Is the brawl style of gameplay really that bad?

[Player-1]

Except you haven't. Please show me how you have.

 

[GP&B]

Ignoring the endless back-and-forth here, there's this:

I'm sorry but can somebody explain to me how more hitstun makes the game more competitive?
Don't get me wrong, I prefer Melee's style of physics too, like almost everyone else. I just want to understand the reasoning behind it.
And could you please explain it without using the word "combo"? That'd be great, thank you.

Hitstun provides an offensive reward for landing a hit on your opponent by giving the attacker continued opportunities to follow up. What contributes to a defensive game is strong defensive options (very low shield stun, strong shields in general, controllable air dodge with extremely low landing lag) and low offensive reward (follow up reads let alone combos are almost universally too risky).

Besides making for a more offensive game (which from an observation standpoint is considered more entertaining to watch by a lot of people), hitstun and strong follow up/combo game is the crux of some characters like Mario and Falcon. The high difficulty in performing these (tied with other physics things like no momentum carry into jumps which prevents making large leaps for approaching) ultimately damages the functionality of characters who are dependent on combos and setups for damage building and KOs.

 

[1MachGO]

I don't think you understand what casual means when used in the context of competitive play.

Casual is anything involving fun whatsoever. It's anything outside of decision making and risk reward and all that comes with.

Having an action be technically difficult, while you might find fun, in no way adds in anyway to the decision making process of players UNLESS you get to the point that a player might think "I could attempt this but it might drop" at which point your game suffers from inconsistency, and you've sacrificed competitive value for fun.

Enough has been said numerous times over and over on this subject and I've got a lot I want to get done today. There are numerous design articles from numerous developers and top level players who all itterate that the game shouldn't be about pressing the right button at the right time, but making the right decision at the right time and the closer we get to that the better for the game in a competitive scene.

But can you really use terms like "casual" within the context of competitive play? Competitive play, at least the kind that rewards players for improving their skills, is traditionally considered a "hardcore" oriented aspect of games.

Regardless, saying that decision making is the only aspect of competitive play which provides depth is a truly narrow view. It suggests that all other parts of the game don't interact in determining its competitive value.

Designers who strive to simplify the technical aspects of games are audience seekers. This isn't a bad thing, but I wonder what the x number of potential players is who are spurred from competitve play due to difficulty? If so, what about them says they have enough delayed gratification to even pursue improvement at a competitive game? Wouldn't they be just as easily spurred by being mentally outmatched by wiser and smarter players?

The goal should really be low level entry mechanics to ease newcomers with several, developed high level aspects to give players options and reward them for pursuing them; whether that be technical acheivement or wise decision making.

This might shock you, but that's not an objective statement. That's your opinion.

It is my opinion that it was easier to make a certain objective statement. When did I say it was fact?

What matters is not Sakurai's intentions but the results. Did he succeed in doing that? Some would say yes, but I would say no. You can read my above post for a more thorough explanation on this. It seems to be that to succeed in Brawl, you need to be intelligent. To succeed in Melee, you just need muscle memory.

You are horribly misinformed.

 

[MuraRengan]

Player-1, there's no point in arguing with him. He's done the same thing with every person who's countered his points. He either doesn't read or doesn't understand the points and will just continue to say that you haven't countered him without any reference to your points at all.

Also, since the thread is about whether or not the Brawl gameplay system is bad, arguing about whether or not DI is good for the smashbros series is not on topic, at all. DI is a factor in all the games. Once you shift the focus away from just Brawl, you've gone off topic. (But again, he'll just ignore that argument again.)

 

[Mithost]

Let's get this back on topic then? We can stop arguing with him whenever, ya know.

I believe there needs to be more distinguishing between what the "Brawl System" means. Is it the carbon copy of Brawl's engine with all of it's quirks, or is it one with changes? If it needs changes, what ones should we hope to see? Any new concepts that were not in Melee?

I think a brawl-like system would work nicely in this game, if they added a few things to cater to it's slowness. My main thing I would like is for more damage scaling, so each hit does more damage.

 

[CRASHiC]

Player-1, there's no point in arguing with him. He's done the same thing with every person who's countered his points. He either doesn't read or doesn't understand the points and will just continue to say that you haven't countered him without any reference to your points at all.

Please establish a single point he has made this entire discussion.
You can't, he hasn't.

