For smash 4 to succeed, we need to change

[Substitution]

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.

But, we're not in the same boat.
Smash 4 has shown to at least be middle ground.
We won't be as bad as Brawl's reception was back in the day. We're closer to Melee then we've ever been.
If we're gonna be yelled at. It's not gonna be for the same reasons.

Honestly, I think the biggest problem is old habits.
We can't change because we don't want to. And that'll be our downfall...
And, admittedly, nostalgia contributes to it.
The problem is due to so many people calling Melee "the competitive Smash". It's gotten to the point where we want nothing but that.
It gets to the point where we don't consider Smash games as what they are. Instead preferring to compare them to Melee. If it's not better than Melee, then forget it. It's not good.

Look at Brawl. Ever since we got the game. Everyone has been harping on it. It got to the point where we made a mod. Why? It wasn't good enough. It wasn't Melee.
I understand it's a casual Smash. But I also understand the point of Brawl. But why couldn't we leave it alone? We let 64 do their own thing. Why is it so bad that Brawl can't?
And the answer. "It's not competitive enough."
...This, is what needs to change.

Look, I don't want this to look like I'm saying Melee's bad. It isn't. But this mindset is.
If we want Smash 4 to change. We need to change. We need to understand that yes. It's not Melee. But instead a different game.
That's how it'll work.

 

[Ulevo]

But, we're not in the same boat.
Smash 4 has shown to at least be middle ground.
We won't be as bad as Brawl's reception was back in the day. We're closer to Melee then we've ever been.
If we're gonna be yelled at. It's not gonna be for the same reasons.

Honestly, I think the biggest problem is old habits.
We can't change because we don't want to. And that'll be our downfall...
And, admittedly, nostalgia contributes to it.
The problem is due to so many people calling Melee "the competitive Smash". It's gotten to the point where we want nothing but that.
It gets to the point where we don't consider Smash games as what they are. Instead preferring to compare them to Melee. If it's not better than Melee, then forget it. It's not good.

Look at Brawl. Ever since we got the game. Everyone has been harping on it. It got to the point where we made a mod. Why? It wasn't good enough. It wasn't Melee.
I understand it's a casual Smash. But I also understand the point of Brawl. But why couldn't we leave it alone? We let 64 do their own thing. Why is it so bad that Brawl can't?
And the answer. "It's not competitive enough."
...This, is what needs to change.

Look, I don't want this to look like I'm saying Melee's bad. It isn't. But this mindset is.
If we want Smash 4 to change. We need to change. We need to understand that yes. It's not Melee. But instead a different game.
That's how it'll work.

You need to acknowledge that there is an opposite side to this coin. Blind hate isn't healthy or conducive to progress, but neither is denial. Brawl had legitimate problems that, if we want it to be a competitively accepted game, need to be addressed and not repeated. Treating Brawl like it's perfectly fine isn't going to help that fact.

 

[Substitution]

You need to acknowledge that there is an opposite side to this coin. Blind hate isn't healthy or conducive to progress, but neither is denial. Brawl had legitimate problems that, if we want it to be a competitively accepted game, need to be addressed and not repeated. Treating Brawl like it's perfectly fine isn't going to help that fact.

And I understand that.
I will admit. Brawl had it's problems. Which is why I said we weren't on the same boat.
But, completely saying that Melee > Brawl isn't the way to go.

 

[Vkrm]

But, we're not in the same boat.
Smash 4 has shown to at least be middle ground.
We won't be as bad as Brawl's reception was back in the day. We're closer to Melee then we've ever been.
If we're gonna be yelled at. It's not gonna be for the same reasons.

Honestly, I think the biggest problem is old habits.
We can't change because we don't want to. And that'll be our downfall...
And, admittedly, nostalgia contributes to it.
The problem is due to so many people calling Melee "the competitive Smash". It's gotten to the point where we want nothing but that.
It gets to the point where we don't consider Smash games as what they are. Instead preferring to compare them to Melee. If it's not better than Melee, then forget it. It's not good.

Look at Brawl. Ever since we got the game. Everyone has been harping on it. It got to the point where we made a mod. Why? It wasn't good enough. It wasn't Melee.
I understand it's a casual Smash. But I also understand the point of Brawl. But why couldn't we leave it alone? We let 64 do their own thing. Why is it so bad that Brawl can't?
And the answer. "It's not competitive enough."
...This, is what needs to change.

