After reading Sirlin's articles, specifically the one on Guilty Gear's balance, I would really love to see failsafe mechanics that counter every fighting game's nightmares put into Super Smash Bros. That would probably help the balance a lot on its own. There are NO failsafe mechanics that I can think of in Super Smash Bros.

 

[Black Mantis]

A lot, not all. Also, it is not an infinite, and you have at least some control over your character while it is happening. I'll agree, though, it is ****ty.

Big lol at Sheik CGing Pichu.

In Melee, characters had safe offensive options to avoid being grabbed, making it less of a big deal to avoid getting grabbed. With proper spacing and l-canceling, you would never could shield grabbed, which is almost unanimously D3's game again CGable people.

Would you say that spacing is more important in Melee than in Brawl?

 

[QUIVO]

I think it's about the same... except vs like ICs and characters that can get infinite'd.

In melee if you got CG'ed as Fox/Falco vs a good player, then that can mean a stock (CG to combo to edgeguard)

In Brawl, against a D3, it's pretty much GGs since it's relatively easy to do (this is with the infinite btw). He can CG to high enough percent and just throw you. ICs the same way, but his CGs a tad bit more difficult. In melee, you had to have good reflexes and reading skills in order to CG. You also have to consider landing lag in Brawl. You're probably safest when you auto-cancel your moves, which limits some of your options. In melee, you can space + use an attack late due to l-cancelling.

The cool thing about Melee was that you had good spacing options with wavelanding/wavedashes/dash dancing and I guess L-cancelling.

I wanna see how Melee would've been if you had Brawl's shield. You can react quickly OoS, but the shield is much weaker. So characters could have more options vs pillaring and better defensive options.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

shield pressure wouldn't be viable in melee if it had Brawl's shieldstun

just shine out of everything, wavedash out of everything without punity

 

[TheZhuKeeper]

Would you say that spacing is more important in Melee than in Brawl?

Because Melee requires more consistency. Harder punishes = less mistakes can be made = spacing has to better / is more important.

 

[Sliq]

Would you say that spacing is more important in Melee than in Brawl?

I think in Melee, simply for the fact that regardless of spacing, a lot more moves are unsafe in Brawl. Spacing becomes near pointless, since the outcome is the same regardless of how well you spaced (i.e. you getting punished). This is either a gameplay mechanic issue or a balance issue, but it's an issue nonetheless.

Spacing is mostly about pokes and brick walls, and in a game where only a select few moves are safe, other attributes of the engine become more prominent.

 

[mdmfromdaridge]

I'm not even sure this argument is doable without actually strictly defining what the OP meant by 'hurt the game.'

 

[OkamiBW]

And what risk is Snake taking? ... ... ... etc.

Sliq beat me to it cause I was at Don't Go Down There Jeff.

For the character balance argument, I can't say because I usually live in AZ. Maybe AZ is balanced. We have Pikachu and Mewtwo who top in our tournaments. Wobbles with IC's used to wreck here before he moved back to Texas. Forward with his Fox/Falco doesn't really play anymore. Aside from Taj, we only have Tai as a Marth player. We have our standard Peach player, Silly Kyle. A Falcon player GG7 who gets top 3 usually. My Sheik always clocking in around #5 at tourneys. Jetfour who could get top 5 with 75% of the cast; top 7 with the rest. Rubyiris is our space animal main since Forward doesn't show up. And Tag plays his Jigglypuff. Another noteable is V3ctorman with his Yoshi which always gets top 7. *shrugs* Maybe AZ is balanced because it's a flatland desert-y thingymabobber.

Here's a few things that "hurt Brawl" could mean:

1. Lack of Competitiveness
We already argued the heck out of it. The Melee players shield pressured the Brawl players and the Brawl players got all defensive and camped the thread with random talk about items and balance.

