Is the brawl style of gameplay really that bad?

[M15t3R E]

You'll often hear "Brawl is too slow" and "Brawl has no true combos" when the fact of the matter is, Brawl is still as fast or faster a fighting game than any other fighting games save for Melee. Just watch Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Soul Calibur, etc. and you'll see.
Also, Brawl has plenty of short combo strings (usually 2-3 hits) which ARE guaranteed, just not like 10-15 hit strings like Melee has. For many characters, though, in Brawl you can do several hit combos provided that the opponent doesn't know how to SDI or doesn't react fast enough.
So I've never found these criticisms of Brawl to be merited. And SSB4 looks much like Brawl, so I'm happy.

 

[XavierSylfaen]

I don't even know what you mean by "it's better to be on the defensive."

Well, here's why:

I'm a casual player who usually plays brawl as a party game.

SSB4 will be wildly popular and fine as a party game, everyone already knows that. It's a matter of how the gameplay will feel on a competitive level.

 

[Djent]

Melee of course has more of an offensive playstyle that allows true combos, meaning combos that can work over and over given a specific d.i. of the character allowing greater punishment (0 to Death combo or 0 - higher percentage). The combo's consist of reading and just the characters built. Whereas combos within brawl, mostly consist of just reading the opponent and reacting to what they do.

I'm not trying to pick on you, but your post is a good starting point for something I've been meaning to ask for awhile. This isn't just for you, because I've seen a lot of Smashers say similar things.

Why do Smash players (and Melee players in particular) think the first sentence I quoted is the definition of "true combo?" A true combo is a sequence of moves that keeps an opponent in hitstun is inescapable, full stop. Working "over and over given a specific d.i." is NOT a true combo (something which Melee actually had very few of). Now, Melee's mechanics certainly make following up easier than it is in Brawl. But a Melee player who reacts to someone's DI is doing exactly what you accuse Brawl of forcing people to do, namely "reading the opponent and reacting to what they do." Brawl just makes that harder to do, thereby skewing the risk-reward ratio away from pursuing certain follow-ups, and therein lies the real problem.

I'd also like to cosign Kef's post. When combos are so severe that they lead to "0 to Death," everyone plays super safe and defensively. Why? Because God forbid your risky playstyle grant your opponent a clean hit - that'd mean you just lost the match. Hence why (as dRevan64 aptly noted) Smash 64 is about picking safe options and waiting for mistakes to punish. Melee's strings (NOT combos) give an advantage to the person landing the hit, yet 0-to-death combos are uncommon. But that's actually GOOD, because it allows people to take risks. The reward of a clean hit is solid damage, but you're not forced to gamble it all on getting that one hit. Making the offensive player go "all in" is as sure a way to cripple offense as giving them no solid follow-ups at all.

 

[XavierSylfaen]

You'll often hear "Brawl is too slow" and "Brawl has no true combos" when the fact of the matter is, Brawl is still as fast or faster a fighting game than any other fighting games save for Melee. Just watch Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Soul Calibur, etc. and you'll see.
Also, Brawl has plenty of short combo strings (usually 2-3 hits) which ARE guaranteed, just not like 10-15 hit strings like Melee has. For many characters, though, in Brawl you can do several hit combos provided that the opponent doesn't know how to SDI or doesn't react fast enough.
So I've never found these criticisms of Brawl to be merited. And SSB4 looks much like Brawl, so I'm happy.

When people say Brawl doesn't have combos they're not really talking about Snake's f-tilt registering two consecutive hits in training mode or something, they're talking about many individual attacks linked together. Like Melee Falcon doing dthrow to uair to nair to knee or something.

 

[grizby2]

we all know we're going to play smash 4 competitively, just like how we played brawl competitively. WHO was the one person that decided that brawl Wasn't competitive? I would seriously like to know this. I don't know about the rest of you, but im pretty sure that the smash bros games are fighting games. well gee, whats the ONE thing fighting games are known for? 1 victor, 1 loser. if your fighting against someone else, that's competing. its the OLDEST type of competition that I know exists.
its not the game that's competitive, its YOU that's being competitive.
ive said this before.

the button layout from melee and brawl are identically mapped out, and the basic way of moving around is still there so theres NO excuse for you to say that you cant play either game.
I play melee and brawl, theres no "which is better" for me, if the person im playing with is complaining about the mechanics, then I must have come up on top because I can adapt and they couldn't. there wasn't even that much to get used to, it was like playing borderlands 1 then switching to border lands 2....

besides the game is still in development. it can change *snap* just.. like..that. and so far, it looks faster paced than brawl (and we have normal speed gameplay videos to observe on top of that). they didn't even announce much past some info about new characters so far anyway, sakurais still keeping us in the dark!! rrrggg....

