For smash 4 to succeed, we need to change

[Ulevo]

Youre completely wrong here. The ire of the melee scene wasnt the only headwind Brawl had to face but it was a significant in stunting its growth.

You want to try and attribute this to Brawl's poor design, but in reality it's ignorance of the game theyre hating on. The truth is the old melee vets were wrong, pure and simple, and your agreement with Wife's post and the perspective that Brawl is a poor competitive game is a testament to the harm done out of ignorance.

One player may look at this as a shining example of the game's technical depth. Of course a deeper observation would also note an opponent who pressed up-b then died.

Less technical, but we see here an opponent has multiple opportunities to escape, yet still dies because of difficult decisions made based on the opponent's actions.

Different strokes for different folks.

Melee vets and others have a difficult time enjoying the game because it is mentally difficult and defensive oriented. These attributes make the game much harder to jump into. Or maybe they just want more buttons to press . I could go into much more detail about this, but I'm more concerned with correcting the misconception and not sure you're still following the thread.

I have a lot more reasons for making claims about how Brawl isn't a very good game then the obvious personal preferences that come with each. Sure, not everyone that dislikes Brawl is fully educated on the game from an in depth perspective. The irony of this is that if they were they'd just have more fuel to use to express their distaste.

 

[Cassio]

I have a lot more reasons for making claims about how Brawl isn't a very good game then the obvious personal preferences that come with each. Sure, not everyone that dislikes Brawl is fully educated on the game from an in depth perspective. The irony of this is that if they were they'd just have more fuel to use to express their distaste.

I skimmed through your posts for current and relevant information that would lead to an in-depth perspective of the game, and it tended to either be outdated (also bad in retrospect anyways) or quick false assumptions. The real irony is that people who hate on the game seem to believe they do so out of an understanding of the game when it's almost always the opposite.

Feel free to make a case on Brawl's poor quality with information and reasoning that you feel is well informed and relevant now, otherwise do not attempt to claim or imply your criticisms have these qualities. Its a particular nuisance because when its wrong (shoot, even inconclusive) it's jerkishly harmful to have promoted such a view.

 

[Shorts]

"For Smash 4 to succeed, we need to change"

Yes, let's stop complaining, and just eat up piles of **** big companies throw out at us. No. In order for Smash 4 to succeed, IT needs to do what WE want. That's how it has always worked. The game needs to make US happy.

 

[Ulevo]

I skimmed through your posts for current and relevant information that would lead to an in-depth perspective of the game, and it tended to either be outdated (also bad in retrospect anyways) or quick false assumptions. The real irony is that people who hate on the game seem to believe they do so out of an understanding of the game when it's almost always the opposite.

Feel free to make a case on Brawl's poor quality with information and reasoning that you feel is well informed and relevant now, otherwise do not attempt to claim or imply your criticisms have these qualities. Its a particular nuisance because when its wrong (shoot, even inconclusive) it's jerkishly harmful to have promoted such a view.

So you skim through my previous posts on the matter, claim my perspectives are outdated and incorrect, don't bother to make mention of which posts and arguments I've made you might be referring to so I could maybe retort any specific concerns you might have or support/clarify my case, and you have an issue with me making claims without substance? Seems a little hypocritical. Not that I disagree with you; currently right now I'm not exactly providing any real evidence to go off of. But I mean, what. You want a forum staring contest or something?

 

[Empyrean]

I do agree that people need to stop talk-****ting the other game, whether it's the Brawl or Melee communities, because they don't like it or whatever other reason. If everyone just sticked with their game instead of going all the way to hate on the other (such as people booing Brawl at Apex grand finals), then the community wouldn't have been divided this much. Obviously Smash 4 won't turn out to be the game everyone will be happy with, but if a competitive community, no matter how small, forms around it, then just let it be. Not thrash-talking the game in public is simply enough for it to stay healthy (implying of course that the game is indeed not a mess, which, from the looks of it, it won't be).

 

[Morbi]

I do agree that people need to stop talk-****ting the other game, whether it's the Brawl or Melee communities, because they don't like it or whatever other reason. If everyone just sticked with their game instead of going all the way to hate on the other (such as people booing Brawl at Apex grand finals), then the community wouldn't have been divided this much. Obviously Smash 4 won't turn out to be the game everyone will be happy with, but if a competitive community, no matter how small, forms around it, then just let it be. Not thrash-talking the game in public is simply enough for it to stay healthy (implying of course that the game is indeed not a mess, which, from the looks of it, it won't be).

