Does a lack of "true combos" hurt Brawl?

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

People and a community are ultimately are the main driving force behind competition, they pick the medium of which they choose to play. Like, I think Marvel vs Capcom 2 is terrible, but what I think about it ultimately doesn't matter if the people or the community chooses to come together and play on that medium.

People with an interest to come together and play it are what imo makes a game, because they are enjoy it and like coming together.

MvC2 is a better game than Brawl could ever DREAM to be. People play MvC2 because it is a quality competitive fighter tested through years of tournament play.

Also, I was serious about what I said earlier. Are you really mentoring newcomers to this site? I really think such a responsibility should be delegated to someone who can actually think and doesn't post inane statements like

You can have less bias or have more, having more bias is more ignorance. Your post is full of a lot of bias, therefore more ignorant.

I mean good lord you couldn't have made your stupidity more obvious.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

A game with universal infinites around the cast, atrocious character balance, in some cases buggy.

I like the gameplay, but boy do I hate it on a competitive level.

 

[Shadic]

A game with universal infinites around the cast, atrocious character balance, in some cases buggy.

I like the gameplay, but boy do I hate it on a competitive level.

That's kinda how I feel about Brawl. (Being slightly hyperbolic of course, nobody in Brawl General seems to be able to take things for granted.)

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Actually that did give me a chuckle, props for that.

 

[Eternal Yoshi]

It just shows that without sufficient character balance, a huge roster can become WORTHLESS.

Regarding MVC2 is still a fun game to watch and play, though.

 

[Dark Sonic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70dqhaii1gs

Match 3

<3 MvC2

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

<3 Strider teams.

 

[SmashChu]

What? Am I not allowed to hate it even if I'm not a noob? You're getting really annoying with the way you take people's opinions.

(this reply may suck as I don't have the original post in front of me)

You should know from Street Fighter that the rule is "deal with it." If some think is beating you, you learn to beat it. I call you a n00b because rather than learn the ins and outs of a stage, you would want to not play on it. This is from Serlin:

These made-up rules vary from game to game, of course, but their character remains constant. In Street Fighter, for example, the scrub labels a wide variety of tactics and situations "cheap." So-called "cheapness" is truly the mantra of the scrub. Performing a throw on someone often called cheap. A throw is a special kind of move that grabs an opponent and damages him, even when the opponent is defending against all other kinds of attacks. The entire purpose of the throw is to be able to damage an opponent who sits and blocks and doesn't attack. As far as the game is concerned, throwing is an integral part of the design--it's meant to be there--yet the scrub has constructed his own set of principles in his mind that state he should be totally impervious to all attacks while blocking. The scrub thinks of blocking as a kind of magic shield which will protect him indefinitely. Why? Exploring the reasoning is futile since the notion is ridiculous from the start.

This is not just you, but competitive Smash Brothers in general. They are the scrubs.

You've never brought it up in the past, and I know for a fact that he adores that game. I figured you brought it up since you read his stuff. Anyway, Starcraft may be the bigger game, but remember it's a RTS, not a fighter. What may apply to one genre may not be as great when adapted for another genre.

Not only that, but can you tell me how Starcraft's stages are designed when it comes to traps and other hazards?

The reason I bring up Starcraft is because it is a bigger game and I've been playing it.

To say it's a different genre misses the point. It is still a game and a big one at that. I'm sure everyone here wants Smash to be played in stadium and for $200,000 for 1st place. So why not learn from it?

As far as stages in Starcraft go, the Blizzard maps aren't that good and they all have exploits that can be used. Lost Temple is a prime example because it favors Tank/Thor drops, making it easy for the Terran. But they don't turn them off. Zergs just deal with it.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

There are some stages like Norfair & Poke Floats and such that I think is more than just whining.

It really is a question of where the community decides to draw the line of what is too far. Garchomp was too far for the D/P era of Pokemon. Stealth Rock wasn't. Akuma was too far for SFII, Old Sagat wasn't, well at least in some places.