 

[Pikabunz]

Brawl Pika has more combos than Melee Pika.

 

[MrZero]

These posts are making me think, and I'm probably really late on this.

But Smash Bros. is the only fighting game where the hardcore fan base is about as big as the casual. Games like Tekken, Virtua Fighter, Soul Calibur, BlazBlue, and Street Fighter can't claim that. MvC can, but only for a few months after launch.

Now, imagine how challenging it is to make a game that appeals to veterans and newcomers alike, as well as the hardcore crowd and the casuals within the veterans.

The only group that probably won't altogether be dissatisfied are the casuals making the move to the hardcore crowd, which was me at the release of Brawl.

Unfortunately, I don't remember where I was going with this, but I'm still gonna post it. Thanks, ADHD.

 

[Amida64]

When people say Brawl doesn't have combos they're not really talking about Snake's f-tilt registering two consecutive hits in training mode or something, they're talking about many individual attacks linked together. Like Melee Falcon doing dthrow to uair to nair to knee or something.

We know, just look at MK, Lucario, Toon Link, Ice climbers, and Luigi, they all have at least one guaranteed combo, some only work on certain characters, meaning you have to know your character well, JUST like melee. Brawl players only want melee players to stop thinking their game is superior, and agree to disagree.

 

[PhantasyStar]

The gameplay I won't say is bad, but it's boring after a while. For the smash series I replay 64,Melee, and Project M on a daily/weekly basis and that's been since before I've joined the competitive scene. Brawl became boring to me after a while in comparison to the others so I just stopped playing it. Combos keep me entertained, but that's just my fighting game side.

 

[No_Skillz]

I dont understand why ppl still say brawl is campy, its rare to see a high level brawl match thats really campy anymore...UNLESS theyre playing against an ic's who is the only character with a 0-death combo on everyone. but yea, combos = offensive lool

 

[Pikabunz]

Competitive Brawl isn't that bad. You still have to be skilled and have a huge understanding of the game to be really good.

 

[Sedda]

The only game in the series that has "True combos" is ssb64. I don't mind that Melee didn't have this, but stop using it as a bullet point to prove that it's a reason for it being better than Brawl.

Brawl is not a bad game, but people were just used to playing the game a bit too differently in a competitive standpoint. I imagine that if Brawl had come out first and Melee second, people would've complained about its differences as well

 

[Vkrm]

Nvm. Delete this post.

 

[Black Mantis]

So far I'm hearing some intelligent stuff in this thread I like. Shoutouts to the person who stated that combos don't make a game offensive and then referenced Chris G's Morridoom strat.

 

[Admiral Pit]

I'm not worried about the Brawl style too much, besides the fact that defensive players (campers) are more rewarded than aggressive players in most cases, as well as the imbalance of some moves, that of which Snake, and MK are 2 of the main ones with many OP'd moves in their right. Other move properties, like D3's D-throw CG, the move was fixed and therefore the CG (which works on most of the cast of course) could be done on any % and last as long as the player wanted.
Just fix up some of the moves, give more rewards to aggressive players rather than campers having the clear advantage, and nerf the ledge game potential, and things will be much better in no time, that along with making characters a bit more balanced than what brawl made em out to be of course.

 

[TL?]

Did anyone read the OP? The point I'm trying to make is that a game at the pace of brawl could potential be great as long as the small details of the engine are properly balanced. Don't bother just saying brawl was bad or whatever since it contributes nothing to the topic. Talk about if you think the style in general could be fixed up and polished or not and why.

Other people have said that combos don't automatically make a game offense based. It's true. Lower landing lag on aerials and less risk on approaching leads to a more offense based game.