Look, I don't want this to look like I'm saying Melee's bad. It isn't. But this mindset is.
If we want Smash 4 to change. We need to change. We need to understand that yes. It's not Melee. But instead a different game.
That's how it'll work.

I don't think the scene is as closed minded as you make it seem. You yourself mention how we more or less love smash 64 despite it being quite different from melee.

 

[Substitution]

I don't think the scene is as closed minded as you make it seem. You yourself mention how we more or less love smash 64 despite it being quite different from melee.

But yet somehow, many of us hate Brawl.
Why like one but not the other?

 

[Vkrm]

But yet somehow, many of us hate Brawl.
Why like one but not the other?

It's ass.

 

[DaDavid]

And I understand that.
I will admit. Brawl had it's problems. Which is why I said we weren't on the same boat.
But, completely saying that Melee > Brawl isn't the way to go.

Exactly. Even if it's technically true that Melee has more going for it competitively, telling the fans that is not the way to go. It doesn't fix anything if people who enjoy Brawl competitively are told that their game falls short of Melee. Arguing among the community as if we all have to come to an agreement doesn't result in change.

I agree that denial of Brawls objective (or as close as possible) faults such as tripping isn't going to help anyone, but people direct those complaints at the fans of the game as if they wanted tripping added and would protest it's removal, or even worse, as if it's within their power to eliminate it.

Make no mistake, the changes that Sakurai is making going into Smash 4 has nothing to do with the infighting of the community and everything to do with the criticism that actually reached him. The latter could've been accomplished without the former.

 

[K.Louis]

But yet somehow, many of us hate Brawl.
Why like one but not the other?

I'd make a really long post about why but there's already thousands of them on Smashboards.

 

[Substitution]

I'd make a really long post about why but there's already thousands of them on Smashboards.

And that's the worst part.
And, I'm worried that old habits will die hard.

 

[Cassio]

But, we're not in the same boat.
Smash 4 has shown to at least be middle ground.
We won't be as bad as Brawl's reception was back in the day. We're closer to Melee then we've ever been.
If we're gonna be yelled at. It's not gonna be for the same reasons.

I agree, but as you said there are other reasons we might see backlash and the game still hasnt been released so we cant truly say what its reception will be like in terms of its mechanics.

You need to acknowledge that there is an opposite side to this coin. Blind hate isn't healthy or conducive to progress, but neither is denial. Brawl had legitimate problems that, if we want it to be a competitively accepted game, need to be addressed and not repeated. Treating Brawl like it's perfectly fine isn't going to help that fact.

I agree that denial about Brawl's characteristics is worse than to acknowledge it, but Brawl is fine competitively and criticism is almost entirely in the uninformed hate category.

It's ***.

Wrong. Brawl is fairly different from other smash games comparatively which makes it difficult for people to understand, so they jump to incorrect conclusions like one you've made.

 

[Ulevo]

I agree that denial about Brawl's characteristics is worse than to acknowledge it, but Brawl is fine competitively and criticism is almost entirely in the uninformed hate category..

That's certainly one opinion.

 

[DaDavid]

That's certainly one opinion.

And though you say that somewhat sarcastically, it doesn't make it any less true.

The fact that no one is "right" in any of this is what needs to be remembered when Smash 4 comes out. That is what will, hopefully, keep the arguments to a minimum.

 

[J1NG]

I wasn't old enough to know about it, but was there a huge rejection of Melee by 64 fans like how there is with Melee fans towards Brawl?

 

[Substitution]

I agree, but as you said there are other reasons we might see backlash and the game still hasnt been released so we cant truly say what its reception will be like in terms of its mechanics.

But, by the looks of it. It won't be as bad.
It's gonna be middle ground. So the "not as competitive as Melee" won't be as convincing.
Our problem currently is wireless controllers.

I agree that denial about Brawl's characteristics is worse than to acknowledge it, but Brawl is fine competitively and criticism is almost entirely in the uninformed hate category.

Well, I wouldn't say perfect. But it isn't the worst game ever...

I wasn't old enough to know about it, but was there a huge rejection of Melee by 64 fans like how there is with Melee fans towards Brawl?

