Melee will lose steam eventually. Its just a matter of time.

[Bacon&Eggs]

Really, do you really think Smash would be Smash without the Nintendo characters?

The idea is that in the future you're not playing Melee because your favorite Nintendo all-stars are in it but because you love the feel of the engine.

 

[MookieRah]

@ Thor : I'm dropping the quoting and point by point analysis because our posts are getting super big. I'm going to try to make this a succinct as possible so it's more digestible.

I'll refer to the vocal minority groups as Bridiots and Midiots for ease of use. I don't feel like getting very creative here, and it's much simpler to use these quick stand ins.

The Bridiots don't go around saying "Melee is trash." The problem with Bridiots is their unwillingness to allow people to have negative opinions of Brawl. Personally, I think Brawl is a poor game for competitive play, and I have a ton of reasons to back it up. This doesn't make me close minded, but Bridiots would be quick to judge me harshly for my negative opinion of their game and lump me in with all the other Midiots.

In general, Brawl is in a position that Melee was in for over a decade, in which the game isn't respected by many people outside of their own community. Brawl players should simply take a page from the old Melee handbook of dealing with people dismissive of their game, and simply focus on their game and their own enjoyment. If Brawl players were known for being super chill, it would make it hard for Midiots to bash their community. There would also be less threads trying to create a debate as to the merits of Brawl, something in which both Bridiots and Midiots love to partake in.

Now, regarding language:

Yes, I was quick to judge you for your use of the word, but honestly regardless of whether or not I understood what you said the way you intended it, I would have still criticised you for it (just not as harshly). While you and your friends may hold an understanding of how you use the word, this does not apply to an open forum. I, for one, wasn't aware that the melee community was "taking it back" so to speak.

I do not think that it necessarily makes you a bad person even if you use that word, hell I used to hold a nearly identical opinion regarding words and language as you do now. I also very much appreciate the fact that you are considering changing your language for the betterment of the community.

Now, regarding language and how it changes over time. Yes, language changes over time, and in fact languages change drastically over time; however, language doesn't change much over the coarse of a decade, it changes more over generational gaps.

Gay and *** are two words that are good examples to use in discussing language in terms of baggage. While the internet has drastically increased the speed in which language mutates, the overall meaning of a word will still only change over generational gaps. It is true that lots of people, mostly my generation and younger, don't use this as a slur against the gay community, but no matter how much younger people use that word in an alternate meaning, it still carries around the meaning of a slur as it's primary definition. You likely won't convince many of the older generation that the word is primarily not a slur, especially since the word is still being used as a slur today. If you don't want your words to be misinterpreted this way, you must respect that words carry along baggage and choose words that would not be ambiguous.

Another of the problem with the way these words are used in the new definition is that they still put down a group of people. By changing the meaning of "gay" as something that is "lame", you are ascribing a negative meaning to a word used to describe a community of people. So in essence, while not nearly as harsh, it still negatively affects that group.

My point with all this is that it will take several generations of improvement and tolerance before those words will lose their ties to a slur.

 

[MookieRah]

Sorry for double post, Smashboards is being buggy on my end.

 

[Drodeka]

Your pre-emption doesn't mean that's not a bad analogy. Mario Party is crapshoot random, and I'm pretty sure you can't "buffer" dice rolls - those things spin randomly last I checked. Brawl has one random element that is workaroundable, namely tripping.

And if you're the better player, you still win in Brawl. Just go ask various pros - they'd heavily dispute you - the decisively better player WILL win.



It's a Smash game, so yes, it should've been taken seriously in the first place.

And Sakurai would echo you replacing a single word exactly as you don't want to hear it, saying "Melee shouldn't have been taken seriously in the first place." Or are you saying we should hark to Nintendo for what should and shouldn't occur relative to SSB games?

You ignored part of what I said. "It has nothing going in to support doing so."
While that's not entirely true, it basically means this:
Melee currently has 13 years of competitive knowledge and a wonderful fanbase that supports playing it in a serious manner.

Brawl has 5 years of up and down competitive play with a much smaller fanbase and less exciting gameplay.

No, I'm saying Nintendo wants us to hark to what they're saying. You just keep assuming things and putting words in my mouth.
EDIT: Also I just realized you completely skipped everything I said that actually carried weight and instead poked at a small comment I made toward the end. Whatever dude, I'm done debating, especially since this thread isn't about Brawl vs Melee and I don't care about Brawl vs Melee.

 

[D-idara]

The idea is that in the future you're not playing Melee because your favorite Nintendo all-stars are in it but because you love the feel of the engine.

That would be surprisingly lame and bland, Smash wouldn't be the same without the Nintendo magic, at all.

 

[otter]

That would be surprisingly lame and bland, Smash wouldn't be the same without the Nintendo magic, at all.

that all wears off though. it's not like you grind out 100 fox vs falco matches with someone and towards the end think "man I hate it when Falco mouths off to fox thats so rude." after 12 years its the engine that matters which is why melee will last 20 years or more. Trade that in for more trophies and you get....Brawl.

 

[EPsilon933]

Fighting games are about the characters. When you throw away those character for something with less personality... It just isn't as appealing

 

[Thor]

@ Thor : I'm dropping the quoting and point by point analysis because our posts are getting super big. I'm going to try to make this a succinct as possible so it's more digestible.

I'll refer to the vocal minority groups as Bridiots and Midiots for ease of use. I don't feel like getting very creative here, and it's much simpler to use these quick stand ins.

The Bridiots don't go around saying "Melee is trash." The problem with Bridiots is their unwillingness to allow people to have negative opinions of Brawl. Personally, I think Brawl is a poor game for competitive play, and I have a ton of reasons to back it up. This doesn't make me close minded, but Bridiots would be quick to judge me harshly for my negative opinion of their game and lump me in with all the other Midiots.