 

[Vkrm]

Did anyone read the OP? The point I'm trying to make is that a game at the pace of brawl could potential be great as long as the small details of the engine are properly balanced. Don't bother just saying brawl was bad or whatever since it contributes nothing to the topic. Talk about if you think the style in general could be fixed up and polished or not and why.

Other people have said that combos don't automatically make a game offense based. It's true. Lower landing lag on aerials and less risk on approaching leads to a more offense based game.

....But I don't want brawl 2.0.......

Brawl is not a bad game, but people were just used to playing the game a bit too differently in a competitive standpoint. I imagine that if Brawl had come out first and Melee second, people would've complained about its differences as well

Oh yes I'm sure. You'd hear complaints about how responsive the characters are and there'd be a massive backlash regarding the removal of tripping. All that on top of people chastising the devs for forgetting to include the random 0-2 frame delay.

 

[finalark]

Listen, I know it looks like Brawl, but it probably isn't. Why? Because who the hell knew how Brawl played from game play videos alone? Don't let history repeat, people.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

We could just let the game be it's own thing. It's not gonna be melee or brawl or 64 2.0

 

[Player-1]

Brawl was a fine game, but it did have some bad mechanics such as tripping and random 0-2 frames of input delay is pretty stupid, but melee had some pretty dumb mechanics too IMO. The fact that brawl is a slower paced game with little combos has nothing to do with which game is better between melee and brawl. In my opinion, that makes the game better competitively. People splurting out nonesense like "brawl is bad because it's floaty with no real combos" like it's fact are just ****ing stupid, it's your opinion, you can be vocal about it, but you don't have to be so pushy about it either. I like the fact that there aren't really any combos or very little. That makes the game more focused on smarts and reading rather than how technical you can be. I have to hit the opponent like 10 times before he dies, that means I have to get 10 reads on the opponent. I have to outsmart the opponent 10 times before he dies. Melee on the other hand is hitting them a few times and them having guaranteed damage, less reading and more technical prowess. It's fine if you prefer that over brawl's system, I can certainly see why you like the game more (oh and I'm not saying you don't have to read people in melee, you most certainly do, I'm just saying brawl focus's more on it). Brawl is more like you hit them once and instead of having guaranteed damage you put them in a bad position, but you still gotta read them again.

That being said I can see how watching brawl isn't very exciting to people that don't know too much about the game or can't appreciate the mentality behind why players chose certain options. I personally love watching brawl videos because I enjoy watching high level players execute their though processes and understanding why they chose the options they did. I also enjoy watching melee matches too because I still enjoy the fast paced matches. I like watching marvel matches and I don't really know too much about the game. It's a fast paced game with lot's of combos, but a lot of the mechanics in it are pretty stupid. If I was a new player entering the scene melee matches would probably be more fun for me to watch which is also why I'd support faster game play for smash 4. I'd like to see the smash scene grow and I think having videos that are more fun for lower leveled players to watch would help. That doesn't mean I want melee hitstun and combos etc. I'd basically just like to see a game much like brawl with little hitstun/shieldstun/floatiness etc, but still fast paced.

 

[Pikabunz]

One thing I liked in Brawl over Melee was the buffering system. It made your inputs feel a lot smoother. Footstool jumps were pretty neat too for some characters, which is still in Smash 4. There hasn't been any tripping in the videos so far, so that's good.

 

[Vkrm]

Djent, brawl is the one with no tumble DI. Keep that in mind when talking about how hard it is to follow up. Even what the brawl community refers to as frame traps boils down to weather you should attack or airdodge. More depth can be found in melees tech chase game, which is a single aspect in its follow up game.

 

[HeroMystic]

My personal problem with Brawl was it lacked balance between defense and offense. Reading opponents and punishing was Competitive Brawl's selling point and it was the reason why I stayed in the scene for two years, but Smash in general needs to have better offensive options so playing defense isn't the best choice 99% of the time.

 

[Djent]

Djent, brawl is the one with no tumble DI. Keep that in mind when talking about how hard it is to follow up. Even what the brawl community refers to as frame traps boils down to weather you should attack or airdodge. More depth can be found in melees tech chase game, which is a single aspect in its follow up game.

