First of all, again, by who's definition of bad? Ours? Because for as much the Internet hees and haws about tripping, most people just didn't give a ****. Sometimes it was a pain, but sometimes someone tripped into your F-smash, and for casuals just having fun, they didn't care. WE think it's a bad choice because WE have this fetish for eliminating random elements, but tripping is not, in and of itself, a bad choice, or even badly implemented. WE just didn't like it.
Wavedashing / landing is an inconsistency that could totally **** over a player who wasn't ready for it. But, again, WE like it, so I guess it's a good thing? L-cancelling is an arbitrary skill gate, and those are almost universally viewed by actual designers as bad design in any game, but we liked it. So, according to the pattern, it's a good thing.
Besides, you change your criteria for badness halfway through your post. First, you say that it has to affect the casual player. Then you cite D3's infinintes and chain grabs which, although easy for us, NEVER come up in a casual FFA. Hell, how many casual 1v1 players even know about D3's standing infinite? If you think the answer is anything over "almost none", you're insane. So, D3 is out as an example. And MK? Really? Mk being a problem to a casual is asinine. Planking isn't a concern for them because no casual does that, and certainly not with enough precision and consistency to break the game for their friends. WE don't even think 'nado is a real problem anymore, and we laugh at people who just let MK spam it. IDC would NEVER come up in a casual match. And Uair chains off of top? REALLY? You think casuals just do that? MK is a horrible example of character balance messing with casuals.
You're free to try again, though.
From a game design perspective (in this case I am speaking for myself, but feel there are those who would agree), it is bad.
As much as tripping was a poor decision, it is not my most targeted accusation nor the culprit for most of my complaints. It's the 'poster boy' of Brawl's bull**** for people who hate Brawl, kinda like how L-Cancelling is the 'poster boy' for why people dislike Melee, or certain aspects of it anyway. I don't think tripping is the worse offender in application, it was just more-or-less a 'was this really necessary' decision. But the rate at which it affects the gameplay negatively is much less noticeable when compared to other problems.
Wavedashing is not an inconsistency. It's a result of the way Melee operates. And the reason 'we' like it is because it adds depth to an already enjoyable game.
As far as L-Cancelling goes, you know what. I hear people give this thing a lot of flack, and I actually can't argue with their perspective. The reason I say this though is its all about the philosophy of the game, and the direction you want to take it in. While some directions you can point your games towards will inevitably have consequences that far outweigh the benefits, in a lot of cases its merely preference. I see this as one of those cases. Requiring execution to play a game is not inherently bad, it's just a design choice. Look at Guitar Hero. That game is all about execution, and almost nothing else. To the people who play and enjoy it, it's also very rewarding, because knowing that your practice and dedication (or innate talent and dexterity) allows you to pull through the difficult songs you do gives the player satisfaction and encourages them to play further. L-Cancelling is no different. The argument against L-Cancelling comes from the idea that Smash as a game should revolve around mental decision making and reactionary choices, rather than how difficult something is to execute, as that just serves to alienate specific players from the playerbase. While some appeal to that, and I can understand there preference (even though I also think L-Cancelling isn't difficult enough to actually have debates over), there's the Guitar Hero aspect of it as well. Player execution has been a part of fighting games essentially since day 1, and it always will be to some degree or another. Even though it doesn't add depth, it adds appeal to some players. So, tl;dr, even though I actually like L-Cancelling and would prefer it, that's simply me catering to a design philosophy that's just different and that I like, not better or worse. I don't hold Brawl in a negative light because of that.
As for the last of your post, if you think that things like infinitely down throwing someone as D3 on a stage like Shadow Moses Island or Bridge of Eldin and killing them for free doesn't happen in casual play, I think you're being very narrow with your perspective here.
Casuals and competitors are not different species of people. We all exist on different levels of skill, and varying reasons for playing the game. Some of us are more competitive than others, and the opposite is also true. There are plenty of players out there that don't go to tournaments and are ignorant of what framerates are, what a tier list looks like, or what a wavedash means, but still play with items off and know how to press L+R + Down + Run repeatedly. I'd also be willing to wager they can see how cheesy it is. Low and behold, there's a lot of very easy, very potent bull**** in Brawl.
I'll often say things like how designing Smash with competitive integrity in mind won't negatively impact a casual players experience, and that's because it won't. It's just how Smash beautifully operates. It lets everyone play. But if you ignore or remove important components to the games design that affect its integrity that only competitive (or should I more appropriately say studious) players are likely to recognize because they see the finer details, while the lesser skilled players don't, it doesn't mean they won't feel the effect.
