Just read the Kotaku interview.....

[Morbi]

well since you seem to have the Puffster listed as your main for all 3 games and have it as your sig, you should be happy with the physics of Brawl since Puff is inherently floaty and already had the premise of being on the moon, even in Meele .

Well Jigglypuff is fine in Brawl, as you stated, she was always a moon baby. I have a problem with almost every other character that I play. Haha.

 

[the_suicide_fox]

For some reason, I am completely unable to short hop with anyone in Melee, other than characters like Bowser or Samus. Actually, I can do it, but not anywhere near consistently (just like wavedashing). And yet, short hopping is very easy to perform in Brawl. I wonder why.

I have the opposite problem you do. I tend to short hop when I want to tall jump in Brawl. Then again I'm a Fox user. His jump is the fastest in Melee and thus the most difficult to short hop but I can do it 100% after so much practice.

In fact I was the first person to SHDL and reverse SHDL wiith Fox.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5M9an4WXEc&feature=share&list=FLwIn0zT9Acyve0K13cJeRqg

This was my video made before anyone else was seen doing it.

 

[Luco]

Firstly I just need to point out I couldn't finish reading the page lest my thoughts drift away so some of this may have already been discussed but whatevs...

Suicide fox has some interesting ideas but I have to disagree with him on a few things:

1. To say that to follow the original formula is where Nintendo does great is all well and good - but so far that's what Nintendo HAS been doing and they're actually criticized for it. I can't begin to describe all the gamers i've listened to complaining they just got tired of the same old formula and wanted something fresh. It's also interesting to point out that NSMB and its sequels are considered 'ok' at best in most game communities. Heck even casuals will recognize the difference and say they preferred something like Super Mario 64 (obvious example but still) to the new SMB games that are currently being released. Sales doesn't even come into it - because for a long while the largest selling game on earth was Angry Birds and no-one considers it to be a masterpiece in anything else than maybe gameplay that was innovative for the ipod touches. It's just, addictive.

2. I really hate arguing this but Brawl actually does have a skill gap and it's pretty definite. I say this as a competitive player myself. I don't really know how else to put it except in saying that the skill gaps of Brawl are more tactical as opposed to mechanical. Mechanical changes are fine but someone else has mentioned that L-cancelling is a useless skill gap because it is essential to do it every single time. It offers no tactical element to play. Even big melee players notice this. And to edit, your argument of the sniper analogy I feel is a little flawed because even if it rewards your skill, it's also mandatory. For everyone. Like, why should it be mandatory for everyone? The skill gap there is just a barrier and nothing more. When I learnt zap jumping in Brawl, I found there were particular instances for it - it could be used to recover or used to gimp or whatever else. The idea was to be tactical with it. Yea I could use it in the middle of a fight to get away from my opponent - but now I have to come down and all I have is PSI magnet to cancel my fall. Alternatively, I could use it when someone is off the ledge but if I mis-judge and miss the timing so that the actual PK Fire misses them, they'll have a much easier time getting back to the stage and it might even end up in a reverse situation. What i'm trying to say is, L-cancelling offers no tactics that i've heard of. It JUST makes a skill gap. I think a skill gap should offer some kind of tactical benefit as opposed to a mechanical because it means more options.

But yeah. Just my opinion on that. And i'm not going to respond on 'brawl as a terrible competitive game'. Seen too much of that in my time here lol.

3. Finally I find it a bit odd that you say 'i'll believe it when I see it' and yet you're arguing against those who are actually going for the same thing. That is, wait until you play it to diss it. I can't tell you how many people have come to these boards thinking smash 4 is gonna be the worst piece of 'bleu' ever because of this, that and the other thing. It's just not right to look at a new game coming out and proclaim to the nations that it will be terrible.

 

[the_suicide_fox]

1. To say that to follow the original formula is where Nintendo does great is all well and good - but so far that's what Nintendo HAS been doing and they're actually criticized for it. I can't begin to describe all the gamers i've listened to complaining they just got tired of the same old formula and wanted something fresh. It's also interesting to point out that NSMB and its sequels are considered 'ok' at best in most game communities. Heck even casuals will recognize the difference and say they preferred something like Super Mario 64 (obvious example but still) to the new SMB games that are currently being released. Sales doesn't even come into it - because for a long while the largest selling game on earth was Angry Birds and no-one considers it to be a masterpiece in anything else than maybe gameplay that was innovative for the ipod touches. It's just, addictive.

That's all well and good, but then when developers make changes people still complain. There is no pleasing everyone and I think that in order for sequels to truly succeed they should stick to the original formula and then innovate from there, rather than trying to do what I call "reinventing the wheel". Many games that have tried to change and be fresh have been criticized for it. Obviously you don't want to just copy & paste the previous game, but you don't want to change the fundamentals either. It's a tricky balancing act and I think the games that manage that end up being better.

2. I really hate arguing this but Brawl actually does have a skill gap and it's pretty definite. I say this as a competitive player myself. I don't really know how else to put it except in saying that the skill gaps of Brawl are more tactical as opposed to mechanical. Mechanical changes are fine but someone else has mentioned that L-cancelling is a useless skill gap because it is essential to do it every single time. It offers no tactical element to play. Even big melee players notice this.

First, any and all skill gaps in Brawl are also present in Melee. It's the fact that Melee has skill gaps that Brawl lacks. Again, it can be competitive but it doesn't work as well as it does in Melee. L-canceling is not useless. You should always L-cancel but it's the execution that matters. In a high level match, failing to perform a single L-cancel can really cost you. I equate it to doing the dragon punch in the SF series. You could make DP a single button press but then you remove the need to have good execution. And then there is the FPS sniper comparison. It is ALWAYS best to shoot people in the head with snipers, it's the fact that it takes a high level of execution to pull off that makes it so rewarding and skillful. L-cancel falls into that same category.

3. Finally I find it a bit odd that you say 'i'll believe it when I see it' and yet you're arguing against those who are actually going for the same thing. That is, wait until you play it to diss it. I can't tell you how many people have come to these boards thinking smash 4 is gonna be the worst piece of 'bleu' ever because of this, that and the other thing. It's just not right to look at a new game coming out and proclaim to the nations that it will be terrible.

I'm not dissing Smash 4, but considering the facts I don't expect much. 1) Nintendo has said and done things that go against competitive Smash. 2) Brawl being a disappointment for me and a starting point for Smash 4 doesn't give me hope. 3) I'm arguing with people who would don't seem to understand why skill gaps are important in games and why it's important to be in tune with how the players actually play your game. When developers try to force players to play a certain way it usually doesn't end well, but when they embrace the way players play, even if it's not exactly what they originally had in mind when they created it, then the game ends up being better because of it.

 

[Luco]

Sorry yeah, I edited the post and discussed more on the skill gap thing.

I think skill gaps are important, I just don't agree that there are virtually so few that you claim there are in Brawl. I'm just gonna point out that there is - it takes a far different turn than Melee's but it's a fully definable skill gap.

 

[the_suicide_fox]

Sorry yeah, I edited the post and discussed more on the skill gap thing.

I think skill gaps are important, I just don't agree that there are virtually so few that you claim there are in Brawl. I'm just gonna point out that there is - it takes a far different turn than Melee's but it's a fully definable skill gap.

Right, but they purposely removed skill gaps which is why I don't like Brawl and don't have high expectations for Smash 4. I'm not claiming Brawl has no skill gaps, I never said that. I said it was a poor competitive title because it lacks them, but that doesn't imply that some do exist.

EDIT: Also there a tactical skill gap with using the L-cancel and that comes in know which move to follow up with given the timeframe you have. So, would you do d-air than L-cancel into f-smash or do U-air, which is stronger but has more lag, and follow up with a U-tilt?

 

[the_suicide_fox]

Sorry smashboards keeps lagging or something. Not sure how to delete duplicate posts. :/

 

[Luco]

Right, but they purposely removed skill gaps which is why I don't like Brawl and don't have high expectations for Smash 4. I'm not claiming Brawl has no skill gaps, I never said that. I said it was a poor competitive title because it lacks them, but that doesn't imply that some do exist.

EDIT: Also there a tactical skill gap with using the L-cancel and that comes in know which move to follow up with given the timeframe you have. So, would you do d-air than L-cancel into f-smash or do U-air, which is stronger but has more lag, and follow up with a U-tilt?

Not necessarily - but the implication is there that Brawl lacks competitive depth, which I feel to be totally false through my knowledge of the game and what I know and have seen of its top players.

As for L-canceling, i'll have to think on it.

 

[mimgrim]

L-cancel is just an iffy matter in general in my opinion L-cancel is a mechanic that should be automatic for at least 2 reasons, to me anyway. First off there is the oh so popular argument that there is never a time you don't want to L-cancel and the tactical depth that is argued to be there with it would still remain if it is automatic as you would still have to know how to follow up and all that. The second one is that , to me, it is a purely executional skill gap and I have always disliked those kinds of gaps but that is also because I'm not a very technical person when it comes to being in a middle of a battle in a fighting game,for example in practice I can perform L-cancel most of the time but in actual battle I still haven't gotten use to performing it. However something like say a Wavedash is a different case since I don't have to use it so constantly and know it has it's specific situations to be used. That's why I would prefer L-cancel to be automatic because I dislike the pure technical skill gap and believe the argued tactical skill gap for L-cancel would remain f it was made automatic. But that's just a single opinion of mine just as your opinion.

 

[Jumpman84]

That's all well and good, but then when developers make changes people still complain. There is no pleasing everyone and I think that in order for sequels to truly succeed they should stick to the original formula and then innovate from there, rather than trying to do what I call "reinventing the wheel". Many games that have tried to change and be fresh have been criticized for it. Obviously you don't want to just copy & paste the previous game, but you don't want to change the fundamentals either. It's a tricky balancing act and I think the games that manage that end up being better.