It's what the collective agrees on. Frigate doesn't cross the line, Summit does for example.

 

[GHNeko]

*snip*

oh look. it's this guy again

 

[TurnOneWrath]

I know it wasn't meant to be competitive. That doesn't mean that it's a wise idea to take time out of development to make it ant-competitive.

With gameplay I don't think it was a bad idea to take time off for the non gameplay elements like music, custom stages, SSE, etc.

One of my gripes with a lot of fighting games is the fact the stories, One player campaigns, ultimately suck. Street Fighter 4's is nothing more but playing against randomly selected characters until you get to the rival character and then Seth.

Smash has this, but it also has Adventure mode/SSE, All star mode, challenges, stadium, etc. Brawl improved on adventure mode quite a bit to a point where I enjoyed a one player story mode in a fighting game, only other game to get me to semi like it was Melty Blood.

I don't think this is a bad thing since game play is still able to be played at a competitive level. For it to be anti-competitive, it would have to be random elements or overcentralizing characters/tactics.

I don't think the added story mode and extra characters, modes, music, challenges and events are what Yoshi meant by "take time out of development to make it anti-competitive".
It seems that he's talking about the time it took to disable combos along with all of the other programming changes made to disable some things (like L-cancelling) present in Melee that aren't as prevalant in Brawl.

It seems he is only referring to the things that happen in a 1-on-1 match between two characters.

 

[SmashChu]

There are some stages like Norfair & Poke Floats and such that I think is more than just whining.

It really is a question of where the community decides to draw the line of what is too far. Garchomp was too far for the D/P era of Pokemon. Stealth Rock wasn't. Akuma was too far for SFII, Old Sagat wasn't, well at least in some places.

It's what the collective agrees on. Frigate doesn't cross the line, Summit does for example.

Neither of those stages are bad nor do they hurt competitive play. Like I mentioned before, learning the stage is just as important as learning match-ups. Take Norfair. The stage has rising lava, so you might want a character with good jumping abilities who can move between the platforms easily. In that stage, you want to be ready to move. But you also want to control the top platforms as those are usually the safest. So the stage becomes part of the strategy.

Akuma and Garchomp are not "the community had to draw the line." They were just straight up broken. Akuma had air fireballs, can't be dizzied, and has invincibility frames on a lot of his moves. He was broken. Garchomp is the same. He has a good type, amazing sweeper and could raise his evasion with Sandstorm among other things. It was so bad that teams had to have a Garchomp counter. He was obviously dominating the Metagame so they moved him into Ubers (which are still usable for certain tournaments).

The difference here is that there is no evidence that Norfair or Pokefloats break the game. They are just not preferred (as not you have to actually dodge stage hazards). Which is why I call the community scrubs. Norfair is very much a part of the game and should be played on (or at least make it part of the random/counter pick pool). Turning it off is admitting weakness as a player.

 

[Shadic]

The difference here is that there is no evidence that Norfair or Pokefloats break the game. They are just not preferred (as not you have to actually dodge stage hazards). Which is why I call the community scrubs. Norfair is very much a part of the game and should be played on (or at least make it part of the random/counter pick pool). Turning it off is admitting weakness as a player.

...

Both stages significantly change the way that the game is played. Poke Floats is incredibly campy and completely wrecks characters that aren't quick and have poor recoveries. Norfair has lava flumes that (iirc) can kill, and 50 zillion ledges to auto-snap on to. Not to mention when the entire stage turns into a killing hitbox, regardless of how easy it is to dodge.

 

[GHNeko]

why are you even going to bother arguing mentalities that are vastly different lol

 

[Big-Cat]

Opposites attract.

 

[SmashChu]

...

Both stages significantly change the way that the game is played. Poke Floats is incredibly campy and completely wrecks characters that aren't quick and have poor recoveries. Norfair has lava flumes that (iirc) can kill, and 50 zillion ledges to auto-snap on to. Not to mention when the entire stage turns into a killing hitbox, regardless of how easy it is to dodge.