Tumble DI makes it possible to escape certain set-ups. If "true combos" were what players really wanted, they wouldn't be so upset about its removal. But what makes Melee's follow-up game amazing has nothing to do with "true combos," hence my post. Your point about tech chases further corroborates this point.

 

[BSP]

My biggest problems with Brawl's gameplay are character balance, tripping, 0-2 frame input delay, hitstun cancelling -> momentum cancelling, and its stale moves mechanic. The first three are no brainers. I don't like Momentum cancelling because it makes characters for entirely too long. I don't like hitstun cancelling because it led to momentum cancelling. Brawl's stale move negation is too great and it caused characters to have KO'ing problems, especially when coupled with momentum cancelling. It literally punishes you for hitting the opponent with X move.

I can deal with its shield, ledges, and spotdodges, but I wouldn't mind if they were changed. ICs need to be revamped as well.

I agree with P1's post, and I liked the buffer system too. 10 frames is a bit much, but it did make the game feel smooth imo.

Edit: forgot about attacks not being safe on hit. That's just ridiculous and needs to be cut out entirely.

 

[VhatDeHel]

When Brawl came out, I loved it. I got used to the new gameplay and adapted, and I used to stubbornly cling to it over Melee since it was the brand new game in the franchise with new content. One of my friends was always reluctant to play and he preferred Melee, and he said that he felt I only liked Brawl more cause of the content. It wasn't until years later when I played Project M that I realized he was right. At first, I looked at Project M like, "Wooow, really, they're making like, Falco, and Ganondorf, all cloney again? Lame." But as I looked at gameplay, and I started playing Melee more at a friend's house, who only had a gamecube, I decided to give it a try. Holy crap. This is what Brawl should have been. Even though it's not done yet, I would have to say Project M may even be my favorite Smash "game". Combining Brawl's content with Melee's gameplay, I can only wait in anticipation when it is done.

Now then, my point in saying all this is that I realized that I prefer Melee's gameplay over Brawl's. The physics just, feel right. There's no frame delay. When you run and jump, your momentum is conserved. But what I mainly like over Melee over Brawl is the accessibility. Not only can you play casually and have fun with items, and crazy stages, you can also play fast-paced, kick ass, more serious matches with great combos and mindgames and all that great stuff. I acknowledge Brawl's gameplay is different, but I feel it is lacking. Silly matches with items are all fine and good, but more serious matches just seem like hit and run. You're floating all over the place, waiting for that last hit to KO, ha, but then it never seems to come cause the characters survive so long!

Project M is Melee 2.0. But they're not just copypasting Melee. It may PLAY like Melee yes, but the metagame is so different with all the new characters, and the changes to the old characters, and the different stages! Not to mention that it's more about taking the best components from the three Smash games.

MAIN POINT (TLDR): This is the sort of thing I want from Smash 4. A game not only the casual audience can enjoy with its ridiculousness, but also the more hardcore audience can enjoy with its deep gameplay. I honestly would be most satisfied with it playing like Melee, but seeing as how that is an impossibility, I'll stick with tweaking of Brawl's engine. Namely, more hitstun, characters not surviving till crazy percentages, less sluggishness...the good stuff.

So ends my wall of text.

 

[Sedda]

....But I don't want brawl 2.0.......




Oh yes I'm sure. You'd hear complaints about how responsive the characters are and there'd be a massive backlash regarding the removal of tripping. All that on top of people chastising the devs for forgetting to include the random 0-2 frame delay.

I wasn't talking about tripping or the frame delay. I was talking about the slower gameplay. People get used to anything and complain about any differences all the time. It's a fact of life. Stop trying to imply that Melee is better in every way. They're different games.