\Also, since the thread is about whether or not the Brawl gameplay system is bad, arguing about whether or not DI is good for the smashbros series is not on topic, at all. DI is a factor in all the games. Once you shift the focus away from just Brawl, you've gone off topic. (But again, he'll just ignore that argument again.)

The focus is still on Brawl and its introduction of a type of hitstun that doesn't allow the person being hit to DI.
This is on topic. You are trying to turn this discussion into something its not because you are incapable of having this discussion.

I refuse to sit by and be ideally insulted by ignorant people.

 

[Chiroz]

2 things:
#1: This is also true in Melee.
#2: This is not nearly as big a deal in Brawl as you Melee nuts like to pretend it is.
In either game, if you don't read your opponent precisely as you approach, you'll be punished for it. In Brawl, like Melee, top players are very aggressive. It's only people who play Melee exclusively and never watch a Brawl match who thinks Brawl is extremely campy.



I don't care about everything else you said. But WTF! Who told you that? Thank you for proving my point that you've never bothered to watch a competitive Brawl match in your life.

Actually I am very competent at Brawl.

In Brawl defensive options are much more powerful, there are many less ways to actually be aggresive but what we are referring to here is chasing DI specifically.

Before you speak understand the terms. In Melee people can't cancel hitstun which means you are given a set amount of time to predict or react to yoyr opponent's current knockback/DI and follow it and there is small amount of risk involved, your opponent can not react to your moves after he has started DIng so while the hitstun remains (and even after since you still retain the better stage position) you are in a low risk situation (although risk still exists)

In Brawl when you hit someone, because of the high floatyness and the ability to cancel hitstun there is no way to follow up a hit without taking a high risk of getting hit back. In fact it is most probable you won't be able to hit your opponent again after he's been knockbacked anyways. Things like multiple air dodges and its awesome frames and the highly floaty psychics of Brawl also make it so that being on top of your opponent is not as big a disadvantage as it is in Melee making it safer for the person that was just hit and riskier for the person chasing.



In Brawl DI is most often than not irrelevant in terms of chasing. You still need to DI not to die at low % but in terms of DIng a move so you don't get comboed does not matter as even if you don't DI you will be able to react before your opponent can react thus making it irrelevant. (In terms of avoiding combos).

I dont watch most competitive Brawl matches (or Melee, I haven't played much Smash sincr 2011) but I have watched some of the most important matches and everything I say is true. Have you watched them? Normally when someone gets a hit, they follow the opponent partially and then just stay close to the opponent and/or try to bait the opponent but almost never go for a hit. If you watch Melee matches you'll notice how after 1 hit people always go for 2-3 more hits, the difference is exactly that, the risk-reward, Brawl has much higher risk than Melee and yet they both yield the same rewards which leads Brawl into a much more campy and 1 hit skirmishes game.

When looking for a replay try looking at one without MK who is the exception to most of the things.

 

[Gardex]

In Brawl DI is most often than not irrelevant in terms of chasing. You still need to DI not to die at low % but in terms of DIng a move so you don't get comboed does not matter as even if you don't DI you will be able to react before your opponent can react thus making it irrelevant. (In terms of avoiding combos).

I was gonna question this, but then..

I dont watch most competitive Brawl matches (or Melee, I haven't played much Smash sincr 2011) but I have watched some of the most important matches and everything I say is true.

You see, DI is incredibly important in Brawl as well, not only as a survival tool, but to make strings/combos harder for the opponent to achieve.
Everything you say isn't true, only dated.

 

[Cassio]

@Rayzk Conscientiously questioning your credibility. That'd be a good assessment of DI and airdodging if you were discussing Brawl in 2009.

Ive knocked my opponent into the air from an attack or throw. Theyre now right above me and can airdodge into the ground or jump. If they airdodge into the ground, they eat a smash attack. If they jump, now theyre in the air without their jump and forced to land with pretty terrible options. Tons of these interactions occur throughout a game in brawl, and every top level brawl player would agree at the strong advantage they are left in in such situations. The mindset that a lack of guaranteed combos = DI being useless and brawl turning into a campfest shows a limited understanding of the game, one that you only perceive through the lense of melee.

Once you become truly competent at brawl you learn how to abuse the terrible positions your opponent is in even without guaranteed combos by using your brain. At that point the games defensive mechanics become significantly less daunting.

 

[BSP]

In Brawl when you hit someone, because of the high floatyness and the ability to cancel hitstun there is no way to follow up a hit without taking a high risk of getting hit back.