2. Lack of Entertainment (To Watch)
I'm biased because I like things that don't take 5 minutes for less stocks than we play with, but I personally think Brawl is pretty dumb to watch. I like the fast play where you have to think on your feet. Therefore, I like the high risk, high reward situation that Melee presents. I don't care if you guys hate that Pikachu* can chain grab Fox.
*This goes for the other characters who can chain grab Fox too: GnW, Pichu, Zelda, Marth, Peach, DK (?), Ness (?), Dr. Mario, Mario, ICs (not guaranteed usually), Fox,

3. Lack of Entertainment (To Play)
Once again, I'm biased because I get bored playing super defensively, but I don't think it's fun to play.

Certainly there's other things, but I'll leave that for the Brawl kids to talk about.

 

[Black Mantis]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoJH-sAcXLA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5R9iyeSvKg

does these videos answer the dk vs snake thing well sliq?

Also, I think that spacing is important in Brawl as well especially with character specific matchups. For example, if you're playing as Lucas or Ness (a character that gets grabbed to death by Snake, Marth, Donkey Kong, Charizard etc.) then spacing should play a vital role in your gameplay. If you don't space/predict well then you will be grabbed to f-tilt by snake, or grabbed to down smash by marth.

 

[Dark Sonic]

Also, I think that spacing is important in Brawl as well especially with character specific matchups. For example, if you're playing as Lucas or Ness (a character that gets grabbed to death by Snake, Marth, Donkey Kong, Charizard etc.) then spacing should play a vital role in your gameplay. If you don't space/predict well then you will be grabbed to f-tilt by snake, or grabbed to down smash by marth.

This is kinda what Sliq was getting at in the first place. Heavier punishment allows for less leeway in spacing. You listed character specific instances where you get punished hard for mispacing, but in melee that's simply the general trend.

 

[OkamiBW]

Let's play 4 stocks in Brawl.

 

[BSP]

Let's stick with three.

From what I've watched, spacing seems more important in melee. Not that it isn't important in Brawl, but in Melee, it's like a zero death if you screw up.

 

[Acryte]

But Brawl does offer things that keep me from just giving up and going back to Melee:

Now Brawl does have its problems (****ing tripping), and going by strict competitive merit Melee is the better game. But by that reasoning Chess is a better game than both of them, so why bother?

Chess is a strategic game of wits, melee is a strategic game of wits a reflexes. It requires you to be spontaneous. The big part is that if you don't have the mind, you'll lose, if you don't have the reflexes and physical ability to perform what is necessary in the matchup, you'll lose and or even SD away stocks.

Both games require understanding your attacking options, defensive options, baiting, reading the opponents intentions, capitalizing on mistakes, etc. Except smash offers character matchup differences, because largely melee isnt a game of dittos only lol whereas chess you both will have the same setup to start. They are both deep games, melee is a bit more exciting though for me, it is a game that is played at a breakneck pace at times, and you have to keep your wits about you and think on the fly.. and then be able to perform what you are thinking.

under that reasoning, your quote is comparing apples and oranges.

=====================================

as far as balance of tiers is concerned don't judge the balance of the game based off of tourney representation but off of character matchups... and also off game depth. The low tiers still have good matchups against some chars and or can be played at a high level. I'll bet you play axe's pika or mango's mario or tajs m2, dj nintendo's koops, etc and you will get ***** unless you can play at a very high level vs if you played a pro brawl ganon or somethin with a flat out better char it doesnt matter how much better he is than you brawl just doesnt support him enough to give him lets say 100% win it will be waaaay closer just based off character matchup because the other players smarts wont be enough to give him the win. You can bet your *** that axe, mango or taj wont lose a single game to the higher tier char with their low tiers. they'll probably beat you every time convincingly because they probably play a hell of a lot smarter than you, and melee gives them way more options that they can take advantage of. then again I guess you could argue that any ok shiek could play a top bowser and probably win most the matches since the matchup is super **** but whatever. Melee gives the smarter player way more advantages that the lesser skilled or lesser knowledeable player. There are too many ways he can be tricked, gimped, out spaced (way more spacing tools in melee and highly accurate spacing by skilled players), grabbed, baited, edgeguarded, etc. while you are edgeteching and getting extra opportunities to stay alive. Melee favors the smarter player more than brawl because brawl is more reading but guessing can only take you so far, so consistently.