In general, Brawl is in a position that Melee was in for over a decade, in which the game isn't respected by many people outside of their own community. Brawl players should simply take a page from the old Melee handbook of dealing with people dismissive of their game, and simply focus on their game and their own enjoyment. If Brawl players were known for being super chill, it would make it hard for Midiots to bash their community. There would also be less threads trying to create a debate as to the merits of Brawl, something in which both Bridiots and Midiots love to partake in.

Now, regarding language:

Yes, I was quick to judge you for your use of the word, but honestly regardless of whether or not I understood what you said the way you intended it, I would have still criticised you for it (just not as harshly). While you and your friends may hold an understanding of how you use the word, this does not apply to an open forum. I, for one, wasn't aware that the melee community was "taking it back" so to speak.

I do not think that it necessarily makes you a bad person even if you use that word, hell I used to hold a nearly identical opinion regarding words and language as you do now. I also very much appreciate the fact that you are considering changing your language for the betterment of the community.

Now, regarding language and how it changes over time. Yes, language changes over time, and in fact languages change drastically over time; however, language doesn't change much over the coarse of a decade, it changes more over generational gaps.

Gay and *** are two words that are good examples to use in discussing language in terms of baggage. While the internet has drastically increased the speed in which language mutates, the overall meaning of a word will still only change over generational gaps. It is true that lots of people, mostly my generation and younger, don't use this as a slur against the gay community, but no matter how much younger people use that word in an alternate meaning, it still carries around the meaning of a slur as it's primary definition. You likely won't convince many of the older generation that the word is primarily not a slur, especially since the word is still being used as a slur today. If you don't want your words to be misinterpreted this way, you must respect that words carry along baggage and choose words that would not be ambiguous.

Another of the problem with the way these words are used in the new definition is that they still put down a group of people. By changing the meaning of "gay" as something that is "lame", you are ascribing a negative meaning to a word used to describe a community of people. So in essence, while not nearly as harsh, it still negatively affects that group.

My point with all this is that it will take several generations of improvement and tolerance before those words will lose their ties to a slur.

Yeah, everyone's entitled to their own opinions - it's the decisions to consciously and repeatedly try to enforce an opinion as fact that makes me irritated with Midiots (nice names by the way). Admittedly, defending someone's game is a rational response, but it's annoying when people necessarily try to enforce their opinions, which both sides are guilty of.

Perhaps I was quick to assume the Melee community as a whole was taking it back - I just know it's been taken back by the various people I've played with (and our one gay player has taken the word gay back, much to my amusement whenever someone in our group who's unaware he's gay tells him not to use the word because it's offensive).

Mkay, I think we're good then.

You ignored part of what I said. "It has nothing going in to support doing so."

I can't tell what this means, but it either means none of the games did, or they all did, because either they were never intended that way, and therefore, none of the games (SSB, SSBM, SSBB) were intended to competitive, or they all did, because they have stocks, timers, item controls, and various forms of cancelling (z-cancelling, l-cancelling, auto-cancelling, b-cancelling (by that I refer to doing a laser and landing with low lag, when a grounded laser has more endlag)) and ATs (SSB has a few but I'm not well-versed in names, but there is same direction QA, while Melee has wavedash, ledge-cancel, and Brawl has DACUS and glide toss, and they all have some form of teching).

While that's not entirely true, it basically means this:
Melee currently has 13 years of competitive knowledge and a wonderful fanbase that supports playing it in a serious manner.
Brawl has 5 years of up and down competitive play with a much smaller fanbase and less exciting gameplay.

So it's based on experience? Even if Brawl doesn't have whatever the first part meant, you seem to suggest that if we gather up enough people and play for 8 years, we'll all of a sudden be as qualified as Melee is now (which is pretty qualified if I'm reading you right).

EDIT: Also I just realized you completely skipped everything I said that actually carried weight and instead poked at a small comment I made toward the end. Whatever dude, I'm done debating, especially since this thread isn't about Brawl vs Melee and I don't care about Brawl vs Melee.

There was literally nothing in your post that carried weight except your ridiculous Mario Party analogy. You said 3 things:
A) I haven't met anyone (except online) who prefers Brawl to Melee, which I can believe
B) that you like Brawl as a non-competitive experience, which is fine, although I like it both competitively and for various single-player modes etc., and
C) that it's like competitive Mario Party, which is heavily RNG-based, while Brawl has only a single RNG-based factor, besides a few stage elements (and Melee has Dreamland and PS as neutrals/CPs, so that's not relevant).

So you're either going to need to requite the post in question (your second here, the one I was responding to, since I already responded to the first one) to point out what carried weight, or else your claim falls flat on its face. Which is fine I suppose - if you want to drop it, drop it, but you're not going to make it look like I'm skirting the issue when I responded to everything that I disagreed with in your post, because the first two points were trivial to the discussion.

Unless you're referring to your first post, which is not what that implied at all, but I'll just say this about it: considering all games were originally made strictly for fun, not to be competitive, the gamer's intent is irrelevant, and Sakurai left in more than enough stuff to play the game competitively, so I don't see why removing a few elements that benefit players with faster APMs makes the game less competitive, only that it shifts the focus to be more cerebral.

EDIT: otter said some stuff way back and my internet had shut down but I'll post what I'd typed then:

Melee has 8-10 amazing and viable characters. It can be less if you want, let's not argue semantics. It's certainly better than Brawl's 1-3

I'm pretty sure Hax has said this (more than once):

"Melee has 6 tournament viable characters and Captain Falcon is not one of them." And you'll notice how many are placing super high right now.

We can modify his statement to be 6 and aMSa I suppose. If others could play Yoshi like aMSa, it may be seven (if anti-Yoshi tech doesn't evolve), but it's really just him being a god for now, and playing a somewhat underrated character. But you said skip semantics, it's better than Brawl's 1-3.

Except Brawl has MK, ICs, Snake, Diddy Kong, Olimar for sure (higher than 3 at least, and 5 right there), and we can debate semantics but I'd say ZSS should certainly be added to the list, alongside Marth, Falco, and even Pikachu (although that's mainly just ESAM these days).

Brawl 9[ish], Melee 7[ish]. Admittedly, Melee has 26 and Brawl has 39, but from a numbers perspective, Brawl wins.