This is completely incorrect. If you space correctly, or utilize your character's setups if he/she has them, it's completely possible to stop the opponent from having a chance to counterattack you while you're pressuring them.

Things like multiple air dodges and its awesome frames and the highly floaty psychics of Brawl also make it so that being on top of your opponent is not as big a disadvantage as it is in Melee making it safer for the person that was just hit and riskier for the person chasing.

You're not a top player in Brawl, to my knowledge, so how can you comment on this? Being above the opponent is really terrible.

I dont watch most competitive Brawl matches (or Melee, I haven't played much Smash sincr 2011) but I have watched some of the most important matches and everything I say is true. Have you watched them? Normally when someone gets a hit, they follow the opponent partially and then just stay close to the opponent and/or try to bait the opponent but almost never go for a hit. If you watch Melee matches you'll notice how after 1 hit people always go for 2-3 more hits, the difference is exactly that, the risk-reward, Brawl has much higher risk than Melee and yet they both yield the same rewards which leads Brawl into a much more campy and 1 hit skirmishes game.

It's not so much that there's more risk for the attacker, but more so that they know the opponent has options to escape the most obvious follow up. That's why most players won't just immediately jump for the first opportunity, IE throw them into the air and fully commit to jumping after them.

When looking for a replay try looking at one without MK who is the exception to most of the things.

Go watch Ally v Mikeneko from Apex 2013. In that set alone, there's at least one instance of everything you mention and it contradicts what you say. There are moments when one of the players is in complete control and the other one is limited to airdodging to attempt avoiding damage. Look at how Mikeneko takes Ally from 41% to death in one juggle on PS1. After getting a hit, they don't always wait for the follow up. You've got to mix it up in Brawl.

In said match, you'll also see Mikeneko utilizing DI to not get sent flying up after Snake's Ftilt, preventing Ally from taking stage control. You do actually need to DI to avoid getting stringed like Gardex said, but it also allows you to sometimes stop the opponent from taking stage control easily.

 

[Chiroz]

This is completely incorrect. If you space correctly, or utilize your character's setups if he/she has them, it's completely possible to stop the opponent from having a chance to counterattack you while you're pressuring them.

We're talking about follow ups. This sentence holds true to making first attacks so if following up is the same as making the first attack then it is not really following up, is it?

I have not said you cannot follow up, you should read more carefully. What I said was that following up in Brawl represented a much higher risk which normally means you cannot follow up, instead you go back into set ups, spacing and baiting (instead of going directly for a hit) which you have also just said.

You're not a top player in Brawl, to my knowledge, so how can you comment on this? Being above the opponent is really terrible.

Did you even read? I said and I quote:

"Being above the opponent is not as big a disadvantage as it is in Melee"

First, this states the fact that is it a disadvantage, being above is almost always a bad thing, yet being above an opponent in Melee (just after being hit) almost always means another hit and probably you going off the stage. In Brawl being above the opponent puts you at a disadvantage, in Melee, since you can't cancel hitstun it can't even be considered disadvantage, its much much more than that.

Why do I need to be a top player in Brawl to comment on anything, aside from that, have you ever seen me play? I used to play at tournament level in my country. My country being the one that discovered landing lag is higher after doing a recovery move, and the DACUS tech weeks before it was shared by my country in this forum plus knowing and using techniques such as Wave-Slide before it was posted in this forum. I am not saying my country is better than any other, but you shouldn't talk to people like their words hold no meaning just because you have no idea who they are.

I now live in Los Angeles but I was talking about Dominican Republic

It's not so much that there's more risk for the attacker, but more so that they know the opponent has options to escape the most obvious follow up. That's why most players won't just immediately jump for the first opportunity, IE throw them into the air and fully commit to jumping after them.

It's not the most obvious, your opponent has the chance to escape any follow up. If it is too obvious he will escape it without a sweat which is why you can't follow up, you need yo switch back to your set ups and baits instead of continuing a string.

Go watch Ally v Mikeneko from Apex 2013. In that set alone, there's at least one instance of everything you mention and it contradicts what you say. There are moments when one of the players is in complete control and the other one is limited to airdodging to attempt avoiding damage. Look at how Mikeneko takes Ally from 41% to death in one juggle on PS1. After getting a hit, they don't always wait for the follow up. You've got to mix it up in Brawl.

In said match, you'll also see Mikeneko utilizing DI to not get sent flying up after Snake's Ftilt, preventing Ally from taking stage control. You do actually need to DI to avoid getting stringed like Gardex said, but it also allows you to sometimes stop the opponent from taking stage control easily.