I actually agree with you on this. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I think the problem is that you and I have different viewpoints on what Smash is about. And I'm sorry, I don't understand how this so called "lack of a skill gap" that you're upset about makes Brawl a bad game or why you think Sakurai and Nintendo are against the players. Maybe you're just a real competitive guy and I'm not. I don't have a lot of free time, so I'll never be good as those people who can do it 24/7. So I don't really care enough about those to pay attention, I guess.

The only problem I have with Brawl was the cut characters from Melee. Oh, and tripping, since everyone is supposed to hate tripping. But in my opinion, all the great things in the game FAR OUTWEIGH the cons. It's not a perfect game. No game is, even Melee has its own faults. So why do some people on this website overlook Melee's faults, but not Brawl's? To me, this is hypocrisy and it kinda irritates me. And yes, I did start the insult flinging and I'm sorry about that. Hopefully, cooler heads prevail this time.

The point is both Melee and Brawl are great games. You may disagree on that, but the critics believe so. In fact, according to Metacritic, Melee and Brawl are both universally acclaimed by the critics, only separated by one point. Granted, the user score for Brawl has more negative reviews, so I will concede that some players don't like it. However, it's still generally favorable, which indicates that a lot of people liked it enough to write a Metacritc review. But we'll steer clear of a discussion of if such a score actually reflects the viewpoint of the audience, because there's no way for anyone to know how 11 million people feel.

The sad truth is that nowadays, critic reviews determine a game's success. Games like the Wonderful 101 that are made for hardcore audiences are being punished by critics for being too difficult. And some people won't give games a chance if it doesn't get a good score. What else can a game developer do but ensure that their game appeals to everyone (particularly critics)?

I'm not dissing Smash 4, but considering the facts I don't expect much. 1) Nintendo has said and done things that go against competitive Smash. 2) Brawl being a disappointment for me and a starting point for Smash 4 doesn't give me hope. 3) I'm arguing with people who would don't seem to understand why skill gaps are important in games and why it's important to be in tune with how the players actually play your game. When developers try to force players to play a certain way it usually doesn't end well, but when they embrace the way players play, even if it's not exactly what they originally had in mind when they created it, then the game ends up being better because of it.

Now I'm curious... Have you played Kid Icarus: Uprising? Because it sounds like your impression of Sakurai and how Smash 4 will do is based off of Brawl. That's fine, but from what I've heard, it sounds like it provides the best of both worlds for both casual and hardcore players. I haven't had the chance to play it myself, sadly. But it's safe to say that Sakurai can apply those lessons learned from Uprising as well and deliver a game with casual appeal and that higher skill gap that you're hoping for.

 

[Snakeyes]

L-canceling is not useless. You should always L-cancel but it's the execution that matters. In a high level match, failing to perform a single L-cancel can really cost you. I equate it to doing the dragon punch in the SF series. You could make DP a single button press but then you remove the need to have good execution.

Which version of the Dragon Punch are we talking about here?

Also there a tactical skill gap with using the L-cancel and that comes in know which move to follow up with given the timeframe you have. So, would you do d-air than L-cancel into f-smash or do U-air, which is stronger but has more lag, and follow up with a U-tilt?

This dynamic would exist regardless of L-canceling being automatic or not.

 

[the_suicide_fox]

I actually agree with you on this. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I think the problem is that you and I have different viewpoints on what Smash is about. And I'm sorry, I don't understand how this so called "lack of a skill gap" that you're upset about makes Brawl a bad game or why you think Sakurai and Nintendo are against the players. Maybe you're just a real competitive guy and I'm not. I don't have a lot of free time, so I'll never be good as those people who can do it 24/7. So I don't really care enough about those to pay attention, I guess.

The only problem I have with Brawl was the cut characters from Melee. Oh, and tripping, since everyone is supposed to hate tripping. But in my opinion, all the great things in the game FAR OUTWEIGH the cons. It's not a perfect game. No game is, even Melee has its own faults. So why do some people on this website overlook Melee's faults, but not Brawl's? To me, this is hypocrisy and it kinda irritates me. And yes, I did start the insult flinging and I'm sorry about that. Hopefully, cooler heads prevail this time.

Melee has faults but they are usually in specific matchups or bugs. Like, the difference between top tier and bottom tier in Melee is a lot less than in Brawl. And tripping isn't the only thing. Auto-ledge grabs, ridiculously easy chain grabs that usually work on most of the cast, lack of combos (it just feels like your trading hits more than taking advantage of the physics to do combos), slow speed (again, every time a developer slows the game down players hate it and it ruins the game), and a bunch of other stuff. Point being, Brawl is not a good competitive game. It's decent enough for it to work, that's about it. Again, you can take any game with multiplayer and find a way to make it competitive but that doesn't equate to a good competitive game.

Skill gaps are important because they reward players that put time into the game. Imagine how frustrating it would be to play a game for months or years, you know everything there is to know about the game, yet when you play against a newbie they beat you (or come very close to it). It would make you not want to play anymore. Mario Party, for example, is a game that has virtually no skill gap. In terms of being a party game, this is fine because it's meant for people to have fun and just enjoy the game. But now take Mario Party and try to make tournaments for it, with money on the line. You will see the game fail very fast. Why? Because there is no being good at the game. Maybe to a very small extent, but no one will enjoy it. This is what I felt they did to Brawl. There's certainly more to Brawl than Mario Party, but when you compare to Melee or even 64 it is just no where near that level.

Sakuri purposely changed the game to be like this, when it wasn't at all necessary. There was nothing wrong with Melee that negatively affected casuals. Brawl could have been made to be like Project M (aka. Melee) and EVERYTHING would have been the same except that the game would have been superior in a competitive setting. Reviews would have still been great, casuals would have still loved it, SSE would still be awesome (btw SSE was the only part of Brawl I thought was excellent), and best of all the competitive community would have GROWN and EXPANDED and been overall BETTER. Instead we got Brawl, and the competitive community imploded on itself, and limped along ever since. This is why I don't like Brawl.

The point is both Melee and Brawl are great games. You may disagree on that, but the critics believe so. In fact, according to Metacritic, Melee and Brawl are both universally acclaimed by the critics, only separated by one point. Granted, the user score for Brawl has more negative reviews, so I will concede that some players don't like it. However, it's still generally favorable, which indicates that a lot of people liked it enough to write a Metacritc review. But we'll steer clear of a discussion of if such a score actually reflects the viewpoint of the audience, because there's no way for anyone to know how 11 million people feel.

The sad truth is that nowadays, critic reviews determine a game's success. Games like the Wonderful 101 that are made for hardcore audiences are being punished by critics for being too difficult. And some people won't give games a chance if it doesn't get a good score. What else can a game developer do but ensure that their game appeals to everyone (particularly critics)?

Reviewers aren't pro gamers, or even involved in the competitive community. They play the game to review it and that's about it. They don't spend months or years continuing to play the game (usually). And I enjoyed Brawl at first, but it was after the 3 month mark when I saw Ken lose to some random at MLG (or whatever big event it was) that I decided I don't like it anymore. Same thing happened with Gears Judgement. I loved it at first, but after playing for a few months it became apparent that the game was very poorly made. Again, if these reviewers played the game on the same level that competitive, or even just hardcore fans, do then I'm sure they would change their tune after a few months. If you are a developer making your game for good reviews from critics, then I don't believe you should be allowed to make games. I call that being a sell out. Make a good game to make a good game, that's all.

Now I'm curious... Have you played Kid Icarus: Uprising? Because it sounds like your impression of Sakurai and how Smash 4 will do is based off of Brawl. That's fine, but from what I've heard, it sounds like it provides the best of both worlds for both casual and hardcore players. I haven't had the chance to play it myself, sadly. But it's safe to say that Sakurai can apply those lessons learned from Uprising as well and deliver a game with casual appeal and that higher skill gap that you're hoping for.

I haven't played a Nintendo game since Twilight Princess I think. I had a Wii at one point, with Brawl, TP, Metroid Prime 3, and Galaxy 1, but after some time I just never played it so I gave it to my sister (she wanted it for Wii Sports and Wii Fit). Nintendo just hasn't offered me anything exceptional in a long time. The 360 has a lot more I want; online play, more games for older audiences, better 3rd party support (in fact, M$ only makes a handful of 1st/2nd parties, everything else is 3rd party), better controller with less gimmicks (sorry the Wiimote had potential, but a lot of games turn it into a gimmick), and HD gaming. Nintendo has been behind the times in regards to all this stuff, most notably 3rd party support and online play. Basically, Nintendo systems are for Nintendo games, and beyond that they don't offer much. And I don't play handhelds (barely play any android games), so DS just doesn't appeal to me.

Which version of the Dragon Punch are we talking about here?

This dynamic would exist regardless of L-canceling being automatic or not.

I'm talking about the dragon punch motion, not any in particular. Point is that it adds a necessity to execute properly that makes it good. Again, my FPS sniper example. Shooting in the head is always the best option, but it takes a high level of execution to do consistently. That's why I referenced dragon punch motion, because you have to execute the input precisely in order to do the attack successfully. And actually I suck at DP motions, so while I would benefit from a 1-button version the game itself would suffer.

 

[Snakeyes]

I'm talking about the dragon punch motion, not any in particular. Point is that it adds a necessity to execute properly that makes it good. Again, my FPS sniper example. Shooting in the head is always the best option, but it takes a high level of execution to do consistently. That's why I referenced dragon punch motion, because you have to execute the input precisely in order to do the attack successfully. And actually I suck at DP motions, so while I would benefit from a 1-button version the game itself would suffer.