I wouldn't be surprised.
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

 

[Ulevo]

And though you say that somewhat sarcastically, it doesn't make it any less true.

The fact that no one is "right" in any of this is what needs to be remembered when Smash 4 comes out. That is what will, hopefully, keep the arguments to a minimum.

There's nothing factual about the idea that the vast majority of the arguments made against Brawl are done so under an ignorant, uninformed pretense. It's ridiculous even. There are plenty of players who know Brawl extensively and have very real criticisms towards it.

 

[Vkrm]

Wrong. Brawl is fairly different from other smash games comparatively which makes it difficult for people to understand, so they jump to incorrect conclusions like one you've made.

So everybody who feels brawl is a bad game simply must be wrong? Please forgive me, where I'm from its perfectly fine to say a game is bad when its filled with awful mechanics.

 

[Cassio]

And though you say that somewhat sarcastically, it doesn't make it any less true.

The fact that no one is "right" in any of this is what needs to be remembered when Smash 4 comes out. That is what will, hopefully, keep the arguments to a minimum.

Nicely said. Opinion and uncertainty should drive us to at least speak subjectively and tone down criticisms.

There are plenty of players who know Brawl extensively and have very real criticisms towards it.

lol, this is true for melee and pretty much almost everything ever. Im willing to back up my thoughts on how criticisms are typically ill-informed. Care to finally share yours? I've certainly not prevented you from making your case

So everybody who feels brawl is a bad game simply must be wrong? Please forgive me, where I'm from its perfectly fine to say a game is bad when its filled with awful mechanics.

Unless its said as subjective opinion, more or less yeah. It must also be ok to speak without backing up your position .

 

[K.Louis]

And that's the worst part.
And, I'm worried that old habits will die hard.

How is that a habit? I just don't like playing the game, and when Smash 4 comes out it's going to be another year or so of a separate decision of whether or not I like Smash 4. Why are Brawl tryhards so eager to blindly jump onto the Smash 4 train?

 

[DaDavid]

There's nothing factual about the idea that the vast majority of the arguments made against Brawl are done so under an ignorant, uninformed pretense. It's ridiculous even. There are plenty of players who know Brawl extensively and have very real criticisms towards it.

You've misunderstood my meaning, which is probably my bad so lemme try to elaborate.

Whoever you've been arguing with is wrong in saying that all or most criticism levied against Brawl is done so ignorantly. In that sense yes, there is a right person and a wrong person. (Congrats I guess, the right person is you.) However, anyone who says that those criticisms, well-researched as they may be, objectively means that Brawl is a worse game is not "right."

This talk of 64 vs. Melee vs. Brawl vs. Project M (and in the near future) vs. Smash 4 is all, no matter how you cut it, a matter of preferences clashing. Clashing in such a way that does nothing but damage the community as a whole. In the conversation of which is best there is no right answer, or rather, no ONE right answer. However, anyone who does try to argue that they are definitely right and do so by using what they believe to be objective correct claims (such as whoever it is is doing by claiming that a lot of Brawl hate is unfounded) is definitely wrong.

Edit: Adding this in.

So everybody who feels brawl is a bad game simply must be wrong? Please forgive me, where I'm from its perfectly fine to say a game is bad when its filled with awful mechanics.

It's not that saying that Brawl is bad is wrong, it's that it's wrong to say that Brawl is objectively bad. It is perfectly fine to say that you dislike a game because it has mechanics you don't like. It's not okay to say that a game is objectively bad because it has mechanics that are subjectively bad. The very fact that people still enjoy Brawl is enough to say prove that the game is not objectively bad.

But more on topic with what the OP is even getting at... What exactly, does one who hates Brawl or Melee hope to accomplish by telling a fan of Brawl or Melee that their preference is garbage/wrong/stupid/etc? Now what does that person ACTUALLY accomplish?

 

[Cassio]

Whoever you've been arguing with is wrong in saying that all or most criticism levied against Brawl is done so ignorantly. In that sense yes, there is a right person and a wrong person. (Congrats I guess, the right person is you.) However, anyone who says that those criticisms, well-researched as they may be, objectively means that Brawl is a worse game is not "right."

For the record I never said all, Ive tried to be careful about adding qualifiers. Nothing's ever perfect. However it is a pretty widespread issue that statements about Brawl are made without much time spent on insight.