 

[Shadow Huan]

I will say this, the majority of brawl players I have played are much smarter than most of the melee players I've played. most of the spacie players I had played in my tournament years actually sort of play on auto piolet (spelling?), esp foxes; run around, make them wiff, spam tech skill until they die. or just camp. for me, the gameplan was: get them off balance, make them think, and they die... hopefully. I hated fighting fox lol

smart, thinking falcos are terrifying tho lol

I agree with the people saying that a balance between melee and brawl would work, with a lot of mixed up gameplay

 

[Amida64]

Why do people keep saying Brawl's balance was a problem? Of course it was, but you can't tell me melee was balanced or more balanced, sure melee's lower tier characters are more likely to win than brawl's because of combos/easy kills, but there was also less characters. Look at pichu and Kirby, worst characters in any smash, PERIOD, MK is pretty much the only reason brawl is broken, (ICs are not so bad, you just have to completely change your play style) Also, is there a single fighting game that is balanced? I can't think of any fighters that are MUCH more balanced than melee and brawl, it is so hard to balance a fighting game w/o updates...... and even then they do not know what is broken because none of them play it competitively. If it did have updates, which I probably wouldn't want it to, it would need to have balanced updates like league of legends, (League of Legends seems pretty balanced, if I am wrong correct me). Honestly, the most balanced fighting game I can think of is smash 64, with the exception of Pikachu and maybe Kirby, but ESPECIALLY pikachu, if they were not so much better, and characters like Link had better recoveries, it would be nearly perfect as far as balance.

Here is a post I made about the perfect balanced character: "Idealistically, make every character like brawl's falco, a solid character with obvious weakness. He can rack up damage, he is not broken, no really bad hit boxes, and he has the weakness of not being able to kill much at all. I am not saying to give every character the same strength/weakness, just make them as balanced as falco. Obviously you might want to get rid of his chain grab, even though more skillful players can avoid it better, but it IS broken otherwise. (Most people do not know how to deal with chain grabs)"

 

[CRASHiC]

Yes, it's not because there isn't wave dashing, L-cancelling, etc... It's because there are no TRUE combos.

Then go play Super Turbo.

 

[Mr.Jackpot]

Why do people keep saying Brawl's balance was a problem? Of course it was, but you can't tell me melee was balanced or more balanced, sure lower tier character are more likely to win because of combos/easy kills, but there was also less characters. Look at pichu and Kirby, worst characters in any smash, PERIOD, MK is pretty much the only reason brawl is broken, (ICs are not so bad, you just have to completely change your play style) Also, is there a single fighting game that is balanced? I can't think of any more balanced than melee and brawl, it is so hard to balance a fighting game w/o updates...... and even then they do not know what is broken because none of them play it competitively. If it did have updates, which I probably wouldn't want it to, it would need to have balanced updates like league of legends. Honestly, the most balanced fighting game I can think of is smash 64, with the exception of Pikachu and maybe Kirby, but ESPECIALLY pikachu, if they were not so much better, and characters like Link had better recoveries, it would be nearly perfect as far as balance.

Kill me now.

 

[Amida64]

Kill me now.

When I said "sure lower tier characters are more likely to win" I meant melee's lower tier characters are more likely to win than brawl's. With the exception of pichu and kirby......... also, I do not play many other fighting games, and they may be more balanced, but they are still NOT balanced. If I am wrong, correct me, and I will look into the game. Because I would love to play a completely balanced fighting game. Also, when I said "I can't think of any more balanced than melee and brawl" I wasn't saying melee and brawl are THE most balanced fighting games. I was just saying I can't think of any other fighters that are much better in balance. Also, is League of legends not balanced? Please, if I am wrong tell me...... I watch League, but I have not played it, so I can definitely be corrected.

 

[kakx]

I'm not trying to pick on you, but your post is a good starting point for something I've been meaning to ask for awhile. This isn't just for you, because I've seen a lot of Smashers say similar things.

Why do Smash players (and Melee players in particular) think the first sentence I quoted is the definition of "true combo?" A true combo is a sequence of moves that keeps an opponent in hitstun is inescapable, full stop. Working "over and over given a specific d.i." is NOT a true combo (something which Melee actually had very few of). Now, Melee's mechanics certainly make following up easier than it is in Brawl. But a Melee player who reacts to someone's DI is doing exactly what you accuse Brawl of forcing people to do, namely "reading the opponent and reacting to what they do." Brawl just makes that harder to do, thereby skewing the risk-reward ratio away from pursuing certain follow-ups, and therein lies the real problem.

