@ the first part, I could accuse you of pulling a strawman (since I say speed is only a major factor, not the end-all be-all factor) and I could also say that most of the things you have listed ultimately contribute to the game's speed. (Wavedashing, dash dancing, L-cancelling etc. are just as important for defense as they are for offense, and in fact, gives Melee more mix up and movement mindgames during neutral than Brawl; their defensive and offensive)
Well heres what you said:
"speed is a major factor for how defensive a game plays but its also the magnitude of the punish game. "
I wasn't forming your argument, I was amending the conversation. I took this to mean that speed was a major part and the other part was punishment game, if this is incorrect apologies. Anyways, any top level and and intelligent player you talk to about this will instead say this is a conversation about the neutral and punishment game, which you can see in pretty much any discussion about these games. Talking about speed itself isn't useful. As my last post indicates I agree with multiple elements contributing to pace, but when discussing the neutral game we talk about options and the more significant take away is that there are a plethora of offensive options in melee compared to defense. Yes some of them can be used defensively but it's ultimately irrelevant, its like acknowledging that shielding, spot dodging, and rolling can be used as offensive tools in Brawl, which they are (compared to melee). What ultimately matters is
the ratio of offensive and defensive tools you are given. If the ratio leans more offensive you will have a more offensive game, and defensive of course the opposite, but the game cannot do both at the same time.
If you want to talk about the games options in purely quantitative terms then I will completely agree that Melee is well above Brawl and thats what makes its technical play so great. I dont want to underplay that by the way, having great technical depth is a very worthy quality. But as far as mindgames and mix-ups its fluff. I'm not sure if you've ever heard of the term yomi, but thats basically what mix-ups and mindgames fall under, and the game only requires one option and 3 progressive counter-options to reach the final layer of yomi before its able to loop back. Read or at least skim this:
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/yomi-layer-3-knowing-the-mind-of-the-opponent.html
However, you ultimately failed to really address an overarching point of mine: When a game is played at its highest level, strategy is the only variable. Theoretically, there is probably just as much mental game in Melee as there is in Brawl, its just that Melee is a harder game to comprehend. If you believe that the inverse is true for Brawl, you are completely wrong since this doesn't make any sense. If two players played Brawl, Melee, 64, whatever, at TAS precision, the only uncontrolled element would be the mental game. Execution is no longer a factor at the highest level.
This is directly relating to your point about only strategy mattering at top level play and sort of the TAS example. I definitely disagree with this, and if a game could be boiled down to one important aspect (which I disagree with) itd be yomi. First, if the games were played at TAS precision they would be completely different games, theyd most likely turn out like smash 64 (yes, even Brawl) but its hard to predict. Additionally, its a pointless discussion unless we teach robots to play the game, execution will always be relevant to how the game is played. Even among top players some are better at execution than others, or may be forced to execute more difficult gameplay if they are losing elsewhere. Unless I missed something I think its a mistake to isolate different aspects from one another. For instance, a more defensive game is going to have an emotional wear on an individual and those in better control of this will have an advantage. How do you account for this with just strategy and execution? And the fact that its a quality of the game that is interwoven as part of this external emotional response?
The rest of this moreso relates to the mental game (which has many different components) which I may make another separate post on later. But for now will make a basic outline on yomi as it relates to approaching and punishment. I touched on this earlier when discussing quantitative options, but punishment in brawl is difficult but still significant because of yomi. Once attacked out of neutral the opponent has more options and opportunities to escape than he would in melee or 64, but with good yomi you can string a significant amount of damage on them since their options are still more limited than yours. This is how strings play out in practice at top level play in Brawl. Its also important for kills too, killing in neutral is nearly impossible because of defensive mechanics (if you get a solid read it can happen sometimes), so its preferable to place your opponent in an off balance situation first. You can say the same is true in melee and 64 as well, but player interaction off a hit is lower and occurs less often in punishment so it doesn't require the same degree of ability to jump into your opponents mind. In approaching too, melees offensive options being numerous it allowed for game progression to work smoothly. In Brawl progression is a struggle but must still occur, and the primary way to break through your opponents defensive options is with yomi. In these regards, melee cannot imitate Brawl mentally to the same degree.
@ the second part, no. The fundamental goals are the same and the fundamental mechanics are the same. Nuanced mechanics are the only differences between the two. You can't point to a single aspect between both games and say that they cannot be compared. The fact that Project: M exists should be enough empirical evidence alone to conclude that the games are actually just a ton of tweaks away from being one another.
When I say fundamental mechanics I mean specifics like frames, not generalizations. If you want to talk about the games in general sure, but when it comes down to the defining mechanical aspects of the games the nitty-gritty stuff matters significantly and causes all games to play differently. I say this as someone who plays pikachu pretty competently in all smash games, minor differences in things like hit-stun cancellation or extra frames on a spot dodge matter significantly in the way the game is played at a competitive level. Well, that might not necessarily be as true for Melee > PM looking at results. The mental aspects are probably what traverse best between the games but that can be said of other fighting games as well.
But IMO this is the major flaw with this perspective and occurs most when I see people discuss competitiveness. I see this happen when people assess tier lists and MUs too. It's not comprehensive enough mainly because of generalizations and it leads to assumptions slipping through the cracks. In an attempt to understand or complete puzzles certain aspects are simplified and isolated when in reality they're interacting elements that affect one another and may have to admit aren't able to be completely understood. I only mention this because theoretical generalization and isolating aspects were the basis for both points you've used, and from past experience I see this being a recurring issue.
