Is a Melee like game the way to go?

[Ove]

Personally, I wouldn't mind something in line with SSB64.

Melee is a good option. Expanding on Melee can't be wrong.

 

[Big-Cat]

Personally, I wouldn't mind something in line with SSB64.

Melee is a good option. Expanding on Melee can't be wrong.

But that would be bad because Melee sold less in Japan than any other Smash game and somehow that's important.

 

[Ove]

But that would be bad because Melee sold less in Japan than any other Smash game and somehow that's important.

I heard Wii Sports sold well in Japan (as well as Worldwide). Optimally, Sakurai should take inspiration from there.

"Expanding on Melee" means improving Melee -> better Smash game -> more sales.

Obviously, Smash 4 should be a unique entry in the series. The question is which route it will go.

 

[Big-Cat]

I know what you meant, but the parody opportunity was there.

 

[V-K]

I'd prefer a mix between Melee and SSB64. Fast gameplay and a strong combo system.

 

[grizby2]

sigh...how about we just have a setting in the next game where you can LITERALLY change the speed of the game? would that satisfy every melee player? >:|

im kidding.

to answer the op's question, its not that the next game needs to be more like melee, its just that people want it to be more competitive. (even though brawl is already competitive, just not as fast paced as melee...thats.. yeah, thats about it.)

 

[volbound1700]

I loved Melee but I really enjoyed Brawl as well. Brawl does feel clunky at time but other things make up for it such as the vast array of characters, items, etc. There is a lot more depth in the moves in Brawl to me then there seems to be in Melee. I recently discovered Olimar and how unique this character can be in the game. The problem with Brawl compared to Melee is that Brawl has even less balancing when it comes to characters than Melee. Some characters are literally unplayable against other human players (Ganon, Captain Falcon, Link). Also the variance in Smash Balls is terrible with some characters having great while others have terrible. I also noticed that Lucas a lot of the times only has to hit the Smash ball 1-2 to get it while a character like Sonic, Mario, or Link has to hit it at times 5-6 times and still does not get it.

 

[Kink-Link5]

sigh...how about we just have a setting in the next game where you can LITERALLY change the speed of the game? would that satisfy every melee player? >:|

im kidding.

to answer the op's question, its not that the next game needs to be more like melee, its just that people want it to be more competitive. (even though brawl is already competitive, just not as fast paced as melee...thats.. yeah, thats about it.)

Not sure what part of it your kidding about because the neither the brevity of Melee's matches nor the pace of the action comes from some universal "speed." The game isn't that fast.

The problem with Brawl compared to Melee is that Brawl has even less balancing when it comes to characters than Melee. Some characters are literally unplayable against other human players (Ganon, Captain Falcon, Link).

That's quite the exaggeration. Link going even with most low tiers, R.O.B., and Game and Watch is hardly unplayable. The game has skewed matchups at the tip top and very bottom, and characters like DeDeDe that make a third of the cast literally irrelevant, but it's a big stretch to say there is any character that is completely helpless against every character. Ganondorf and to a lesser extent, Jigglypuff do come pretty close though.

 

[grizby2]

then i dont know what melee players are talking about when they say "fast paced." is it the faster falling speed? the non-floaty factor? i dont think its the act of inputting commands, because i do that just as fast in brawl as i do melee.

to answer your question kink-link, i was talking about the game speed option. that was the joke, unless you were being sarcastic, and this is now a joke on meeeeeeeeee.

 

[Bones0]

then i dont know what melee players are talking about when they say "fast paced." is it the faster falling speed? the non-floaty factor? i dont think its the act of inputting commands, because i do that just as fast in brawl as i do melee.

Have you ever had a random casual watch you play and ask if you were playing barlw in Lightning Mode?

Have you ever watched a barlw video and had to rewind the video multiple times to even figure out what happened?

 

[grizby2]

ive had people ask me to rewind in both meeel AND barlw sir.

i myself never need to rewind a video. i just see what happens. ive had enough experience in both games, so its kinda hard NOT to see. if that makes sense.

 

[El Duderino]

then i dont know what melee players are talking about when they say "fast paced." is it the faster falling speed? the non-floaty factor?

Generally speaking, it's in reference to the higher intensity. Building and countering momentum is very freeform and dynamic in Melee.

i dont think its the act of inputting commands, because i do that just as fast in brawl as i do melee.

...Actually, you might be, but Brawl is not.

 

[KrIsP!]