Then guess what?

This is the problem with Smash Bros players. If they don't like something, instead of dealing with it and learning to beat it, they turn it off (this is also the community that wanted to ban Meta-Knight rather than learn to beat him). It's in the game and there is nothing about it that breaks the game, so why turn it off? Why not learn and get better.

This is why Smash Players are scrubs. Scrubs call things cheap and say "You can't do that." Norfair is cheap, so it's turned off. Poke Floats is cheap so it's turned off.

Yes, some characters do bad on some stages, but that is the point of counter picking. You pick stages that benefit you and hurt the other player. In fact, it expand counter picking as you can pick stages that give you the edge. It adds depth. But rather than learn and grow, Smash brothers players rather turn it off and make it easier.

 

[Revven]

How about the people probably had the stage on the stage list for a good *** long time and found out that it doesn't really work out at all and thus removed it? Smash players don't just go "oh I played on this stage once and I don't like it, let's turn it off" in a tournament setting. Brawl tournaments even had Luigi's Mansion on for practically 6 months to a year before agreeing to removing it and saying "it doesn't work, you can just circle camp all day and no one can really do anything about it".

Norfair was even longer so don't tell us that we didn't try the stage before scrapping it. Melee had the same thing for items and stages as well. Are you going to argue that items are the same thing as stages are and that we're scrubs for turning those off too? That's the same argument that EVO gave saying that "you guys didn't try them".

Smash is a vastly different fighting game so I don't even understand the point in believing people should deal with it just because other fighting games "deal with it" in their own way. It's a stupid comparison and you're not really going to be suddenly changing people's minds by calling them "scrubs" just because they believe differently than you do.

You're a very narrow minded person.

 

[GHNeko]

derp

>applying the mentality/methodologies of traditional fighters to a non-traditional fighter that is different in various ways and is not in the same category of traditional fighters when it comes to fighters

>mfw

 

[SmashChu]

How about the people probably had the stage on the stage list for a good *** long time and found out that it doesn't really work out at all and thus removed it? Smash players don't just go "oh I played on this stage once and I don't like it, let's turn it off" in a tournament setting. Brawl tournaments even had Luigi's Mansion on for practically 6 months to a year before agreeing to removing it and saying "it doesn't work, you can just circle camp all day and no one can really do anything about it".

Again "Deal with it." It is the scrub mentality. All things are fair in love and war so why is it a problem that you circle camp Luigi's Mansion when that is your strategy. Not to mention you can counter pick the stage for your liking.

Fun Fact: The reason circle camping is a problem is because Competitive Smash does another scrub thing by making the winner based on damage, not sudden death. If you use sudden death, than circle camping becomes less viable. You have to be a stock up first. Items also negate this to some extent. More evidence that the scruby rules break the game, not the game elements themselves.

Smash is a vastly different fighting game so I don't even understand the point in believing people should deal with it just because other fighting games "deal with it" in their own way. It's a stupid comparison and you're not really going to be suddenly changing people's minds by calling them "scrubs" just because they believe differently than you do.

It's not something unique to fighting games. It's done in ALL games. Smash Brothers is the only game I've seen where the players play a *******ized rule set that is nothing like the normal game. It should be no surprise that I routinely beat players online who use Advance tactics and what not simply because I knew what all the items did (seen people try to block Warp Stars).

"Deal with it," is about learning how to counter something. Serlin, when he made up Play to Win, talked about tactics players would use, but here it is about content. In fact, let's look at your Luigi's Mansion example. In it, players would get circle camped by the opponent (which is more a problem with the rule set). Well, you can try to pick a character who is better at chasing. Or try to be very defensive and always been up in damage. Not to mention, you can destroy the house anyway. So it's in a player's advantage to destroy it and make it FD again. See how there is a way around this stuff. This is true about everything that is turned off. In fact, very few games straight out ban stuff. Even the Akuma and Garchomp examples were very extreme.