I'll watch it in a bit.

Before I watch it you do realize I didn't say it was impossible to follow up right? My exact words was that it is much more riskier and that unless your specific character has complete dominance over the other it is much more advisable for you to just go back to baiting and spacing than to actually try to get a follow up hit.

Anyways I'll watch it in a bit.

 

[DrinkingFood]

I wish people would stop pretending that a game with technically demanding movement and gameplay options available to dedicated players has anything to do with whether or not less dedicated "casuals" will enjoy the game. Fact: it doesn't. Although the two are hard to compare because of their separation in time, melee technically sold more copies per console than brawl, by a lot. At the very least, this means that the mass majority of the smash scene, the casual players, weren't anymore encouraged to buy and play the game by brawl's less demanding tech skill curve than by melee's technically advanced movement options and lack of buffer. It's annoying to see half you people say something along the lines of "Well I don't want things like wave dashing and l canceling in because that makes the game less fun for casual players." Which is horse****. There are other, much better reasons to not want l-canceling (and no good reasons to not want a hybrid air dodge to allow wavedashig/landing in conjunction with brawl ADs). Difficulty to casuals isn't a reason though. For the most part they don't know or care about what they can do with their characters that isn't readily available to them, and the good thing about smash is that it doesn't matter, because the series has always had a very easy early learning curve, and will probably continue to do so with or without advanced options. Taking those things away from more dedicated players isn't helping casual players, it's hurting sakurai's potentially most long-term players.

 

[Chiroz]

@Rayzk Conscientiously questioning your credibility. That'd be a good assessment of DI and airdodging if you were discussing Brawl in 2009.

Ive knocked my opponent into the air from an attack or throw. Theyre now right above me and can airdodge into the ground or jump. If they airdodge into the ground, they eat a smash attack. If they jump, now theyre in the air without their jump and forced to land with pretty terrible options. Tons of these interactions occur throughout a game in brawl, and every top level brawl player would agree at the strong advantage they are left in in such situations. The mindset that a lack of guaranteed combos = DI being useless and brawl turning into a campfest shows a limited understanding of the game, one that you only perceive through the lense of melee.

Once you become truly competent at brawl you learn how to abuse the terrible positions your opponent is in even without guaranteed combos by using your brain. At that point the games defensive mechanics become significantly less daunting.

What about the option to attack? If you go for a smash he will hit you will he not? And as such you can't just go for a Smash, you need to read the opponent. Throwing your opponent into the air (after a certain % where knockback is enough to cancel hitstun) would be the same as him jumping on top of you.

What you guys seems to be missing is that I am talking only about continuing a string and comparing it to Melee, you are all so focused in defending Brawl you are failing to actually understand that any follow up at all you try to do in Brawl, the opponent will not be in hit stun, what this means is that no matter what type of follow up it is, it is already riskier than if your opponent was in hitstun. Also the fact that if you are in hitstun and don't DI correctly you will be hit if not killed, if you are not in hitstun and DI incorrectly it isn't as much of a deal, of course its still bad, but it is not what decides if you will get hit or not, mentality and prediction will decide it (given the fact that you can already move)

 

[Chiroz]

Double post sorry. Bad internet connection.

 

[otter]

I wish people would stop pretending that a game with technically demanding movement and gameplay options available to dedicated players has anything to do with whether or not less dedicated "casuals" will enjoy the game.

Unfortunately, I disagree. In fighting style games, casual players' knee jerk reaction to high level play is typically very negative. They see someone playing well and automatically start saying "broken" "spamming" "camping" "cheating". Even players that became semi-competent with Brawl and post here are terrified with the option of technical play, even if it's not mandatory.

Keep in mind that most of Melee's sales came before the tournament scene existed, so it's hard to use that as evidence that casual players are cool with it.

It's unfortunate that this attitude is so deep rooted when games like League of Legends and Starcraft can condition new players to admire high level play. The primary difference is direct help from the developer, which isn't coming anytime soon.

 

[Gardex]

@Raykz We are completely aware of what you're saying, and trying to tell you that the same thing applies in Brawl. Metagame has changed over the last years.
With proper spacing and movement, it's easy to negate the ability to attack/dodge out of hitstun, thus it comes down to DI

 

[SonicFlash]

Sometimes you guys go way to far with topics. I mean its a game for god sake can't anyone understand that.

if you have a problem with brawl play melee if you have a problem with melee then play brawl
So if you don't like the game well, ok! Good for you I'll give you a cookie for understanding. oh wait... o-o someone ate em all..
dang it kirby, not again.