Here's the thing though; the DP input has become increasingly lenient with every Street Fighter iteration, from extremely precise in the very first game to the down-forward, down-forward, punch shortcut in Street Fighter IV. Same goes for the reversal windows on wakeup. Did making these moves easier to execute ruin the game? Not at all. Most of the better players that still compete regularly remain on top and are having a blast with SFIV. It's one of, if not the most played traditional fighting game since the heyday of arcades.

Persona 4 Arena relegated DPs to a universal two button command and introduced auto-combos that allow anyone to easily hit confirm into a super, albeit with a damage penalty. I can assure you that the skill gap between newbies and people who know what they're doing is still as big as ever.

 

[the_suicide_fox]

Here's the thing though; the DP input has become increasingly lenient with every Street Fighter iteration, from extremely precise in the very first game to the down-forward, down-forward, punch shortcut in Street Fighter IV. Same goes for the reversal windows on wakeup. Did making these moves easier to execute ruin the game? Not at all. Most of the better players that still compete regularly remain on top and are having a blast with SFIV. It's one of, if not the most played traditional fighting game since the heyday of arcades.

Persona 4 Arena relegated DPs to a universal two button command and introduced auto-combos that allow anyone to easily hit confirm into a super, albeit with a damage penalty. I can assure you that the skill gap between newbies and people who know what they're doing is still as big as ever.

There's a difference between making the timing less strict and removing it altogether. Like from 64 to Melee they changed how it actually worked, and that's acceptable. If they did something like only let you L-cancel if you actually hit someone (or a shield) or something like that it would have been fine.

As far as P4A, there will obviously still be better players. But changing the inputs to a 2 button combo probably just made those moves easier to spam. Smash is already incredibly simple in terms of controls. Adding in additional layers of execution is almost necessary to ensure you reward higher skilled players. Like I said, missing a single L-cancel in high level play can really hurt you. I guess you just have a different idea of what constitutes high level play, because the way I look at it higher execution is required the higher you climb the metagame ladder. Without a need for high execution at that level you just end up lowering the skill ceiling. Good for players low in the metagame, bad for players high in the metagame.

EDIT: Just to give another example of what I'm talking about, I'm going to Gears of War (because I know these games very well, LOL). IDK if you have ever played the game, but there is something called an active reload. When you reload instead of a standard animation you see a bar appear under the weapon icon in the corner. You can choose to either let the gun reload normal by not pressing anything, or attempt to active reload by pressing the button when the bar slides to a certain point. Doing this in the faded area just gives you a faster reload, but doing it on the white area gives you an even faster reload plus a damage boost (some weapons get other stuff, but that's how it is for like 95% of weapons). However, FAILING to press the button in either of those areas causes you to jam your reload, essentially doubling reload time. It is always ALWAYS the best option to active reload. There is never a time you don't want to. And after some practice you can hit them easily. I have played the games so much I can do it without looking. But there is always the chance you can fail the reload, and thus be put at a disadvantage. This is the same as L-canceling. It adds a layer of "don't mess up" to the mix. Of course in Judgement they removed the damage boost, which was a good thing, but it is still the same because you can either execute it perfectly and get a faster reload or screw up and get a longer reload.

 

[Jumpman84]

Melee has faults but they are usually in specific matchups or bugs. Like, the difference between top tier and bottom tier in Melee is a lot less than in Brawl. And tripping isn't the only thing. Auto-ledge grabs, ridiculously easy chain grabs that usually work on most of the cast, lack of combos (it just feels like your trading hits more than taking advantage of the physics to do combos), slow speed (again, every time a developer slows the game down players hate it and it ruins the game), and a bunch of other stuff. Point being, Brawl is not a good competitive game. It's decent enough for it to work, that's about it. Again, you can take any game with multiplayer and find a way to make it competitive but that doesn't equate to a good competitive game.

Skill gaps are important because they reward players that put time into the game. Imagine how frustrating it would be to play a game for months or years, you know everything there is to know about the game, yet when you play against a newbie they beat you (or come very close to it). It would make you not want to play anymore. Mario Party, for example, is a game that has virtually no skill gap. In terms of being a party game, this is fine because it's meant for people to have fun and just enjoy the game. But now take Mario Party and try to make tournaments for it, with money on the line. You will see the game fail very fast. Why? Because there is no being good at the game. Maybe to a very small extent, but no one will enjoy it. This is what I felt they did to Brawl. There's certainly more to Brawl than Mario Party, but when you compare to Melee or even 64 it is just no where near that level.

Sakuri purposely changed the game to be like this, when it wasn't at all necessary. There was nothing wrong with Melee that negatively affected casuals. Brawl could have been made to be like Project M (aka. Melee) and EVERYTHING would have been the same except that the game would have been superior in a competitive setting. Reviews would have still been great, casuals would have still loved it, SSE would still be awesome (btw SSE was the only part of Brawl I thought was excellent), and best of all the competitive community would have GROWN and EXPANDED and been overall BETTER. Instead we got Brawl, and the competitive community imploded on itself, and limped along ever since. This is why I don't like Brawl.

I loved the SSE as well. Ironically, a lot of people seem to hate it and blame it for Brawl's problems (saying that they should have spent more time on balancing the game, etc.), but I'm glad that you liked it. It's kinda a bummer we won't see an SSE2, but we'll have some kind of story mode at least.

And it sounds like your main issue really is the whole competitive aspect and the community splitting. And I'll admit, that is pretty much Brawl's fault. It's obvious that the game was divisive among the community, so you can't really place blame on anything else. And your Mario Party analogy was spot on (though I have thoroughly enjoyed the series since my introduction to Mario Party 4). I had forgotten about the money in tournaments. Yes, people get riled up when money's on the line.

I think the main thing to remember is that Smash Bros. was never INTENDED to be a serious competitive game. The original game, including its origin concept as Dragon King, was specifically designed away from the typical 2D fighter like Street Fighter. For one thing, four player free for all. Another thing, items. Smash Bros. is by definition a fighting game, but it's designed and has been referred to as a party game. Melee and Brawl keep this same spirit and I expect both versions of Smash 4 to follow suit.

You're right that any game can be made competitive, but I think the problem was that Melee made it EASY. As far as I know, the whole Smash as a competitive fighting game never happened with the original 64 until after Melee had already been doing it. In that transition, Sakurai added/left in advanced techniques that made people realize that it could be a deep game. In any case, it was not INTENDED to happen, but the fanbase made it happen.

At this point, we can only speculate what happened between Melee and Brawl. Sakurai may have regretted Melee because fans turned it into another generic fighter. He also had just quit HAL a few years ago because of people expecting him to make sequels. It's possible he could have used that to justify making changes from Melee. Or maybe Sakurai was okay with the fans playing how they wanted, but Nintendo forced him to make changes. There was an article in the aftermath of EVO about Nintendo considering Smash Bros. "a dangerous brand". Nintendo might not have been comfortable about having Smash viewed along the same lines as Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat.

A third possibility is that Game Arts ****ed things up. They supposedly put hundreds of hours into Melee, so you'd think that they would be suited for the job, right? Well, apparently not. Recent evidence indicates that Brawl was poorly programmed and someone in this topic already pointed out a programming error/glitch used as an advanced technique. We'll never know how the game would have turned out had the programming been just as polished as Melee's.

No matter what the case, Sakurai ended up taking the blame. Now, while that could mean he is at fault, I think it could tie in with the Japanese pride you mentioned earlier. Even if Nintendo or Game Arts caused these things, it's Sakurai's game, through and through. He was ultimately the final say and holds himself responsible for each game's achievements and faults.

As for recent events... EVO, in my opinion, was due to some severe oversight. It sounds like no one tried to inform Nintendo that they were going to have Melee at the event and stream it until the last minute. At that point, Nintendo's PR department was caught offguard and gave a knee jerk reaction: "Wait, what? No! Absolutely not! We never gave authorization for this! You get Melee out of there now!" Of course, the EVO rep was able to persuade them to allow the event and just not the streaming, but the reaction was justifiable. Someone from EVO should have contacted Nintendo's PR when it was clear that Melee was going to win to ensure that they had permission. As you can imagine, this type of request would have to go through various channels so it can be approved. In hindsight, a flat-out denial may not have been the best word choice. Something along the lines of "This has to go through the proper channels and it may not get through on such short notice, but we can try" may have been a better response. Again, though, it was a knee jerk reaction, so perfectly understandable.

Of course, the fans didn't think so and they made their voice heard. Loud enough that a higher up heard them and allowed complete approval for the event and the stream. In the end, this miscommunication may be a blessing in disguise. Nintendo now clearly realizes that the fans WANT Smash to be recognized at these events. The fact that they're talking with MLG proactively about Smash 4 being there is a sign that they may be willing to step up their support.

I had more to say regarding your other thoughts, but it's late so I'll stop here and follow up in the morning.

 

[Luco]

Skill gaps are important because they reward players that put time into the game. Imagine how frustrating it would be to play a game for months or years, you know everything there is to know about the game, yet when you play against a newbie they beat you (or come very close to it). It would make you not want to play anymore. Mario Party, for example, is a game that has virtually no skill gap. In terms of being a party game, this is fine because it's meant for people to have fun and just enjoy the game. But now take Mario Party and try to make tournaments for it, with money on the line. You will see the game fail very fast. Why? Because there is no being good at the game. Maybe to a very small extent, but no one will enjoy it. This is what I felt they did to Brawl. There's certainly more to Brawl than Mario Party, but when you compare to Melee or even 64 it is just no where near that level.