How is that a habit? I just don't like playing the game, and when Smash 4 comes out it's going to be another year or so of a separate decision of whether or not I like Smash 4. Why are Brawl tryhards so eager to blindly jump onto the Smash 4 train?

Id imagine for the same reason people will stick to another game without trying smash 4. Because its what they want to do.

 

[Substitution]

How is that a habit? I just don't like playing the game, and when Smash 4 comes out it's going to be another year or so of a separate decision of whether or not I like Smash 4. Why are Brawl tryhards so eager to blindly jump onto the Smash 4 train?

I'm referring to the community as a whole.

 

[Vkrm]

Unless its said as subjective opinion, more or less yeah. It must also be ok to speak without backing up your position .

There's no shortage of bad mechanics I could bring up to support my argument. If you wanted some you could've asked without being so combative.

 

[DaDavid]

For the record I never said all, Ive tried to be careful about adding qualifiers. Nothing's ever perfect. However it is a pretty widespread issue that statements about Brawl are made without much time spent on insight.

It was careless wording on my part.

But that insight isn't all that important here. That person's opinion is still what it is, no matter how they arrived at it. Yes, it's annoying that that person takes that uninformed opinion (this of course assuming the opinion is truly uninformed) and then proceeds to go out of their way to talk trash about the game they don't like, but it'd be just as annoying and detrimental to the community if that trash talking was in fact informed.

 

[DaDavid]

There's no shortage of bad mechanics I could bring up to support my argument. If you wanted some you could've asked without being so combative.

There's no shortage of bad mechanics you could bring up to explain your opinion of the game. There is nothing at all you could bring up to support the claim that Brawl is objectively a bad game.

 

[K.Louis]

I'm referring to the community as a whole.

That's what the community did for Brawl before they left and that's how most Melee players are going to try Smash 4.

 

[Substitution]

That's what the community did for Brawl before they left and that's how most Melee players are going to try Smash 4.

So, then we give up? No.

We go on without them. We can make our own community.

 

[pitthekit]

If melee was at 1/4 speed then we would have patience as throwing out moves would easily be punishable. Power shield would be much easier under this tempo and we would have much more time to react to moves and pick logical choices.
If we played brawl at 2x speed would we really have more patience? Our flawed reaction time would prove detrimental to this high speed. We would have to do more precise imputs to get the space we want.
It would be incredibly hard to punish options out of shield because your reaction would have to be almost frame perfect.
To perform simple techs such pits wing of Icarus cancel would require very fast finger imputs at this game tempo.

I wish they did training mode 1/4 melee matches. It would be so cool to see people having more time to think and performing techs such as wave shine would be much easier.

 

[TheMagicalKuja]

So do we posit what's actually wrong with Brawl or are we going to keep pointing fingers on who's supposed to bring the proof? Because much like the rest of this topic, it's way too circular here.

Just to give something to bite, I'll say "momentum is flawed", as it ruins it for Captain Falcon (and to a lesser degree, Sonic).

 

[1MachGO]

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 there 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.

I had originally given you the benefit of the doubt, but it seems that your core argument doesn't stray far beyond the simplicity of Melee being the technically emphasized game and Brawl being the mentally emphasized game. While I agree that these two aspects are rather prevalent at face value and are important selling points for how a players choose his or her games, they are shallow assessments in regards to comparing competitive depth. Frankly, I believe calling them "different" is a cop out. At the most fundamental level the two games are identical and extremely easy to compare.

 

[DaDavid]

So do we posit what's actually wrong with Brawl or are we going to keep pointing fingers on who's supposed to bring the proof? Because much like the rest of this topic, it's way too circular here.

Just to give something to bite, I'll say "momentum is flawed", as it ruins it for Captain Falcon (and to a lesser degree, Sonic).

The entire point of the topic is to suggest that maybe it doesn't matter all that much if anyone can prove to anyone else why a game is flawed. Why can't the people who find those flaws unforgivable simply go play the game they prefer while voicing their criticisms toward the people who can do something about it instead of trying to convince the people who like the game, flaws and all, that they are wrong for continuing to enjoy the game for what it is?

Nothing about the topic is circular. It's a straight line of "respect one another's opinions." This somehow became "the community should only have one opinion."