I agree with you to an extent; however, asserting that one methodology should be the objective perspective is fallacious. If people want to hate on the other game, let them. It doesn't necessarily have an overt effect on you. Proclaiming that other people should remain passive while not doing so yourself is obviously contradictory. I don't necessarily condone hate, but it isn't my place to tell people what to do (which is where a lot of anti-hate mentalities are discerned).

 

[Empyrean]

I agree with you to an extent; however, asserting that one methodology should be the objective perspective is fallacious. If people want to hate on the other game, let them. It doesn't necessarily have an overt effect on you. Proclaiming that other people should remain passive while not doing so yourself is obviously contradictory. I don't necessarily condone hate, but it isn't my place to tell people what to do (which is where a lot of anti-hate mentalities are discerned).

Of course I know that such hateful actions will take place, and I'm not trying to stop anyone. I'm simply stating that the ideal would be that people stop going out of their way just to tell people how ****ty a game is, not that they should stop hating the game. I'm completely okay with people disliking Brawl/Melee/PM for x and y reasons. I myself have become used to them to the point where it doesn't affect me. However, it does affect the community of said game, no matter how small the impact is.

 

[Cassio]

So you skim through my previous posts on the matter, claim my perspectives are outdated and incorrect, don't bother to make mention of which posts and arguments I've made you might be referring to so I could maybe retort any specific concerns you might have or support/clarify my case, and you have an issue with me making claims without substance? Seems a little hypocritical. Not that I disagree with you; currently right now I'm not exactly providing any real evidence to go off of. But I mean, what. You want a forum staring contest or something?

I never made a claim, I just challenged you to support yours. However, Im content youve stated it's a perspective without substance. Which has been the point, attacks on Brawl do the game harm but arent supported with reason, and this is something we want to avoid for smash 4. Not that people need reason to be jerks about the game but that still makes them jerks.

Late edit, but I also think the attitude harms all areas of the smash community, but that's something I'll elaborate on another time (and sort of touched on in the OP)

 

[Ulevo]

I never made a claim, I just challenged you to support yours. However, Im content youve stated it's a perspective without substance. Which has been the point, attacks on Brawl do the game harm but arent supported with reason, and this is something we want to avoid for smash 4. Not that people need reason to be jerks about the game but that still makes them jerks.

You challenged me to support my claims because they were "outdated (also bad in retrospect anyways) or quick false assumptions." That's a claim you made. And you didn't even bother to be specific about which arguments I should even support, as per the posts you skimmed through.

Give me quotes.

 

[TimeSmash]

So bookmarked this link. Right next to my favorite porn.

[/thread]

 

[Cassio]

You challenged me to support my claims because they were "outdated (also bad in retrospect anyways) or quick false assumptions." That's a claim you made. And you didn't even bother to be specific about which arguments I should even support, as per the posts you skimmed through.

Give me quotes.

Asking that you support your position isn't a claim, lol. I also don't want to scour posts deciphering what you consider relevant to your position or not. If there's a particular post you feel supports your perspective I'll take a look, or reevaluate yourself what is or isn't significant to your point.

 

[Ulevo]

Asking that you support your position isn't a claim, lol. I also don't want to scour posts deciphering what you consider relevant to your position or not. If there's a particular post you feel supports your perspective I'll take a look, or reevaluate yourself what is or isn't significant to your point.

Asking me to support my position isn't a claim, but telling me my arguments in previous posts are outdated and wrong is. And who said anything about scouring for posts? I'm not asking you to go through my entire post history. I'm asking you to provide me with the very posts you yourself looked up already, and had criticism about. If you're not willing to do that then why are you having this conversation with me when I don't even know what it is specifically that you have a problem with?

 

[Cassio]

Asking me to support my position isn't a claim, but telling me my arguments in previous posts are outdated and wrong is. And who said anything about scouring for posts? I'm not asking you to go through my entire post history. I'm asking you to provide me with the very posts you yourself looked up already, and had criticism about. If you're not willing to do that then why are you having this conversation with me when I don't even know what it is specifically that you have a problem with?