Sakuri purposely changed the game to be like this, when it wasn't at all necessary. There was nothing wrong with Melee that negatively affected casuals. Brawl could have been made to be like Project M (aka. Melee) and EVERYTHING would have been the same except that the game would have been superior in a competitive setting. Reviews would have still been great, casuals would have still loved it, SSE would still be awesome (btw SSE was the only part of Brawl I thought was excellent), and best of all the competitive community would have GROWN and EXPANDED and been overall BETTER. Instead we got Brawl, and the competitive community imploded on itself, and limped along ever since. This is why I don't like Brawl.



Reviewers aren't pro gamers, or even involved in the competitive community. They play the game to review it and that's about it. They don't spend months or years continuing to play the game (usually). And I enjoyed Brawl at first, but it was after the 3 month mark when I saw Ken lose to some random at MLG (or whatever big event it was) that I decided I don't like it anymore. Same thing happened with Gears Judgement. I loved it at first, but after playing for a few months it became apparent that the game was very poorly made. Again, if these reviewers played the game on the same level that competitive, or even just hardcore fans, do then I'm sure they would change their tune after a few months. If you are a developer making your game for good reviews from critics, then I don't believe you should be allowed to make games. I call that being a sell out. Make a good game to make a good game, that's all.

In response to these btw...

For the first, Brawl is absolutely nothing like that in such a regard. I haven't been beaten by a casual since I was a casual and I call myself a mid level at absolute best, which is actually on the lower end of the scale of competitive play (Low, low mid, mid, high mid, high, top). If you're good at Brawl competitively, you're not going to lose to some random. I can guarantee it when refuting your point on Ken.

The thing is, Ken is foremost a melee player. Melee and Brawl have very different mechanics - whether these are good or bad is actually literally really subjective (because I have absolutely no idea where you're basing your info from but the Brawl community is thriving lol ). Add to this it was only 3 months in and yeah I can see how a pro melee player could have lost in a Brawl.

But on this point and your above, i'd like you to take M2K as an example. M2K hasn't lost to randoms in Brawl. Absolutely no way, lol. There have been upsets, yes, but not ridiculously so. In fact, those that do upset like this are usually top or at least high level players themselves i.e. ZeRo, Salem, Ocean, Nairo, etc. M2K just adapted to how Brawl works. Even if you'd think that example is flawed, since when do you see Tyrant losing to randoms? Or 9B? Or Otori? Brawl isn't a game where you can just pick it up and beat its best... I learnt that the reasonably hard way when I came into the scene thinking I could destroy everyone just because I could beat all my friends. It's just not like that.

Finally, i'm a bit worried that you found SSE the only 'brilliant' part of Brawl.

SSE was like one of the few things I and many Brawl players dislike about the game. It used generic enemies, lacked depth and character development, made you go through everything TWICE (like what the heck?) and didn't even really answer anything - Tabuu came from... where, exactly? Why is he evil? Does he just symbolise all evil? Why wasn't there something to actually reference this?

Like, what? ;_;

/end rant

DANG IT WHY TO I GET PULLED IN TO THESE THINGS?

I think I have a problem.

Halp.

 

[Frostwraith]

DANG IT WHY TO I GET PULLED IN TO THESE THINGS?

I think I have a problem.

Halp.

Simple solution: abandon thread and never return.

This kind of debates got old already, but people like beating a dead horse. I can't do nothing but question their sanity or something like that. Perhaps rotting horse flesh smells good to them? Strange tastes, but not that I really care about it.

I have stated my opinion time and time again, both are good games and nothing else needs to be said. Have a nice day (or night or afternoon or whatever! Damn this round planet.), ladies and gentlemen.

 

[Networker1]

There is a lot of talk about skill gaps here so general question: is a skill gap referring to a space of skill that is jumped over after learning ATs? (i.e. you go from a 2 to a 6 when you learn wave-dash + L cancel) Or does it refer to the overall range of skill levels in the game?

 

[the_suicide_fox]

In response to these btw...

For the first, Brawl is absolutely nothing like that in such a regard. I haven't been beaten by a casual since I was a casual and I call myself a mid level at absolute best, which is actually on the lower end of the scale of competitive play (Low, low mid, mid, high mid, high, top). If you're good at Brawl competitively, you're not going to lose to some random. I can guarantee it when refuting your point on Ken.

The thing is, Ken is foremost a melee player. Melee and Brawl have very different mechanics - whether these are good or bad is actually literally really subjective (because I have absolutely no idea where you're basing your info from but the Brawl community is thriving lol ). Add to this it was only 3 months in and yeah I can see how a pro melee player could have lost in a Brawl.

But on this point and your above, i'd like you to take M2K as an example. M2K hasn't lost to randoms in Brawl. Absolutely no way, lol. There have been upsets, yes, but not ridiculously so. In fact, those that do upset like this are usually top or at least high level players themselves i.e. ZeRo, Salem, Ocean, Nairo, etc. M2K just adapted to how Brawl works. Even if you'd think that example is flawed, since when do you see Tyrant losing to randoms? Or 9B? Or Otori? Brawl isn't a game where you can just pick it up and beat its best... I learnt that the reasonably hard way when I came into the scene thinking I could destroy everyone just because I could beat all my friends. It's just not like that.

Finally, i'm a bit worried that you found SSE the only 'brilliant' part of Brawl.

SSE was like one of the few things I and many Brawl players dislike about the game. It used generic enemies, lacked depth and character development, made you go through everything TWICE (like what the heck?) and didn't even really answer anything - Tabuu came from... where, exactly? Why is he evil? Does he just symbolise all evil? Why wasn't there something to actually reference this?

Like, what? ;_;

/end rant

DANG IT WHY TO I GET PULLED IN TO THESE THINGS?

I think I have a problem.

Halp.

I'm not saying that players do lose to randoms, even if you take the Mario Party example you would see that someone who plays the game regularly will win more often against someone that never played. My point is that there are very few hurdles for new players to overcome. There's very very little technical stuff to learn, it's all basically just player habits and such.

As for Ken losing, if we look at other high profile players in other games that kind of stuff doesn't happen. When Gears 3 (again ) came out, Epic had a exhibition match set up against the INSAN3Z (best team in Gears 1). It was Epic's 4 best against the INSAN3Z, and the INSAN3Z's crushed them. Utterly, crushed, them, in a brand new game that they only had the chance to play the beta for about a month (maybe I don't even think Predator or zKilla even did). Granted Epic took a few rounds here and there, but they lost in the game they have been playtesting for over a year to the best team in the world. Then if we look at a player like Justin Wong we see the same thing. Have you watched any early videos of MvC3 or SF4? Justin Wong dominated randoms. DOMINATED. It wasn't like what happened to Ken. I mean, you could argue it was because of items but you have to remember that Ken got his start in item tournaments in Cali. He knows how to use items. The reason he lost is because Brawl was so vastly different and lacked any technical gap.

I liked SSE because it was like Adventure 2.0. I also loved the cutscenes. Ironic that Brawl players hate SSE. I found it fun. Then again, I didn't find the rest of the game fun, so maybe it has something to do with that. Tabu was a cheesey weird boss, but I didn't care so much.

Also, I want to ask where this concept of "L-cancel should be removed because it needs to always be done" came from. That is a horrible, HORRIBLE excuse to remove a great mechanic. To give another example that is Smash related, what about powershielding? This was something else that should always be done. You ALWAYS want to powershield every attack because you block the attack and then can attack on the next frame. There is never a time you don't want to do it. So why do you not see players do it all the time? Because it's crazy hard to pull off constantly. It is good because it rewards players that have the finger speed and the timing to do it. This is another thing they removed from Brawl, which just further proves my point of how technically lacking it is.

 

[Jumpman84]

Finally, i'm a bit worried that you found SSE the only 'brilliant' part of Brawl.

SSE was like one of the few things I and many Brawl players dislike about the game. It used generic enemies, lacked depth and character development, made you go through everything TWICE (like what the heck?) and didn't even really answer anything - Tabuu came from... where, exactly? Why is he evil? Does he just symbolise all evil? Why wasn't there something to actually reference this?

Like, what? ;_;

/end rant

DANG IT WHY TO I GET PULLED IN TO THESE THINGS?

I think I have a problem.

Halp.

Why is it worrisome? I absolutely loved Subspace Emissary and thought it was a great story. Sure, there weren't a lot of enemies from their respective universes, but did there really need to be? The Subspace Army was an entirely new threat that Tabuu created himself, so it makes for the enemies to be original to the Smash games. The only other enemies that could be used would be Mario (which they did use), Zelda, and possibly Metroid, as Bowser, Ganondorf, and Ridley were major antagonists. We also had enemy R.O.B.s, thanks to the Ancient Minister. Porky was a boss, but I'm unfamiliar with the Mother series to know if those enemies would be feasible. And yes, I know Rayquaza was a boss, but I just can't see the other Pokemon being generic enemies. It'd be too depressing to have to kill my favorite mons over and over. Oh, and Wario really doesn't have an army, though if you really wanna push it, you could say that he can hypnotize the enemies in Super Mario Land 2 again. Maybe Ice Climbers enemies would work, as well (does the series even have a villain?).