You're a very narrow minded person.

I am advocating an "All-Brawl" style, were everything is on. Yet you, who advocates turning most of the content off, is calling me closed minded. What a strange world we live in.

 

[GHNeko]

>mfw he thinks that turning stuff on-off implies whether someone is closed minded or open minded.

The way you play Smash does not determine whether you are open minded or not. It's how willing you are to try various playstyles and rulesets and how accepting/tolerant of these playstyles/rulesets you are.

The Smash community has tried various rulesets. We prefer an extremely specific style. Don't like it. Deal with it.

imo, you should just stop trying to advocate your ruleset on a community that's already found a ruleset it best prefers, and rather simply find a new base of potential somewhere else. Create your own community or w/e.

And while your ruleset might help to deal/fix some of our issues, it'll create its own issues in due time, potentially worse than what we have now.

Like seriously. Why bother with this community if you know how most of us already are? That's like trying to get a southern-born KKK member to accept and tolerate the life style of a gay black jewish man and allow that man to marry your son.

looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

 

[Big-Cat]

Aren't there some stages in the original Starcraft banned? Would the Starcraft players that abide(d) by this rule be considered scrubby?

 

[GHNeko]

Stop using examples from other games, especially games OUTSIDE this genre.

various things are allowed/banned for various reasons that spawn dozens of pages for various games that are played competitively among various communities.

I believe it's ******** to use single examples in specific games in specific cases to try to use as a point for a game miles away, genre-wise.

like lol.

it's dumb. at least imo.

stop your foolishness.

 

[SmashChu]

>mfw he thinks that turning stuff on-off implies whether someone is closed minded or open minded.

Yes, it does.

Adj. 1. close-minded - not ready to receive to new ideas
Describes the post so far. In fact:

The way you play Smash does not determine whether you are open minded or not. It's how willing you are to try various playstyles and rulesets and how accepting/tolerant of these playstyles/rulesets you are.

Seeing as there is no tollerance for items and multiple stages, I'd say you are the close minded one.

The Smash community has tried various rulesets. We prefer an extremely specific style. Don't like it. Deal with it.

Well isn't that cute. In the same vein I can call you a scrub. The fact is that Smash Brothers players are not trying to learn how to win but turning it off. Serlin calls these folks the scrubs. The scrub has a set of morals, a ruleset, they follow. Beat them with something outside the ruleset, and they claim it's cheap and that you didn't really beat them. Beat a "pro" Smash player with items and he'll sound just like this.

imo, you should just stop trying to advocate your ruleset on a community that's already found a ruleset it best prefers, and rather simply find a new base of potential somewhere else. Create your own community or w/e.

My goal is to change this community and open their mind. It's funny that you call me the closed minded one when what I advocate is acceptance. I advocate all the elements of Brawl. Not the few.

Besides, how good are you if you complain about stages like Norfair. Any good player can beat it.

And while your ruleset might help to deal/fix some of our issues, it'll create its own issues in due time, potentially worse than what we have now.

Assume makes an *** out of you and me. Seeing as there have been absolutely no test for these things from the Smash community, it's hard to say.

Like seriously. Why bother with this community if you know how most of us already are? That's like trying to get a southern-born KKK member to accept and tolerate the life style of a gay black jewish man and allow that man to marry your son.

People say I am closed minded. But it is Smash Boards that is. Your post says it all. Smash boards are like these KK members. They don't want a new world with more possibilities, respect and loads of new fun. They want the old way where they can complain about Sakurai and say how Melee is perfect.

Aren't there some stages in the original Starcraft banned? Would the Starcraft players that abide(d) by this rule be considered scrubby?

In Starcraft, rules were made tournament organizers. Most people consider Blizzard's stages bad. They are used in some tournaments like the GSL, but others use different maps like the ICC. However, everyone learned how to play on the maps and dealed with it.