The problem is your criticism lacks a foundation. But I already said I was content that you stated it was a perspective without substance.

I also didnt say wrong. It leads to that conclusion, but I said the information itself is outdated and and based on quick false assumptions. Those are qualities of the statements themselves. If you want me to be specific then I'm going to just say all of it. Im not making your argument for you, and Im not going to argue semantics or 'claims about claims about claims' anymore. If you care to continue then indicate what information or reasoning you feel is particularly relevant in supporting your criticisms.

 

[DaDavid]

Of course I know that such hateful actions will take place, and I'm not trying to stop anyone. I'm simply stating that the ideal would be that people stop going out of their way just to tell people how ****ty a game is, not that they should stop hating the game. I'm completely okay with people disliking Brawl/Melee/PM for x and y reasons. I myself have become used to them to the point where it doesn't affect me. However, it does affect the community of said game, no matter how small the impact is.

I think this is the whole point, so I wholeheartedly agree. It SHOULD be looked down on and discouraged when people speak out against a game just because it isn't their preference. It isn't a matter of changing minds, it's a matter of letting people enjoy what they enjoy without trying to make them feel like they're wrong.

I mean I don't care much for pop music, but I'm not going to frequent pop-concerts just to let people know how much I prefer rock and rap.

 

[LancerStaff]

"For Smash 4 to succeed, we need to change"

Yes, let's stop complaining, and just eat up piles of **** big companies throw out at us. No. In order for Smash 4 to succeed, IT needs to do what WE want. That's how it has always worked. The game needs to make US happy.

Us? We're a minority. SSB was created for majorities. Otherwise it'd still be Dragon King.

 

[Ulevo]

The problem is your criticism lacks a foundation. But I already said I was content that you stated it was a perspective without substance.

I also didnt say wrong. It leads to that conclusion, but I said the information itself is outdated and and based on quick false assumptions. Those are qualities of the statements themselves. If you want me to be specific then I'm going to just say all of it. Im not making your argument for you, and Im not going to argue semantics or 'claims about claims about claims' anymore. If you care to continue then indicate what information or reasoning you feel is particularly relevant in supporting your criticisms.

My criticisms don't lack foundation if you actually went back and properly read everything that I've said about this topic in various threads. That said, it's a fairly broad topic and I'm not going to regurgitate every single issue I have with it when I've already went over it, especially when someone tells me my perspective lacks foundation and doesn't give me actual reasons as to why. You're being broad on purpose because you're not willing to address things I've already talked about, and putting the onus on me to back up my claims when you ironically searched through my posts I've already made about the manner.

Just do me a favor next time. If you're going to call me out, put in the effort to do so, otherwise it just wastes time.

 

[Cassio]

My criticisms don't lack foundation if you actually went back and properly read everything that I've said about this topic in various threads. That said, it's a fairly broad topic and I'm not going to regurgitate every single issue I have with it when I've already went over it, especially when someone tells me my perspective lacks foundation and doesn't give me actual reasons as to why. You're being broad on purpose because you're not willing to address things I've already talked about, and putting the onus on me to back up my claims when you ironically searched through my posts I've already made about the manner.

Just do me a favor next time. If you're going to call me out, put in the effort to do so, otherwise it just wastes time.

If you want to back out thats your choice but don't pretend your stance has merit as a result. I might as well say I've debunked the criticisms people have with Brawl competitively if you go back and read everything Ive said in various threads (which is true) and to go look for it yourself. Itd take you a minute to state or quote the points you feel are most significant and I have no way of determining this for your position, so I addressed what youve talked about by stating negative attributes which apply broadly and would be more than willing to support on any individual point. So yes, your criticisms do lack a foundation with that context. Anyways, I put in the exact amount of effort I needed to put your stance in doubt to an observer, so it wasnt a waste of time for me.

 

[Empyrean]

Us? We're a minority. SSB was created for majorities. Otherwise it'd still be Dragon King.