From there on, you can't really use anything else. No DK enemies without K. Rool, no Star Fox enemies without Andross (it also doesn't help that Wolf was finished late into development, so couldn't be implemented into the main story), no Kid Icarus enemies without Medusa, no Sonic enemies without Dr. Eggman (he was also added late in development, too). F-Zero is a racing game, so not sure if there would be an enemy per say (though a course like the one in Melee where you have to dodge the racers would have been interesting). The Yoshi series enemies are mostly Mario enemies, anyway. Plus, we didn't get Kamek. And King Dedede was a hero, so Kirby enemies don't make sense, either. (Unless another Kirby boss was there, maybe.) Not sure about Fire Emblem, but I think you would need an antagonist from that series (like the Black Knight) to justify any enemy armies. And I'm not sure how feasible that would be. I never finished the first two Pikmin, so I don't know if there was a main villain or not (I remember something about an Emperor Bulbax, but that was a long time ago.) Game & Watch was technically a villain as his body was used to make the Shadow Bugs and the Subspace Army in the first place. Not really much else would work for his universe, anyway. And don't even ask me about Metal Gear. I have never played and can't make heads or tails about the plot to know who the bad guys are.

Oh, and Tabuu is the embodiment of Subspace. He wants to cut the world our main characters live in to pieces and drag it into his world. He hides himself in Subspace, watching our world vigilantly. Tabuu himself cannot leave Subspace. That’s why he has to prepare an army and a leader for the offensive into the other world.

That is from the Dojo, by the way. So it was explained... All There in the Manual, you know.

 

[Snakeyes]

There's a difference between making the timing less strict and removing it altogether. Like from 64 to Melee they changed how it actually worked, and that's acceptable. If they did something like only let you L-cancel if you actually hit someone (or a shield) or something like that it would have been fine.

There really isn't much of a difference when taking Street Fighter's gameplay into account. Anyone with very basic fighting game knowledge can now wiggle their stick/d-pad in the down-forward direction to pretty much DP and reversal at will. In a game like Street Fighter, things like execution and timing are even more vital as they're one of the few ways to introduce some sort of depth that makes up for the lack of gameplay options. By removing most of the DP's execution barrier (and adding auto-correct to help defend against cross-ups), the dev team neutered one of the series' important technical staples. Anything simpler than that would be to make the DP into a two button command. Which is still not that bad because...

As far as P4A, there will obviously still be better players. But changing the inputs to a 2 button combo probably just made those moves easier to spam.

It made it easier to weed out the newbies more than anything.

Smash is already incredibly simple in terms of controls. Adding in additional layers of execution is almost necessary to ensure you reward higher skilled players.

I disagree. Smash offers so much variety and options to both players at any given time that depth would emerge naturally without additional execution barriers for something as basic as a juggle combo.

Like I said, missing a single L-cancel in high level play can really hurt you. I guess you just have a different idea of what constitutes high level play, because the way I look at it higher execution is required the higher you climb the metagame ladder. Without a need for high execution at that level you just end up lowering the skill ceiling. Good for players low in the metagame, bad for players high in the metagame.

We just value different things. As mentioned above, I think that there's already enough stuff going on in every moment of a high level Smash Bros. match for players to demonstrate their skill and execution.

Timing your aerials and fast-falls perfectly for the best shield pressure or combos, predicting your opponent's DI, improvising your follow-ups accordingly, DI/Smash DI-ing correctly yourself, crouch-canceling, shield DI, perfect shielding, strategically light shielding to escape pressure, buffering... all of which has to be done on the fly and in less than a split second due to the game's high speed, rewarding the player's dexterity and quick reflexes.

That's without taking into account the knowledge of your moves' properties and their usefulness at every percentage, character-specific techniques, moving around the stage and controlling space in the most efficient manner, recovery/edge-guarding dynamics, stage knowledge, match-ups, etc... Smash already has a huge amount of depth in its core gameplay.

snip

Can't really comment on your FPS examples as I'm not very familiar with the genre. Sorry!

 

[the_suicide_fox]

There really isn't much of a difference when taking Street Fighter's gameplay into account. Anyone with very basic fighting game knowledge can now wiggle their stick/d-pad in the down-forward direction to pretty much DP and reversal at will. In a game like Street Fighter, things like execution and timing are even more vital as they're one of the few ways to introduce some sort of depth that makes up for the lack of gameplay options. By removing most of the DP's execution barrier (and adding auto-correct to help defend against cross-ups), the dev team neutered one of the series' important technical staples. Anything simpler than that would be to make the DP into a two button command. Which is still not that bad because...

It made it easier to weed out the newbies more than anything.

I disagree. Smash offers so much variety and options to both players at any given time that depth would emerge naturally without additional execution barriers for something as basic as a juggle combo.

We just value different things. As mentioned above, I think that there's already enough stuff going on in every moment of a high level Smash Bros. match for players to demonstrate their skill and execution.

Timing your aerials and fast-falls perfectly for the best shield pressure or combos, predicting your opponent's DI, improvising your follow-ups accordingly, DI/Smash DI-ing correctly yourself, crouch-canceling, shield DI, perfect shielding, strategically light shielding to escape pressure, buffering... all of which has to be done on the fly and in less than a split second due to the game's high speed, rewarding the player's dexterity and quick reflexes.

That's without taking into account the knowledge of your moves' properties and their usefulness at every percentage, character-specific techniques, moving around the stage and controlling space in the most efficient manner, recovery/edge-guarding dynamics, stage knowledge, match-ups, etc... Smash already has a huge amount of depth in its core gameplay.



Can't really comment on your FPS examples as I'm not very familiar with the genre. Sorry!

I'm sorry, I just don't see "you always need to do it" as a reason to justify the removal of a high level tech. Powershield and L-canceling are both important to the game, and there are lots of examples of similar things in other games. FPS = always aim for the head. Racers = always go as fast as possible. RPG/Adventure = you always want full health at all times. The list goes on. When a game lacks technical depth you lower the skill ceiling. That means that the highest level of the metagame is capped. Once a player learns all the stuff you talk about there is nothing really holding them back execution-wise. There's no barrier that says "hey you can know all this, but can you pull it off?" See when you take out the technical stuff you just blur the line between good player and great player. That's why technical skill gaps are important. They add the layer of "don't mess up" to high level play that can literally make the difference between a win and a loss.

Again, removing such barriers is good for low level play but bad for high level play. The natural depth and evolution of the metagame would be there regardless, and the execution barriers are what keep it from reaching a plateau because no matter how good someone is there is always the chance they can mess up in execution. Justin Wong messed up pretty bad in the finals against Flocker in EVO UMvC3. He messed up a key input, dropped the combo, and let Flocker come back. THAT is the difference. If there was no execution barrier, JW would have won hands down. But he messed up, proving why execution barriers are necessary.

That's just how I feel. Developers should never remove tech, only work to improve it. Again if they just made the timing of the L-cancel less strict or only allow L-cancels on aerials that hit (player or shield) it would have been acceptable. Removing it and simply making aerials auto-cancel or end before you land, to me, is a lazy way to develop the game. It's a slap in the face to competitive play. At the very least, if you are going to remove it then replace it something worthwhile. I don't play SF, but I know they had a parry system in 3, which was removed and replaced with the focus system in 4. Whether one is better than the other is irrelevant, it's the fact that Capcom AT LEAST saw the importance of such tech and provided a replacement.

I can understand why they removed wavedashing, mostly because no one actually uses the airdodge mechanic to airdodge, only to wavedash. They didn't remove wavedashing as much as they made airdodge more viable. But then you are left with the gap that is the benefits wavedashing provides, which I would have transfer to rolling. Rolling is an example of a mechanic that could have been much better. It could have been made faster, they could have allowed you to cancel confrimed attacks into a roll, and maybe allowed you to buffer attacks out of roll. At that point, wavedashing is gone and replaced with alternative rolling mechanics that can be more or less used in the same way. But we didn't get anything like that. Again, lazy development.

 

[Jumpman84]

Continuing from where I left off...

Reviewers aren't pro gamers, or even involved in the competitive community. They play the game to review it and that's about it. They don't spend months or years continuing to play the game (usually). And I enjoyed Brawl at first, but it was after the 3 month mark when I saw Ken lose to some random at MLG (or whatever big event it was) that I decided I don't like it anymore. Same thing happened with Gears Judgement. I loved it at first, but after playing for a few months it became apparent that the game was very poorly made. Again, if these reviewers played the game on the same level that competitive, or even just hardcore fans, do then I'm sure they would change their tune after a few months. If you are a developer making your game for good reviews from critics, then I don't believe you should be allowed to make games. I call that being a sell out. Make a good game to make a good game, that's all

Don't I know it! In fact, there's actually some recent controversy over at IGN because the reviewer of the Wii U version of Sonic Lost World gave it a 5.8. He had complained in his review about the game not being fast enough, but apparently, in his video commentary, fans noticed that he never once used the spin dash. Fans reached the conclusion that the reviewer didn't know how to play the game. In fact, a fan video was posted called, "IGN, You're too slow!", which addressed every issue that the review pointed out. I think its sad that the fans can give a more accurate review than someone who is paid to write these reviews.

Now, I'm not saying that they're selling out, they're definitely making the games for the sake of games (sometimes). But the sad reality is that we as a society have given reviewers too much power. It's just like in Ratatouille: bad reviews will kill a good game, even if they were unjustified. People who may have wanted to play the game will be convinced that the game's not worth it. And according to this article, a developer's bonus or even their ability to make games depends on their Metacritic scores. It's ugly, but it's the world we live in.

I haven't played a Nintendo game since Twilight Princess I think. I had a Wii at one point, with Brawl, TP, Metroid Prime 3, and Galaxy 1, but after some time I just never played it so I gave it to my sister (she wanted it for Wii Sports and Wii Fit). Nintendo just hasn't offered me anything exceptional in a long time. The 360 has a lot more I want; online play, more games for older audiences, better 3rd party support (in fact, M$ only makes a handful of 1st/2nd parties, everything else is 3rd party), better controller with less gimmicks (sorry the Wiimote had potential, but a lot of games turn it into a gimmick), and HD gaming. Nintendo has been behind the times in regards to all this stuff, most notably 3rd party support and online play. Basically, Nintendo systems are for Nintendo games, and beyond that they don't offer much. And I don't play handhelds (barely play any android games), so DS just doesn't appeal to me.