I'm just gunna say this: no one said "hmmm...I just bought melee and this 4 player FFA on hyrule isn't fun cause i can't control my character." It was fun casually, it was spectacular competitively. You can't say if you want melee play melee. Project M is distinctly different from melee. New characters, move sets, play styles and stages change things drastically but the simplicity of doing what ever attack you want to do and opening up the game past competitive 1v1 make sit fun casually as well.

As a note, some random people came to a melee tournament last monthly, few of them watched the How to Play video while a friend explained it. They had fun with melee, then they played Project M and had fun with that, being able to notice it was different from brawl and liking it a lot more than either melee or brawl. Whatever Smash 4 is might be good in it's own way, but if it appeals to the people who have been playing the same damn game for 13 years then that's more money cause the casual community will drool regardless. As for what you brawl players want, I have no clue. Because if you want completely new physics then you might have to come to terms with a faster game or a bouncier game or a game more centered around 64 esque stages. Would you really hate the inclusion of wavedashing once again? Among many other things...I mean some brawl things can stay, some new things can enter, it'd be a fun, fresh game. With less of a casual safety net...I don't remember me or my friends complaining about grabbing the ledge.

 

[SmashChu]

The best interest of the series is a game that everyone can appreciate at whatever level the game is played at.

Exactly. Which is why a game less like Melee is preferred. A game targeted at hardcore fans of the series tends to ONLY attract them.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Whatever Smash 4 is might be good in it's own way, but if it appeals to the people who have been playing the same damn game for 13 years then that's more money cause the casual community will drool regardless. As for what you brawl players want, I have no clue. With less of a casual safety net...I don't remember me or my friends complaining about grabbing the ledge.

A myriad of this. Of all the reallife people I've met that play this series on giant stages and all items, the only point I hear as different between the games is that Brawl has MK and Ike and they're cool while Melee has Mewtwo and Roy and they're cool. The casual audience really can not tell a large difference in the core game engine because all they care about is they can Falcon punch 5 or 10 new characters.

 

[El Duderino]

Exactly. Which is why a game less like Melee is preferred. A game targeted at hardcore fans of the series tends to ONLY attract them.

I said a game everyone can appreciate.

 

[Strong Badam]

Exactly. Which is why a game less like Melee is preferred. A game targeted at hardcore fans of the series tends to ONLY attract them.

You seem to either have a fairly skewed sense of reality or didn't actually play Melee when it was the most recent game in the series. The best part of Melee was that EVERYONE liked it, casual or core. You never heard people going "Yeah I'd play that party game but it seems too fast for me," you heard people going "I can beat the **** out of Mario with Pikachu on PokeFloats!"
Your premise is inherently flawed; the idea that a casual-friendly environment and one that facilitates competition well cannot be one in the same is false. I myself played Melee casually, free for alls with items on and primarily on Hyrule Temple for several years before I even heard of the competitive scene, and I loved it. My Captain Falcon didn't know how to SHFFL, or Dash Dance, or combo, and most of his KOs were from Forward Smashes, but it was still my favorite game. The competitive scene's existence does not detract from casual players in any sense. In fact, it offers additional depth to those who are interested in taking their play a level further.

 

[SmashChu]

I said a game everyone can appreciate.

Diehard fans tend to want more of the series, so competitive players will likely buy into SSB4, say how it's not Melee, and still host tournaments. Kind of what I was getting at.

 

[Kink-Link5]

You seem to either have a fairly skewed sense of reality or didn't actually play Melee when it was the most recent game in the series. The best part of Melee was that EVERYONE liked it, casual or core. You never heard people going "Yeah I'd play that party game but it seems too fast for me," you heard people going "I can beat the **** out of Mario with Pikachu on PokeFloats!"
Your premise is inherently flawed; the idea that a casual-friendly environment and one that facilitates competition well cannot be one in the same is false. I myself played Melee casually, free for alls with items on and primarily on Hyrule Temple for several years before I even heard of the competitive scene, and I loved it. My Captain Falcon didn't know how to SHFFL, or Dash Dance, or combo, and most of his KOs were from Forward Smashes, but it was still my favorite game. The competitive scene's existence does not detract from casual players in any sense. In fact, it offers additional depth to those who are interested in taking their play a level further.

Strong Bad you just walked into a hellhole trying to reason with SmashChu.

Watch out! Here come the sales numbers!

 

[grizby2]

Generally speaking, it's in reference to the higher intensity. Building and countering momentum is very freeform and dynamic in Melee.


