Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
It's hard to say. I'll use Melee as the comparison here since it's middle of the road in the Smash series (both in time and balance). Comparing it to games like Guilty Gear, it's hard to say Smash is balanced at all, but then comparing it to something like MvC2 (which has a huge roster but they're all destroyed essentially by the top 4), I would say Smash is relatively balanced. I would ask Yuna about it though, he seems to have more knowledge about other competitive fighters than myself.NOW what I really want to know, what is Smash's comparison of balance to other competative fighting games?
Uh personally I think Galaxy wasn't to great as it was just too easy. I got bored and stop playing once I got to whatsherfaces bedroom. Theres so many sh*tty games out for the Wii. I don't mean neccesarily sh*tty quality but the games themselves suck. And apparently Wii Sports is the highest selling game of all time. Wii FUN for ALL AGES YAY!Yikes... what hardcore Nintendo fanbase? I think the Nintendo fanboys are feeling great about the games they're getting, especially since they're saying that galaxy is better than Mario 64. (lolwut)
Seriously, Nintendo hasn't been hardcore since they made games for Atari.
Hey SOVA! You know Toasty and everyone right? I think I've seen you on their thread though I never really post there anymore. I'm about to do my last semester in Lynchburg for school but afterwards we should get together and play some Melee. I got into it late but I'd love to play. The only SOVA guy I really know is Trey (Schoolie Dee) and he plays Brawl + never calls people back so . . . Anyway I agree with you also. No one in the right mind ever talked about banning Fox Marth Shiek Falco etc. because they're all beatable.No. It's just not. For this one reason:
Melee didn't have to ban a character to make the game just a little more fair.
10Melee>Brawl
Uhh . . . what?Wouldn't a high / top tier character with some bad match ups be more balances than not?
This is a good post. I'm a "hardcore" gamer myself, and so far, Brawl and Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn are the only two games I actually enjoyed on the Wii. What sucks is that Radiant Dawn was the first FE game released in North America to have difficulty and since so many people (Mostly casual) complained about it, FE might never have difficulty in North America again.True this^^^. Nintendo has been neglecting its hardcore fanbase for some time. In fact they've kinda been insulting us, tempting us with games featuring older characters while not at all delivering in gaming quality which cheapens the old favorites we know and love. I don't know if they're making a Wii Mario Tennis yet but if it sucks, I'm buying a XBox and playing FPSs. To hell with Wii Fit and Mario at the Olympics.[/b]
Ideally, all characters wouldn't have any good or bad matchups, but rather, all neutral matchups.Wouldn't a high / top tier character with some bad match ups be more balances than not?
Haven't you heard? Iwata saysthat will cater to the casual gamer audience. Not only it will affect newer titles but some favorites that have grown us to Nintendo. Zelda's gameplay and storyline was rumored to be toned down to casual gamers. Which obviously sux!!!True this^^^. Nintendo has been neglecting its hardcore fanbase for some time. In fact they've kinda been insulting us, tempting us with games featuring older characters while not at all delivering in gaming quality which cheapens the old favorites we know and love. I don't know if they're making a Wii Mario Tennis yet but if it sucks I'm buying a XBox and playing FPSs. To hell with Wii Fit and Mario at the Olympics.
DK(Bum) vs DDD(somenobody)I think character wise Brawl is way less balanced, but player skill it is much more balanced.
Lol, that's what makes it unbalanced. A scrub can just take up MK and beat somebody with decent skill that plays a low tier.I think character wise Brawl is way less balanced, but player skill it is much more balanced.
Way more combos in melee that can make non-experienced players frustrated beyond belief and render them helpless in each and every match.
Although there are certainly many techniques available in Brawl and the more skilled players emerge on top, the lower players certainly stand a better chance.
Fixed that for ya.I love how you guys are all, I'm hardcore, so if it I don't like it, no hard core person will. I'm going to go play an FPS, a genre which has seen no real innovation since Half-Life lolololol
Endless Ocean is a great game, and can be played both hard core style and casual style.
