Does a lack of "true combos" hurt Brawl?

[Seikend]

So the only time when people mess up is when they can't compensate for shield lag.

If that is depth that's pretty minor.

The only time they mess up that is influenced by the other player, yeah.

Even if it is minor, it's still a level of depth. And it's a minor situation that occurs very frequently. Many minors make it significant.

And what measure are you using for when something adds enough depth or not? It seems pretty arbitrary to me.

 

[JPOBS]

Your taking things out of context.

The game can facilitate competitive play, but it is ultimately the players who get together and compete to make it competitive at the end of the day. People bring competition, a game can facilitate it but the people ultimately decide what they want to compete in.

Also I never once said L canceling made Melee suck. I'm pointing out BS as I see it. If someone says Brawl is better because it sold more, I'll yell at them for that just like I'll yell at someone for saying Brawl has zero combos.

The debate is subjective with no end, since people will play what they want.

A thread about brawl's lack of combo's somehow turned into Melee and l-canceling, but im the one taking things out of context?

i see.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

The only time they mess up that is influenced by the other player, yeah.

Even if it is minor, it's still a level of depth. And it's a minor situation that occurs very frequently. Many minors make it significant.

And what measure are you using for when something adds enough depth or not? It seems pretty arbitrary to me.

Because this doesn't change the fact that there isn't a single reason when you can remove lag from a move that you wouldn't do it if there was no drawback from doing it. There isn't as judgment call to say that I should ever do it when put in the situation, because the answer is always yes.

Wavedashing has far more depth, for those characters who can utilize it, because that actually increases options and makes a player thing, should I wave dash and shield towards my opponent or while he grab me if I try that? Maybe I should wave dash back and go on the retreat for now?

That seems pretty clear cut to me.

A thread about brawl's lack of combo's somehow turned into Melee and l-canceling, but im the one taking things out of context?

i see.

Pretty much.

 

[Seikend]

Because this doesn't change the fact that there isn't a single reason when you can remove lag from a move that you wouldn't do it if there was no drawback from doing it. There isn't as judgment call to say that I should ever do it when put in the situation, because the answer is always yes.

Wavedashing has far more depth, for those characters who can utilize it, because that actually increases options and makes a player thing, should I wave dash and shield towards my opponent or while he grab me if I try that? Maybe I should wave dash back and go on the retreat for now?

That seems pretty clear cut to me.



Pretty much.

But it does provide depth. It doesn't for the player who is l-cancelling, but the person defending from it. It actually increases options and makes a player thing, should I delay when I hold my shield and attempt to mess with his timing or will he fastfall and hit me before I use my shield? Maybe I should just shield early and play it safe for now?

 

[Wenbobular]

<_<

Let's just drop it eh? We're two groups of gamers who see this in a different light because we play different games, so we're probably not going to reach an agreement anytime soon

Anyways, I think depth regarding Smash is based on the balance of options between offensive and defensive options.

Smash 64 has too few defensive options, Brawl has too many for my liking, Melee has a nice balance which is why I play it.

Anyone want to come up with a better definition? I'm not exactly trying too hard but I think it's time we moved on from Lcanceling in Melee

 

[theunabletable]

sig'd for lols

Am I wrong? I mean Anti even made a blog recently where he said that followup game is very important, and you'd be a fool to say that there's no tech skill in Brawl.

 

[Redact]

Can you please read my posts on Lcancel? It doesn't answer the question specifically but I think it's an appropriate rebuttal to your overall argument against Lcancel's depth.

As far as a "direct answer" to the question here are some times you would not Lcancel:
1. When you're autocanceling
2. When you're edge canceling
3. When you're interrupted

you can't even l-cancel 1 in the first place. For number 2 you can l-cancel it in precaution of you messing up the spacing for the edge cancel. and with 3 i presume you mean you start to l-cancel (as in already land) then hit before you can fully recover, which i understand, but if you mean being hit out of the move before you even land, then yet again you can't even l-cancel that

 

[Wenbobular]

He's a Melee player who's laughing at you saying that Brawl is "very technical"

I admit to knowing nothing about Brawl so I'll just chuckled lightly, but I don't think you can really make an argument for how the followup game in Brawl is more technical than in Melee

Also guys can we please drop Lcanceling

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I really wish people would drop the Melee vs Brawl stuff, I want to get away from it but I get involved because some people keep posting BS about either game.

Either way, I agree I'll drop it. I love playing both, and I have my reasons for playing Brawl over Melee in terms of preference, and I'll respect people for preferring something over another even if it's different from my own.

So I'll watch at this point, unless someone says something that is legitimately proven wrong again.

