In my opinion, Sakurai could have done a better job with balancing the game.

[Bowser King]

Yeah. Fortunatley Brawl still can be played competitively. I dont know about the next one though. besides tripping, it will probably be something like whoever is in the lead receives an automatic handicap so the other guy can catch up. If they had the resources, weren't so obsessed with their money, and cared more about their loyal fans, Nintendo could pull an epic win with the next smash game. Now I know this is a fantasy that has a 99.9% chance of not coming true, but I want to speak my mind.


Make 2 versions of the game. One is the happy, dolly "there are no winners or losers, everyones happy!" that Sakurai wants, and Nintendo can make their millions. Then you make a version that's built for competition. Its the same game, but all the stuff that makes it ********(tripping, etc.) is removed. It could bring back Lcanceling. Hitstun would be a bad idea though, mk would be officially broken, unless they changed the physics. There are also built in tourney features, and a good online unit. That makes everyone happy, and I would have a feeling that, to Sakurai's surprise, the competitive version would fly off the shelves.

I can see it now. SSB4 where if your behind a stock, you randomly gain a star >_>.
He already added "pity smash" all that's left is making it happen even with smashballs off...

Sadly a game like brawl took them 3 years to make. Making 2 would take atleast 5. IMO sakurai would likely have worked on the casual one first. Taking us forever to get ours.

 

[Wuss]

So the proof is that you might have heard someone say something? So it's possible hearsay or just conjured up fantasies?


Don't speculate.


Funny, Pit amd Mario can KO at around the same percentages as Jiggz. And Jiggz doesn't have any problems KO:ing when compared to some of the worst KO:ers in the game? Logical!

well, it's both, nothing wrong with hearsay or conjured up fantasies, cept that they are unreliable...
except I mean that I thought that was once a common thought. I honestly thought that was legitemately something people knew, but I guess Iw as wrong.

and I take pride in speculating, it's one of the things that sets us apart from other species. The ability to speculate is very valuable, guessing at the future or past is important. You could disagree with that, but if you do, I could probably find a Phd thesis that supports it by a well known scientist.

 

[Yuna]

and I take pride in speculating, it's one of the things that sets us apart from other species. The ability to speculate is very valuable, guessing at the future or past is important. You could disagree with that, but if you do, I could probably find a Phd thesis that supports it by a well known scientist.

I take pride in staying educating and making educated guesses instead of random speculation which might or might not be true. I speculate based on facts.

 

[MorpheusVGX]

Please, delete this. I wish I could.

 

[MorpheusVGX]

Don't blame the game, blame yourselves

Sakurai didn't try to balance Brawl to be a 1v1, no-items tournament fighter. He did the opposite. He balanced the game around casual 4-player FFA with items on. I seriously doubt Sakurai gives a crap about tournament smash at all.

Amen.

There is so much crap on this thread.. gosh.. no offense. I think Sakurai did a splendid job balancing 39 characters. Many useless moves were fixed. Don't talk about balance when you keep making tier lists that affects people faith on characters. In places where this lists aren't known, you see people winning with any character. In Brawl, many heavy characters are very powerful. Fast characters can get and avoid items easier, making them better in item play. Characters like Sheik and Captain Falcon are good with weapons (they swing two or three times). My point is, item-less matches are more imbalanced . Also, there are special moves to be used in the midst of confusion (4 player battles). Example: Falcon Punch, Rocket Hammer, Pk Flash, Fire Bird, and are pretty useless in 1 on 1 matches. Don't criticize a game that was intended to be played differently. Sadly, on these community you see little variety: 1 vs 1 no item matches on neutral stages, and 2 vs 2 friendly fire ON matches on neutral stages, nothing more. There are no 4 player FFA competition, all-items competitive matches, Friendly Fire OFF matches. They would give different flavors to the game and to this community.

 

[AlexX]

By the way, remember Fox's Adventure mode ending screen in Melee? It features him, the Melee top tier, looking down at small versions of the three top tiers of SSB64, before a tier list was devised for either game.
Coincidence, or not?