 

[Chiroz]

@Raykz We are completely aware of what you're saying, and trying to tell you that the same thing applies in Brawl. Metagame has changed over the last years.
With proper spacing and movement, it's easy to negate the ability to attack/dodge out of hitstun, thus it comes down to DI

Ok, I might not have played in 2-3 years so I do not hold expertise but I am still skeptical. How so can you forgo the extra risk? I understand DI helps you and I have never said not to DI in Brawl, but truthfully I still believe, being the person that was hit, knowing how to read your opponents next move and trying to avoid it by dodging, jumping or attacking him is much more important by a huge margin than just DIng correctly. In Melee all of this options are taken away, you can only DI away, doing this incorrectly results in being hit.

I think that not DIng and being able to read your opponents next move holds much, much more merit than just DIng without a thought to what your opponent is about to do.

That being said, me being the attacker, if I desire to jump in to do a follow hit, it requires me to think out my future position in relevance to my opponents future position and to bait him out, read his move or outsmart him in order to actually land the hit, it is not as simple a task as just being able to predict his DI and following it up.

I am still going by what I said that DI is basically irrelevant as all these other factors play a much higher role in deciding if there will be a follow up hit.


BTW, I don't play Brawl or Melee in 2-3 years, IDK if you guys think I am biased around Melee but in fact I am not. I actually love Brawl and played it a lot at a tournament level, I also loved Melee and also played it at a competitive level, I hold no bias against either but I do have my opinions about specific things in each game.

 

[Vkrm]

I actually like how brawl handles its frame traps. So what if being in the air isn't as bad of a situation as it was in melee?

 

[Chiroz]

I actually like how brawl handles its frame traps. So what if being in the air isn't as bad of a situation as it was in melee?

I never said it was bad or worse than Melee, they're just different, both have an aspect I like about it.

Edit: What I am discussing though is that yes, in fact, it isn't as bad being in the air as it was in Melee and that DIng incorrectly doesn't assure you death like it did in Melee.

A simple way to illustrate this is that if a competitive player in Melee fights someone who doesn't know how to DI, said person will almost always be killed in 1-3 combos. In Brawl, if you don't know how to DI correctly, by being good at reading you opponent and mind games you might just never get combo'ed once

 

[lordvaati]

It's annoying to see half you people say something along the lines of "Well I don't want things like wave dashing and l canceling in because that makes the game less fun for casual players." Which is horse****. There are other, much better reasons to not want l-canceling (and no good reasons to not want a hybrid air dodge to allow wavedashig/landing in conjunction with brawl ADs).

My personal beef with L-Canceling/Smooth Landing is from what I've seen in Melee(and to a lesser extent 64) it heavily favors fastfalling characters above others, since they get the most payoff compared to characters that don't (ex. Mr. Game & Watch) but that might be a topic for another day.

 

[DrinkingFood]

My personal beef with L-Canceling/Smooth Landing is from what I've seen in Melee(and to a lesser extent 64) it heavily favors fastfalling characters above others, since they get the most payoff compared to characters that don't (ex. Mr. Game & Watch) but that might be a topic for another day.

I'm not necessarily arguing in favor of it, but that's not a reason for it to not be included. Almost every game mechanic favors one character archetype over another.

 

[[Corn]]

Melee was hyper agressive with the faster characters nearly always having the advantages over the slower ones. It was very rewarding to just attack relentlessly whilst using insane mobility. Edgegurading we pretty easy though. You were basically helpless in the air to others as well. It certainly was enjoyable.

Brawl was more defensive with poke and punish type gamestyle. Characters who were good werent good because purely because of speed but had tools and such that they used (Bar Meta). Even the worst characters in the game were tolerable to play as. It was rewarding to bait moves or cause your opponent to be frustrated. When you got hit you had a multitude of counterattack options. It was certainly enjoyable as well. Played Ganon/IC/Jiggs


I personally enjoy brawl more then melee by a bit. I found L canceling to simply be an unnnessisary addition, as there is never a time that you wouldnt want to L cancel. Wavedashing is fine, but faster characters tended to get more use out of them. I liked brawls gamestyle, I am a punish type game player. I dont prefer to rushdown. I didnt mind the longer matches as well, in fact I enjoyed them unless they were running out the clock or planking. I didnt like brawl magnet ledges or tripping, those were terrible. Played IC/Ness/Ganon

Im never one to play the fast characters in games, so that probably effects my opinion.