As much as I agree that we only make up a small fraction of the people who buy the Smash games, in the long run, we are the ones who make them live longer. Do you think Melee, and to a lesser extent 64, would still be played as much today if it weren't for the competitive community? The same applies for Brawl and will apply for Smash 4. Yes, Nintendo is not obliged to make the game what we want it to be, but, after all, if we are not happy, then it would be foolish to expect that the game will outlive its respective generation the same way 64 and Melee have done. Hell, if the game turns out that bad (which it hopefully won't), then even the Brawl community will stick with Brawl. This community is a minority, no point denying that, but one with a lot of influence about what happens to the next game in the long term, with no regard to how much the game actually sells. (Also, I'm pretty sure that if this series had not been a Nintendo all-star brawler, then it would not have the same following as it currently does.)

 

[Ulevo]

If you want to back out thats your choice but don't pretend your stance has merit as a result. I might as well say I've debunked the criticisms people have with Brawl competitively if you go back and read everything Ive said in various threads (which is true) and to go look for it yourself. Itd take you a minute to state or quote the points you feel are most significant and I have no way of determining this for your position, so I addressed what youve talked about by stating negative attributes which apply broadly and would be more than willing to support on any individual point. So yes, your criticisms do lack a foundation with that context. Anyways, I put in the exact amount of effort I needed to put your stance in doubt to an observer, so it wasnt a waste of time for me.

The main difference here is that you made the effort to dig in to my post history in order to make your assertions about my position in the first place. I didn't. That's the whole reason this even started. And now that I'm asking you to be specific about what you found that you disagree with, you're telling me "why do I need to do that?" I find it difficult for you to not see how silly this is. You essentially stirred the pot for no reason.

I find it unfortunate that I'm having a discussion like this with someone in the BBR of all people.

 

[DaDavid]

"For Smash 4 to succeed, we need to change"

Yes, let's stop complaining, and just eat up piles of **** big companies throw out at us. No. In order for Smash 4 to succeed, IT needs to do what WE want. That's how it has always worked. The game needs to make US happy.

We're such a small percentage of the overall sales of Smash that it's not even funny when someone honestly acts like we're the end-all for it's success.

Yes, Sakurai should want to make us (the universal us, not just us in this community) happy by making a good game, but this topic isn't about accepting a crappy game. It's about us as a community being more united in deciding how to proceed when this new game comes out, and not succumbing to petty arguments that divide the community in half. It isn't about whether or not Sakurai has made a game that pleases 100% percent of us in 100% of the ways possible. Because that is just as impossible as assuming that this game would be poorly received by 100% of the community. There's bound to be some disagreement about which game is better and which game should appear at tourney's and all that, but the idea here is that even if the game you personally don't prefer ends up gaining some popularity (which really just generates popularity for the series as a whole) it shouldn't be your agenda to go out of your way to bad-mouth it. It doesn't do anything for the growth of the community and just results in a "shots fired" mentality whenever anybody talks about anything.

The big thing here is that anybody who gets into competitive Smash thanks to Smash 4 will inevitably be exposed and perhaps interested in the other games in the series. But it is unlikely that people will all of a sudden become interested in those older games any other way, so we need to promote the growth of Smash 4 first, as a way to get the new players to remain in the community long enough to contribute to it's growth, no matter which game they end up preferring.

It's like when somebody gets into a band because of their latest album. Nine times out of ten, that person will end up looking into the older entries to their discography all on their own out of interest in what else the band has to offer. Sometimes it's even at the genuine, thoughtful request of a fan who's known about the band longer. However, that interest isn't promoted when a salty older fan tells the new fan that the album he likes is garbage or absolutely awful compared to their older stuff and doesn't at least give the new fan a chance to make that decision on his own. All the salty fan has done is promote a sense of animosity and generate bitter feelings in the new fan for the rude people who apparently can't simply respect his personal taste even though nothing is stopping that older salty fan from just listening to the records he does like.

 

[Muster]

If you want to back out thats your choice but don't pretend your stance has merit as a result. I might as well say I've debunked the criticisms people have with Brawl competitively if you go back and read everything Ive said in various threads (which is true) and to go look for it yourself. Itd take you a minute to state or quote the points you feel are most significant and I have no way of determining this for your position, so I addressed what youve talked about by stating negative attributes which apply broadly and would be more than willing to support on any individual point. So yes, your criticisms do lack a foundation with that context. Anyways, I put in the exact amount of effort I needed to put your stance in doubt to an observer, so it wasnt a waste of time for me.