 

[Stev]

Am I wrong? I mean Anti even made a blog recently where he said that followup game is very important, and you'd be a fool to say that there's no tech skill in Brawl.

Of course the follow up game is important, but brawl's lack of hit stun eliminates the need for combo DI, which adds depth to the game.

 

[theunabletable]

He's a Melee player who's laughing at you saying that Brawl is "very technical"

I admit to knowing nothing about Brawl so I'll just chuckled lightly, but I don't think you can really make an argument for how the followup game in Brawl is more technical than in Melee

Also guys can we please drop Lcanceling

Tech skill is like everything in Brawl. That's what M2K says, and it makes sense, too.

Of course the follow up game is important, but brawl's lack of hit stun eliminates the need for combo DI, which adds depth to the game.

You can still DI to remove followup options from your opponent, and you can air dodge earlier, causing your opponent to have to be smarter or faster, or you can jump earlier, or even throw out an offensive option.

That's fairly depthy, I'd say.

 

[JPOBS]

This is my last post then im goign to drop the subject

Am I wrong? I mean Anti even made a blog recently where he said that followup game is very important, and you'd be a fool to say that there's no tech skill in Brawl.

Of course the follow up game is important, this is true of EVERY FIGHTER. However, what you are arguing is that the complete LACK of a "followup game" in brawl, somehow magically increases the depth of brawl's "follow up game". You're not fooling anyone. True depth comes in the form of variations of DI, SDI, and situation/combo specific manuevers that must be learnt in a variety of ways in order to continue the advantage that you have. To the casual onlooker (you), melee's combos may seem "garunteed", but theres more to than that.

You can try to convince yourself that the inability to ever follow up in brawl, somehow leads to an increase depth in follow up, but your not convincing anyone.

you can't even l-cancel 1 in the first place. For number 2 you can l-cancel it in precaution of you messing up the spacing for the edge cancel. and with 3 i presume you mean you start to l-cancel (as in already land) then hit before you can fully recover, which i understand, but if you mean being hit out of the move before you even land, then yet again you can't even l-cancel that

Heres something i think you guys are missing about Rohins point: he's saying you dont want to l-cancel in phases 1-3 because doing so has CONSEQUENCES.
1. If you l-cancel after an autocancel, you will light shield which will cause you to drop your combo
2. you shouldn't be trying to "l-cancel as a precaution" when you edge cancel because if yu do, you will slide of the edge and air dodge, thus you either drop your combo, or DIE. you have to KNOW when to edgecancel and you cant just blanket it with l-canceling.
3. If you habitually try to l-cancel everything and get hit out of it, chances are you will miss your tech, get *****, and die.

The point is, although you're rght in the claim "you never want to not l-cancel", there are situations where if you do so you will have dire consequences, and the KNOWLEDGE about these situations is where the depth derives from, and not in the sotuations themselves.

There isn't as judgment call to say that I should ever do it when put in the situation, because the answer is always yes.

Wrong again.

There is a judgement call to be made. This call varies between "i shouldn't l-cancel because im doing X and if i do, i'll mess up" and "Im doing X, but Y (hit, multihit, no hit etc) occured, now i need to change my timing or else i will mess up"

You're right that, when possible, one always wants to l-cancel. However, you are completely overlooking other facets or properties which influence l-canceling and add depth to the system.

Its like in basketball, you never want to NOT hit the shot, but there are OTHER FACTORS such as defenders hand blocking, off balance shots, being hit on the arm and having to adjust mid air etc, that you have to account for. Also, similarly to l-canceling, proficiency in shooting is an arbitrary separator of skill levels.

Saying "you never want to not l-cancel, thus its a pointless skill test, they should take it out" is like saying "you never want to miss the shot, thus its a pointless skill test, make the rim 10 feet wide"

that is all.
disclaimer: there actually is one scenario in basketball where you want to intentionally miss but lets leave that be for the sake of argument, and overall i think you get the point

 

[Sliq]

I think the thing that people are missing is that no attempt on the developers side was made to make things balanced and conducive to competition. So it is entirely possible that the resulting game is not a good competitive game. The players MAKE IT THAT. Melee players pretty much made the whole scene as it is now. If Brawl came out before Melee, I'm curious as to what the result would have been,

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

That would be every Smash Game btw.

What if, doesn't matter to what reality is as well.

 

[theunabletable]

You can try to convince yourself that the inability to ever follow up in brawl, somehow leads to an increase depth in follow up, but your not convincing anyone.

I guess M2K and Anti are wrong, and positional advantage after a hit allowing you to get more hits in easily, don't count as followups.