Player skill isn't actually part of the game itself. That is, it wasn't programmed into the game, it is an outside influence that is completely independent. So this argument is kind of null.I think character wise Brawl is way less balanced, but player skill it is much more balanced.
Way more combos in melee that can make non-experienced players frustrated beyond belief and render them helpless in each and every match.
Although there are certainly many techniques available in Brawl and the more skilled players emerge on top, the lower players certainly stand a better chance.
Didn't Mario Tennis for the gamecube suck as well?Honestly Endless Ocean looks cool but not "Man that **** looks sweet!" cool Endless Ocean looks cool in the same way that I actually played through like a whole year of one of the PS1 Harvest Moon games. Same concept really: build and maintain your stuff, whether it be your crops and farm animals or your tropical fish.
If Wii Mario Tennis has a bunch of gay powerups I may kill someone.
Very true, considering Brawl has smash balls, assist trophies, and a lot of other sh*tty items.Character Balance: Brawl
everything else Balance: Melee
lol
This has nothing to do with balance. No one ever argues game balance based on how well players of differing skill levels stack up against each other.but player skill it is much more balanced.
And this is a good thing?Way more combos in melee that can make non-experienced players frustrated beyond belief and render them helpless in each and every match.
Although there are certainly many techniques available in Brawl and the more skilled players emerge on top, the lower players certainly stand a better chance.
Right, that data's accurate and all...except the Melee data is after ~7 years of play, while Brawl's data is based on a year's play. Hardly a fair comparison, is it?Amazing Ampharos said:*snip*
True, but the Smash Community as a whole is far more knowledgeable than the beginning of Melee. Hence, 6 months of Brawl data is probably equivalent to 4 years of Melee development. Yeah, I pulled those numbers out my ***, but you get the point.Right, that data's accurate and all...except the Melee data is after ~7 years of play, while Brawl's data is based on a year's play. Hardly a fair comparison, is it?
That argument has already been refuted to hell and back. The only reason why Snake, Meta Knight and Game & Watch aren't being tierwhored more if because of a "honor code" among Brawl players. They are viewed as "too cheap" and people actively avoid them in order to not be branded as "cheap".Blah blah
This cannot be proved-and even if it could you would have to then prove why the same sentiments would not exist in Melee (hint: both games were probably effected by this equally).That argument has already been refuted to hell and back. The only reason why Snake, Meta Knight and Game & Watch aren't being tierwhored more if because of a "honor code" among Brawl players. They are viewed as "too cheap" and people actively avoid them in order to not be branded as "cheap".
Whenever you look at data, especially when comparing characters, you want to look at the height of the metagame-which means evaluating upper echelon players. Maybe there are a jillion MK's, but guess what? If you look at the data from the largest tournaments in Brawl it is basically the same 2-3 MK's dominating (DSF/M2K...and thats it pretty much-all the rest lose constantly-there was a Texas tournament last weekend where a Sonic player got 4th while Dojo (MK) got 7th or 9th-Texas, the state where the "lets ban MK!" sentiment basically began because of Dojo). Essentially, it is the same thing as Melee Marth. Marth in Melee, by the way, won tons of local tournaments too (just like Meta Knight)-we simply don't care about those small local tournaments with few (or even none) of the top talent because they aren't relevant to showing how the cast is balanced or not.Both on paper and in practice, those three are dominating tournaments. Not to mention that Melee Marth only racked up that many wins based on the playing of three Marths. Meta Knight and Snake are dominating tournaments, played by a jillion different players.
Really? M2K's best finish at a national tournament was 3rd with Fox. He switched to Marth and the difference was like night and day-he went from being really good to being the contender for best in the world. Ken rarely, if ever, used other characters, and he never had the same success with any of his secondaries that he did with Marth. That isn't to say he couldn't win with his secondaries, it is just saying with Marth he was the best, with other characters he was probably top 10ish. Same thing is true of Azen-he never had the level of success using other characters as he did when he used Marth. True, he could play any character and probably compete with that character against the top 20-10 players in the country, but when it came down to winning against the best he used Marth.So in Melee, we had three specific players dominating (and might I remind you that they were dominating even when they played characters other than Marth?) while in Brawl we have specific characters dominating.