You've actually done the opposite. I'd have liked to see an actual debate over Brawl's quirks from the side of someone who likes brawl compared to someone who doesn't, but your refusal to defend Brawl on points that you claim are outdated or incorrect really puts the possibility that you even have sound arguments against them that aren't themselves outdated or incorrect into question. Especially when it's coming from someone who is responsible for making decisions regarding brawl's meta game who can't even be bothered list and refute arguments against the game's viability in a competitive environment.
And yes, i "skimmed" through your recent posts, too. All i found was a convincing argument that MK ruined brawl.

 

[1MachGO]

Youre completely wrong here. The ire of the melee scene wasnt the only headwind Brawl had to face but it was a significant in stunting its growth.

You want to try and attribute this to Brawl's poor design, but in reality it's ignorance of the game theyre hating on. The truth is the old melee vets were wrong, pure and simple, and your agreement with Wife's post and the perspective that Brawl is a poor competitive game is a testament to the harm done out of ignorance.

One player may look at this as a shining example of the game's technical depth. Of course a deeper observation would also note an opponent who pressed up-b then died.

Less technical, but we see here an opponent has multiple opportunities to escape, yet still dies because of difficult decisions made based on the opponent's actions.

Different strokes for different folks.

Melee vets and others have a difficult time enjoying the game because it is mentally difficult and defensive oriented. These attributes make the game much harder to jump into. Or maybe they just want more buttons to press . I could go into much more detail about this, but I'm more concerned with correcting the misconception and not sure you're still following the thread.

If you are implying that the differences between Melee and Brawl can be boiled down to technical depth vs. mental depth, this is a gross oversimplification. However, before I continue, I would actually like to know what your entire stance is. More specifically:

1. How did Melee stunt Brawl's growth in a way that neither side can be depicted as in the right?
2. Do you think Brawl catered to competitive play more than Melee?
3. Objectively, can you explain that Brawl and Melee are equals in competitive depth, or are they just "different"?

 

[Shorts]

Stop assuming I'm a competitive gamer. I'm the majority sucka.

Even so, if you want change, you need to make it vocal.

 

[DaDavid]

Stop assuming I'm a competitive gamer. I'm the majority sucka.

Even so, if you want change, you need to make it vocal.

I apologize for the assumption, though you'll understand that that's a fair one to make on Smash Boards, in a topic specifically about the competitive community.

I'm with you on the fact that for the NEXT game to improve we need to be vocal at Sakurai about changes that need to be made. For example, he obviously heard us about tripping and presumably hit-stun cancellation based on his interviews and gameplay footage.

But that's not what this topic is about. Like... at all. This is about how we'll treat each other as a community when this game comes out, not about what we will let the devs know about the game as consumers.

 

[popsofctown]

The competitive consumer is not that narrow a profile at all. Lots of players who don't attend tournaments are playing at home on smashville with items turned off.

 

[kackamee]

The competitive consumer is not that narrow a profile at all. Lots of players who don't attend tournaments are playing at home on smashville with items turned off.

There's no proof to this. When I play with my friends, we play on Bridge of Eldin 85% of the time with all items turned on and 5 lives in a Free for All.

 

[popsofctown]

A reasonably large sample of players who discover the scene seem to be playing itemless already.

 

[Cassio]

The main difference here is that you made the effort to dig in to my post history in order to make your assertions about my position in the first place. I didn't. That's the whole reason this even started. And now that I'm asking you to be specific about what you found that you disagree with, you're telling me "why do I need to do that?" I find it difficult for you to not see how silly this is. You essentially stirred the pot for no reason.

I find it unfortunate that I'm having a discussion like this with someone in the BBR of all people.

I made the effort to skim the thread were in now which included some of your recent posts, not your post history. I made a collective observation. Im not asking why I need to get specific, its redundant when I made clear my observation can be applied specifically as well.

If for any other reason, I dont have a day to sit here and debunk multiple pages line by line when youd probably consider most of what youve said peripheral or completely irrelevant to your main point, and gave you pretty generous terms to pick out anything youve ever said to contradict my observation, instead of me representing your position or picking up on one or two weak things you said and using that instead. The latter would be a true waste of time. And there certainly was a reason, criticism of Brawl had better be iron tight or else perpetuating uncertainties (without the stated uncertainty) or false information is terribly inappropriate. If both of us decide to not pick out specifics to continue discussion, the presence of opposition is enough.