But let me mentioned something else. Back in the day of Starcraft 1, there was a Terran player who made a strategy that was considered unbeatable. No one could beat it. But, one day, someone managed to beat it out. It was a very big deal because no one could get though it. But overtime, it was overcome.

I mention this because I don't see this mentality in Smash Brothers. Rather than finding ways around problems, they ban the problem and move forward. This is how items have been banned and most stages. It was what almost got Meta-Knight banned. The reason to have an inclusive ruleset is that it's more organic, and people will find ways to deal with problems. Brawl copied Melee's ruleset and never tried implementing items as well as many of the stages (many of which can be dealt with).

It is natural in all games to play with everything allowed and change certain rules as need be (such as we do for turning on stock and time limits). An exclusive game will only lead to problems as the game was never intended or designed in such a way. This is why chain grabbing and planking run rampant. Without the other stuff to stop them, there is no counter. So the problem balloons out of control.

What I'm advocating is only things that are normal in every other game. It's almost like when you walk into Smash Boards you are walking into a Amazon village where everyone is wearing loincloths.

EDIT:To answer your second part, yeah they would. When Starcraft 2 first came out, everyone complained that Terran were overpowered. But most of the pros knew it wasn't a big deal as the game was only just out and would grow. People will sometimes cry "OP," but most of the top players understand that there is a way around a lot of stuff. This is how Zerg went from UP to somewhat OP.

Stop using examples from other games, especially games OUTSIDE this genre.

Is Smash brothers that unique that it has to be shut off from the rest of the world?

What I'm mentioning is how other games make their rules and how the community acts. Thinks that are very comparable. I will say that while Smash is unique, it doesn't mean it gets to be independent of this stuff. It also doesn't mean it's exempt from "Play to win," seeing as that is the basic philosophy of competitive games.

various things are allowed/banned for various reasons that spawn dozens of pages for various games that are played competitively among various communities.

I can tell you that is not true. Most of them come down to a few instances and most of the reasoning is regurgitated examples.

One thing I've noticed is that as I've gone on, that the argument has changed. At first, I bring up the "Play to win," philosophy. People try to counter it, but how can you. It is the nature of competitive gaming. If someone says "Well, yeah, but X is Y," I can just say "deal with it," because that is what competitive players, in any game, do. Now, they've degraded into "NO, you don't understand. We have reasons. Smash Brothers is special."

If any game is played at a tournament level, it is subject to the "Play to win," philosophy. That idea is the basics of playing a competitive game and is still quoted today (heck, it was quoted by Melee players.) The fact is that the current mindset of Smash Brothers is the scrub. It is to turn things off rather than deal with than head on. Dealing with it makes us all better players. Turning them off is easy. The reason stuff gets turned off is because it is harder to deal with it than turn it off. This is why the community wanted to ban Meta-Knight. He's not strong enough to be banned, but it's easier to ban him than fight him. But the reward for doing so is that other characters become more competitive. Now, Brawl tournament have even more characters appearing in there, some people though were just awful. So, as you can see, by keeping Meta-Knight, the metagame grew.

I believe it's ******** to use single examples in specific games in specific cases to try to use as a point for a game miles away, genre-wise.

It's not just using one example. Most competitive games follow this idea, and I can pull out topics from other games as well. This idea is not specific to Starcraft. It is in every game. Starcraft is just the king of them all.

 

[GHNeko]

Like I read the first 5 lines and already you assume what i accept and dont accept.

lol that alone just shows your posts arent worth reading when I have never mentioned how open i am to different rulesets or anything. you have very little knowledge on what I'm okay with and what I'm willing to try. you have absolutely no right to call me close or open minded.

And your definition of closed-minded matches mine. And wanting to turn something on or off and play a specific way does not dictate whether your closed/open minded. someone can play in a specific way all the time and ultimately perfers this style of play. It's how willing that player is to try new **** that determines his level of mindedness derp.

please don't waste your precious time responding man because I'm not paying you any real serious mind to your posts

not because i am rejecting the idea of playing with items and stages but because the you're probably more elitist if not just as elitist as some members of the community.

and please never call close minded when you know nothing about me.