 

[Drodeka]

Yeah, everyone's entitled to their own opinions - it's the decisions to consciously and repeatedly try to enforce an opinion as fact that makes me irritated with Midiots (nice names by the way). Admittedly, defending someone's game is a rational response, but it's annoying when people necessarily try to enforce their opinions, which both sides are guilty of.

Perhaps I was quick to assume the Melee community as a whole was taking it back - I just know it's been taken back by the various people I've played with (and our one gay player has taken the word gay back, much to my amusement whenever someone in our group who's unaware he's gay tells him not to use the word because it's offensive).

Mkay, I think we're good then.



I can't tell what this means, but it either means none of the games did, or they all did, because either they were never intended that way, and therefore, none of the games (SSB, SSBM, SSBB) were intended to competitive, or they all did, because they have stocks, timers, item controls, and various forms of cancelling (z-cancelling, l-cancelling, auto-cancelling, b-cancelling (by that I refer to doing a laser and landing with low lag, when a grounded laser has more endlag)) and ATs (SSB has a few but I'm not well-versed in names, but there is same direction QA, while Melee has wavedash, ledge-cancel, and Brawl has DACUS and glide toss, and they all have some form of teching).



So it's based on experience? Even if Brawl doesn't have whatever the first part meant, you seem to suggest that if we gather up enough people and play for 8 years, we'll all of a sudden be as qualified as Melee is now (which is pretty qualified if I'm reading you right).



There was literally nothing in your post that carried weight except your ridiculous Mario Party analogy. You said 3 things:
A) I haven't met anyone (except online) who prefers Brawl to Melee, which I can believe
B) that you like Brawl as a non-competitive experience, which is fine, although I like it both competitively and for various single-player modes etc., and
C) that it's like competitive Mario Party, which is heavily RNG-based, while Brawl has only a single RNG-based factor, besides a few stage elements (and Melee has Dreamland and PS as neutrals/CPs, so that's not relevant).

So you're either going to need to requite the post in question (your second here, the one I was responding to, since I already responded to the first one) to point out what carried weight, or else your claim falls flat on its face. Which is fine I suppose - if you want to drop it, drop it, but you're not going to make it look like I'm skirting the issue when I responded to everything that I disagreed with in your post, because the first two points were trivial to the discussion.

Unless you're referring to your first post, which is not what that implied at all, but I'll just say this about it: considering all games were originally made strictly for fun, not to be competitive, the gamer's intent is irrelevant, and Sakurai left in more than enough stuff to play the game competitively, so I don't see why removing a few elements that benefit players with faster APMs makes the game less competitive, only that it shifts the focus to be more cerebral.

EDIT: otter said some stuff way back and my internet had shut down but I'll post what I'd typed then:



I'm pretty sure Hax has said this (more than once):

"Melee has 6 tournament viable characters and Captain Falcon is not one of them." And you'll notice how many are placing super high right now.

We can modify his statement to be 6 and aMSa I suppose. If others could play Yoshi like aMSa, it may be seven (if anti-Yoshi tech doesn't evolve), but it's really just him being a god for now, and playing a somewhat underrated character. But you said skip semantics, it's better than Brawl's 1-3.

Except Brawl has MK, ICs, Snake, Diddy Kong, Olimar for sure (higher than 3 at least, and 5 right there), and we can debate semantics but I'd say ZSS should certainly be added to the list, alongside Marth, Falco, and even Pikachu (although that's mainly just ESAM these days).

Brawl 9[ish], Melee 7[ish]. Admittedly, Melee has 26 and Brawl has 39, but from a numbers perspective, Brawl wins.

This is too much to read.
When you skipped what I said, you didn't ignore it, you just misunderstood it.
What I meant was that Mario Party is a game in which there is a victor, but it's supposed to remain very fair for everybody playing, no matter how much somebody has played Mario Party.

And yes, it's an exaggeration, but this is essentially what Nintendo wanted for Brawl. It's also what they wanted for Melee, they just didn't come nearly as close to achieving it.

My point that you ignored was that Melee was made to be a party game, but in 2001 (maybe early 2002) people found out it could be much more than that. The competitive scene raged on and eventually the game balanced itself pretty effectively. I don't mean to say that the entire game is balanced, I mean to say that the way it is played is balanced.

Nintendo/Sakurai didn't like the competitive scene, and when they were working on Brawl, they took steps against the competitive scene so that the game would be slower paced and more fun for casual players. They didn't want the skill gap to grow into anything very large, this way it would remain entertaining even in a room filled with good players, bad players and everything in between. Everybody would win sometimes, and therefore everybody would be having fun, right?

Wrong. The competitive players of the previous game weren't looking just for a victory, they were looking for fast paced, technically deep and flavorful fighting game. They weren't looking for another 2001 Melee, they were looking for a 2002 and beyond Melee. Not the Melee Nintendo created, the Melee the Smasher's had created.

When I said "Brawl has nothing going in to support it being competitive", I meant that there are so few deep strategies and mechanics that Melee had so many of. I've seen much more competitive Brawl than I'd like to, and it usually consists of players spamming projectiles or using extremely campy tactics (not all of it is but the higher the level of play, the more like this it is). Brawl doesn't have any secret engine mechanics waiting to be discovered. It doesn't have crazy depth that hasn't been yet realized. Competitive Brawl is simply taking what Nintendo offered and pretending it is more than it is.

You could argue that the same is for Melee, except that's not true. Melee BECAME more than it was. The difference in the games is that Melee evolved into a competitively sound fighting game and Brawl has limits placed in it that will keep it from ever doing the same. It's like Nintendo put grind-blockers on it.

Anyway, I hate how hostile I and others get over the internet. You're probably a nice guy IRL but your "matter of fact" way of arguing is very exhausting and no matter what I say you'll find a way to make it seem like I have to reply or else I'm stupid. But disagree with whatever I just posted as much as you want, it's how I feel and I don't care, agree to disagree.

 

[Thor]

This is too much to read.