Ah, I see. Are you planning on getting an Xbox One when it launches later this year? I heard that some of the launch games are good. Me, I'm a Nintendo kind of guy myself. First console I ever had was an SNES, then got a Game Boy Color, GameCube, Game Boy Advance, DS, Wii, 3DS, and Wii U, those last two I purchased on my own. No offense to Microsoft or Sony, but Nintendo has more of the games that I'm interested in playing. We did have a Playstation once and played a Yugioh game on it. It was okay, I suppose. But even with only one console and handheld, I still find myself with more games than I can handle.

In conclusion, all I'm trying to say is that it's too early to dismiss the game as not being good. There a few differences now: Nintendo knows that the fans want a competitive Smash, Sakurai has already said that this game is being made with more focus on players who have already played Smash (the removal of tripping and the "speed balance" confirms this), and instead of Game Arts, we have Namco Bandai, a company with a history of catering to competitive players. How it all turns out, no one truly knows. But it won't be much longer. 2014 is approaching quickly and we'll be holding this gem soon.

 

[the_suicide_fox]

I don't plan on buying XB1 when it comes out. The only games I want at this point are KI2013 and Titanfall, the latter not even coming out at launch. $500 is a lot of money, and M$ has said they will support the 360 until at least 2016. I'll probably end up getting it at some point though.

 

[Luco]

Sorry, just as a response to what you were saying.

@Tournament stuff and the 'technical skill gap': I see where you're coming from with this, however you're confusing 'few technical barriers' (which actually isn't true for several characters) with 'few barriers at all'. Tactical barriers are just as much so a barrier as technical ones and aren't as simple as one might make them out to be. I could go on for ages about tactical scenarios which would be like trying to go through every possible tactic of chess. It's limitless. I feel like this might have been where these same top players could have gone wrong. And different games just... have a different feel, naturally.

Powershielding IS in Brawl btw (lol, it's pretty easy to see it). The difference between L-cancelling and Powershielding, however, is that you can get by without powershielding all the time. You can't do that with L-cancelling. Even with your sniper analogy - you can actually get by even if you don't get the head every single time.

@SSE: I enjoyed the cutscenes, I won't lie. But as to the whole story part of it? As to Jumpan's response, why is Tabuu so malignant and evil, WHY does he want to drag everything into his own world? It's like creating an evil magician in a fantasy story that kills people for no other reason than... killing them. Even if you wanted a basic story, you have to establish that he's doing it for power. Ok, why does he want power? Well maybe he came from a background where he was deprived of it or something? Perhaps he was tainted by magic essences and wanted more and became more corrupt in doing so? And the story goes on. With Tabuu it's just... drag everyone into his own world to, um... what, exactly? There is no why.

The only character development in SSE really was like, Lucas (ironically my main). I loved the cutscenes but I wanted more of them to be perfectly honest. Imagine one where the characters are constantly having fun times with one another in cutscenes. Imagine a smash movie. That would be incredible. Instead the cutscenes were shorter and just left me wanting more substance.

Anyway, i'll leave it at that.

 

[the_suicide_fox]

@Tournament stuff and the 'technical skill gap': I see where you're coming from with this, however you're confusing 'few technical barriers' (which actually isn't true for several characters) with 'few barriers at all'. Tactical barriers are just as much so a barrier as technical ones and aren't as simple as one might make them out to be. I could go on for ages about tactical scenarios which would be like trying to go through every possible tactic of chess. It's limitless. I feel like this might have been where these same top players could have gone wrong. And different games just... have a different feel, naturally.

Tactical barriers will be there regardless. Chess is a game with no technical barriers at all, it's all tactical. This is good because as a board game you don't want to have technical barriers. A person with ALS confined to a wheelchair can play just as easily as a fully abled person (so long as they can at least say the moves they want to make). But video games is like running a marathon while simultaneously playing chess. There is the added need to differentiate between players based on that, because it's ingrained into gaming itself (at least real time gaming which include Smash). It's very much like a sport, such as baseball. Baseball has tactical and technical barriers. Not everyone can throw a 100mph fastball, or even a simple curve ball. Not everyone can hit a homerun, and not everyone can run the bases as fast as the pros. That's why they are the pros. They can do both the technical/physical stuff and know the game in and out, to the point they can make split decisions on which base to throw to to maximize the advantage. I really don't understand why you have this thing against technical barriers. Again, it separates the good players from the great players.

Powershielding IS in Brawl btw (lol, it's pretty easy to see it). The difference between L-cancelling and Powershielding, however, is that you can get by without powershielding all the time. You can't do that with L-cancelling. Even with your sniper analogy - you can actually get by even if you don't get the head every single time.

I thought it was, but I haven't played Brawl since like 3 months after it came out. I just remember someone saying it wasn't in the game. But it still remains as something you ALWAYS want to do. You can get away with not L-canceling so long as the other player doesn't punish you for it, but there is no reason to never do it just like there is never a reason to NOT powershield. Whether or not you can get away with it depends on the level of your opponent. If you can powershield every single attack then you can theoretically counter attack everytime the opponent hits your shield and thus never fall to shield pressure or be punished for blocking. Right there you have a distinct advantage which you rightfully deserve for hitting powershields flawlessly. But now imagine if both players were like that. That would be a very high profile matchup. L-canceling is no different, except that technically it's easier to pull off more consistently than PS.

 

[mimgrim]

On the Powershielding thing. In Brawl it is called Perfectshielding I believe. The difference between Powershielding and Perfectshielding is that Powershield will reflect projectiles back the sameway they were sent while Perfectshield at the most will send it back at a great angle to where it doesn't affect the opposing player at all and most of the time it doesn't even do that. So yea.

The difference between Powershield and L-cancel is that the former you can get away with not preforming it perfectly and consistently, even in high level play. L-cancel doesn't offer that convenience in high level play, you not only want to always preform it but always need to and if you don't preform you end up getting screwed in some manner or another almost all the time. For your sniper analogy, suicide, that is more like Powershielding in that you want to do it but you have more lenience of missing it and it isn't required to be performed constantly during the match to not lose.

 

[Luco]

Tactical barriers will be there regardless. Chess is a game with no technical barriers at all, it's all tactical. This is good because as a board game you don't want to have technical barriers. A person with ALS confined to a wheelchair can play just as easily as a fully abled person (so long as they can at least say the moves they want to make). But video games is like running a marathon while simultaneously playing chess. There is the added need to differentiate between players based on that, because it's ingrained into gaming itself (at least real time gaming which include Smash). It's very much like a sport, such as baseball. Baseball has tactical and technical barriers. Not everyone can throw a 100mph fastball, or even a simple curve ball. Not everyone can hit a homerun, and not everyone can run the bases as fast as the pros. That's why they are the pros. They can do both the technical/physical stuff and know the game in and out, to the point they can make split decisions on which base to throw to to maximize the advantage. I really don't understand why you have this thing against technical barriers. Again, it separates the good players from the great players.

Mimgrim addressed the part on Powershielding (btw it's actually just called "Powershielding" in brawl guys ) and its relevance and such.

To this, i'd like to point out that nowhere have I made reference to technical barriers being a bad thing. Only a different one. Take that Brawl has a few technical barriers (which is pretty obviously true), then add a whole heck of options that need to be sorted through. With melee the issue is getting in and keeping the combo up but in Brawl there is an added issue of always being wary of what your opponent can pull off during one of your chains and preparing for such...

...

...



....................

 

[mimgrim]

Mimgrim addressed the part on Powershielding (btw it's actually just called "Powershielding" in brawl guys ) and its relevance and such.

Bah I got them mixed up.

Bad brain. Take that brain. and that. And that to.



:C

 

[the_suicide_fox]

On the Powershielding thing. In Brawl it is called Perfectshielding I believe. The difference between Powershielding and Perfectshielding is that Powershield will reflect projectiles back the sameway they were sent while Perfectshield at the most will send it back at a great angle to where it doesn't affect the opposing player at all and most of the time it doesn't even do that. So yea.

The difference between Powershield and L-cancel is that the former you can get away with not preforming it perfectly and consistently, even in high level play. L-cancel doesn't offer that convenience in high level play, you not only want to always preform it but always need to and if you don't preform you end up getting screwed in some manner or another almost all the time. For your sniper analogy, suicide, that is more like Powershielding in that you want to do it but you have more lenience of missing it and it isn't required to be performed constantly during the match to not lose.

You can also powershield attacks, I wasn't talking specifically about projectiles. If you powershield an attack you can counter attack on the next frame. And again, the reason you can get away with not powershielding all the time is because the metagame never got to the point where it was a requirement. L-canceling, at one point, wasn't completely necessary as it is today because the metagame evolved to the point where it was necessary. Lenience means nothing if the best option is to always be doing something, because L-canceling, while far less lenient than powershielding, does not really need to be done at all times as it's all a matter of whether your opponent is in a position to punish you. If players suddenly started to powershield and counterattack on the next frame frequently, then we have the same situation as we do with L-canceling where you can't compete at the highest level without being able to powershield 95% of the time.

Mimgrim addressed the part on Powershielding (btw it's actually just called "Powershielding" in brawl guys ) and its relevance and such.

To this, i'd like to point out that nowhere have I made reference to technical barriers being a bad thing. Only a different one. Take that Brawl has a few technical barriers (which is pretty obviously true), then add a whole heck of options that need to be sorted through. With melee the issue is getting in and keeping the combo up but in Brawl there is an added issue of always being wary of what your opponent can pull off during one of your chains and preparing for such...