I'd also like to cosign Kef's post. When combos are so severe that they lead to "0 to Death," everyone plays super safe and defensively. Why? Because God forbid your risky playstyle grant your opponent a clean hit - that'd mean you just lost the match. Hence why (as dRevan64 aptly noted) Smash 64 is about picking safe options and waiting for mistakes to punish. Melee's strings (NOT combos) give an advantage to the person landing the hit, yet 0-to-death combos are uncommon. But that's actually GOOD, because it allows people to take risks. The reward of a clean hit is solid damage, but you're not forced to gamble it all on getting that one hit. Making the offensive player go "all in" is as sure a way to cripple offense as giving them no solid follow-ups at all.

I believe Smashers, Melee players in particular, say a 0- death or 0 - higher percentage is a "true combo" because due to our experience with the past games, SSB and SSBM, and comparing it to SSBB are completely different in terms of comboing. Not only are we comparing to older games of smash but mostly other 'fighting' genre games, such as Street Fighter, MvC3. Those games consists of what we call, "true combos" because you are allowed to string a number of combos and heavily punishing the opponent, given that the player executes the correct 'moves' in the right situation. Basically, we're comparing the string of combos to a 'traditional fighters.'

The problem with brawl is that, as you would say there is no hit-stun thus allowing discontinuous combos hit allowing 2 -3 hits. You have to react to rolls or spacing more rather than comboing and punishing opponents heavier. Whereas in Melee, it utilizes reading, spacing, tech skills, that allow comboing. However; you make an excellent point as to risk-reward problem. Players and competitive players definitely want to be rewarded for 'outplaying' another player but with the physics and mechanics of brawl doesn't allow much punishment, thus making a low-risk-low-reward(?). Casual players or players that play the game for fun won't see this as a problem because they view smash as a party, in contrast Melee players or competitive players will see this as the downfall of the game.


Having a high-risk-high-reward intensifies the game allowing more diverse playstyle. I don't know if this is a good comparison but many players have seen this change in the meta in League of Lengend. League of Legends in Season 1 and beginning to mid Season 2 had been a passive gameplay where as it was more low-risk low-reward, so you passively play to maximize your 'farm' to beat your opponent later in the game. This can be said about Brawl, you would trade hits play defensively and space and trade hits, where in the end you just kill the other player due to the high percent accumulated. Whereas in the later seasons of 2 and 3 there seems to be a change in meta where people changed their mindset of high-risk-high-reward allowing a greater gain. So these players but themselves in risky positions where they would 'understand' the game in-depth enough where they can 'successfully' pull off a kill with high-reward lowering the probabilities of them dying due to them understanding the game.

You can possibly make an argument that Brawl can change it's meta game to a high-risk-high-reward, but the fact is that Brawl's physics doesn't allow players to do that. You can play riskier but your outcome is still going to be less rewarding.

In all Melee allows more different playstyle or meta allowing high-risk high reward or low-risk high reward gameplay. You can play defensively and catch someone off and punish them effectively or you can play offensively allowing a higher risk but high reward if given in both situations can execute the 'combos' or you would say string of combos. But you also have to consider that there are 100% guarantee combos such as when players are above 5% Marth can chaingrab players to 27% making them have to ftilt and grab leading to uairs and fsmash. or Shine pillar, shine pillar, etc...

*Note* Trust me on my observation of League of Legends. I am a S2 Diamond Player and S3 Plat 3 player. You can look me up: kawkk

 

[Revven]

For many characters, though, in Brawl you can do several hit combos provided that the opponent doesn't know how to SDI or doesn't react fast enough.

I can't believe you'd say this in defense of Brawl. Like, what? This doesn't defend the game at all. It's similar to saying, "ya u can combo with fox's utilt over and over again, brawl haz combossss!" Or, "u can do a 5 hit combo IF the other person doesn't DI at all!"

It's completely fair criticism to say one of Brawl's flaws is the lack of combos. There is no denying it, it is a fact that it lacks combos. Is it the #1 thing for a comp. game? No, but it's what makes a game enjoyable both as a player and as a spectator. It attracts people to the game, it gets people EXCITED.

You're devaluing something that actually helps the game.

Shoutouts to the person who stated that combos don't make a game offensive and then referenced Chris G's Morridoom strat.

Not quoting with you to argue, just using what you're saying to talk about what I wanted to mention.