Then you post about the same amount. Hah hah hah.

What I meant was that Mario Party is a game in which there is a victor, but it's supposed to remain very fair for everybody playing, no matter how much somebody has played Mario Party.
And yes, it's an exaggeration, but this is essentially what Nintendo wanted for Brawl. It's also what they wanted for Melee, they just didn't come nearly as close to achieving it.

If you've ever watched M2K play someone who's still pretty good, you'd see that they got nowhere near this goal [and this leaves out Nairo, Zero, 9B, and others who can beat him, sometimes convincingly]. Not even close - the gap may be a bit wider in Mario Party, but it's not fair at all when you play someone who's just better than you. Heck, I wreck people items or no, and I'm nothing compared to someone half as good as he is. It's an exaggeration? Of the decade.

My point that you ignored was that Melee was made to be a party game, but in 2001 (maybe early 2002) people found out it could be much more than that. The competitive scene raged on and eventually the game balanced itself pretty effectively. I don't mean to say that the entire game is balanced, I mean to say that the way it is played is balanced.

I... what? Is this a ruleset claim? If so, Brawl's still working out the kinks, but Melee had to figure out whether to keep items or not and the like. The way Brawl is played now is still fairly balanced... I think, at least from what you're saying... this genuinely confuses me.

Nintendo/Sakurai didn't like the competitive scene, and when they were working on Brawl, they took steps against the competitive scene so that the game would be slower paced and more fun for casual players. They didn't want the skill gap to grow into anything very large, this way it would remain entertaining even in a room filled with good players, bad players and everything in between. Everybody would win sometimes, and therefore everybody would be having fun, right?

Wrong. The competitive players of the previous game weren't looking just for a victory, they were looking for fast paced, technically deep and flavorful fighting game. They weren't looking for another 2001 Melee, they were looking for a 2002 and beyond Melee. Not the Melee Nintendo created, the Melee the Smasher's had created.

What the...? You're blowing everything MASSIVELY out of proportion. Go and play a few rounds with M2K, Nairo, Ally, Salem, ADHD, Shaky, whomever - you'll get blown out of the water every single time.

Ok, then don't play Brawl? But you don't have to automatically assume that because you don't like the game, it can't/shouldn't be played competitively. And technical depth is NOT required for a competitive game - look at Divekick, there's two buttons if I remember correctly.

When I said "Brawl has nothing going in to support it being competitive", I meant that there are so few deep strategies and mechanics that Melee had so many of. I've seen much more competitive Brawl than I'd like to, and it usually consists of players spamming projectiles or using extremely campy tactics (not all of it is but the higher the level of play, the more like this it is). Brawl doesn't have any secret engine mechanics waiting to be discovered. It doesn't have crazy depth that hasn't been yet realized. Competitive Brawl is simply taking what Nintendo offered and pretending it is more than it is.

There's definitely depth to how someone approaches their camping, you just don't see it on the receiving end because you haven't seen how tricky it is to camp effectively. There's also the point to be made that if you go watch Nairo versus Zero at Apex 2014, I don't think Nairo is actually camping much at all, yet he wins, which says something for how effective Zero's camping on Halberd actually ends up being (not enough). The last half of your statement is something people said about Melee low-tiers, but then we had aMSa show up - you're making a statement you have literally no way to back and no proof of. Your very last statement: competitive Brawl is not "pretending," there is more than the surface would appear, just not in ways you want to see it.

I'm also curious what massively deep strategies that Melee has, because I'm unclear on what you're talking about. It's not apparent to me when M2K is just flow-chart zero-deathing a Fox or Falco on FD, I'll say that much.

You could argue that the same is for Melee, except that's not true. Melee BECAME more than it was. The difference in the games is that Melee evolved into a competitively sound fighting game and Brawl has limits placed in it that will keep it from ever doing the same. It's like Nintendo put grind-blockers on it.

Brawl became much more than it started as, a "not-as-good-as-Melee" once the meta evolved a bit. You're also throwing around hopelessly vague terms, but if you've watched some of the recent best, you'd see it's pretty darn competitively sound.

your "matter of fact" way of arguing is very exhausting and no matter what I say you'll find a way to make it seem like I have to reply or else I'm stupid

I'm matter of fact because emotional arguments just don't work through a computer screen. I'm offering a counterpoint - you can choose not to respond...

agree to disagree.

but people stating their opinions as (supposedly) undeniable facts about things that are inherently subjective, and then claiming other people lack skill implicitly [cuz everyone can win at Brawl, right?] really really irritates me, so a matter-of-fact refutation seems an effective route.

If you want to believe that Brawl can't be played competitively, you can believe that, but I can assure you that you would lose badly [and repeatedly] to someone who actually understands what Brawl is at a deeper level and how to play it. inb4 "stop bashing me cuz you're salty/you have no idea what you're talking about I'm so great": Someone who claims the game is equal for all clearly does not understand what it takes to be a great Brawl player, because it's a lot more than you give the best credit for. Or else go out and beat some of the best and prove me wrong.

 

[otter]

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

 

[Thor]

I take that's a "we'll agree to disagree" then.

EDIT: Wait no that's not Drodeka, but since Drodeka suggested it earlier, go with it?

 

[D-idara]

that all wears off though. it's not like you grind out 100 fox vs falco matches with someone and towards the end think "man I hate it when Falco mouths off to fox thats so rude." after 12 years its the engine that matters which is why melee will last 20 years or more. Trade that in for more trophies and you get....Brawl.

Yeah, you get Brawl, a critically acclaimed and loved game that's only hated by a small, obnoxiously loud portion of the Smash fanbase.

And for someone who loves Nintendo more than they love fighting games, that doesn't wear off. So stop implying it does, the reason Smash got where it got is Nintendo characters and content.

 

[BO/\K]

@ Thor the fact that some parts of the punish game are flowcharty doesn't mean the game lacks depth. It's pretty ridiculous of you to cherrypick one of the most option limiting situations in the game (getting up thrown by Marth as a space animal on FD) and use it as a reason to claim that Melee doesn't have "massively deep strategies."