But this whole topic has gone off track. The real question is this:

regardless of whether or not you like brawl or find it entertaining, IF BRAWL HAD TRUE COMBOS (maybe not melee but better than it currently does at least) SO THAT ATTACKING HAD MORE REWARD, WOULD IT BE A MORE ENTERTAINING GAME THAN IT CURRENTLY IS. That is to say, would it be a better brawl? I think so. discuss.

 

[Klaw]

Chess is a strategic game of wits, melee is a strategic game of wits a reflexes. It requires you to be spontaneous. The big part is that if you don't have the mind, you'll lose, if you don't have the reflexes and physical ability to perform what is necessary in the matchup, you'll lose and or even SD away stocks.

Both games require understanding your attacking options, defensive options, baiting, reading the opponents intentions, capitalizing on mistakes, etc. Except smash offers character matchup differences, because largely melee isnt a game of dittos only lol whereas chess you both will have the same setup to start. They are both deep games, melee is a bit more exciting though for me, it is a game that is played at a breakneck pace at times, and you have to keep your wits about you and think on the fly.. and then be able to perform what you are thinking.

under that reasoning, your quote is comparing apples and oranges.

Take what you used to describe melee and it fits perfectly with 1v1 basketball. Kinda interesting.

LegendofLink has a point there. Brawl doesn't match up with Melee by sheer competitive value, but that doesn't mean it isn't better or more fun than melee in other ways.

 

[Sliq]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoJH-sAcXLA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5R9iyeSvKg

does these videos answer the dk vs snake thing well sliq?

Also, I think that spacing is important in Brawl as well especially with character specific matchups. For example, if you're playing as Lucas or Ness (a character that gets grabbed to death by Snake, Marth, Donkey Kong, Charizard etc.) then spacing should play a vital role in your gameplay. If you don't space/predict well then you will be grabbed to f-tilt by snake, or grabbed to down smash by marth.

Fatal played pretty aggressively. I have a feeling if he camped it up and played a lot more defensively he would have won.

He took risks when he had a safer option, which is on him as a player and not on character balance. Kudos to him for being aggressive, but it's not going to win you any matches for playing awesomely.

Also, Ally lost because he killed himself. He was in control the whole match. The fact that you put that video in your post is silly.

 

[Fynal]

Brawl doesn't match up with Melee by sheer competitive value, but that doesn't mean it isn't better or more fun than melee in other ways.

Like final smashes!

as a "party game" i'd take brawl over melee any day, less techskill, more random fun

 

[Anth0ny]

Like final smashes!

as a "party game" i'd take brawl over melee any day, less techskill, more random fun

melee has sooooooo much random fun

 

[Fatmanonice]

I don't know if it hurts Brawl in a true sense. I remember how in April/May 2008 there were some prominent players on here that predicted that competitive Brawl wouldn't last that much longer than spring 2009 and yet it still continues on with tournaments still drawing in decent numbers. Brawl has also sold nearly 3 million more copies than Melee did in the entire lifespan of the Gamecube. In short, despite its flaws, it has still sold well and still brings people to tournaments so its success hasn't been that hindered by it lacking true combos. Beyond that, it really just boils down to people's opinions about what makes a good competitive game.

 

[OkamiBW]

I don't know if it hurts Brawl in a true sense. I remember how in April/May 2008 there were some prominent players on here that predicted that competitive Brawl wouldn't last that much longer than spring 2009 and yet it still continues on with tournaments still drawing in decent numbers. Brawl has also sold nearly 3 million more copies than Melee did in the entire lifespan of the Gamecube. In short, despite its flaws, it has still sold well and still brings people to tournaments so its success hasn't been that hindered by it lacking true combos. Beyond that, it really just boils down to people's opinions about what makes a good competitive game.