Sheesh, what's with everyone convincing themselves that Sakurai has some huge conspiracy behind everything?

First of all, how would Sakurai (and co.) know how game-breaking intentional ATs like L-Cancelling and unintentional ones like wavedashing would be? I highly doubt he could have predicted that they would have had the significant impact they had on the competative scene that they did.

Second, how would he know that Fox would be the one to be at the top in the end? I'm pretty sure Fox wasn't the top of the tier list in Melee until a while after the big ATs like wavedashing and such became mainstream. Before that, Shiek was the one dominating the list. And even afterwards, I believe there was still some debate on whether he or Falco should be the one sitting on top of the list... In short, your claim that Sakurai personally balanced the games specifically to result in the tier lists we eventually created is rediculous.

 

[Yuna]

There is so much crap on this thread.. gosh.. no offense. I think Sakurai did a splendid job balancing 39 characters.

My BS senses are tingling.

Many useless moves were fixed.

This =/= Automatically balanced

Don't talk about balance when you keep making tier lists that affects people faith on characters.

Ummm... what?

In places where this lists aren't known, you see people winning with any character.

Because people who don't even have a basic grasps of who the best characters are are usually not that good. Of course those people can win with "any character". Because they're playing mainly others on the same level and on that level, anyone can actually win.

In Brawl, many heavy characters are very powerful.

Name one besides DeDeDe and Donkey Kong. Unless you mean "Heavier than Mario" instead of "Heavyweights".

Fast characters can get and avoid items easier, making them better in item play. Characters like Sheik and Captain Falcon are good with weapons (they swing two or three times).

I don't know about CF, but Sheik's Fsmash with a beam-sword is next to useless.

My point is, item-less matches are more imbalanced .

At least we agree there.

Also, there are special moves to be used in the midst of confusion (4 player battles). Example: Falcon Punch, Rocket Hammer, Pk Flash, Fire Bird, and are pretty useless in 1 on 1 matches.

Did you just say that in the midst of confusion, PK Flash might hit? Yeah, maybe on sucky opponents. Fire Bird as an attack in 4-man battles? Again if your opponents are idiots.

In theory fighter, we assume all players involved are the top level. PK Flash and Fire Bird?! I mean, I can see Falcon Punch hitting if you team combo into it. But PK Flash?!

Don't criticize a game that was intended to be played differently.

No matter how you play the game, it's still thoroughly imbalanced. Be with 1 on 1, 4-man (FFA or Teams) or with items on.

I have more experience with both 4-Man FFA and items than most of Smashboards will ever have, probably more than you will ever have. And I still say that no matter how you play the game, it's still thoroughly imbalanced.

Sadly, on these community you see little variety: 1 vs 1 no item matches on neutral stages, and 2 vs 2 friendly fire ON matches on neutral stages, nothing more. There are no 4 player FFA competition, all-items competitive matches, Friendly Fire OFF matches. They would give different flavors to the game and to this community.

Because nobody wants to spend money to enter tournaments with BS rules like that.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Quick notes

Sakurai intended the game to be played with items, etc. But he didn't balance it around that. >.>

MK wouldn't be broken with l canceling because

1.)lol, speed difference wouldn't be too different and

2.)His air speed isn't that good, more likely he could actually go down a few notches on the tier list. Now someone like Kirby, who already has combos, would completely eliminate heavier characters.


And for my final point-Sakurai is stupid. :/ Stop trying to find meaning in why characters are good, your conspiracies are full of holes, and you fill those holes with complete and utter bull****.