Actually, why am I even wasting my time reading your posts and arguing with you? Does anyone know how you edit your ignore list?

 

[Thor]

the fact that some parts of the punish game are flowcharty doesn't mean the game lacks depth. It's pretty ridiculous of you to cherrypick one of the most option limiting situations in the game (getting up thrown by Marth as a space animal on FD) and use it as a reason to claim that Melee doesn't have "massively deep strategies."
Actually, why am I even wasting my time reading your posts and arguing with you? Does anyone know how you edit your ignore list?

See, that's the one part I wanted him Drodeka to respond to (and he's also being an *** so I figured I get to respond with a bit of tongue-in-cheek) but Drodeka seemed done here so I added that little bit. Since I really don't understand what extra depth Melee has, unless he counts dash-dancing as a deep strategy, which I disagree with at a fundamental level that it's "deep" strategy [strategic? of course. Deep? No].

If you'd care to explain to me what deep strategies Melee has that Brawl lacks, ok. [And by the way, I'm surprised you didn't mention IC CGs as proof that both games have flow-charty moments, but whatever.]

Also, although you probably aren't reading this (oh the irony...), you can ignore someone by clicking on their name and then clicking the "ignore" option in the box that pops up. You're welcome.

 

[Legal_Action96]

Yeah brawl isnt deep at all nor is it anywhere close to being balanced.

 

[pizzapie7]

Yeah, you get Brawl, a critically acclaimed and loved game that's only hated by a small, obnoxiously loud portion of the Smash fanbase.

Let's not seriously use "critically acclaimed" in an argument about game quality, please. It may only be hated by a small, obnoxiously loud portion of the Smash fanbase, but it's seen as the inferior game by a great deal more. In the end it's all really opinion, there is no truly bad Smash game. Some please certain audiences better than others, but they're all quality, must have titles. And you can **** right out by calling anyone who criticizes a game obnoxious. The real world isn't your hug box, people don't have to like the things that you like, and chances are if you took time to listen and hear out their reasoning, you may actually learn something. I don't like the fact that you made me log in and post after all these years just for me to tell you to take your ****ty biases back to the Smash 4 section of this site, so I'll go ahead and respond to the rest of your post.

And for someone who loves Nintendo more than they love fighting games, that doesn't wear off. So stop implying it does, the reason Smash got where it got is Nintendo characters and content.

And the reason that Melee is still alive and kicking, the reason that this thread exists right now, the reason Melee was just played at a fighting game major twelve hours ago is because it gave more than shiny cool Nintendo characters and an excessive amount of fanservice content. It gave an engine with near infinite potential that still hasn't been reached over a decade later. Melee had more to stand on than simply being a game where you can watch Mario and Pikachu fight it out. It had Nintendo characters certainly, but the game could've stood on it's own and held up nearly as good. The game was a hit with the competitive and the casual alike and proved that the series could sustain both camps without hurting one or the other.

The Nintendo luster does fade, that's why all of the non-serious players will jump games regardless of how that game actually plays as a game on its own. The Nintendo Seal of Approval and all the fighters on the cover are enough for them. And that's fine, it's the new shiny thing on the block and knowing Sakurai it's going to be a well polished, fun experience at its most simplistic levels. The vast majority of the people who are still playing Melee today (and 64, and Brawl and all of its derivatives after the release of Smash 4) aren't doing it out of some undying love for how their main performed in that game. To them, the under the hood parts are more important than how shiny the paint is. As much as I love controlling Bowser to victory over Mario, how the game feels and plays is also something I find important. If I can get my "Nintendo fix" on a game that I feel plays better, so I'll go with that.

To answer the first ridiculous question you posted in this thread: No, Smash would not be Smash without Nintendo characters. That's a fundamental part of Smash that cannot be replaced. But the reason Melee is still reaching new heights while the Brawl scene is unfortunately floundering and there are talks of the Smash 4 scene being dead on arrival (which hopefully isn't the case as I believe it deserves a shot) is because Melee gave the players an engine that they wanted to play on, and play on, and play on. They want to keep on pushing at it, seeing if and when it will break. That's why the poster you've replied to says that the characters aren't important to him, and I would agree. It may not have been a major blockbuster best selling title, and I have no idea how they would've marketed it, but I firmly believe a game with Melee's engine would've been a success whether or not it used Nintendo characters. You may not have enjoyed it, but that's understandable because different people want different things from their video games. But there are people out there who would have played that game and loved it all the same. The character is just an extension of the self, anyway. Why does it matter if it's Fox, or Morrigan, or Invoker, or a square cube?

Please don't misconstrue this as me saying that Melee is a superior game to Brawl or 64, because that's not what I'm trying to do. I simply see where the posters you replied to are coming from. I personally could not see myself playing or recommending Brawl if it weren't for the Nintendo characters. I didn't like how the game played, and no amount of Nintendo could save that gameplay.

 

[MookieRah]

Since I really don't understand what extra depth Melee has, unless he counts dash-dancing as a deep strategy, which I disagree with at a fundamental level that it's "deep" strategy [strategic? of course. Deep? No].

I would make an argument that dash dancing is very deep. Just take a peak at the Marth boards when they discuss movement. It might sound silly, but dash dancing adds A LOT to melee, and it is one of the things that separates good players from great players. Dash dancing is essentially footsies on steroids. The distance you need to keep from you and your opponent is based upon your character, their character, your reaction time, and whether or not you or your opponent is on a platform. That's a lot to process, especially when you consider that you have to make these decisions rapidly.

If you'd care to explain to me what deep strategies Melee has that Brawl lacks, ok.

I'm currently using the 20XX training pack to work on my followups from Mewtwo's up throw against Fox, Falco, and CF at low percentages. With the pack I am able to see the frames of hit stun, which allows me to know if something is guaranteed or not. The pack also makes it so that all levels of the CPU DI randomly, so I can literally train against every DI reaction with repetition.