It's not like you get hit, and then the game returns to the neutral position. You get hit, and then you're at a disadvantaged position and continue getting hit until you outsmart your opponent and return it to the neutral position.

It's different than Melee, but I don't see what makes it worse in anyway.

 

[Black Mantis]

What if, doesn't matter to what reality is as well.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Jonas]

Heres something i think you guys are missing about Rohins point: he's saying you dont want to l-cancel in phases 1-3 because doing so has CONSEQUENCES.
1. If you l-cancel after an autocancel, you will light shield which will cause you to drop your combo
2. you shouldn't be trying to "l-cancel as a precaution" when you edge cancel because if yu do, you will slide of the edge and air dodge, thus you either drop your combo, or DIE. you have to KNOW when to edgecancel and you cant just blanket it with l-canceling.
3. If you habitually try to l-cancel everything and get hit out of it, chances are you will miss your tech, get *****, and die.

The point is, although you're rght in the claim "you never want to not l-cancel", there are situations where if you do so you will have dire consequences, and the KNOWLEDGE about these situations is where the depth derives from, and not in the sotuations themselves.

All of this can be completey avoided if you don't press the button all the way in. You won't air dodge, you won't miss a tech and it lets you release the button fast enough so you won't accidentally sheild after an auto-cancel.

 

[Darkshooter]

Smash players?

I was thinking more at the casual audience.

 

[Djent]

I think M2K and Anti are right about follow-up game still being important in Brawl. A lot of Melee players are forgetting that you don't always need to be in hitstun to be in a bad position regarding follow-ups. So while the importance is diminished, it's still obviously there, FFS.

 

[Djent]

I was thinking more at the casual audience.

As were all 3. Melee and Smash 64 players just got lucky, and now they're unable to cope with bad luck. Which is fair enough, but it's still funny how the Smash community feels that Sakurai *owes* them a competitive game.

 

[LegendofLink]

As were all 3. Melee and Smash 64 players just got lucky, and now they're unable to cope with bad luck. Which is fair enough, but it's still funny how the Smash community feels that Sakurai *owes* them a competitive game.

This.

A lot of people forget that Melee was an accident from the developer's prospective, with a lot of the competitive depth coming from unintended physics abuses or an underestimation of how far certain mechanics could be taken. An awesomely competitive accident, but an accident all the same. In fact, mechanics like tripping only serve the purpose of preventing the game from deviating from its "true purpose" as a party game.

This doesn't stop Brawl from being competitive, as made obvious by the thriving tournament scene, but its nearly impossible to argue that Melee wasn't the better competitive fighter.

 

[Madtsunami]

Sakurai has said he was personally against the ideal of competition.

Wavedashing(AKA Landfall_special)/LCancel(the animation speeds up and everything, but you probably already knew this was intentional) and DACUS(Pretty much just as hard as learning wavedash was, not that it was that hard) /Glidetossing probably mean that he isn't above making a more competitive fighter.

Honestly items accomplished his goal in melee, and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that Nintendo asked Sakurai to make Brawl's mechanics simpler in order to maintain their family friendly image: It certainly would be par for the course. (Friend codes anyone?)

That's all I think needs to be said. I hope the general meaning is kept

 

[Wenbobular]

I could forgive everything else about Brawl.

I can't forgive tripping.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Tripping sucks, plain and simple.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

Brawl sucks, plain and simple.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

One liner of hate

Fixed for accuracy.

 

[Deleted member]

Fixed for accuracy.

if you want to fix for accuracy, go back and fix your own posts. it's very clear to anyone that actually knows how to debate that you're not reading them at all. particularly at the dashing thing and rohin's post on l-canceling.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Considering you've done nothing but, "I'm right your wrong with posting direct evidence"

 

[Sliq]

What if, doesn't matter to what reality is as well.

I never said...it was? Your sentence is so poorly worded that I'm having a hard time replying to it. I understand what you mean, but I feel like you have to be using some wrong tense somewhere.

I guess my point was that if Nintendo wasn't trying to make a competitive game, batting .333 in the "successful competitive game department," wouldn't be that bad.

I think M2K and Anti are right about follow-up game still being important in Brawl. A lot of Melee players are forgetting that you don't always need to be in hitstun to be in a bad position regarding follow-ups. So while the importance is diminished, it's still obviously there, FFS.

No one's arguing that "it" isn't there. Everyone is just saying that now there is a lot less of "it," which begs the question:

Why play a game with less "it?"

In this, "it" refers to many different aspects of gameplay mechanics, as well as overall quality of competition.