See I don't understand why it's good for a player to be able to counter attack during a chain/combo/string/whatever you want to call it. If I hit you, then follow up and it's a combo you shouldn't have the option to counterattack until you are not being combo'd anymore. You have the option to DI to make me mess up but not actually hit back until you leave hitstun. Plus, the issue you speak of in Brawl is present in Melee, but the difference was that a player than knew the physics and their character's attack properties could keep the combo going. In Brawl it's very vague because you recover from hitstun so quickly, which just turns the game into a series of trading hits moreso than performing actual combos.

I really don't fathom how you guys can defend the removal of a high level tech like L-canceling, especially since it was in the first 2 games purposely. There is no valid reason to remove it, and I feel like the only reason you guys defend it at this point is because it was removed in Brawl and that's how the game has been played for the last 5 years. Removing it didn't make the game better except at low level play (even then it's speculative). High level play suffered because the skill ceiling (as in the best a player can be) was lowered. Again, it just seems like lazy developing, as if Sakuri didn't want to take the time to factor L-cancels into balancing so he just took them out completely to make it easier for him. L-cancel wasn't very hard to learn. If Sakuri really felt it was a barrier for new players he could have simply included a description of it in the "How to Play" stuff in the game. Boom, problem solved now everyone that plays should know how to L-cancel.

 

[mimgrim]

You can also powershield attacks, I wasn't talking specifically about projectiles. If you powershield an attack you can counter attack on the next frame. And again, the reason you can get away with not powershielding all the time is because the metagame never got to the point where it was a requirement. L-canceling, at one point, wasn't completely necessary as it is today because the metagame evolved to the point where it was necessary. Lenience means nothing if the best option is to always be doing something, because L-canceling, while far less lenient than powershielding, does not really need to be done at all times as it's all a matter of whether your opponent is in a position to punish you. If players suddenly started to powershield and counterattack on the next frame frequently, then we have the same situation as we do with L-canceling where you can't compete at the highest level without being able to powershield 95% of the time.

I know you can Perfectshield attacks. I was pointing out the difference between Powershield (Brawl) and Perfectshield (Melee) and that the difference was how they handled projectiles. But I made that stupid mix-up in that post, but oh well.

I really don't fathom how you guys can defend the removal of a high level tech like L-canceling, especially since it was in the first 2 games purposely.

I haven't been defending it's removal per say. I would rather just have less lag, aka automatic, which Brawl didn't offer, but would rather have L-cancel then have to deal with regular lag. And I've already stated why I would rather have it automatic.

L-cancel wasn't very hard to learn.

It isn't hard to learn and is easy to practice but that practice in the end becomes rather less valuable in an actual match for someone like me. Cause in the middle of a match it is extremely hard for me to get the timing right, or sometimes even remember to use it, because of how much I have to keep up with and my mind isn't that of a technical kind. Perfectshield/Powershielding on the other hand is a bit difference since it has it's set time to attempt to be used and is thus easier to have a focus on.

 

[the_suicide_fox]

It isn't hard to learn and is easy to practice but that practice in the end becomes rather less valuable in an actual match for someone like me. Cause in the middle of a match it is extremely hard for me to get the timing right, or sometimes even remember to use it, because of how much I have to keep up with and my mind isn't that of a technical kind. Perfectshield/Powershielding on the other hand is a bit difference since it has it's set time to attempt to be used and is thus easier to have a focus on.

And therein lies the necessity for it. Just because you can't do it consistently doesn't mean that other players can't either. In fact, in any game you have top tier players than can literally do every tech perfectly 99.9% of the time. They don't mess up, but there is still the possibility they can and on rare occasions they do (again look at Justin Wong's loss to Flocker at EVO UMvC3).

 

[mimgrim]

And therein lies the necessity for it. Just because you can't do it consistently doesn't mean that other players can't either. In fact, in any game you have top tier players than can literally do every tech perfectly 99.9% of the time. They don't mess up, but there is still the possibility they can and on rare occasions they do (again look at Justin Wong's loss to Flocker at EVO UMvC3).

I don't know much about UMvC as those kinds of fighting games don't interest me as much. However according to what you said earlier it was him missing a button command during a combo correct? That, in my opinion, is still different from say L-cancel. It's one thing to get a combo perfect and mess that up but it is a different thing to always perfectly press a button almost every 5 or so seconds, be it to follow up a combo or just to not get punished or to just not get behind. So I still think there is a difference.

 

[the_suicide_fox]

I don't know much about UMvC as those kinds of fighting games don't interest me as much. However according to what you said earlier it was him missing a button command during a combo correct? That, in my opinion, is still different from say L-cancel. It's one thing to get a combo perfect and mess that up but it is a different thing to always perfectly press a button almost every 5 or so seconds, be it to follow up a combo or just to not get punished or to just not get behind. So I still think there is a difference.

I'd have to watch the video again, but IIRC he missed some sort of cancel that would have let him continue the combo. Regardless, it's not different than missing an L-cancel.

 

[Medaka444]

I think the_suicide_fox is saying that it's preferable for video games to bar people with poor reaction speed or legitimate disabilities from being the best, no matter how hard they train, because this insures that gaming has professionals. Unlike something like chess, which apparently has no professionals whatsoever. Okay, I have no idea what (s)he's saying.

Some of the comments here remind me of when I told some veteran Smashers about how much difficulty I had with wavedashing. They seemed honestly confused that I found wavedashing - which requires frame-perfect timing - harder to do than something like zoning - which requires nowhere near that level of timing and is easy to learn about and practice. Maybe I'll never understand their type of thinking.

 

[SmashChu]

Which game lags by two frames and which one doesn't? Brawl is the game with ten frames of buffer which causes more problems then helps. Brawl is the game where you occasionally lose control of your character. You can't down air in brawl without fast falling if you're past the apex of your jump. Did you know that no matter what controller you use, brawl emulates the wiimote on its side? No analog control. Brawl is objectively less responsive. It does not control any better. Let me ask you, melee has unique mobility options that although might be difficult, grant more control isn't that right? Every movement choice you have in brawl is present melee, so I don't see how you can claim brawl controls better.

I think you exaggerating the issue. Brawl runs at 60 frames a second. So Brawl has a two frame lag. This is 2/60 second or 33 milliseconds. 10 frames is 166 milliseconds. This isn't going to matter for the average player. Brawl feels more responsive due to other factors such as the greater freedom in the air and air dodges being an actual dodge. There are others too I'm sure, but I'll leave that for other posters to mention.

But why did I target it so squarely toward people well-versed in videogames, then? That's why I tried to aim for more of a happy medium with Brawl's play balance. There are three Smash Bros. games out now, but even if I ever had a chance at another one, I doubt we'll ever see one that's as geared toward hardcore gamers as Melee was. Melee fans who played deep into the game without any problems might have trouble understanding this, but Melee was just too difficult.

I think the_suicide_fox is saying that it's preferable for video games to bar people with poor reaction speed or legitimate disabilities from being the best, no matter how hard they train, because this insures that gaming has professionals. Unlike something like chess, which apparently has no professionals whatsoever. Okay, I have no idea what (s)he's saying.

Some of the comments here remind me of when I told some veteran Smashers about how much difficulty I had with wavedashing. They seemed honestly confused that I found wavedashing - which requires frame-perfect timing - harder to do than something like zoning - which requires nowhere near that level of timing and is easy to learn about and practice. Maybe I'll never understand their type of thinking.

But why did I target it so squarely toward people well-versed in videogames, then? That's why I tried to aim for more of a happy medium with Brawl's play balance. There are three Smash Bros. games out now, but even if I ever had a chance at another one, I doubt we'll ever see one that's as geared toward hardcore gamers as Melee was. Melee fans who played deep into the game without any problems might have trouble understanding this, but Melee was just too difficult.

In other words, it's not you, its them.

 

[the_suicide_fox]

I think the_suicide_fox is saying that it's preferable for video games to bar people with poor reaction speed or legitimate disabilities from being the best, no matter how hard they train, because this insures that gaming has professionals. Unlike something like chess, which apparently has no professionals whatsoever. Okay, I have no idea what (s)he's saying.

Some of the comments here remind me of when I told some veteran Smashers about how much difficulty I had with wavedashing. They seemed honestly confused that I found wavedashing - which requires frame-perfect timing - harder to do than something like zoning - which requires nowhere near that level of timing and is easy to learn about and practice. Maybe I'll never understand their type of thinking.

I'm not asking for anything of the sort. Look, professional sports require the some of the same abilities as video games; good reaction times, good hand eye coordination, fast decision making, knowledge of said game, and good dexterity. This is inherent in ALL VIDEO GAMES that have players duking it out in real time. The example I gave for chess is that chess is purely a game, and a turn based one at that. If you somehow imagine chess being played in real time the game falls apart without any sort of physical attributes to go by. Again, playing videos games is like running a marathon while simultaneously playing chess.

Like do you expect someone wheelchair-bound to become a professional athlete? No, much the same sense that you don't expect them to be marvelous at video games. Sad but true. Now that doesn't mean that those people can't play, certainly not. It just means that due to the nature of video games themselves they stand little chance. I have worked with disabled people before at tournaments, and I loved they loved to play, but it's a bit foolish to think they could ever be as good as an abled bodied person. Perhaps in the future, when we can hook our brains up to a computer directly, these people would be on fair ground. But then that pushes things even further. What if someone is MENTALLY handicapped? Would you expect them to do as well as a normal person? Would you try to cater your game specifically to help those people? It might be very noble of you, but at the same time you have to be realistic.