 

[OrlanduEX]

@ original poster
Mmmmmm your theory holds no water...
Such a theory would also mean that they had the foresight to predict how people would play each character and the power that would yield them. This is untrue because it's very obvious how little time they actually put in testing the characters so they didn't actually know how things would turn out.
Metaknight is good because he is faster than everyone else with killing moves. Metaknight does a good job at NOT getting hit unlike the rest of the cast. It just ended up being that way. Sonic WOULD be good if he had killing moves and moved a bit quicker in the air. Overall Brawl could have had a much better balancing act if they actually put time in it.
There were no favorites in the way of how much potential he thought a character would have. Do I believe that he might have put more time and effort to create a character suited for his aesthetics and little time on characters he didn't care for? Yeah. In fact it's almost obvious.

This man wins the thread. Sakurai didn't intend for Brawl to be balanced. They didn't test it for imbalance or the great imbalance between characters would have become immediately obvious to the testers. If they did test it, the programmers weren't listening to the testers.

He wanted it to be a "everyone wins, feel good love fest". But instead we got a watered down version version of Melee.

 

[AlexX]

He wanted it to be a "everyone wins, feel good love fest". But instead we got a watered down version of Melee.

Brawl can't really be called an "watered-down" version of Melee when we consider how different the two games are. I don't know why people keep calling it that, but it's not an inferior version of Melee, it's just different, and contrary to popular belief, being different is not a bad thing.

 

[Yuna]

Brawl can't really be called an "watered-down" version of Melee when we consider how different the two games are. I don't know why people keep calling it that, but it's not an inferior version of Melee, it's just different, and contrary to popular belief, being different is not a bad thing.

The differences are bad.

 

[OrlanduEX]

Brawl can't really be called an "watered-down" version of Melee when we consider how different the two games are. I don't know why people keep calling it that, but it's not an inferior version of Melee, it's just different, and contrary to popular belief, being different is not a bad thing.

It is a watered down Melee because they took the Melee engine, removed some mechanics (l-cancel. auto smash DI, etc.), tweaked a few values like the falling speed and named it Brawl.
It is just Melee minus the things that made it great and plus a bunch of crap that no one cares about like SSE and stickers. There were no meaningful new gameplay innovations.

 

[AlexX]

The differences are bad.

I personally think they're good ideas, just with poor execution. The cast could still be much better balanced even if the physics were to remain the same.

EDIT:

It is a watered down Melee because they took the Melee engine, removed some mechanics (l-cancel. auto smash DI, etc.), tweaked a few values like the falling speed and named it Brawl.

I clearly must be behind the news... I could have sworn Brawl used an entirely different engine from Melee.

It is just Melee minus the things that made it great and plus a bunch of crap that no one cares about like SSE and stickers.

What made Melee great? The correct answer is "a fighting game with all our favorite characters". This is still the same in Brawl.

You hate the physics changes? Fine. You hate SSE? Also fine, but just because you prefer Melee's mechanics doesn't automatically make Brawl's inferior, because that's your opinion, not a fact.

 

[Yuna]

I personally think they're good ideas, just with poor execution. The cast could still be much better balanced even if the physics were to remain the same.

Intentions are inconsequential. Actual finalized gameplay is what matters.

And what are these good ideas with poor execution, anyway? Name them, please.

 

[AlexX]

Intentions are inconsequential. Actual finalized gameplay is what matters.

Agreed, which is why I feel quite a bit of the game's potential was lost.

And what are these good ideas with poor execution, anyway? Name them, please.

Since we're talking in terms of my opinion, I frankly prefer the more floaty and slower-paced combat that Brawl offers compared to Melee. I know it probably makes no sense to you, but watching a Diddy vs Dedede tournament match in Brawl is just as exciting to me as it is watching a Shiek vs Captain Falcon tournament match in Melee.

Note that I'm not saying Melee's physics are bad or anything... In fact, I think it's still a great game and I still love it to this day, I just have more fun playing Brawl and its physics, whether it's in a casual or competative environment.

 

[cutter]

Hah; the Melee-Brawl debate ruins yet another thread.

As an avid Halo player, a company like Bungie knows how to cater to the competitive audience while also keeping Halo a fun game for casual play as well. DLC for balance patches, more maps; stuff like that. And obviously the options for casual play are just endless.