If we're talking about how competitive the game is...using monetary profit of the game does nothing for your argument. Consider for a moment that it might be possible that most of the consumers won't put in more than 200 hours into Brawl. Those consumers are hardly the ones I'd want to be judging if it's competitive or not. Not only that, but there's also a population increase from 2001 to 2008. In addition, how many people do you think even buy these games because they think they're competitive. Most of them are like, "Hmm...party game...Super Smash Bros."

And, simply put, you don't say anything about "how" combos affect Brawl's gameplay (for lack of a better word). Go back a few pages in the thread and read what Signia, Sliq, and I have to say about "how" combos affect Brawl and make the game degenerate.

 

[Fatmanonice]

If we're talking about how competitive the game is...using monetary profit of the game does nothing for your argument. Consider for a moment that it might be possible that most of the consumers won't put in more than 200 hours into Brawl. Those consumers are hardly the ones I'd want to be judging if it's competitive or not. Not only that, but there's also a population increase from 2001 to 2008. In addition, how many people do you think even buy these games because they think they're competitive. Most of them are like, "Hmm...party game...Super Smash Bros."

And, simply put, you don't say anything about "how" combos affect Brawl's gameplay (for lack of a better word). Go back a few pages in the thread and read what Signia, Sliq, and I have to say about "how" combos affect Brawl and make the game degenerate.

That's kind of the thing though, beyond its commercial success, it all just boils down to opinion because Brawl still has a competitive scene that's almost three years old when a lot of people thought it would barely get out of its first. Again, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter if most of the people who bought the game played it for less than 200 hours (As of August 2010, the average play time for Brawl was about 78 hours) because people still bought it and a good number of people still play it nearly three years after its release. Brawl's success has only been marginally affected by it being less competitive than Melee so, outside of superfical forum debates, the issue of whether or not Brawl has been "hurt" by this is hardly even a talking point at all. Now, if Brawl's competitive scene was currently on wobbly legs like Soul Calibur III's was just before it died then this could be properly debated but, with the current condition of things, you only have people's individual opinions to go off of instead of anything genuinely concrete.

For example, I could say that Brawl was a failure of a competitive game but what would my evidence be? I could then state what makes a game good in a competitive sense but, again, that's only my opinion and doesn't change the reality of things. You could argue that Sirlin only uses Brawl discs to clean grout from his kitchen tile but in the meantime you still have a relatively healthy competitive environment for the game. Could things be better? Of course but they could be far worse too. Sorry to be such a buzz-kill but this strikes me as mere debate bait and a non-issue altogether. In the grand scheme of things, Brawl's lack of combos hasn't "hurt" Brawl in any true sense.

 

[Big-Cat]

That average is highly debateable. Remember that you have people that play the game a lot and people that hardly play it. You're going to get a misleading number, especially if you have so many numbers on the extreme ends.

And in regards to sales, not only was there a population increase in between 2001 and 2008, don't forget how many units were sold for the Gamecube and Wii. Melee sold 7 million copies roughly on a console that sold 21 million units. Compare this to Brawl selling 10 million on a console that sold 75 million units. 33% of GC owners had/have Melee where as only 1/7 of Wii owners own Brawl (assuming there were no purchases of second copies for either one).

It is true that a game is more competitive if there are more players, but obviously, no one is referring to competition in that sense.

 

[Sliq]

I think the main problem that stems between Brawl players and Melee players is that a vast majority of the Brawl players have NEVER player Melee competitively and speak about it like they are an expert on the subject. Plenty of old school Melee players have had plenty of time to play Brawl since its release and have drawn a conclusion based off of experience, not that one match they saw on Youtube.

I played Melee for about 3 years and Brawl for 2 years, get at me.