 

[pitthekit]

I had originally given you the benefit of the doubt, but it seems that your core argument doesn't stray far beyond the simplicity of Melee being the technically emphasized game and Brawl being the mentally emphasized game. While I agree that these two aspects are rather prevalent at face value and are important selling points for how a players choose his or her games, they are shallow assessments in regards to comparing competitive depth. Frankly, I believe calling them "different" is a cop out. At the most fundamental level the two games are identical and extremely easy to compare.

If I played melee at 1/4 speed would it be more defensive as throwing out moves would easily be more punishable. I can power shield and pick oos options at a near frame perfect rate. Tech skill would lowered as wave shining would become very easy to imput.

Someone enlighten me- if the game is slower does it make it more defensive and mental skilled as I have more time to think?

 

[Cassio]

There's no shortage of bad mechanics I could bring up to support my argument. If you wanted some you could've asked without being so combative.

Thats fine as long as theyre explained, otherwise its just a matter of opinion. And I wasnt being combative, I was being facetious by imitating the tone of your reply but sorry if it seemed like that.

I had originally given you the benefit of the doubt, but it seems that your core argument doesn't stray far beyond the simplicity of Melee being the technically emphasized game and Brawl being the mentally emphasized game. While I agree that these two aspects are rather prevalent at face value and are important selling points for how a players choose his or her games, they are shallow assessments in regards to comparing competitive depth. Frankly, I believe calling them "different" is a cop out. At the most fundamental level the two games are identical and extremely easy to compare.

I'm pretty sure I said one aspect, and I used this example because it was simple and included it among other simple examples to explain a concept that you didnt interpret correctly. Theres no point having a discussion if were not on the same page. However I am concerned that this is the second time you've misrepresented my argument.

The games mechanics do have some pretty strong differences which influence various aspects of competition and make them less comparable competitively, and it seems your disagreement with this makes arguments based on it shallow and a cop out? I mean its fine if you want to believe thats true, in fact the reason I didnt heavily elaborate was in case these fundamental disagreements existed, but at the same time I provided an outline with generic support. Im not sure if you intend to actually outline your stance, but if not then interesting opinions I guess.

If I played melee at 1/4 speed would it be more defensive as throwing out moves would easily be more punishable. I can power shield and pick oos options at a near frame perfect rate. Tech skill would lowered as wave shining would become very easy to imput.

Someone enlighten me- if the game is slower does it make it more defensive and mental skilled as I have more time to think?

This is a pretty big oversimplification of Brawls mechanics. Brawl does not function as melee at quarter speed. You also seem to have a misunderstanding of offensive and defensive options, an opponent would still have to account for slower actions in 1/4 speed when reacting and offensive players would also have the benefit of greater precision in slower speeds.

 

[1MachGO]

I'm pretty sure I said one aspect, and I used this example because it was simple and included it among other simple examples to explain a concept that didnt interpret correctly. Theres no point having a discussion if were not on the same page. However I am concerned that this is the second time you've misrepresented my argument.

The games mechanics do have some pretty strong differences which influence various aspects of competition and make them less comparable competitively, and it seems your disagreement with this makes arguments based on it shallow and a cop out? I mean its fine if you want to believe thats true, in fact the reason I didnt heavily elaborate was in case these fundamental disagreements existed, but at the same time I provided an outline with generic support. Im not sure if you intend to actually outline your stance, but if not then interesting opinions I guess.

My main stance is that you can easily compare the two games and decide which one is deeper.

The reason why they can be compared is because they both are the same at the fundamental level. They are both platformer fighting games where the goal is to eliminate your opponent's lives via ring outs. Landing hits on your opponent builds up percent and the higher the percent, the more knockback and hitstun a character receives from attacks. They also share identical controls.

If they weren't so indiscernible from one another at this basic level, I would agree, 100%, that they are apples and oranges, but they really aren't. If you started with the aforementioned summary and built up from it, bit by bit, you would find that you could compare every single aspect of Melee and Brawl against each other. Both games have edge guarding, mind games, tech skill, ledge games, recovery, etc.

I would say that the competitive depth of both games could be beautifully summarized by their respective shielding mechanics. In Brawl, you have a single shield size. In Melee, you can adjust your shield size through light pressing or hard pressing giving the shield different functionality. Its simple and obvious vs. intricate and less obvious. Pitthekit also made an excellent post which I respond to further down. I suggest you read it because it elaborates on this idea. Specifically the last couple of sentences.