 

[napZzz]

just because you have a fancy red name doesn't mean you can suddenly start posting like you have knowledge of this game now red ryu :/

wow at this whole discussion....heres a few key things I wanted to point out more than others because i'm lazy

1.)Melee and all of its techs generally contribute to adding ALOT of depth to the game, L canceling being the best example. Being able to cancel aerial lag basically leads to any combo you can do, thus leading to depth. Is that hard to understand?

2.)SF4 doesn't reward offense, you're mixing up moments of agression with "offense". SSF4 is one campy **** of a camp at the top level, you can even just call it down back fighter, lol. (irrelevant side comment)

3.)Brawl barely has any technical aspects that even add any sort of depth, its a shallow game where you just have to work with whats given to you in your character

4.)Brawls lack of combos are only going to hurt you if its what you look for in a game, although I can admit it will probably shy away other avid fighting game players at first unfortunately

**** this community, and for the record I prefer brawl>melee, doesn't mean I cant admit melee is just overall a better competitive game :/

DEFENSE WINS FIGHTING GAMES FGTS, BUT NOT ENOUGH MELEE PLAYERS HAVE THE PATIENCE TO ABUSE IT

 

[Madtsunami]

we need smash resumes on this board lol

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I never said...it was? Your sentence is so poorly worded that I'm having a hard time replying to it. I understand what you mean, but I feel like you have to be using some wrong tense somewhere.

I guess my point was that if Nintendo wasn't trying to make a competitive game, batting .333 in the "successful competitive game department," wouldn't be that bad.

My bad.

I meant it like, what if situations are basically what could have happened, but really what ultimately matters is how things are now.

I mean from Melee to Brawl they purposefully targeted and removed wavedashing and L canceling, I don't know exactly why, my best guess is that they didn't want it in the game or the game engine just removed it for them when they did a physics change.

If we flipped this around say Brawl came before Melee, what if Brawl had Wavedashing and such, but then they removed it when Melee came out? We could debate and talk about it but ultimately it doesn't matter since it's a hypothetical.

What matters is what it's like in real life rather than what could happen.

I hope that can fix my mistake from before.

just because you have a fancy red name doesn't mean you can suddenly start posting like you have knowledge of this game now red ryu :/

Sorry Nappy, I'll be more quiet around here.

1.)Melee and all of its techs generally contribute to adding ALOT of depth to the game, L canceling being the best example. Being able to cancel aerial lag basically leads to any combo you can do, thus leading to depth. Is that hard to understand?

You would have the same depth if you cut everyone aerial lag in half. :/

 

[Wenbobular]

You would have the same depth if you cut everyone aerial lag in half. :/

I think again we're running into the issue of ... what is depth?

The same arguments have been said about Starcraft: Brood War and Starcraft II. In Starcraft II there's a similar removal a lot of the technical skill needed to play Starcraft at the top level.

While I think it's good for a competitive game to have a more ways of distinguishing between skill levels, it doesn't necessarily add to "depth" in the sense that it brings nothing new to the table if the game was played optimally ... but since we're dealing with human error, sometimes forcing players to manually do unnecessary tasks like Lcancel creates mini-interactions for players to screw with each other. I think it leads to a more exciting overall experience when playing / watching, but whether it adds "depth" or not varies depending on what you define "depth" as.

That's my wall of text anyways haha.

we need smash resumes on this board lol

A question I frequently want to ask but it feels pretty crappy when debating to just be like ... yo do you know what you're talking about?

Although sometimes I feel like it's the right question to ask <_<

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I think again we're running into the issue of ... what is depth?

The same arguments have been said about Starcraft: Brood War and Starcraft II. In Starcraft II there's a similar removal a lot of the technical skill needed to play Starcraft at the top level.

While I think it's good for a competitive game to have a more ways of distinguishing between skill levels, it doesn't necessarily add to "depth" in the sense that it brings nothing new to the table if the game was played optimally ... but since we're dealing with human error, sometimes forcing players to manually do unnecessary tasks like Lcancel creates mini-interactions for players to screw with each other. I think it leads to a more exciting overall experience when playing / watching, but whether it adds "depth" or not varies depending on what you define "depth" as.

That's my wall of text anyways haha.

Oops I went back to that again, sorry.

I'll go back to staying quiet.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

Thanks Red Ryu.

 

[Djent]

Response (Warning: Goes Heavily Off-Topic)

No one's arguing that "it" isn't there. Everyone is just saying that now there is a lot less of "it," which begs the question:

Why play a game with less "it?"

In this, "it" refers to many different aspects of gameplay mechanics, as well as overall quality of competition.