 

[WoodyWiggins]

I think the main problem that stems between Brawl players and Melee players is that a vast majority of the Brawl players have NEVER played Melee competitively and speak about it like they are an expert on the subject. Plenty of old school Melee players have had plenty of time to play Brawl since its release and have drawn a conclusion based off of experience, not that one match they saw on Youtube.

Fix'd and true.

But, if there were "true combos" in Brawl, would it still be as successful as it is now? Would it have made it this far? With all the tricks and AT's and 0% death's and jab/item locks, and tripping, throw in "true combos and very it's possible that Brawl would have topped Melee's difficulty. The only REAL difficulty in Melee it seems is being flashy. Melee is relatively straight to the point, especially in the controls department.

Brawl, just has too much nonsense going on! And that's the part people get hung up on. But it doesn't have to be that way. Just play Brawl for the game that it is. Not for the game it could've been. It will evolve naturally.

"True Combos" may not be a natural part of Brawl. But locks (floor juggle), 0% deaths and grab release/chain grabs are a vibrant part of Brawl. All of these things give Brawl an edge and direction that not many fighting games have. Will we come together and hone in on these aspects? Or will we discredit them and look for something that isn't there? Or, will we admit to ourselves that a rediscovery of Brawl is necessary?

The lack of "true combos" is compensated by item/jab locks (floor juggling), 0% deaths and grab release/chain grabs. If you can't get with that, then GTFO. No, but in all that's serious, Brawl's lack of "true combos" is made up for with mechanics and techniques that most fighting games use less, don't encourage or they simply just don't have them.

And it doesn't hurt Brawl one bit.

 

[FeArTeHsMaSh]

What killed Brawl was a lack of support from Nintendo; in particular, the anti-support from Nitendo.

Sakurai, the creator of Brawl, purposely designed the game to be less competitive than Melee, and has admitted such in several blogs. The fact that he programmed tripping into the game is the clearest indication of his intentions. To top it off, Sakurai stated that he never intends to make a game as deep and complex as Melee in the Smash series again.

Despite that, MLG was willing to pick up Brawl. However, Nintendo refused to support Brawl in any way, and did not budge towards negotiating. As a result, Brawl suffered a much shorter run on the MLG circuit than Melee.

Every argument about Melee vs Brawl - the lack of combos, slow, campy, defensive gameplay, etc - is merely a result of the position that Sakurai and Nintendo have taken with Brawl.

I personally am infuriated by this. I could forgive Brawl for being different if Nintendo didn't make it obvious that they want to trash the community that made their game more popular than it would have been. Players who invested into this game competitively, and hoped to be able to somewhat sustain themselves financially through tournaments, were completely dissed by Nintendo, who chose to cater towards a non gamer community with their Wii.

Fight on Brawlers. Like the 300 Spartan warriors, do not go down without a fight. Play well, organize tournaments, and most of all, have fun. You have certainly lost this battle, but perhaps your sacrifice will convince Nintendo to value this community more in their next installment. I personally will do the same for Melee.

 

[QUIVO]

FearTehsMaSh's post is the best.

I'd respect more Melee players nowadays if they didn't have to rag on the game. Instead, give props to the players for dealing and even enjoying it.

To each his own.

 

[Sliq]

What killed Brawl was a lack of support from Nintendo; in particular, the anti-support from Nitendo.

Sakurai, the creator of Brawl, purposely designed the game to be less competitive than Melee, and has admitted such in several blogs. The fact that he programmed tripping into the game is the clearest indication of his intentions. To top it off, Sakurai stated that he never intends to make a game as deep and complex as Melee in the Smash series again.

Despite that, MLG was willing to pick up Brawl. However, Nintendo refused to support Brawl in any way, and did not budge towards negotiating. As a result, Brawl suffered a much shorter run on the MLG circuit than Melee.

Every argument about Melee vs Brawl - the lack of combos, slow, campy, defensive gameplay, etc - is merely a result of the position that Sakurai and Nintendo have taken with Brawl.