Not sure what being in the BBR has to do with this. I never used my status to argue, and mightve wrongfully used my position in the beginning to argue a deeper understanding (or your misunderstanding) of the game to discredit your posts and left it at that. BBR or not its worth stating an opposition but not worth it for me to comb your posts, however unless youre content with the conclusion (which is fine) theres absolutely nothing preventing you from presenting your argument concisely.

If you are implying that the differences between Melee and Brawl can be boiled down to technical depth vs. mental depth, this is a gross oversimplification. However, before I continue, I would actually like to know what your entire stance is. More specifically:

1. How did Melee stunt Brawl's growth in a way that neither side can be depicted as in the right?
2. Do you think Brawl catered to competitive play more than Melee?
3. Objectively, can you explain that Brawl and Melee are equals in competitive depth, or are they just "different"?

I agree,

1. Interesting question. Personally Im forgiving on the whole right-wrong thing in regards to what happened when it first came out. Unless the game is completely terrible, imaging and advertising are more important to a games success than its quality. I think the confident premature negative conclusions and labeling were harmful in this regard, but at the same time its retrospective since it was the first time truly dealing with a new game in the series and there was a real fear that melee might go under making it understandable. However, the same can't be said when smash 4 comes out. Additionally, since EVO the added advertising for melee has included jabs at Brawl which don't fit the same 'understandable' criteria, although the worst thing about it has more to do with the wide audience its reaching now.

2. I think it catered to a different aspect of competitive play. I don't agree with the assessments that a game can be simply more competitive than another. Something is either competitive or it is not. However if it is then we can weigh the game based on different aspects of competition we feel are important. Of course I expect this might be disagreeable particularly as a summary and would require more information.

3. Refer to my last response. We can say that one game has more competitive depth than another if it has preferable qualities, that can be objective. But agreement on those qualities is somewhat less objective.

I'll elaborate as needed, just dont want to put the cart before the horse.

 

[DaDavid]

The competitive consumer is not that narrow a profile at all. Lots of players who don't attend tournaments are playing at home on smashville with items turned off.

Even if that's the case it doesn't change the fact that those people aren't part of the competitive community. The desire to play without items and on stages that are less hazardous has nothing to do with what this topic is getting at.

 

[TimeSmash]

A HUGE point is that Smash, unlike other fighters, isn't being made to cater to the competitive community. We in no way should act entitled to a game that will be immensely competitively viable. It'd be great if Smash 4 were crazy good, but the game isn't being made for us specifically. It's for everyone who loves the series. And if you end up not liking it, don't be a wad and tell players of it they suck or their game is stupid. Being polite is not that hard; that's what this thread is getting at

 

[Vkrm]

A HUGE point is that Smash, unlike other fighters, isn't being made to cater to the competitive community. We in no way should act entitled to a game that will be immensely competitively viable. It'd be great if Smash 4 were crazy good, but the game isn't being made for us specifically. It's for everyone who loves the series. And if you end up not liking it, don't be a wad and tell players of it they suck or their game is stupid. Being polite is not that hard; that's what this thread is getting at

Then nobody should be giving the competitive community crap for playing the older version or modding the current one into a game they can enjoy. Wanting the game to function well in a competitive environment doesn't necessarily make us over entitled, and everybody would benefit from the kind of feedback only the competitive community could give.

 

[1MachGO]

I agree,

1. Interesting question. Personally Im forgiving on the whole right-wrong thing in regards to what happened when it first came out. Unless the game is completely terrible, imaging and advertising are more important to a games success than its quality. I think the confident premature negative conclusions and labeling were harmful in this regard, but at the same time its retrospective since it was the first time truly dealing with a new game in the series and there was a real fear that melee might go under making it understandable. However, the same can't be said when smash 4 comes out. Additionally, since EVO the added advertising for melee has included jabs at Brawl which don't fit the same 'understandable' criteria, although the worst thing about it has more to do with the wide audience its reaching now.