Well I can't answer for myself, because I'm not currently attending any Smash tournaments due to college (and until like 2 weeks ago, crew). I kind of wanted to pick up Melee after Apex doubles grand finals, but any plans to take either game seriously got put on hold once I found out my Saturdays would be occupied every weekend.

Now, if you're thinking simply in terms of depth, then Melee obviously wins out as the game of choice. But I think you're neglecting a few of the pragmatic reasons that people stick with Brawl over Melee, maybe in part because you yourself overcame them a long time ago. Some of these reasons aren't necessarily "good" ones, meaning that I personally disagree with the logic behind them...but anyway:

1) The learning curve, especially in comparison to Brawl.
2) The dwindling size of the community, which combined with #1 can make obtaining regular practice incredibly difficult.
3) The fact that Brawl provides an easy answer to #s 1 and 2, increasing the accessibility gap between the two games even further.
4) Brawl is newer and more polished-looking. This isn't really a good reason, but I think you're forgetting just how superficial people can be.
5) Oh yeah, money. More players = bigger pots, more sponsorships, more frequent tournies. Again, not a "competitive" reason to play Brawl, but an appealing one none the less to those who are good enough.
6) Familiarity. This game is 2 years old, so I can't really call it "nostalgia." But if you spend several hundred hours playing something with your friends before going competitive, then you're unlikely to drop it for something else.
7) Boredom. A few high-level Melee players (Chu, Azen, DA Wes) who had been involved in the Melee scene early on did end up going to Brawl just because they needed something new. I can't really blame them for this, though I doubt even they expect the same longevity out of Brawl.
8) Ignorance of high-level Melee (which, given its complexity, is understandable).

Also, I think there's a discrepancy between the *expectations* of older and newer players regarding what Smash should be. People who start out with a glitchy, unpolished game don't feel any of the bitterness that the veterans do after playing something "better." So all of the things that you see "wrong" with this game are just accepted as limitations that need to be worked around. I kind of fall into the latter category myself, as I'm a latecomer to the Smash scene. But since I've looked into Melee a lot as well, I'm still a little cynical about Brawl's potential for competition.

 

[DAS]

No it doesn't hurt the game at all, may'be the people who expected something like that to be in Brawl. Its like changing the recipe by adding or taking ingredients in a dish you like a lot, and you might like it more than previous or little less or hate it. For tournaments people might think oh its not going to be exciting or worthwhile because it doesn't have "combos", but hype mostly comes from a intense battle or a look forward to battle, and it'll be hyped no matter what since its a great game anyway.

Brawl is no less of a Smash game than Melee and 64 were just because of a lack of combos. It hurts the people who perferred something else and not the game. Its just all in taste of what you like or don't.

 

[Stev]

I guess you need to decide how it hurts the game as well. The lack of combos makes games take a lot longer (3 stock instead of 4 stock and average time is SILL longer). If you were to switch the graphics quality of both games, i guarantee you people would look at melee with awe and look at brawl as if it's garbage. Slow games are not appeasing to the random person who's watching.

 

[MarioMariox2]

I really wish people would drop the Melee vs Brawl stuff (unless it's for kicks and not to start arguments), I want to get away from it but I get involved because some people keep posting BS about either game.

Either way, I agree I'll drop it. I love playing both, and I have my reasons for playing Melee over Brawl in terms of preference, and I'll respect people for preferring something over another even if it's different from my own.

So I'll watch at this point, unless someone says something that is legitimately proven wrong again.

Also, 64 is a great game and as a fan of all the games, we should not overlook its competitive community.

I feel the same way but I edited a few things to show how I feel since I don't want to type it all instead.

 

[TurnOneWrath]

It's kind of like comparing apples to oranges. Melee was more about reflexes and rapid thought processing, while Brawl was about planning out "strategies", analyzing your opponents, and abusing the stage more. So, Melee is better for those that like to play rapidly and fight on the spur of the moment, while Brawl is more about outthinking you opponent and using all of your resources (even the stage itself).

I guess this was one of my hang-ups with Brawl and why it just didn't seem quite right in comparison to Melee. I was used to the quick reflexes and rapid thought processing in Melee. When I tried to apply it to Brawl, it just didn't transfer well, if at all.

Also, one thing I've been really vocal about to friends is that I ABSOLUTELY HATE FIGHTING THE STAGE MORESO THAN MY OPPONENT. The stages on Melee one could mitigate with a little practice. On the other hand, the stages on Brawl (some of them) will determine the winner or loser irrespective of what happened from a fighting aspect. That alone almost made me forget about Brawl altogether and just stick with Melee.