This is really difficult, but I'm slowly improving. It's not just about landing the first hit during their hit stun, it's also about dealing with their DI afterwards. It's not enough for me to train only ideal situations in which they don't DI out of the combo, as after the first hit nothing is really guaranteed. I must also learn how to cope and adjust to DI that ends my combo, in which case I must position myself to continue on with my aggression in a safe way, which usually involves crossing them up and then prepping myself to tech chase on reaction.

Essentially what I'm doing is creating a flow chart for the first hit; however, after that it branches into a near endless amount of options for both me and my opponent to interact. These kinds of instances are common in Melee, but not so much in Brawl. Meanwhile, the kind of interaction that is common in Brawl (from my perception at least) is more that "setups" grant the player more of a positional advantage, but not a guaranteed follow up. For example, you land an attack on an opponent and then positioning for the best possible chance to land another attack. Even if it is more likely to connect, this isn't a true combo as your opponent isn't locked in hit stun the entire duration. This is also common in melee, as my previous example illustrates.

 

[Anomalus]

That would be surprisingly lame and bland, Smash wouldn't be the same without the Nintendo magic, at all.

Yet Melee players are the ones typically accused of stagnation. Funny that.

(...) so I don't see why removing a few elements that benefit players with faster APMs makes the game less competitive, only that it shifts the focus to be more cerebral.

3/1 > 12/11 ≠ 3 > 12. More cerebral ≠ less technical.

If you'd care to explain to me what deep strategies Melee has that Brawl lacks, ok. [And by the way, I'm surprised you didn't mention IC CGs as proof that both games have flow-charty moments, but whatever.]

Possibly most psychological strategies, for one, as they usually seek to unnerve an opponent and temporarily interfere with his technical competence. How often do comebacks happen in Brawl and what constitutes a significant lead in it? (serious question, I'm curious)

"I had a slightly inferior endgame that probably should have been drawn, but Kortchnoi kept torturing me with little threats until finally, exhausted and exasperated, I made a losing mistake." - Pal Benko

Or another one, which Mango often suffers from:

"There is nothing wrong with trying to exploit the natural human tendency to become impatient when forced to play a boring position." - Pal Benko

But if the game isn't technically intense (and this has nothing to do with dexterity) or doesn't allow much variation in playstyles, then such opportunities are lost. Regardless, I don't think Melee is yet at the point where tailored preparation is necessary to compete at the top level. Chess players bring dozens of pages of notes to tournaments, they don't just study the game, but also each other, and I think Melee is getting close to starting something of the sort, but isn't quite there yet.

 

[D-idara]

Let's not seriously use "critically acclaimed" in an argument about game quality, please. It may only be hated by a small, obnoxiously loud portion of the Smash fanbase, but it's seen as the inferior game by a great deal more. In the end it's all really opinion, there is no truly bad Smash game. Some please certain audiences better than others, but they're all quality, must have titles. And you can **** right out by calling anyone who criticizes a game obnoxious. The real world isn't your hug box, people don't have to like the things that you like, and chances are if you took time to listen and hear out their reasoning, you may actually learn something. I don't like the fact that you made me log in and post after all these years just for me to tell you to take your ****ty biases back to the Smash 4 section of this site, so I'll go ahead and respond to the rest of your post.


And the reason that Melee is still alive and kicking, the reason that this thread exists right now, the reason Melee was just played at a fighting game major twelve hours ago is because it gave more than shiny cool Nintendo characters and an excessive amount of fanservice content. It gave an engine with near infinite potential that still hasn't been reached over a decade later. Melee had more to stand on than simply being a game where you can watch Mario and Pikachu fight it out. It had Nintendo characters certainly, but the game could've stood on it's own and held up nearly as good. The game was a hit with the competitive and the casual alike and proved that the series could sustain both camps without hurting one or the other.

The Nintendo luster does fade, that's why all of the non-serious players will jump games regardless of how that game actually plays as a game on its own. The Nintendo Seal of Approval and all the fighters on the cover are enough for them. And that's fine, it's the new shiny thing on the block and knowing Sakurai it's going to be a well polished, fun experience at its most simplistic levels. The vast majority of the people who are still playing Melee today (and 64, and Brawl and all of its derivatives after the release of Smash 4) aren't doing it out of some undying love for how their main performed in that game. To them, the under the hood parts are more important than how shiny the paint is. As much as I love controlling Bowser to victory over Mario, how the game feels and plays is also something I find important. If I can get my "Nintendo fix" on a game that I feel plays better, so I'll go with that.

To answer the first ridiculous question you posted in this thread: No, Smash would not be Smash without Nintendo characters. That's a fundamental part of Smash that cannot be replaced. But the reason Melee is still reaching new heights while the Brawl scene is unfortunately floundering and there are talks of the Smash 4 scene being dead on arrival (which hopefully isn't the case as I believe it deserves a shot) is because Melee gave the players an engine that they wanted to play on, and play on, and play on. They want to keep on pushing at it, seeing if and when it will break. That's why the poster you've replied to says that the characters aren't important to him, and I would agree. It may not have been a major blockbuster best selling title, and I have no idea how they would've marketed it, but I firmly believe a game with Melee's engine would've been a success whether or not it used Nintendo characters. You may not have enjoyed it, but that's understandable because different people want different things from their video games. But there are people out there who would have played that game and loved it all the same. The character is just an extension of the self, anyway. Why does it matter if it's Fox, or Morrigan, or Invoker, or a square cube?

Please don't misconstrue this as me saying that Melee is a superior game to Brawl or 64, because that's not what I'm trying to do. I simply see where the posters you replied to are coming from. I personally could not see myself playing or recommending Brawl if it weren't for the Nintendo characters. I didn't like how the game played, and no amount of Nintendo could save that gameplay.

You keep saying the Nintendo magic fades out when it doesn't. After all these years, after three (four) Smash games, I still got goosebumps when I saw Megaman standing on that hill, I still got them when the start of the first Trailer showed all the Nintendo franchises, I still got them when I saw Mario and Charizard about to clash attacks, so no, that doesn't wear off.