...Actually, you might be, but Brawl is not.

i see what you're trying to say, about the game actually registering the command sooner, but the speed of commands being imputed by my actual hands was what i was talking about :].

I'm just gunna say this: no one said "hmmm...I just bought melee and this 4 player FFA on hyrule isn't fun cause i can't control my character." It was fun casually, it was spectacular competitively. You can't say if you want melee play melee. Project M is distinctly different from melee. New characters, move sets, play styles and stages change things drastically but the simplicity of doing what ever attack you want to do and opening up the game past competitive 1v1 make sit fun casually as well.

As a note, some random people came to a melee tournament last monthly, few of them watched the How to Play video while a friend explained it. They had fun with melee, then they played Project M and had fun with that, being able to notice it was different from brawl and liking it a lot more than either melee or brawl. Whatever Smash 4 is might be good in it's own way, but if it appeals to the people who have been playing the same damn game for 13 years then that's more money cause the casual community will drool regardless. As for what you brawl players want, I have no clue. Because if you want completely new physics then you might have to come to terms with a faster game or a bouncier game or a game more centered around 64 esque stages. Would you really hate the inclusion of wavedashing once again? Among many other things...I mean some brawl things can stay, some new things can enter, it'd be a fun, fresh game. With less of a casual safety net...I don't remember me or my friends complaining about grabbing the ledge.

funny story actually, when i first played projct M, it was with three friends, one thats a brawl champ like myself, and the other two who i knew were REALLY good at melee. from what i could tell, project M emulated melee really really well, so my partner and I were like.. "heh, ya, we're gonna die ". surprisingly though, we won 80% of those matches just relying on our brawl reflexes of just timing attacks well and reading what the opponent might do, no fancey wave dashing or l-canceling either (though i admit, when i tried them, i looked pretty clumsey!). not to mention that these were team matches with team attack turned on (something we were not used to at all! x_x). i played as bowser just to give myself an extra challenge . at the end, i had to say that it wasn't bad, but it was different, and a nice change of pace. but man.. something like project M would be WAY to much for the next generation of smashers imo... unless they actually make a GREAT tutourial this time around ya know?

 

[KrIsP!]

@kink regarding smashchu...Wasn't melee the best selling gamecube game? Didn't the game cube itself flop whereas the wii had a HUGE surge of casual buyers? Regardless everyone I knew played and loved melee, everyone thought they were great at it too, like...best ever. Then they went to a tourney and got bodied. That is the epitome of smash IMO. Having this hubris and being dropped to the very bottom, climbing that ladder n ****. And yes, are they playing lightning melee has literally been said to me, it's like entering a whole new playing field. Brawl aint bad but it failed to recreate that for me, that was something no game could do for me besides melee.

Sakurai can do whatever with smash, it just won't hurt them if they decided to bring back melee movement. They can decide not to and pander to an audience they already have, melee's still there for me.

edit:@above, I dunno I disregarded what you've said mostly cause you missed my point... A tutorial? I've spent a while explaining people enjoyed the game casually, thought they were good at it too. If they want to play competitively there are players here who will write more about the mechanics and physics than any developer. As for your friends being good at melee...I unno were they the "I'm the best in the world' good at melee. Cause everyone was. Melee was never too much for the people who picked it up, it had a high learning curve yes(competitively), nothing impossible...nothing necessary outside of tournaments. Dumbing it down for the casuals who are fine regardless hurts competitive players, that's pretty much it. And the melee community has voiced their opinion on that view countless times already.

 

[El Duderino]

Diehard fans tend to want more of the series, so competitive players will likely buy into SSB4, say how it's not Melee, and still host tournaments. Kind of what I was getting at.

Kinda like how outside of Smashboards, the perceived differences between the Smash tittles is marginal compared to what we evaluate here.

Again, a game that appeals to the entire audience would be a bigger success for the franchise. The more enthusiastic everyone is, the better.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Krisp you don't even know

Brawl sold like 19 times as much as Melee. The only way this could be possible is because the game wasn't impossible to play like Melee.

I mean nevermind that anyone buying a game has no idea what the physics or dynamics of the gameplay will be.

And nevermind that casual players can't tell the difference in the games physics anyway.

It's because of the gameplay decisions that Brawl sold more. There are not any possible other reasons for its success.

 

[KrIsP!]

Brawl had a lot of prehype before any casuals saw how the game played. I was super hype, when melee came out...I didn't even know it came out. I found it on the shelf and wondered ow this gem got past me. I think the mechanics that made it more popular were smashballs not the new airdodge. But whatever I've said my part...like ten times. I'm out.