 

[DrinkingFood]

"It was rewarding to just attack relentlessly"
I would accuse you of having played very few good melee players.

 

[[Corn]]

"It was rewarding to just attack relentlessly"
I would accuse you of having played very few good melee players.

You understand what I mean, defensive options werent as good in melee compared to the agrressive ones. I mean it was more rewarding to be overall offensive then defensive in melee and overall more rewarding to play defensively then offensively in brawl.

Thats one of the reasons people are split, they have nearly opposite rewarding playstyles.

 

[otter]

You understand what I mean, defensive options werent as good in melee compared to the agrressive ones. I mean it was more rewarding to be overall offensive then defensive in melee and overall more rewarding to play defensively then offensively in brawl.

Thats one of the reasons people are split, they have nearly opposite rewarding playstyles.

I think you are confusing "using defensive options" and "doing nothing".

 

[[Corn]]

I think you are confusing "using defensive options" and "doing nothing".

Doing nothing will get you killed regardless of game. My point being that that melee was more agressive overall and brawl is more defensive. Ive seen this in many fighting games when it comes to rushdown vs zoning players.

 

[Paradigm]

Doing nothing will get you killed regardless of game .

Usually, yes, but not absolutely always

 

[DrinkingFood]

@[Corn]
I see what you're saying, but it's not presented accurately. As far as fighting games go, both melee and brawl are fairly defensive campy games at high levels. Dash dashing, wavedashing/landing backwards, lasers, etc all contribute to this is melee. The issue isn't that the two games are on opposite sides of an aggressiveness spectrum, because they aren't; they're both campy games. Disregarding that brawl is more extreme in this aspect (and further on that side of the spectrum), melee still has things which make it better reflect a competitive game. Lack of hitstun canceling and better and faster movement options are two o the primary ones. Where brawl doesn't reward players much more than 1-3 hits off of a successful hard read before the situation is reset to neutral, thus requiring many hard reads for a KO, melee can make the same thing work off of only one to a few reads, exceptions bring super floaties, jiggs most notably. But to get to the point, the issue is that brawl ISN'T rewarding. Regardless of how patient or defensive you are, almost none of the characters can properly convert a successfully defensive maneuver into a rewarding string; rather, the players are forced to peck and pole at each other from behind overly defensive mechanics until one or the other is in a bad position and a high damage. With the exception of landing single kill moves at those percentages, and maybe some chain grabs at any percentage, the game really doesn't HAVE any rewarding mechanics. Nearly any action you take isn't worth the risk, unless it's a safe, non-rewarding poke. People just end up doing the least rewarding action they can the whole game: waiting for the opponent to make the first move.

 

[MrZero]

Usually, yes, but not absolutely always

There are videos of Luigi doing that in Melee. Probably a bit more relevant.

Hope he's nerfed in Smash 4 and Mario Party 10.

Behold!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwDngBhmQXY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQWNmX96xpo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-b3tCc3sn0

 

[[Corn]]

@[Corn]
I see what you're saying, but it's not presented accurately. As far as fighting games go, both melee and brawl are fairly defensive campy games at high levels. Dash dashing, wavedashing/landing backwards, lasers, etc all contribute to this is melee. The issue isn't that the two games are on opposite sides of an aggressiveness spectrum, because they aren't; they're both campy games. Disregarding that brawl is more extreme in this aspect (and further on that side of the spectrum), melee still has things which make it better reflect a competitive game. Lack of hitstun canceling and better and faster movement options are two o the primary ones. Where brawl doesn't reward players much more than 1-3 hits off of a successful hard read before the situation is reset to neutral, thus requiring many hard reads for a KO, melee can make the same thing work off of only one to a few reads, exceptions bring super floaties, jiggs most notably. But to get to the point, the issue is that brawl ISN'T rewarding. Regardless of how patient or defensive you are, almost none of the characters can properly convert a successfully defensive maneuver into a rewarding string; rather, the players are forced to peck and pole at each other from behind overly defensive mechanics until one or the other is in a bad position and a high damage. With the exception of landing single kill moves at those percentages, and maybe some chain grabs at any percentage, the game really doesn't HAVE any rewarding mechanics. Nearly any action you take isn't worth the risk, unless it's a safe, non-rewarding poke. People just end up doing the least rewarding action they can the whole game: waiting for the opponent to make the first move.