I don't know about anyone else, but my most realistic expectation is that they will reinstate combos. It's the most basic, fundamental change you could expect from them because guess what it takes? All it takes is disabling the ability to air dodge out of the hitstun animation. That's it. Aside from tripping, that is literally the easiest thing they could do and it would make such a huge, HUGE difference for the gameplay. I would be much more willing to tolerate every other difference in the engine (assuming the huge bugs like random input lag were fixed) from what I'm used to if I just had combos. That's all I want, that's all I ask for.

It's obviously not the main thing that makes a game competitive. But it makes it more entertaining all around and adds value to exploring your character, to see what they are capable of outside of just what their moves do. Figuring out what leads into what in such and such situation is extremely satisfying and in Brawl, that's mostly gone (I say "mostly" because I know there's some baiting and reads and stuff with regards to air dodging and etc etc) which I felt degraded the overall experience for me. And of course, I then lost interest in the game as a competitive player.

So the reason people are focusing on hitstun and combos? Because it's the most realistic change Sakurai could make. There's absolutely no hope for them to add new mobility options for competitive players to use. There's no way they're going to cater to us in a very obvious way by throwing in everything from Melee or Smash 64. But the one most realistic change, outside of tripping being removed, is hitstun actually mattering again.

I'm literally bothered that there's people who are apathetic to it... it makes the game better. It is an objectively better change. And it's a simple one to make. You can have all of your Brawl quirks as long as I get the 4-7 hit combos ala Smash 64/Melee. Not this 1-2 hit stuff that is somehow considered a combo in Brawl... :|

 

[Black Mantis]

It's obviously not the main thing that makes a game competitive. But it makes it more entertaining all around

No offense but that's subjective. There are people who (unfortunately) enjoy watching Morridoom and respect it.

 

[Frostwraith]

Melee Vs. Brawl debate #<insert absurdly high number here>

Amusing.

 

[TreK]

stuff about combos

That's one of the problems with the BvM debate.
Let me be blunt. [Some] Brawlers do not LIKE combos.
DI was the selling point in Melee for me. The ability to play a fighting game where combos wouldn't be some guitar hero bull**** where you just have to press buttons in the right order. So of course, I'd switch happily to Brawl when it released.
And that's one of the reasons this debate will never end. Unless we all agree to disagree. There's no need to be playing each other's game. There's no need to watch each other's stream. There's no need to throw our tastes at each other. But we all win from joining forces.

 

[Ninjamo]

Honestly, if Brawl didn't have tripping, the input lag, or the lack of aerial momentum, I'd have liked it just fine. I've begun to hate the super-competitive, "no items, only Final Destination" mentality towards the games. That's kind of like playing Mario Kart with no power ups, only on Rainbow Road. It is a party game, after all; it just happens to have elements of a fighting game.

That being said, I loved Melee and P:M is awesome. Each Smash Bros. title has been quite different from the last, and I like to think the new one will follow suit. It doesn't have to be Melee to be awesome.

 

[CRASHiC]

I can't believe you'd say this in defense of Brawl. Like, what? This doesn't defend the game at all. It's similar to saying, "ya u can combo with fox's utilt over and over again, brawl haz combossss!" Or, "u can do a 5 hit combo IF the other person doesn't DI at all!"

It's completely fair criticism to say one of Brawl's flaws is the lack of combos. There is no denying it, it is a fact that it lacks combos. Is it the #1 thing for a comp. game? No, but it's what makes a game enjoyable both as a player and as a spectator. It attracts people to the game, it gets people EXCITED.

You're devaluing something that actually helps the game.

It gets people excited for like the first few months.
After that it becomes routine.

I know Smash players wish they were playing Street Fighter, but there's no reason to go this far.

 

[The World Warrior]

It's been years since I last posted here.

Anyway, Brawl got stale for me in less than a month. I'm no pro player or do anything competitive but I like some depth in Smash Bros like there used to be. Brawl was way too simplified and felt way too slow. Not to mention, it had one of the most stupid game mechanics ever: random tripping.

Same here. This is my second post since 2009 I think.

This is how I felt. Once the initial hype of a new Smash wore out my friends and I found ourselves going back to Melee for some matches. Brawl was way too campy.

I hope this new Smash finds an even ground between the two. Its gonna suck if playing as Mega Man isn't even fun.