 

[kikaru]

So, Everyone seems to want the next Smash to be a copy of Melee. They want the Melee mechanics and such back.

This is generally false, the only ones that want the next game to play like Melee are those die-hard competitive players and/or those who aren't as good at Brawl but are better at Melee. Casual gamers couldn't care less if the physics were similar to that of Melee or Brawl or even if the next Smash had a different set of physics. And honestly should the competitive fan base which is already a minority within itself dictate the mechanics and physics of the next game? I think not.

Sure random tripping was stupid (Tripping via bananas and other items is OK) but in terms of gameplay that was probably the only major area that encountered deserved criticism among both casuals and professionals.

What the next Smash game needs is the return of advanced techniques, the removal of random tripping from tech-rolling, and having actual character balance. (This is all in terms of mechanics and physics)

 

[DakotaBonez]

I think deep down. The hatred towards brawl started with the lack of an announcer shouting at the top of his lungs "SUPER SMAAAAAASH BROTHERS!!!" If nothing else, give me that in the opening. Finally we'll have a smash bros with incredible online gameplay. Brawl added some awesome stuff like Footstool jumping, control customization, online play, the final smash and nerfed the shields so ya cant block forever. I hope to seem them expand on the control customization and online as well.

 

[Jack Kieser]

The relationship between Melee faithful, the Smash series, Sakurai, and the direction of both Brawl and SSB4 is a complex one. Others in this thread are technically correct when they say that no one, not even Melee apologists, are saying that they want a 1:1 Melee clone, mechanically, just with more characters.

HOWEVER, and this is a BIG 'however', it's plainly obvious from the history of both the end of Melee (in terms of sales lifespan) and the beginning of Brawl (as in the year - 2 years in which the launch of the game was settling in the competitive sphere) that Melee faithful did not want there to be many changes between Melee and Brawl. The largest complaint on SWF in the first weeks of the game was the changes to the airdodge that removed wavedashing. The second complaint was stage selection. The third, arguably, could have been either D3's chain grab or Snake, depending on region. Say what you will about what people claim to want, but it's also hard to argue that the predominant culture of the Melee community vis-a-vis the start of the Brawl era wasn't that players had preconceived notions of what a Smash game should be / play like, and that Brawl was never, EVER going to match those preconceptions. Importantly, as well, it should be noted that even now, a significant portion of Melee apologists still claim that Smash should hold to these preconceptions while, in the same breath, claiming that they don't want Melee 2.0 as the next Smash game.

A good barometer of this is the way stage selection was handled in the first 6 months of Brawl's lifespan and the community reaction to the ISP project (which I'm sure I sound like a broken record about by now). Early stage selection in Brawl was atrocious. Stages were being banned at events with no regularity, with little rhyme or reason outside of "we don't like it", and serious competitive testing on certain stages was flat out ignored; face it, we're STILL trying to really figure out whether stages like Port Town or Norfair are acceptable for play, and part of the reason is the culture that was carried over from Melee that we, as a player base, know what's best for us, which we plainly didn't.

In addition, entire mechanical segments of the game were flat out ignored for competitive testing, like items. A significant portion of competitive players still don't know, for instance, how items actually affect the flow of a match, how individual ones work, how they affect character and stage matchups... some players, high level ones, actually have made the argument that Brawl is more balanced with certain items on. All of this is the result of Melee players having preconceptions about how Smash should be played in tournament and ignoring the structural and mechanical changes that Brawl brought to the scene.

It is, in all probability, likely that we'll repeat those same mistakes with SSB4, sadly enough.

So, while some posters in this thread are technically accurate that few, if any, players are clamoring for a Melee clone, it is plain to see that a significant portion of the community think that Melee is, basically, how you design a competitive Smash game: high speed, high tech skill requirements, etc. This thinking has to be abandoned because, even with the Tekken team working on this game, that will not happen, not again. Sakurai learned his lesson with Melee; never again will he be lax on physics exploits and glitches that lead to the kind of gameplay we saw in Melee. He just doesn't want his games to play like that.

There ARE some aspects of Melee that should return. Increase ground mobility through a dedicated backstep (not roll) and initial dash that can be cancelled into ground attacks, for instance, is a good addition. Tighter controls. Decreased defensive strength. Less ledge invincibility.