I personally am infuriated by this. I could forgive Brawl for being different if Nintendo didn't make it obvious that they want to trash the community that made their game more popular than it would have been. Players who invested into this game competitively, and hoped to be able to somewhat sustain themselves financially through tournaments, were completely dissed by Nintendo, who chose to cater towards a non gamer community with their Wii.

Fight on Brawlers. Like the 300 Spartan warriors, do not go down without a fight. Play well, organize tournaments, and most of all, have fun. You have certainly lost this battle, but perhaps your sacrifice will convince Nintendo to value this community more in their next installment. I personally will do the same for Melee.

I take solace in the fact that Nintendo is currently getting wrecked in sales, posting a LOSS after record earnings (for the Wii).

My new try-harding fix has moved from Smash to Call of Duty. XBox 360 is ****ing AMAZING.

 

[JOE!]

That average is highly debateable. Remember that you have people that play the game a lot and people that hardly play it. You're going to get a misleading number, especially if you have so many numbers on the extreme ends.

And in regards to sales, not only was there a population increase in between 2001 and 2008, don't forget how many units were sold for the Gamecube and Wii. Melee sold 7 million copies roughly on a console that sold 21 million units. Compare this to Brawl selling 10 million on a console that sold 75 million units. 33% of GC owners had/have Melee where as only 1/7 of Wii owners own Brawl (assuming there were no purchases of second copies for either one).

It is true that a game is more competitive if there are more players, but obviously, no one is referring to competition in that sense.

Didnt the GC come packaged with Melee for a while too?

 

[SmashChu]

I take solace in the fact that Nintendo is currently getting wrecked in sales, posting a LOSS after record earnings (for the Wii).

My new try-harding fix has moved from Smash to Call of Duty. XBox 360 is ****ing AMAZING.

Have you look at Nintendo's financial statements? If not, let's all take a look right now.

http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2010/100729e.pdf

Now, we are talking about Income, so let's move down to our good friend the Income Statement. Most people will want to look at just Net income, but there are multiple forms of Income. The one we will look at is Operating Income, which is income from the normal operations of the company. Keep that in mind. You can see in both quarters of 2010, shown here, that they had a positive operating income. This means they are profitable in their normal run of selling video games. But Net Income for the second quarter was a loss? Why? Well, let's now look at non-operating income. Notice the foreign exchange lose? This is the lose (or gain, as happened in the first quarter) that a company recognizes from overseas sales. Since Nintendo has a lot of business in other countries. Note that Nintendo is not the only company having this problem.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7857474.stm
Nintendo said its performance had been "adversely impacted by a large exchange loss due to the sharp appreciation of the yen".

But some may say "But sales were still low. Nintendo is doomed." Not true. The console market is very momentum based. So Nintendo's best software was already released in 2008. In 2009, Nintendo released mostly sequels and New Super Mario bros Wii. Even if Wii sales had not fallen, Net Income would have still been low (or a loss) due to the foreign exchange rate and less money from fewer big titles.

Remember that the Income Statement is only for the period. At the end of the accounting cycle, the income statement accounts are closed and moved into balance sheet accounts. So, these loses only reflect a short period of time. Retained Earning is what we would like to watch, which has likely increased from 2004 to now. Also, the Statement of Cash flow showed us that despite the huge lose that their cash, their most important asset, is still OK.

 

[Big-Cat]

Why are we discussing sales again?

 

[QUIVO]

I believed I played Melee 06-08 and Brawl 08 (is that when it was released?) to present.. kinda. I've had a few breaks with Brawl.

Anyway, I agree with all of sliqs post on this page. CoD/xbox *****. and most Brawl players act like they know what they're talking about when they speak of competitive Melee.

 

[SmashChu]

Why are we discussing sales again?

1)Because someone brought it up
2)Sales are always important. Nintendo is a business you know.