0/10

 

[Shadic]

Seeing as there is no tollerance for items and multiple stages, I'd say you are the close minded one.

At least you don't waste any time making yourself look dumb. We lack tolerance for something because it's been tried before and Does. Not. Work.

Nobody agrees with you because you're wrong. That's how it works.

 

[GHNeko]

Also, prefering a specific ruleset != Scrub.

Seriously. LOL. Anyone who assumes that a group of people who play a game with a specific ruleset to a game is dumb, imo. At least when it comes to defining what a scrub is or isnt.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

I, for one, would really like to see some discussion about combos in Brawl.

 

[GHNeko]

I already posted that Brawl has combos bro

thread is done

 

[SmashChu]

At least you don't waste any time making yourself look dumb. We lack tolerance for something because it's been tried before and Does. Not. Work.

First, no, it has never been tried. The only thing close was EVO 2K8 and what happened up to that event shows the true colors of the Smash brothers community. Outside of that, items and a lot of the stages have never been used in tournament play.

Nobody agrees with you because you're wrong. That's how it works.

The argument are only going to go down hill from here. This is where everyone will close their ears and go "LALALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING." Again, what I'm saying is what is normal in other games and what is the norm as a competitive game. Serlin's Play to Win is universal to all competitive games as it is the mind set of competitive gaming. So who is wrong, Smash Boards, or Serlin, Starcraft, Halo, World of Warcraft, Tekken, Call of Duty, Quake, the VS series and Street Fighter?

 

[GHNeko]

lol ISP 2v2 and 1v1 which is standardized item play was used at a national tourney in texas. And it was met with approval from everyone who participated. The ruleset just isnt widely supported so it kinda just went pfffffffff.

Sucks tho.

o well.

*goes back to playing how he wants and enjoys it regardless of people pushing their ideals over others*

 

[Luxor]

Serlin

...are we really still responding to this guy

s _I_ rlin is great and all, but truly random elements like items and completely overcentralizing or degenerate elements like half of the stages Brawl shipped with (circle camp, cave of life) have no place in a competitive game.

Not to mention the fact that we don't ban items or stages in Brawl. We TURN THEM OFF because the game shipped with the ability for us to choose how to play- and the community simply made a choice. If an item magically appears somehow anyway, you're free to use it. Nothing, I repeat nothing, is banned in Brawl.

 

[Life]

SmashChu has this really annoying habit of taking total nonsense (all stages on, all items on, etc) and throwing in otherwise legitimate ideas with it (Smash community bans things for poor/no reasons, Sirlin).

Chu (assuming you aren't trolling), items are banned because they are "excessively random". Random things tend to detract from competition because they arbitrarily decide the winner. Randomness can be excessive in two ways: if it comes with very little warning, and/or if it's overpowering. So while a few items are arguably fine (Star Rod, Beam Sword, and especially Food come to mind), many are unacceptable (Bob-ombs, soccer balls, containers, Pokeballs, arguably Smash Balls). There is also one stage banned for excessive randomness, and that is WarioWare. Its rewards are too random because they range from nothing to invincibility with no pattern whatsoever. Remember that we're trying to decide who the best player is; excessive randomness gives one player a buff for no reason, and thus acts as essentially a handicap. (Small amounts of randomness are generally okay, because it tests the players' ability to handle unexpected events; however, random factors should not decide the outcome of the match.)