But, there are MANY aspects of Melee that should, justifiably, be left on the cutting room floor. The insane tech ceiling needs to stay out of Smash; button presses for the sake of button presses are bad design, and the strength of Smash has ALWAYS been that its inputs are less complex and more natural and rational than traditional fighters' (dragon punches and tiger knees are ********, and make no sense; they don't map well to natural movement). Wavedashing should be replaced with the ground options I mentioned above. I don't give a damn what P:M's devs think, L-cancelling is stupid and should be left out; it's a meaningless and unnecessary extra button press that adds to the tech floor of the game for no reason. Extended combos at medium percents should be out unless you need GREAT prediction or reaction in order to do them, and even then it's iffy. The speed has to stay sane; this isn't Marvel for a reason. Crouch cancelling is a stupid mechanic, is unintuitive, and also makes little sense to have outside of convention.

I could go on.

There is definitely a way to make SSB4 continue the legacy of its predecessors, certainly. But, WE, the community, made a LOT of mistakes early on in the adoption and concretization of Brawl's competitive community / metagame that cost the game, and the community, dearly, and no matter how "well designed" SSB4 is, we WILL have a less-than-stellar competitive community / metagame if we don't learn from those mistakes and if we simply repeat how we conducted ourselves with Brawl. The game's core design is, indeed, important, but just as important is the caliber of the playerbase. At the end of the day, WE make or break the game, competitively.

 

[El Duderino]

This is generally false, the only ones that want the next game to play like Melee are those die-hard competitive players and/or those who aren't as good at Brawl but are better at Melee.

It's amazing how one assumption can be so easily replaced with another.

@Jack Kieser There is truth to Melee fans rallying for elements of the game being preserved for Brawl, but any reasonable one of them would also talk about evolving the series further (at least form what I remember lurking here). Tension however exponentially grew when changes came in the form of uprooting what were seen as steps forward the series had previously taken. Got even more chaotic once many open-minded Melee players, plenty of which were involved with the developing Brawl's metagame, stopped running to the defense. Fast forward to today and now you see lots of broken arguments writing revisionist history about the whole ordeal.

I would agree that Smash probably isn't going to return to the same high tech skill of Melee. It may bring parts of the game back, but likely with a lower barrier of execution. That said, after the divide Melee to Brawl left relative to 64, I think we are going to see a new philosophy somewhat absent before, 'don't fix what isn't broken'. The franchise foundation is set, realistically it was 10 years ago. Now it's just a matter of taking all the series' compelling parts (intentional or not), polishing them to death, building on it when possible, and hopefully giving players proper choices this time.

Now I can't really speak to the tournament scene, but I feel confident saying any new Smash entry is going to go through competitive growing pains. You seem to be in opposition to how Brawl's ruleset wound up and blame it on the start. All I can really say is Smash in its very nature is designed to be played multiple ways, there is no correct approach. You have to either roll with the punches, or actively take part promoting your rules.

 

[Ove]

Brawl sold like 19 times as much as Melee. The only way this could be possible is because the game wasn't impossible to play like Melee.

Kink-Link5, that's a horribly incorrect reasoning. Melee wasn't even targeted directly towards hardcore players, meaning people didn't reject it because of its "impossible" difficulty.

Instead, why don't you just go ahead and look at the number of system sales? The Gamecube didn't sell that particularily well (especially not compared to Wii), meaning Brawl SHOULD have better sales. Also, the concept of the games is just the same, so the difference doesn't likely lie there.

Furthermore, if you want to bring up sales to the discussion, perhaps you should look at actual numbers? Brawl didn't sell "like 19 times" as much as Melee.

Melee: 7 million.
Brawl: 10,8 million (that's not even twice as much as Melee!)

Compare this with the international sale rates of Gamecube and Wii:

GC: 21,7 million.
Wii: ~100 million.

Look at the ratio and it is evident, Melee did really well. In fact, I'd say that Melee sold better than Brawl did (not absolute numbers, ofc).

Another fun fact, Kink-Link5: Melee is the best selling Gamecube game while Brawl is the eighth best selling Wii game.

So maybe people could stop referring Brawl to a huge success compared to other Smash games. In reality, Melee is the most successful iteration in the series.

 

[volbound1700]

Of course everyone knows they slowed down Brawl to accomodate Sonic because he would run clean off the screen with Melee speed

 

[Kink-Link5]

Ove, you should know as well as anyone that isn't how I actually feel and that I was just taking a jab at SmashChu lol

 

[volbound1700]

Krisp you don't even know

Brawl sold like 19 times as much as Melee. The only way this could be possible is because the game wasn't impossible to play like Melee.