 

[Yuna]

Stuff.

You named one thing. Unless you think "slower-paced combat" somehow cuts it.

 

[GofG]

Let's face it, cutter. Right now, the competitive smash community exists solely in one place- the Smash World Forums. The community is divided between those who think that we should go back to Melee and those who think that we should stick with Brawl. It is stupid for the mods to say that we aren't allowed to compare Melee and Brawl; this is much more our community than theirs. The sheer amount of hate on this forum right now is perpetuated by the fact that we aren't allowed to talk about Melee in the brawl forums, and we aren't allowed to talk about brawl in the Melee forums. Obviously, we are going to try to squeeze in as much discussion as we possibly can.

This thread begs for Melee's balance to be compared with Brawl's balance. There was no other path this thread could take. Any other path wouldn't have been nearly as interesting, anyway, so don't say that this thread was "ruined" by something that is as inevitable as the atheist/theist debate.

 

[AlexX]

You named one thing. Unless you think "slower-paced combat" somehow cuts it.

To elaborate, when it comes to what I like about Brawl's battle system, I tend to like just about everything but tripping. The reduced hitstun would have been an interesting change from the norm since it forces you to think on your feet more in order to stay ahead of the opponent, and when watching gives me a bigger feeling of "what's going to happen next?" However, the execution was poor because we ended up with characters like MK that have too many lagless attacks so that they could still combo with ease, or characters like Snake that are able to hit too hard, too easily. Floatiness and overall recovery beefs allow people to recover at higher damages, which results in making the fight last (which I personally find makes it more exciting, both for when I'm playing and when I'm watching), but the problem is that some characters like Link still have absolutely horrific recovery and ones like MK have way more than they really need. I also like how stale moves also affects knockback instead of just damage since encourages more variety in moves, but this gives an advantage to characters with moves that are easily spammed for the purposes of restoring their other attacks. I admit some universal ATs would have been nice, but the fact the good players are still winning show that we can last without them.

 

[OrlanduEX]

Hah; the Melee-Brawl debate ruins yet another thread.

As an avid Halo player, a company like Bungie knows how to cater to the competitive audience while also keeping Halo a fun game for casual play as well. DLC for balance patches, more maps; stuff like that. And obviously the options for casual play are just endless.

I'm thinking of getting a 360 soon. Maybe I'll just give up on Brawl all together and play a game where the developer actually caters to players of all types.

 

[cutter]

I'm thinking of getting a 360 soon. Maybe I'll just give up on Brawl all together and play a game where the developer actually caters to players of all types.

Just be careful when getting a 360...

 

[ice-]

fyi sakurai doesn't like wario

 

[kupo15]

EDIT:I clearly must be behind the news... I could have sworn Brawl used an entirely different engine from Melee.

Your right. They took Melees physics engine out and replaced it with Havoc's physics engine. Didnt test it and this is what happened.

The problem with getting an expert to tune the character balance might come with the distinction between casual and competitive play. A game that is well balanced for competitive play might be a broken mess in casual play, or the opposite. Balancing the two is hard.

They should balance the game for competition because the casuals couldnt care less about balance. They like mayhem and they couldnt tell the difference even if it slapped them in the face.

 

[Greenstreet]

Your right. They took Melees physics engine out and replaced it with Havoc's physics engine. Didnt test it and this is what happened.



They should balance the game for competition because the casuals couldnt care less about balance. They like mayhem and they couldnt tell the difference even if it slapped them in the face.

Should this be noted to or linked to the article that stated that Sakurai wanted this game to be essentially 'non-competitive', but instead, based upon both the winner and loser both having fun, regardless of how well they did?