It is the best measure, and I will show you why:Anyway I contest that tournament results are not the best indicator for game balance. Tournaments measure a person's skill compared to another not thier characters potential which is the matter at hand.
On paper maybe-the reality is there has never been a perfect Marth or Fox-and when it came down to the top players using those two characters imperfectly Marth always came out on top. You are arguing in theory, but what happens in theory doesn't mean it will happen in practice. You can say some character has the advantage over another all you want but if those advantages aren't capable of being accessed to their full potential in a tournament environment match in and match out then the reality is those advantages are not as strong as people would like to believe.The fact remains a perfect Fox beats a perfect Marth
Are you saying Fox is so far below Marth he could never ever come even close to Marth's dominance in tournaments? Because that's pretty much the only conclusion to draw from this "M2K randomly went from just a really good player to contender for best player in the world!"-argument (instead of assuming that, say, he just got better or that Marth just suited him better (or both)).Really? M2K's best finish at a national tournament was 3rd with Fox. He switched to Marth and the difference was like night and day-he went from being really good to being the contender for best in the world.
Of course not, because he had spent far more time perfecting his Marth. I was merely illustrating that they didn't randomly win so much just because of Marth. They just happened to be some of the world's best players.Ken rarely, if ever, used other characters, and he never had the same success with any of his secondaries that he did with Marth.
I'm not ignoring Marth's dominance at all. I'm contesting, among others, your own claim that Marth is the only character in Melee who stands a chance at consistently winning major tournaments.However, ignoring Marth's dominance in Melee and attributing it to, simply, player skill, is absurd.
This doesn't touch on the other Marth players who did well (Neo, KM, Cactuar, Husband-and that is just EC players who were all top 25 or so in the country in 2007).[/quote9
As opposed to the other Top and High Tiers, all of which had several players represented in the Top 25?
Because M2K hasn't lost to Ninjalink's Diddy Kong on two separate occasions?In practical appliactions Marth was beatable even the best Marths. This has not been proven for MK.
They aren't easy to document, true, but pretty much everything you just said was based just on your own opinion. Why would people show favoritism to mid-tier characters in Brawl but not Melee?Because Melee has top/high tier favoritism (what we'd expect in most competitive fighters) we can't compare its tournament results to Brawl's with high/mid tier favoritism. Its hard to prove this numerically with hard evidence but we can't ignore the trends which are sort of apparent even if they not easy to document.
Why would they be less accurate? How are results skewed?Regardless, it would seem to me that both games have skewed tournament results especially if were only looking at characters who place. Tournament results thus become less accurate particularly for Brawl.
The difference is that the top 3 most dominant people in the country all used the same character. You are arguing it is just coincidence. I don't believe it is.As opposed to the other Top and High Tiers, all of which had several players represented in the Top 25?
I think the reason M2K could dominate with Marth is the same reason that Ken/Azen could. Marth, quite simply, is not as strenuous to play as match in and match out when compared with Fox/Falco (and maybe Sheik but not so much). The result is more consistency over the entire duration of a tournament. Maybe Marth doesn't stack up to Fox or Sheik when both are being played at their absolute peak.Are you saying Fox is so far below Marth he could never ever come even close to Marth's dominance in tournaments? Because that's pretty much the only conclusion to draw from this "M2K randomly went from just a really good player to contender for best player in the world!"-argument (instead of assuming that, say, he just got better or that Marth just suited him better (or both)).
Cactuar just got second (behind only M2K) at Event52 with Fox, not Marth. Cactuar is a top level player in his own right, it's not Marth carrying him.This doesn't touch on the other Marth players who did well (Neo, KM, Cactuar, Husband-and that is just EC players who were all top 25 or so in the country in 2007).