 

[OkamiBW]

If the OP was talking about sales...lack of "true combos" helped Brawl because it made less competitive people want to play more, thus boosting profits.

 

[Agoat]

The reason I play Brawl is because of the lack of "true combos".

When I feel like stringing a bunch of moves together, I play Street Fighter. When I feel like beating the snot out of somebody without being too technical, I play Brawl.

 

[Sliq]

If the OP was talking about sales...lack of "true combos" helped Brawl because it made less competitive people want to play more, thus boosting profits.

I don't think that is the case, considering a MASS majority of people don't even know there is a competitive smash scene, and even more don't even care.

 

[Sleek Media]

The reason I play Brawl is because of the lack of "true combos".

When I feel like stringing a bunch of moves together, I play Street Fighter. When I feel like beating the snot out of somebody without being too technical, I play Brawl.

More or less my sentiment. I get the impression that most of the leftover Melee players (and many of the Brawlers) are just guys who can't make it in Street Fighter, so they play something much less technical and call themselves hardcore for putting together a few combos. Gimme a break.

You want technical? Play Tekken. You want fun without having to memorize thirty special moves and a **** ton of combos? That's what Smash is for.

 

[OkamiBW]

More or less my sentiment. I get the impression that most of the leftover Melee players (and many of the Brawlers) are just guys who can't make it in Street Fighter, so they play something much less technical and call themselves hardcore for putting together a few combos. Gimme a break.

You want technical? Play Tekken. You want fun without having to memorize thirty special moves and a **** ton of combos? That's what Smash is for.

Hah, you're silly. One of the things that makes Smash unique (in particular, Melee) is that the combos/tech chases are can be so intuitive and often they are not just set combos like in Street Fighter or Tekken.

Good try though.

 

[MonkUnit]

In answer to OP, probably. It depends on whether you want to play a more defensive game, brawl, or an offensive game, melee. I classify brawl as a defensive game due to no way to reduce landing lag to continue combos, having the ability to air dodge out of hitstun, and that you can auto sweetspot the ledge. While in melee, I deem this as more offensive due to the ability to reduce your landing lag by L canceling, you cannot airdodge out of tumble, and that you cannot sweetspot the ledge. I don't know if others share my viewpoint on this, but that is my 2 cents.

tl;dr lack of "true combos" probably does hurt brawl in the long run

 

[OkamiBW]

Landing lag isn't really that big of a problem by itself. Theoretically, to make the game more competitive, you can simply reduce the amount of landing lag there is regardless of whether there's a technique to reduce it. It's that there's a lack of hitstun 'coupled' with the landing lag being too long that makes it so that combos aren't possible. You can't really air dodge out of hitstun...it's just that the hitstun ends much earlier than the previous two smash games. You can in a sense air dodge out of tumble...you just have to wiggle the control stick back and forth to stop your tumble. Though because there's more hitstun, you don't enter tumble animation as fast as you would in Brawl. Sweet spotting the edge is still possible to do in Melee...it's just that the characters don't have magnetic arms that auto sweet spot it (so it's harder to do). And considering we're on a forum...there's no reason why a single paragraph would be something that people would think to themselves, "Man...I can't possible read 6 lines. Too much."

Sorry to be a little stickler.

 

[Sleek Media]

Hah, you're silly. One of the things that makes Smash unique (in particular, Melee) is that the combos/tech chases are can be so intuitive and often they are not just set combos like in Street Fighter or Tekken.

Good try though.

So...you're disagreeing with my point by agreeing with my reasons. Silly indeed.

 

[Sliq]

So...you're disagreeing with my point by agreeing with my reasons. Silly indeed.

You need reading comprehension classes.


The only reason I don't play SF4 is because I'm pretty much out of the competitive gaming scene.

I started getting into 3rd Strike after I realized I didn't like Brawl, but I didn't really take it anywhere.

Let's all have a big lol now about a Brawl player talking about being technical.


lol

That felt good.