If so here it is:

Spoiler

here

For the lazy: (thats you mate)

The game I worked on, Smash Bros., is a fighting game, but keeping in mind such reasoning, I set out to make sure the game did not over-emphasize the notions of victory and defeat. I won't go into too much detail, but the game was built so that if a player is strong in combat, just doing the same thing over and over again won't guarantee they'll always win over their opponents. There is a mechanism of accidents occurring, balanced so that the game's progress and results falter easily. Whether you win or lose, you enjoy a hearty laugh, and move on to the next round. I think this makes quite a good game.
-Sakurai

 

[cutter]

Can you imagine what Counterstrike or Halo would be like if your weapon would randomly jam/fail to work?

 

[JDZL]

Just be careful when getting a 360...

I don't know how to post pics in a forum... T_T

 

[cutter]

Nice red X JDZL

Besides Sakurai admitted he leveled out the game on purpose for pros and newbs alike. At least when ATs in Halo 2 like BXRing, YYX doubleshot, and other button techs were taken out, Halo 3 still focuses on skill by still maintaining skill level between pros vs. newbies in check. However there are a bunch more factors to this but you get the idea. Sakurai should really take a lesson from Bungie on how to design games for EVERYONE.

 

[JDZL]

Just be careful when getting a 360...

Did ya one better. Took me a while. I'm no good with ms paint :D

 

[cutter]

AHAHAHAHA!!!

We should turn this thread into poking fun at the Red Rings of Death. Why else does Tabuu use them as an attack? A ploy by Nintendo to say "**** you Microsoft"?

Also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq6vlyNdM3I

 

[AlexX]

Can't Let You Play That, X-box!

 

[Lore]

anyway, back on topic, I think that all of the pointless comparisons between Brawl and Melee are giving me a headache. THey have two completely different engines and physics, but many people seem to compare them anyway. Brawl is unbalanced, but that does not mean that you always need to compare it to melee to talk about how unbalanced it is (Even though it helps, most people seem to bring it in all the time to threads such as these..)

Now forgive me if I'm considered a complete noob, but these arguments seem to have about as much importance of comparing Apples and Oranges. You may end up with a list of faults that apples have, but you are still arguing the useless fact that Apples have no outer coat, or that they are not orange. It seems to me to be completely useless to compare two completely different things.

I still think Brawl is completely Unbalanced and that Sakurai hates the Competitive Smash community, in my opinion.

 

[Vulcan55]

Except for the fact that they're not two completely different things.
If we are talking about Brawl being "unbalanced", what are we comparing it to?
Brawl, by itself, is a great game, when not compared to anything.
But who is to say what is balanced, and what is not.
To achieve such understanding, we must compare it to something.
We wouldn't compare it to Guilty Gear, Street fighter, or Soul Calibur.
What we would compare it to is another game in the same series.
It's prequel.
The most similar game to it.
Otherwise, anything subjective said about Brawl, has no basis.

 

[Dark Sonic]

Not to mention that it's completely fair to compare apples to oranges, if you're comparing which one is more accidic, which has a harder texure, ect.

 

[Lore]

stuff

Well, what I meant was people using Melee as the point where they base ALL of their thoughts on Brawl's balance on. They are two completely different games with two different engines. Even though it is the game before Brawl, Melee has nearly completely gameplay and balancing. They are just too different to have Melee used as the single point where people base their thoughts on Brawl's balance. Due to Brawl's different physics and engine, it creates a almost completely different situation for balance, which means that characters that may have rocked are maybe a bit worse due to the floatiness.

also, when I was talking about apples and oranges, I meant it as an example of the paragraph above this sentence. XD

 

[OrlanduEX]

Well, what I meant was people using Melee as the point where they base ALL of their thoughts on Brawl's balance on. They are two completely different games with two different engines. Even though it is the game before Brawl, Melee has nearly completely gameplay and balancing. They are just too different to have Melee used as the single point where people base their thoughts on Brawl's balance. Due to Brawl's different physics and engine, it creates a almost completely different situation for balance, which means that characters that may have rocked are maybe a bit worse due to the floatiness.

also, when I was talking about apples and oranges, I meant it as an example of the paragraph above this sentence. XD

No one is saying that it "should be as balanced as Melee". We are saying that it is no where near as balanced as any fighting game should be. But let me guess. Since Brawl is apparently so different from everything, including Melee with which it shares a majority of qualities, to compare its balance to any other game is comparing "apples and oranges", right?