If I played melee at 1/4 speed would it be more defensive as throwing out moves would easily be more punishable. I can power shield and pick oos options at a near frame perfect rate. Tech skill would lowered as wave shining would become very easy to imput.

Someone enlighten me- if the game is slower does it make it more defensive and mental skilled as I have more time to think?

If Melee was played at that speed it would probably be more defensive than 64 and Brawl combined haha

Speed is a major factor for how defensive a game plays but its also the magnitude of the punish game. 64 and Brawl sit at two opposite extremes. In the former, getting hit practically removes player interaction (death combo) while in the latter, player interaction is much more consistent (making each hits count all the more). Despite having opposite reasons, the danger of punishment pushes their play towards the defensive. Melee, on other hand, tends to sit somewhere bewtween the two. Combos are powerful, but many of them can be shrugged off. This more balanced/less devastating risk-reward gameplay is an important reason why the game has lent itself to a predominantly aggressive meta; people are more willing to approach and get that potential advantage.

And I agree with your main point. Once execution is completely mastered, the only aspect the player has to focus on is strategy; the gameplay becomes calculated and defensive. Since Melee's meta still has plenty of aggression, you could easily make the conclusion that it is the furthest away from being competitively "solved" between all three games. Its a testament to how truly deep the game is.

 

[pitthekit]

Thats fine as long as theyre explained, otherwise its just a matter of opinion. And I wasnt being combative, I was being facetious by imitating the tone of your reply but sorry if it seemed like that.

I'm pretty sure I said one aspect, and I used this example because it was simple and included it among other simple examples to explain a concept that you didnt interpret correctly. Theres no point having a discussion if were not on the same page. However I am concerned that this is the second time you've misrepresented my argument.

The games mechanics do have some pretty strong differences which influence various aspects of competition and make them less comparable competitively, and it seems your disagreement with this makes arguments based on it shallow and a cop out? I mean its fine if you want to believe thats true, in fact the reason I didnt heavily elaborate was in case these fundamental disagreements existed, but at the same time I provided an outline with generic support. Im not sure if you intend to actually outline your stance, but if not then interesting opinions I guess.


This is a pretty big oversimplification of Brawls mechanics. Brawl does not function as melee at quarter speed. You also seem to have a misunderstanding of offensive and defensive options, an opponent would still have to account for slower actions in 1/4 speed when reacting and offensive players would also have the benefit of greater precision in slower speeds.

Of course, brawls shield stun and shield drop frames on a perfect shield and non perfect shield is shorter than melees longer shield drop.

I am sorry if my post implied that I was oversimplifying brawl

I thought it was obvious that people would have greater precision in slower speeds and that offensive moves with long cds or put you in a disadvantage position would be easily reacted too.


Does brawl have any characters from melee that have longer cool downs to there grounded attacks.

For example Gannon in brawl f tilt had 30 frames of cool down while in melee Gannon's f tilt had 6 frame cd (I know Gannon's ftilt does not have 30 frames of cool down)

If brawl was played at 2x speed would it still be defensive? It would be hard to punish an attack as it would take near frame perfect reactions. You would have less time to think if someone was just constantly attacking you and not being punished- making precise movements would be harder

If we were frame perfect I don't think speed would matter-I could still punish your mispaced fair at 1/4x speed too 9000x speed.


Actually I wanna see a brawl match played in training mode at 2x speed.

 

[K.Louis]

So, then we give up? No.

We go on without them. We can make our own community.

I meant that most people would try the new game for like a year before deciding whether or not they liked it. A lot of people here who weren't in the scene seem to think that people picked it up and went "Ew, Brawl" and put it back down when in reality it was the Melee scene that more or less kickstarted the Brawl scene and metagame for the newcomers before leaving Smash altogether after a year or so once the metagame started going downhill.

As long as your using Smashboads and going to Apex and expecting yourself at MLG you're not your own community btw. No matter how community relationships wind up in the end every Smash game's tournament scene was started and carried by the one before it.