Going back a bit, disabled people would then have little to no problem playing single player games, or even versus turned based games, like Pokemon. A handicapped person could play Pokemon at the same level as the pros just because the game ALLOWS them to since there is no requirement to react fast or press buttons precisely and whatnot. But Smash is not Pokemon. Unfortunately that means that some people won't be pros, and in fact even many normal persons are not good enough to be pro. That's just how things play out.

As for your wavedashing comment, I mean it makes perfect sense to me. Wavedashing is harder than zoning, therefore it would make sense you can do zoning but not wavedashing. Not sure how people would have been baffled by that. Maybe because zoning is a mental skill while wavedashing is more muscle memory. With enough practice you can master wavedashing without thinking about it, and just do it when you want to.

@SmashChu - Melee is not difficult until you start to move into the high metagame. Most of Melee is practicing to form muscle memories and playing against enough people to learn habits. It wasn't like if you played Brawl and I put Melee in front of you that you would become totally incompetent. You just need to act faster and practice some tech to compete with hardcore players. You make it sound like playing Melee is like doing calculus on your fingers. Also 33 milliseconds is actually a long time when compared to the 0 millisecond delay in Melee.

 

[Medaka444]

Reading your earlier post, it seemed like you WANTED games to set the bar higher than chess, rather than this just being an unfortunate fact of life. I don't know anymore.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

In response to these btw...

For the first, Brawl is absolutely nothing like that in such a regard. I haven't been beaten by a casual since I was a casual and I call myself a mid level at absolute best, which is actually on the lower end of the scale of competitive play (Low, low mid, mid, high mid, high, top). If you're good at Brawl competitively, you're not going to lose to some random. I can guarantee it when refuting your point on Ken.

The thing is, Ken is foremost a melee player. Melee and Brawl have very different mechanics - whether these are good or bad is actually literally really subjective (because I have absolutely no idea where you're basing your info from but the Brawl community is thriving lol ). Add to this it was only 3 months in and yeah I can see how a pro melee player could have lost in a Brawl.

But on this point and your above, i'd like you to take M2K as an example. M2K hasn't lost to randoms in Brawl. Absolutely no way, lol. There have been upsets, yes, but not ridiculously so. In fact, those that do upset like this are usually top or at least high level players themselves i.e. ZeRo, Salem, Ocean, Nairo, etc. M2K just adapted to how Brawl works. Even if you'd think that example is flawed, since when do you see Tyrant losing to randoms? Or 9B? Or Otori? Brawl isn't a game where you can just pick it up and beat its best... I learnt that the reasonably hard way when I came into the scene thinking I could destroy everyone just because I could beat all my friends. It's just not like that.

Finally, i'm a bit worried that you found SSE the only 'brilliant' part of Brawl.

SSE was like one of the few things I and many Brawl players dislike about the game. It used generic enemies, lacked depth and character development, made you go through everything TWICE (like what the heck?) and didn't even really answer anything - Tabuu came from... where, exactly? Why is he evil? Does he just symbolise all evil? Why wasn't there something to actually reference this?

Like, what? ;_;

/end rant

DANG IT WHY TO I GET PULLED IN TO THESE THINGS?

I think I have a problem.

Halp.

As far as the level of difficulty Brawl presents, I have to say I disagree. Tyrant (Eric) is actually a good friend of mine, and as silly as it seems, I've beaten him a few times (clearly not as much as he beats me) at least when he picks characters other than Meta Knight lol. ZeRo is good, but not unbeatable. Me and Tyrant beat him and FOW in doubles several times. I've beaten and can easily keep up with a majority of ranked players on the west, and I literally play with everyone. You aren't inclined to believe me, but I usually play against or with top players regularly. And who am I? Some random dude. I honestly don't care too much for the game unless its at top level, and even then it can still be really lenient and boring to play depending on the player. I know virtually nothing about match ups and the only advanced mechanic I use is platform canceling.

The point I'm trying to make is that there may be a skill gap, but for the average player coming from Melee it is not so horrendously large that I can't keep up with the players. However, if a player from Brawl transitioned over to Melee and played someone like SilentWolf that is a different story; the technical barrier is too great, and the mental aspect is much more refined due to how fast a player must respond to a situation. In the end having slower mechanics only hurts the player base, which leads me to believe that the best in Brawl aren't the best, but the best of those who decide to participate, as the mechanical limitations don't set the foundation for an abundance of originality amongst the players, so it boils down to who can do something better than the next player or how well a player can push am exploit with as little risk possible.

In a way, I akin Brawl to what street fighter 2 should have been; a fighter that emphasized on trading small hits without long combos, which is hilarious considering that the foundation of the fighting game genre was founded on an accident.

Also, the way Brawl turned out was probably Nintendo's fault. The original demo furor the game had things like Melee Dash Dancing, a form of wave dashing when you did a wave dash when you did an aerial that gave you momentum low to the ground, or in Pikachu's case quick attack on the ground diagonally, hit stun canceling as far as I knew, a form of L- canceling existed, characters like Fox retained some Melee properties like D-throw leading to tech chase and Peaches F-throw being a solid kill move, crouch canceling, double stick DI. These things were promptly and probably hastily removed before the next public play testing scheduled in Japan. I know these things first hand as I was one of the many players who had a chance to play the demo. Players like Gimpyfish, DSF, neal, t!mmy & t0mmy, Lucky and many others were able to confirm these things. I honestly feel betrayed by whoever made the call to have these things removed as it probably ruined the foundation of the game and gave birth to many engine exploits.

 

[Luco]

As far as the level of difficulty Brawl presents, I have to say I disagree. Tyrant (Eric) is actually a good friend of mine, and as silly as it seems, I've beaten him a few times (clearly not as much as he beats me) at least when he picks characters other than Meta Knight lol. ZeRo is good, but not unbeatable. Me and Tyrant beat him and FOW in doubles several times. I've beaten and can easily keep up with a majority of ranked players on the west, and I literally play with everyone. You aren't inclined to believe me, but I usually play against or with top players regularly. And who am I? Some random dude. I honestly don't care too much for the game unless its at top level, and even then it can still be really lenient and boring to play depending on the player. I know virtually nothing about match ups and the only advanced mechanic I use is platform canceling.

The point I'm trying to make is that there may be a skill gap, but for the average player coming from Melee it is not so horrendously large that I can't keep up with the players. However, if a player from Brawl transitioned over to Melee and played someone like SilentWolf that is a different story; the technical barrier is too great, and the mental aspect is much more refined due to how fast a player must respond to a situation. In the end having slower mechanics only hurts the player base, which leads me to believe that the best in Brawl aren't the best, but the best of those who decide to participate, as the mechanical limitations don't set the foundation for an abundance of originality amongst the players, so it boils down to who can do something better than the next player or how well a player can push am exploit with as little risk possible.

In a way, I akin Brawl to what street fighter 2 should have been; a fighter that emphasized on trading small hits without long combos, which is hilarious considering that the foundation of the fighting game genre was founded on an accident.

Also, the way Brawl turned out was probably Nintendo's fault. The original demo furor the game had things like Melee Dash Dancing, a form of wave dashing when you did a wave dash when you did an aerial that gave you momentum low to the ground, or in Pikachu's case quick attack on the ground diagonally, hit stun canceling as far as I knew, a form of L- canceling existed, characters like Fox retained some Melee properties like D-throw leading to tech chase and Peaches F-throw being a solid kill move, crouch canceling, double stick DI. These things were promptly and probably hastily removed before the next public play testing scheduled in Japan. I know these things first hand as I was one of the many players who had a chance to play the demo. Players like Gimpyfish, DSF, neal, t!mmy & t0mmy, Lucky and many others were able to confirm these things. I honestly feel betrayed by whoever made the call to have these things removed as it probably ruined the foundation of the game and gave birth to many engine exploits.

I'm not arguing that it's impossible to beat high level players as a random but it's hard. Like, i've beaten the best in Australia, yeah and to him I was just a random at the time... but out of what, the 50 matches we played I might've won like 2 or 3?

And to be fair, we should then clarify what we mean by 'random dude' - because I consider 'random dude' to be someone who hasn't played with those people before and comes from absolutely nowhere. You said yourself that you play with them regularly, so it makes sense to me that you'd win a couple times.

I dunno how willing I am to believe that the mental aspect of melee is that much more refined due to faster mechanics. Once you're in, you're in, or at least that's what i've seen of the limited melee matches I have watched. DI plays an important factor but it's not hard to put yourself in a positional advantage so that you can cover this.

However with Brawl, not only do you have to be positionally advantageous but catch them through timing. If the person breaks the combo by a quick air-dodge, then you have to be able to time a move to hit them out of it, etc etc. Melee has it but most people don't use AD like that (again, only from what i've seen) because it puts them in bad positions and even in top play, leads to SDs (i'm pretty sure I recall seeing Wobbles die several times to a fail AD that put him off the edge and killed him). Brawl is much more defensive in this regard and as such the tactical barrier that exists isn't so much figuring how to attack and be safe (although that plays an important part anyway) but actually be able to get in in the first place, THEN rack up damage which is a more difficult thing to achieve in Brawl.

I'd argue that the slower and more defensive mechanics of Brawl are what turn it into more of a strategy game rather than just an execution game. Melee has this, don't get me wrong - but in Brawl what I absolutely love seeing is a player that adapts to another's playstyle and getting in where they couldn't before. The learning curve of Brawl happens within every game, with each player adapting not only to the execution of the other player but their playstyle - how they approach, what they approach with, what counters it, does countering it leave them opened to be countered back, and so on.

But I commend you Eternal - you've really put me on the back-pedal on this one and made me think a lot on clarifying exactly what I think of the mechanics. I might need to take a break from this haha, my head hurts.