Im not trying to go into this.I understand all this, I believe I may be wording things wrong.

Ill try to explain it better. The amount of hitstun in melee rewards landing an attack which increased the overall aggressiveness. The amount of hitstun in brawl doesnt reward the attacker nearly as much as the defender gets from simply poking them back.

 

[otter]

Im not trying to go into this.I understand all this, I believe I may be wording things wrong.

Ill try to explain it better. The amount of hitstun in melee rewards landing an attack which increased the overall aggressiveness. The amount of hitstun in brawl doesnt reward the attacker nearly as much as the defender gets from simply poking them back.

exactly, so why bother?

 

[[Corn]]

exactly, so why bother?

So why bother what? Even playing Brawl?

I enjoy Brawl more because I enjoy the freedom and floatyness in the air and poke/prod style of gameplay. I also like it because Brawl threw, "The faster the character, the better they are" motto from the previous games out the window (Bar Meta).

 

[smashbrolink]

The only three things I didn't like about Brawl, were the speed of jumping and landing[and by extension, the floatiness], the lack of hit-stun, and the tripping.

Thankfully, two out of three seem to be solved, with only Hit Stun being a relatively unsolved question for the community, as far as Smash 4 goes.

Other than those three things, I found that I had much more fun in Brawl than I ever did in Melee, because all of the matches I fought in Brawl, aside from against Meta-Knight, were all closer matches than in Melee, where most anyone with a modicum of skill who mained one of the top-tiers could decimate regardless of the character they faced.

I'm pleased to see that Bowser got a nice bit of speed to his moves now. I've always been upset at the advantage that speed gives, since it left characters like Link and Bowser out in the cold as far as tier lists goes.
Now that that's changed, maybe we'll see some tier changes and more people maining them.

 

[[Corn]]

I've always been upset at the advantage that speed gives, since it left characters like Link and Bowser out in the cold as far as tier lists goes.
Now that that's changed, maybe we'll see some tier changes and more people maining them.

This was a huge gripe with me. Dk in 64 and Ganon in Melee. Ive had the most fun with those characters by far, but I can win much easier by simply picking a faster character.

 

[FirestormNeos]

This was a huge gripe with me. Dk in 64 and Ganon in Melee. Ive had the most fun with those characters by far, but I can win much easier by simply picking a faster character.

NOW I SEE WHY META KNIGHT IS BROKEN.

 

[[Corn]]

NOW I SEE WHY META KNIGHT IS BROKEN.

No idea what you mean here at all if you are trying to insinuate something.

 

[otter]

The only three things I didn't like about Brawl, were the speed of jumping and landing[and by extension, the floatiness], the lack of hit-stun, and the tripping.

Thankfully, two out of three seem to be solved, with only Hit Stun being a relatively unsolved question for the community, as far as Smash 4 goes.

Other than those three things, I found that I had much more fun in Brawl than I ever did in Melee, because all of the matches I fought in Brawl, aside from against Meta-Knight, were all closer matches than in Melee, where most anyone with a modicum of skill who mained one of the top-tiers could decimate regardless of the character they faced.

doesnt that kind of take away your incentive to aquire a modicum of skill?

 

[smashbrolink]

doesnt that kind of take away your incentive to aquire a modicum of skill?

A reasonable question, but I think you'll be surprised to learn that it didn't.
I still played to get better, because doing so was still fun for me.
I'm no top-tier player or anything, but I feel I have a decent amount of skill despite the many crushing defeats in Melee, and the complete reversal-of-fortunes in Brawl.

Just because the bar of skill was lower without Melee's techs didn't make learning Brawl inside and out for what it was any less entertaining or challenging for me.

 

[otter]

A reasonable question, but I think you'll be surprised to learn that it didn't.
I still played to get better, because doing so was still fun for me.
I'm no top-tier player or anything, but I feel I have a decent amount of skill despite the many crushing defeats in Melee, and the complete reversal-of-fortunes in Brawl.

Just because the bar of skill was lower without Melee's techs didn't make learning Brawl inside and out for what it was any less entertaining or challenging for me.

I think many people would agree with you. The problem is that tor me, and presumably alot of Melee fanatics, the fact that the bar of skill is virtually limitless, or at least beyond human comprehension, makes the game feel much more magical.