 

[Cassio]

If Melee was played at that speed it would probably be more defensive than 64 and Brawl combined haha

Speed is a major factor for how defensive a game plays but its also the magnitude of the punish game. 64 and Brawl sit at two opposite extremes. In the former, getting hit practically removes player interaction (death combo) while in the latter, player interaction is much more consistent (making each hits count all the more). Despite having opposite reasons, the danger of punishment pushes their play towards the defensive. Melee, on other hand, tends to sit somewhere bewtween the two. Combos are powerful, but many of them can be shrugged off. This more balanced/less devastating risk-reward gameplay is an important reason why the game has lent itself to a predominantly aggressive meta; people are more willing to approach and get that potential advantage.

And I agree with your main point. Once execution is completely mastered, the only aspect the player has to focus on is strategy; the gameplay becomes calculated and defensive. Since Melee's meta still has plenty of aggression, you could easily make the conclusion that it is the furthest away from being competitively "solved" between all three games. Its a testament to how truly deep the game is.

Gonna address this first since it leads into the rest. I think you just simplified approach and the neutral position to just speed. In melee its worth approaching because the balance of offensive to defensive options has a strong preference towards being offensive. And this response applies to @ P pitthekit as well. Speed is one thing yeah (granted slowing down or speeding up the game affects both sides, speed is more complex than just changing the game speed), and yes you can toss in increased shield stun. But there's also less shield knock back, worse spot dodges, wave-dash, l cancel, worse out of shield options, easier to deal with projectiles, and many other factors weigh on this as well and speed becomes only one slice of the pie. The mechanics themselves make it easier to land your hit on offense then defense, and couple this with a punishment game thats more straight forward than Brawls and its clear that for most MUs playing smart offense is desirable. This is actually one of the main reasons I find the games aren't easily comparable. If you were to change all of these mechanics that make Brawl a more defensive game then you would not adjust well from melee just as the reverse isnt true.

It's also funny you bring up that conclusion because its actually the opposite for Brawl, which may be partially a result of this difference too. In Brawl strategy comes first, then improved execution giving the game a slightly more offensive tinge. Execution is the dividing factor between high and top level players. In the US we took this for granted then the Japanese came to Apex 2012 and destroyed us for our ignorance of the game. Its also why I say most perspectives built from experiences of the game's pre-2012 meta are very outdated.

My main stance is that you can easily compare the two games and decide which one is deeper.

The reason why they can be compared is because they both are the same at the fundamental level. They are both platformer fighting games where the goal is to eliminate your opponent's lives via ring outs. Landing hits on your opponent builds up percent and the higher the percent, the more knockback and hitstun a character receives from attacks. They also share identical controls.

If they weren't so indiscernible from one another at this basic level, I would agree, 100%, that they are apples and oranges, but they really aren't. If you started with the aforementioned summary and built up from it, bit by bit, you would find that you could compare every single aspect of Melee and Brawl against each other. Both games have edge guarding, mind games, tech skill, ledge games, recovery, etc.

I would say that the competitive depth of both games could be beautifully summarized by their respective shielding mechanics. In Brawl, you have a single shield size. In Melee, you can adjust your shield size through light pressing or hard pressing giving the shield different functionality. Its simple and obvious vs. intricate and less obvious.

The fundamental rules of the game are the same, but the fundamental mechanics are not. I mentioned some of them in regards to approach, but things like the airdodge or floatiness, hitstun, momentum reversals, etc. all play a role. So while the goals may be similar, the way they are accomplished are pretty different and in some ways more comparable to other fighting games. Its like being told to cut wood in half with one person given a saw and another an axe. I may elaborate more later but feel this is already long.

 

[smashmachine]

I wouldn't be surprised.
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

no, there clearly wasn't, otherwise 64 would have had a comparably sized scene to Melee

 

[Tiberious]

Okay, I quit reading this after about the third page, once it became clear, so lemme add my own thoughts here.

1) Yes, the Melee community is toxic. Sitting there, and booing when Brawl is being played is as disrespectful as it gets, and paints the entire group as assholes. If you don't like watching the game, get up and get some lunch or something; otherwise, sit down, shut up and have some goddamn common courtesy. You wouldn't have wanted Melee booed at Evo, right? Well then, gotta show respect to get respect.