2. I think it catered to a different aspect of competitive play. I don't agree with the assessments that a game can be simply more competitive than another. Something is either competitive or it is not. However if it is then we can weigh the game based on different aspects of competition we feel are important. Of course I expect this might be disagreeable particularly as a summary and would require more information.

3. Refer to my last response. We can say that one game has more competitive depth than another if it has preferable qualities, that can be objective. But agreement on those qualities is somewhat less objective.

I'll elaborate as needed, just dont want to put the cart before the horse.

@1, While I agree with your main idea (that you can't call either side completely unjustified), I disagree with your depiction of initial Brawl-hate by referring to it as "fear". While I am not suggesting fear was never a factor at any point, genuine disappointment was the main and recurring feeling. There was a lot of hype surrounding Brawl... and yes, even the biggest detractors of the game had bought a copy. Truth is, many Melee players were expecting something they didn't get. They loudly expressed their disappointment. Plain and simple.

@2, You seem to be contradicting yourself. On one hand, you acknowledge that there are different aspects of competitive play (suggesting that competition is intricate and can be simple or expansive), but on the other hand, you are saying that something being competitive is a black or white matter with no comparison in overall value. How can these viewpoints coexist? If Game A fulfills more competitive aspects than Game B, then doesn't it offer more as a competitive game? Would you suggest that tic-tac-toe, a game that results in deadlocks once both participants know the primary strategies, is just as competitive as chess which requires years to master? And more on topic, what about developer intent for both Melee and Brawl?

@3, You seem to be inferring that your answer is that they are different. However, I would argue that the comparison can be made since the two games have a lot in common at their simplest form.

 

[TimeSmash]

Then nobody should be giving the competitive community crap for playing the older version or modding the current one into a game they can enjoy. Wanting the game to function well in a competitive environment doesn't necessarily make us over entitled, and everybody would benefit from the kind of feedback only the competitive community could give.

I'm an avid Project M player myself, and I love it. I'm just saying we shouldn't expect the original product to be something as viable as Melee, or expect Sakurai to really care about us and how we play the game when he's stated multiple times he doesn't care too much about that side of the game. Which I disagree with, because like you said there is a unique feedback that our community can give above someone who plays the game as a casual. I'm trying to be a realist about it though, because like I said he's really not making the game for us, but for the masses

 

[DaDavid]

Then nobody should be giving the competitive community crap for playing the older version or modding the current one into a game they can enjoy. Wanting the game to function well in a competitive environment doesn't necessarily make us over entitled, and everybody would benefit from the kind of feedback only the competitive community could give.

While I agree with most of what you say, it still has nothing at all to do with what the message of the topic is. It has nothing to do with our relationship with the more casual consumer, it has nothing to do with our relationship to Sakurai. It isn't that we're over entitled to expect certain things from Sakurai, it's that sometimes we misunderstand what Sakurai sees "us" as.

Regardless, this entire topic is just about our relationship to each other as a competitive community. The sort of people who enjoy Brawl competitively and then proceed to give the Project M and Melee players crap for having wanted Brawl to be something different are just as guilty of dividing the community as the Project M and Melee players are if they give Brawl fans crap over the fact that they are playing a "worse" game.

Neither person is in the right there. Even if someone wanted to argue that the Project M fans are in the right and should be the ones to "win" because they know what's best for Smash, it still doesn't change the fact that as soon as you're directing your criticisms and disappointments in Brawl/Smash 4 (if it is unsatisfactory) at Brawl/Smash 4 fans then you're doing nothing but starting a fight that doesn't have winners because it isn't the fans who have control over the future of Smash, it's Sakurai.

Long story short; No, this topic and messages in support of the topic are not asking people to just be quiet and not ever complain about the game.
Among what is being asked (perhaps somewhat indirectly) is that you ought to know who to direct those complaints at. (Hint: It's not the fans of the game you don't like.)

 

[J1NG]

There's no proof to this. When I play with my friends, we play on Bridge of Eldin 85% of the time with all items turned on and 5 lives in a Free for All.

No proof? I do exactly that when/if I play Brawl. 1v1 on FD, BF, PS1, SV with no items.
Remember, just because you play with all items on hazardous stages doesn't mean there aren't people like me who play in a competitive manner while simultaneously staying out of the tournament scene.