 

[Sky`]

No one is saying that it "should be as balanced as Melee". We are saying that it is no where near as balanced as any fighting game should be. But let me guess. Since Brawl is apparently so different from everything, including Melee with which it shares a majority of qualities, to compare its balance to any other game is comparing "apples and oranges", right?

Hhmph.
That phrase "Comparing Apples to Oranges." Needs to be watched over.

Cause you can still compare them. Two totally different things? Totally? I think not.
Sure, different fruits, but we can agree at they are still fruit, yeah?
Have basically the same nutritional value.
Both grow from the earth.

There are similarities betwixt different things, even that.

People who don't think that brawl is somewhat balanced, and insist upon the fact that it is "totally unbalanced in every shred of the word," Are drama Queens, and should l2playsrsly.
If you want balanced, play Guilty gear.
Why are you guys even here then?

/10srsquotes.

 

[OrlanduEX]

Hhmph.
That phrase "Comparing Apples to Oranges." Needs to be watched over.

Cause you can still compare them. Two totally different things? Totally? I think not.
Sure, different fruits, but we can agree at they are still fruit, yeah?
Have basically the same nutritional value.
Both grow from the earth.

There are similarities betwixt different things, even that.

People who don't think that brawl is somewhat balanced, and insist upon the fact that it is "totally unbalanced in every shred of the word," Are drama Queens, and should l2playsrsly.
If you want balanced, play Guilty gear.
Why are you guys even here then?

/10srsquotes.

I agree that the apples v oranges analogy is weak.

And where did you hear that Guilty Gear is balanced? Have you seen some Guilty Gear tournaments lately? Every match contains either Slayer, Testament, Potemkin, Baiken, and or Eddie. Granted Guilty Gear is far more balanced than most fighting game series', but there is still quite a discrepancy between the guys near the top and the rest.

 

[Lore]

yes, I agree with the whole apples and oranges thing, but my point was that even though they are still both fruit, they are two distinct things with many differences. I have had many people (mostly in real life, most of the people on here have a brain... >_>) argue that brawl is nearly perfectly balanced because it is more of melee and melee was nearly perfect. But they are still two distinct things.

The whole reason I have been going on about that is because I have had way too many discussions in RL like that, which really aggravates me. Thank god people on here have brains.

 

[Sky`]

I agree that the apples v oranges analogy is weak.

And where did you hear that Guilty Gear is balanced? Have you seen some Guilty Gear tournaments lately? Every match contains either Slayer, Testament, Potemkin, Baiken, and or Eddie. Granted Guilty Gear is far more balanced than most fighting game series', but there is still quite a discrepancy between the guys near the top and the rest.

That's what I mean.
Guilty gear is actually pretty balanced when you look at it. :]
But no fighting game is going to be perfect.
IMO, Brawl is much more balanced than Melee.
By Far.

/10randomdebates.

 

[Deathcarter]

Is Brawl really that imbalanced compared to Melee to begin with?

The section between Snake and Zero Suit Samus at least looks quite balanced (as in the majority of matchups per character are neutral or 60:40). People should not heavily factor in Meta Knight into Brawl's balance because Meta Knight does not hold NEARLY as much weight in the highest level of play (friendlies and such) as he does in competetive play (unless everyone outright mained him in general).

And as far as competetive play goes, Meta Knight is over-centralizing competetive play WAY too much to be adequately used to look at balance. As far as I am concerned, Meta Knight is presently an overpowered outlier and should not hold too much weight in Brawl's OVERALL balance (as far as on paper goes) as of right now. So with the remaining 36 characters, you have 55.55% of the roster viable.

On another note, if you take out Marth, Shiek, Fox, and Falco in Melee, you have half of the roster for the most part viable. If you look at balance from my perspective, Brawl is as imbalanced as Melee.