And yes, you're right, if Melee didn't have the Nintendo characters, I wouldn't even rank it among the other Smash games, I would've just looked at it, and go "Oh right, another fighting game with creative character designs wasted on a game accessible by 1% of the gaming community" So I guess I think the same of Melee as you think of Brawl, a game that has no redeemable qualities other than being a Nintendo celebration.

So I guess I shouldn't be hanging around the boards of a game I hate so passionately, back to the PM and Smash4 boards I guess.

 

[pizzapie7]

And yes, you're right, if Melee didn't have the Nintendo characters, I wouldn't even rank it among the other Smash games, I would've just looked at it, and go "Oh right, another fighting game with creative character designs wasted on a game accessible by 1% of the gaming community" So I guess I think the same of Melee as you think of Brawl, a game that has no redeemable qualities other than being a Nintendo celebration.

I'm honestly curious as to how removing the Nintendo characters would make the game less accessible. Smash has always been accessible, Melee is no exception. A high technical ceiling does not raise the technical floor. Unless you believe that the familiar, friendly faces of Zelda and Roy somehow lowered the game's skill floor.

 

[D-idara]

I'm honestly curious as to how removing the Nintendo characters would make the game less accessible. Smash has always been accessible, Melee is no exception. A high technical ceiling does not raise the technical floor. Unless you believe that the familiar, friendly faces of Zelda and Roy somehow lowered the game's skill floor.

Not less accesible, but certainly much less interesting.

 

[BO/\K]

Not less accesible, but certainly much less interesting.

I'd say for the people who play Melee competitively, if it came down to it, the Nintendo factor wouldn't matter. It is cool to have Fox McCloud fight Mario on Fountain of Dreams. But what's cooler to the competitive player is to have a game with the rules and mechanics of Melee. Similarly to how in Dota 2, all the WC3 lore is gone and names changed, but the mechanics are still there and the replacement lore isn't horrible since Valve put the work in to make it fun. But the lore that Valve has added is fluff. The core draw of Dota 2 is that it faithfully ports the mechanics and meaningful idiosyncrasies of wc3 dota to a standalone engine free from Blizzard influence/infrastucture. If it came down to it, a Dota 2-like port of Melee that carefully avoided copyright infringement while still completely porting the game would be completely acceptable. It wouldn't draw casuals to it like Melee did because of the Nintendo factor, but who cares at that point? If that happened, we would have a perfect Melee that would be free of all Nintendo influence, so there would be no worries of Nintendo pulling an EVO 2k13 again. And worries about buying Melee discs and Gamecubes or modding Wiis would be void. AND quality of life improvements could be made in the menu systems. AND potentially slight stage changes could be made to increase the neutral/CP pool if an unreasonable imbalance ever does present itself with the current stage picking rules (I'm not sure if it will).

 

[D-idara]

I'd say for the people who play Melee competitively, if it came down to it, the Nintendo factor wouldn't matter. It is cool to have Fox McCloud fight Mario on Fountain of Dreams. But what's cooler to the competitive player is to have a game with the rules and mechanics of Melee. Similarly to how in Dota 2, all the WC3 lore is gone and names changed, but the mechanics are still there and the replacement lore isn't horrible since Valve put the work in to make it fun. But the lore that Valve has added is fluff. The core draw of Dota 2 is that it faithfully ports the mechanics and meaningful idiosyncrasies of wc3 dota to a standalone engine free from Blizzard influence/infrastucture. If it came down to it, a Dota 2-like port of Melee that carefully avoided copyright infringement while still completely porting the game would be completely acceptable. It wouldn't draw casuals to it like Melee did because of the Nintendo factor, but who cares at that point?

Well, it would be one way for you guys to leave Smash and what it's supposed to be alone, so maybe it'd be cool...

 

[BO/\K]

Hm if you're interested in "Smash and what it's supposed to be" maybe you should gtfo the Melee boards d(^_^)b? This thread is meant to be for the discussion of competitive Melee in the long term due to physical constraints. The thread already got derailed enough without your smash originalist crap.

Also if you despise Melee so much how can you even like PM. That game is heavily driven by people who understand and appreciate Melee at a frame level.

 

[pizzapie7]

Well, it would be one way for you guys to leave Smash and what it's supposed to be alone, so maybe it'd be cool...

Smash is designed as a game that can be played in hundreds of ways. There is no right or wrong way to play, there is nothing that Smash is "supposed" to be. The possibilities are endless and that's why it's such a great series. So again, you can **** off with your biases and your fake moral high ground and whatever incredibly large stick you have rammed up your ass. Nobody is here to listen to you ***** and moan about how Smash should be played like this or shouldn't be played like that. Melee was able to stand the test of time because it could exist in competitive environment as well as a casual one and everywhere in between. I'd argue that because Brawl was actively made to not be competitive design choices were made that made the game less impressive on a casual level as well.

There is nothing that gets me riled up more than someone saying somebody else is having fun the wrong way. And what do we all play Smash for? To have fun. Two players staying up all night in an attempt to perfect both sides of a competitive MU does not stop you from having fun in a coin match with only bombs and Pokeballs.

 

[Rᴏb]

I feel like this is relevent

 

[D-idara]

Smash is designed as a game that can be played in hundreds of ways. There is no right or wrong way to play, there is nothing that Smash is "supposed" to be. The possibilities are endless and that's why it's such a great series. So again, you can **** off with your biases and your fake moral high ground and whatever incredibly large stick you have rammed up your ***. Nobody is here to listen to you ***** and moan about how Smash should be played like this or shouldn't be played like that. Melee was able to stand the test of time because it could exist in competitive environment as well as a casual one and everywhere in between. I'd argue that because Brawl was actively made to not be competitive design choices were made that made the game less impressive on a casual level as well.

There is nothing that gets me riled up more than someone saying somebody else is having fun the wrong way. And what do we all play Smash for? To have fun. Two players staying up all night in an attempt to perfect both sides of a competitive MU does not stop you from having fun in a coin match with only bombs and Pokeballs.