 

[pitthekit]

No proof? I do exactly that when/if I play Brawl. 1v1 on FD, BF, PS1, SV with no items.
Remember, just because you play with all items on hazardous stages doesn't mean there aren't people like me who play in a competitive manner while simultaneously staying out of the tournament scene.

Ditto

 

[popsofctown]

My point is that the design goals for smash are presumed to be more "casually" oriented than they are. Brawl was released with the goal of getting wii sports owners who already had a wii to get into "actual" gaming.

The wii U actually needs to sell consoles. Melee players buying a Wii was a gimme, but Brawl players have left the Wii U on the shelves. Nintendo needs to make itemless, competitive style matches better this time around

 

[Cassio]

Long story short; No, this topic and messages in support of the topic are not asking people to just be quiet and not ever complain about the game.
Among what is being asked (perhaps somewhat indirectly) is that you ought to know who to direct those complaints at. (Hint: It's not the fans of the game you don't like.)

This isnt directed at you and I agree with your general point, but regarding the context of the conversation youre in. For players that have an understanding of Brawl constructive criticism is fine. The problem is most people criticizing the game dabbled with it for awhile then proceeded to hate on it. Subjective opinions are fine, but most criticism of the game itself comes out of ignorance and that is not ok. On message its not worth creating destructive squabble over game preference. While not liking the game is fine people dont have to go out of their way to be criticize it and create division in the community

@1, While I agree with your main idea (that you can't call either side completely unjustified), I disagree with your depiction of initial Brawl-hate by referring to it as "fear". While I am not suggesting fear was never a factor at any point, genuine disappointment was the main and recurring feeling. There was a lot of hype surrounding Brawl... and yes, even the biggest detractors of the game had bought a copy. Truth is, many Melee players were expecting something they didn't get. They loudly expressed their disappointment. Plain and simple.

@2, You seem to be contradicting yourself. On one hand, you acknowledge that there are different aspects of competitive play (suggesting that competition is intricate and can be simple or expansive), but on the other hand, you are saying that something being competitive is a black or white matter with no comparison in overall value. How can these viewpoints coexist? If Game A fulfills more competitive aspects than Game B, then doesn't it offer more as a competitive game? Would you suggest that tic-tac-toe, a game that results in deadlocks once both participants know the primary strategies, is just as competitive as chess which requires years to master? And more on topic, what about developer intent for both Melee and Brawl?

@3, You seem to be inferring that your answer is that they are different. However, I would argue that the comparison can be made since the two games have a lot in common at their simplest form.

I dont think we're disagreeing mostly, fear was only a part of it. Although I think by the time those that decided they wanted to play melee instead it did become a significant piece. Im not sure if you were around when it was released, but there were signs of such division even before its release. I think the reasons themselves aren't important so much as not repeating it though.

Competition requires a degree of interaction between competition participants, and at a high level tic-tac-toe is predetermined. Another example: drawing cards is not competitive, but Rock Paper Scissors is. Competition has a lot of variety, so its understandable that it has varying aspects. For instance, one aspect of melee is it's technical prowess which is generally seen as pretty high. It's an aspect for Brawl as well but obv not considered as high. In contrast Brawl requires powerful mental stamina and patience. It's an aspect for melee too but isn't as significant. However, some people might not consider some aspects to be as important as others.

And yes, I kind of lean towards theyre different but its also complicated. If people decide technical skill is more important melee is going to seem more preferable competitively. If people appreciate mental fortitude then theyll prefer brawl. So it can still be measured objectively if people agree on standards for competition. Also I agree that Melee and Brawl do share a similar foundation that makes them comparable, but the conclusion will be different depending on which aspects you find important.

 

[TimeSmash]

Im not sure if you were around when it was released, but there were signs of such division even before its release. I think the reasons themselves aren't important so much as not repeating it though.

And there are signs of this already happening on these boards with Smash 4. The OP is trying to say that what we allowed to happen with the whole Brawl vs. Melee things shouldn't happen again, and to treat each other with respect as to which games we choose.

 

[Cassio]

This time its better expected and hopes to pre-empt it, if people are active about it. I dont think the Brawl scene really cared to show how the game fit together competitively and probably still dont for the most part, but now easing opinions that Brawl is not the devil's work may help to alleviate concerns about smash 4.