Most stages are banned because they enable some tactic that heavily skews the balance of risk and reward. Sonic has all 100-0 matchups on levels with circle camping, for instance, because opponents cannot get close to him. Many stages with permanent walkoffs or walls are banned (Corneria, Green Hill Zone for instance) because you can sit next to the wall or walkoff and your opponent risks an infinite combo or immediate KO if they try to approach. One stage is banned in part because the skills required of it are "too different" from the ones required of other stages. This is, of course, Mario Bros, which is being discussed in another thread.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
You are right, however, in that lots of things are unnecessarily banned. Luigi's Mansion is legit, for instance, as the circles are not only very small but can be easily destroyed by the non-camping player. It's also quite nonrandom (I think the side platforms disappear randomly, but they might be on a timer). Distant Planet's randomness comes with plenty of warning, with the exception of the pellets which take time to become useful after they've grown. Fears of circle camping have been shown to be nonexistent, and the slant on the walkoff makes many chaingrabs and other abuses less powerful. The bulborb is a random, OHKO hazard, but it is far away from the main part of the stage, gives lots of "warning" (in the sense that it has to be there before it will kill anyone) and is never a problem in top-level play. Finally, the space above the leftmost edge is criticized as an excellent camping spot, but the rain and pellets make approaching it easier than it would be otherwise.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I feel rather strongly about you because of this last paragraph. You're taking perfectly fine ideas and mixing them with idiotic ones, and it's quite frustrating for me to watch.

Don't take it personally.

 

[JPOBS]

First, no, it has never been tried. The only thing close was EVO 2K8 and what happened up to that event shows the true colors of the Smash brothers community. Outside of that, items and a lot of the stages have never been used in tournament play.


The argument are only going to go down hill from here. This is where everyone will close their ears and go "LALALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING." Again, what I'm saying is what is normal in other games and what is the norm as a competitive game. Serlin's Play to Win is universal to all competitive games as it is the mind set of competitive gaming. So who is wrong, Smash Boards, or Serlin, Starcraft, Halo, World of Warcraft, Tekken, Call of Duty, Quake, the VS series and Street Fighter?

the first 3-4 years of competitive melee was played with Items ON and tons of jank stages, both were play tested, and items OFF only became standard around late 04-05, and stages gradually became turned off as they proved to be unusable for competitive play in melee.

Brawl on the other hand

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Items were banned immediately in Brawl when the first ruleset came out. Some items play was trying to be made, but no one had interest in it.

Brawl is actually following the same with stages and got a universally set national stage list for 2011.

Stagelist

1. Battlefield
2. Battleship Halberd
3. Brinstar
4. Castle Siege
5. Delfino Plaza
6. Final Destination
7. Lylat Cruise
8. Pokemon Stadium 1
9. Pokémon Stadium 2
10. Frigate Orpheon
11. Picto Chat
12. Rainbow Cruise
13. Smashville
14. Yoshi's Island
*One stage ban per player

They took off all of the questionable stages, Pictochat being the only possible questionable.

 

[Black Mantis]

I, for one, would really like to see some discussion about combos in Brawl.

I posted a combo video by Mr.R earlier along with a campy Melee jiggs .

 

[Deleted member]

Removed by Moderator

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

The fact that you consider that to be a "combo video" is exactly the point. That's just a gameplay video, not a combo video.

It was somewhat entertaining, but it was not a combo video.

At least, they weren't "True combos" which is what this topic is about.

Also, falco vs. campy jiggs is much faster and more entertaining than that Marth gameplay video.

You know, I respect people having differing opinions, likes and dislikes, but I can't see this really.

I mean if I took

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mTNaAUJZz5k?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mTNaAUJZz5k?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

and compared it to

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/USO4ymXmJe8?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/USO4ymXmJe8?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

I know Melee is general is a lot more interesting to watch, but that isn't necessarily always true since there are quite a few Brawl matches that are more interesting to watch over a bunch of Melee ones.

But hey everyone has different interests so who am I to say that.

 

[Deleted member]

Removed by Moderator

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Same.

I mean I like watching Brawl more since I know what is going on better, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy the fast nature of Melee.

 

[SothE700k]

Watch the Genesis Melee video to see the reason why Kongo Jungle 64 was banned.