I mean nevermind that anyone buying a game has no idea what the physics or dynamics of the gameplay will be.

And nevermind that casual players can't tell the difference in the games physics anyway.

It's because of the gameplay decisions that Brawl sold more. There are not any possible other reasons for its success.

Brawl's roster and extended features sold the game. It had SSE, new levels, 3rd party characters, other strong left out Nintendo characters (Diddy, Wario, Olimar, Dedede).

Also Smash has become a series that is going to sell well even if it declines in quality. It is too large of a franchise now to be stopped.


To be fair Ove, the Best Selling games for Wii were Wii Fit, Wii Sports, etc. The casual games bought up a lot of the Wii motion control games. Wii Sports is now the best selling game EVER.

 

[Kink-Link5]

I get it guys, sarcasm is hard to grab over the internet.

Just know from now on if I say anything to the effect of actively praising and supporting an argument that sounds even the slightest bit nonsensical I am very probably parodying the posting tendencies of another user.

 

[Ove]

To be fair Ove, the Best Selling games for Wii were Wii Fit, Wii Sports, etc. The casual games bought up a lot of the Wii motion control games. Wii Sports is now the best selling game EVER.

Yes, I am aware of the fact that Wii is a casual gaming console. Mario Kart Wii has sold better than Brawl too.

That's why we have to look back to the GC-era to find good games. If possible, take inspirations from them when making new games. Apparently, the new Zelda for Wii U is going to do just that; taking inspiration from the roots of the series. The number of sales don't determine the quality of the game. Wii Sports is hardly the best game ever made, and I am not even going to argue about that.

@Kink-Link5: sorry for not seeing your sarcasm. I'll try to be more observant the next time! But in all honesty, I have no clue on what side you stand. I don't think I have seen you praising any Smash game, as far as I am concerned...

 

[lordvaati]

I get it guys, sarcasm is hard to grab over the internet.

Just know from now on if I say anything to the effect of actively praising and supporting an argument that sounds even the slightest bit nonsensical I am very probably parodying the posting tendencies of another user.

Or you could always just use the trollface......well, as soon as it comes back anyway.

 

[Black Mantis]

Tekken>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.Melee

and the people who make Tekken are working on this

I'm inclined to believe they'll make something better than Melee or any other smash game.

 

[KrIsP!]

Is there any confirmation that its the tekken team and not just namco? Cause I wouldn't find it hard to believe if the partnership is purely menial work to help with the long development cycles of smash (cause samurai feels the need to start from scratch every time) and possibly support some namco characters and by namco I mean pacman.

My hopes are that Evo will show competitive smash off to the namco guys who attend to protect sfxt from falling into obscurity lol

 

[volbound1700]

Yes, I am aware of the fact that Wii is a casual gaming console. Mario Kart Wii has sold better than Brawl too.

That's why we have to look back to the GC-era to find good games. If possible, take inspirations from them when making new games. Apparently, the new Zelda for Wii U is going to do just that; taking inspiration from the roots of the series. The number of sales don't determine the quality of the game. Wii Sports is hardly the best game ever made, and I am not even going to argue about that.

@Kink-Link5: sorry for not seeing your sarcasm. I'll try to be more observant the next time! But in all honesty, I have no clue on what side you stand. I don't think I have seen you praising any Smash game, as far as I am concerned...

My point was that even if Melee had been first release on a system like Wii, they would probably have been beaten out by these casual games.

I know a lot of Sonic fans that bought Smash because of his appearance (they never had Smash before) so that was another selling point, although not huge.

 

[Ove]

Tekken is a 3D traditional fighter and it differs a lot from Smash. Hopefully, the Tekken team (if they are working on Smash) only implements things in a way that suits Smash, and doesn't make Tekken 7 out of Smash.

@volbound1700: I see your point. But Melee selling the most units on the GC is indeed an accomplishment when taking all the great games released on that system into account. Brawl has only been outselled by casual games that don't have received outstanding reviews, except for Mario Kart Wii, which is actually a good game with a solid online experience (as well as having hardcore elements).

People remembered Melee and bought Brawl. The new consumers consist mainly of casual gamers that played Melee at others' places.

 

[Kink-Link5]

I'm really curious how SmashChu would think Brawl and Melee would have sold if:

Melee had 100% Brawl gameplay and the Melee cast and superfluous details including trophies and 1P modes, etc.

and

Brawl had 100% Melee gameplay with the Brawl cast and superflous details including trophies and 1p modes, etc.