2) The toxicity, to a large degree, but also the "cut out 80% of the game on day 1" mindset are the real reasons the SRK crowd looks down on Smash. And yes, I should know, because I'm SRK myself. So what if items are random and slightly favor the player that's behind? Guess what, folks. Super Street Fighter II Turbo has randomized damage (to an extent), and *gasp* does less damage per hit to a player closer to death. Yet look how it still ends up showing the better player, time and again.

Case in point: When Brawl was still new, a side tournament for the format we'd dubbed 'All-Brawl' was held at Season's Beatings. This format was best of 3 games, two stock (to make it more like other similar titles such as Vampire Savior, where winner of the first 'round' keeps their health), all items, totally random first stage, and loser can change character or stage. It ended up being small, but yet pretty much everyone who played in it was from SRK. The Smash community? Once they saw all items and all stages, they avoided it like the plague.

It's not the fact that it's Smash, it's the community. Even Brawl tournaments held at the same time had pretty much everything switched off, just because it was 'how it was always done'. In contrast, SRK played the whole game first, and then decided what needed to go, based on what was truly broken.

You might want to argue "Well what about Akuma in Super Turbo?"

The answer is, at first, he was allowed. And only when it became "Pick Akuma or lose", did they drop the banhammer on him. Hell, some 15 years later, when HD Remix was the new version, he was initially made legal again. Only when options were found that made his Super inescapable were found did her get banished again.


The takeaway from this is: Play the whole thing first. All items, all stages, and only when things are found, with adequate testing, to be far too good, make a sticky, and give clear, sound reasoning as to why things were removed. Stick to the facts, and make the banhammer the last resort, and you'll find the reputation improving tremendously.

 

[J1NG]

I wouldn't be surprised.
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

But why isn't the "64 is better than Melee" discussion around anymore? Or, "64 is better than every Smash post 64"? I hardly think time is an issue, seeing how Melee is over a decade old and we're still talking about it.

 

[Vkrm]

1) Yes, the Melee community is toxic. Sitting there, and booing when Brawl is being played is as disrespectful as it gets, and paints the entire group as *******s. If you don't like watching the game, get up and get some lunch or something; otherwise, sit down, shut up and have some goddamn common courtesy. You wouldn't have wanted Melee booed at Evo, right? Well then, gotta show respect to get respect.

I don't want to make any judgement calls about you as an individual but I find it odd you feel as though the traditional FGC is in a position to look down on anybody. I've personally never heard of this incident where the melee community actively booed a set of brawl. My guess would be that it was a small group idiots who were rightfully ignored. Either that or people are embellishing what happened during brawl GF's at Apex this year. Right after the champ was decided the crowd immediately began melee chants. Definitely crass but I wouldn't go as far saying that they meant harm. It's not as if the FGC hasn't done more or less the same thing in both cases. At evo this year people got hype for marvel and AE the moment injustice ended. Evo 07 and 08 had melee and brawl respectively and both games got their fair shares of boos, despite the fact Mr.Wizzard ran brawl with items that year.

2) The toxicity, to a large degree, but also the "cut out 80% of the game on day 1" mindset are the real reasons the SRK crowd looks down on Smash. And yes, I should know, because I'm SRK myself. So what if items are random and slightly favor the player that's behind? Guess what, folks. Super Street Fighter II Turbo has randomized damage (to an extent), and *gasp* does less damage per hit to a player closer to death. Yet look how it still ends up showing the better player, time and again.

It's not the fact that it's Smash, it's the community. Even Brawl tournaments held at the same time had pretty much everything switched off, just because it was 'how it was always done'. In contrast, SRK played the whole game first, and then decided what needed to go, based on what was truly broken.

The takeaway from this is: Play the whole thing first. All items, all stages, and only when things are found, with adequate testing, to be far too good, make a sticky, and give clear, sound reasoning as to why things were removed. Stick to the facts, and make the banhammer the last resort, and you'll find the reputation improving tremendously.

First and foremost, we're not going to put up with an inconsistent game just to get into the FGC's good graces. Evo08 proves this isnt really an option anyway. One thing you need to remember is melee is old. Old as hell. It's older than some of its players. I wouldn't expect someone outside the scene to know this but back in the day, westcoast was huge on the items. It's talked about briefly it in the doc. Items have been discussed plenty of times. They were too random then and they still are now. If people could do anything about the random dizzy/damage in ST they would, but its just something you have to put up with.