I said 'what it's supposed to be' not 'how it's supposed to be played'. Casual or competitive, Smash has always been and will always be a celebration of all things Nintendo, it's a reminder of why Nintendo gamers love Nintendo games more than any other thing the industry pushes out, it has all the trademarks of a Nintendo game, full of polish and oozing quality with extensive amounts of content.

Don't need to get all defensive because you misunderstood my comment. I brought up what Smash is supposed to be because someone suggested that Smash would even be a fraction of what it is without having all the Nintendo magic.

 

[pizzapie7]

I brought up what Smash is supposed to be because someone suggested that Smash would even be a fraction of what it is without having all the Nintendo magic.

The fact that people in this thread are even suggesting that they would still play the game without the Nintendo content should be enough to show that that is wrong. It would still be an amazingly fun game whether Fox is Fox or just some anthromorphic fox character. People play their video games for different reasons. What the game "is supposed to be" is really irrelevant, what matters is what the players see in the game and what they want it to be. "Nintendo magic" is only one reason, albeit probably the most popular one, to play the games in this series. I love Nintendo as much as the next guy, but saying that a game like Melee is only relevant because of it's Nintendo characters is underselling all the hard work put in under the hood that makes the game so great and so much fun.

 

[MookieRah]

I'm just going to say this regarding Melee being removed from Nintendo. If "Melee" were released in 2001 exactly as it is, just without Nintendo characters, I guarantee you that there would not be a community around it today (well, perhaps a very very small community). The reason why Melee was so big is because it had the Nintendo characters, it made it popular enough for people to support it's non-traditional fighting game system.

That said, if a really good game was made with similar mechanics to melee now, I believe it could do well. Air Dash Online didn't garner much love from the people, but I honestly think that it could be done. I kinda feel that part of the problem with Air Dash Online was the fact that it was too much a departure from the melee formula, but who knows.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

I love Melee, but I love Nintendo. Melee is my favorite, but I honestly just love smash in general. Along the lines people seem to forget that.

 

[otter]

so.... how do any new franchises come to be if only games that are crossovers of all nintendo games can exist? How did mario or zelda get off the ground? I love Nintendo in general and that is a fun aspect of Smash, that will keep me interested in a game for a couple days. It certainly didnt dull the blow that other m took on my soul.

And why are so many people excited for airdash online?

I think you are projecting your weaknesses on to others. If you really think the avatars are more important or equally important to the engine quality, you simply have to be a Brawl player.

 

[EPsilon933]

so.... how do any new franchises come to be if only games that are crossovers of all nintendo games can exist? How did mario or zelda get off the ground? I love Nintendo in general and that is a fun aspect of Smash, that will keep me interested in a game for a couple days. It certainly didnt dull the blow that other m took on my soul.

And why are so many people excited for airdash online?

I think you are projecting your weaknesses on to others. If you really think the avatars are more important or equally important to the engine quality, you simply have to be a Brawl player.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt8cKQx7gm4

 

[Zone]

Are you saying you would be against balance updates for Smash melee if it were possible?

I'm against rapid constant updates.

Maybe now it could use 1 update, but if that happened leave it alone for another 5-10 years so people can properly explore the characters. I'd be against an update for most of melee'a life because the game still isn't 100% figured out

 

[-ACE-]

The f**k is this thread.

I hope members who joined in 2014 will lose whatever steam causes them to sh*tpost long before this game dies.

 

[Phan7om]

I agree with Thor on a lot of stuff about what he said about Brawl. There are plenty of ATs in that game and if you master the physics you can make that game pretty fast and have a lot of IPM. Useful, nope, not at all... its still there tho, which a lot of people tend to ignore. If your definition of ATs and tech skill is wavedashing, lcancel, dash dance, and Fox being able to jump out of shine (which I think a lot of people think) then no, the game has none of that, no tech skill what so ever and Melee wouldnt either if those were taken out... Also, just cuz the game looks simple doesnt mean it is. You cant just go in there with Melee experience and expect to be the best, see Mango for proof. Even tho the game is a lot deeper than most people think... it still sucks for competitive play very very much.

- But thats not what this thread is about is it? -

Melee will die eventually, I think were all smart enough to know that. So yeah, this thread is kinda pointless cuz what... is someone going to come in here saying and genuinely believing that Melee will keep living on long after the world ends? lol No thats not how it works. If you want to argue that its 'spirit' will, then believe that I wont argue with you about things like that... just remember the same will happen with Brawl. But that game is dead right? Same thing will happen with Melee. And I already know how the smash community will die, I saw it after E3. Ill just say there wont be a competitive Smash 5 and salt will cause Melee to go soon after it comes out, if it does.

Also, I saw mention of a Wii U remake of Melee. Not saying you're wrong or anything, but honestly think about how that would go about. A large majority of people will still prefer the original over the remake by far. Why? One, it'll probably be more redone than PAL, many of the things will be changed or added to make the game "more fun". Id probably be surprised with the number of people who think the remake would be a 1:1 copy or PAL... or even worse NTSC. For example, lets say they made it so that Fox/Falco couldn't jump out of shine. THATS HUGE. I know thats a pretty over exaggerated example that most likely wont happen... but what if it did? think about it lol, do you really want a remake?

Edit: Re reading my post, its possible it could've come across like I hate Melee, am a Brawl fanboy, and dont want a remake. No, Melee is by far my favorite smash, Brawl sucks its a fact im not bandwagoning, and I hope the remake would be good thats all. Good Day~

 

[Karaoke Man]

LOL@ all the butthurt brawl fanboys trolling. Mad because you're game lasted 5 years and is gonna be completely forgotten when smash 4 comes out?

Melee is growing and continues to grow. Not die off, not stagnate, but actually GROW. I see new people at local tournaments all the time. There are even hundreds if not thousands of people that play the game casually, as a party game at home, or play 1-p uploading vids to youtube etc.

Melee is a good game. Short of a few minor changes, it is essentially a perfect game. Look at Doom. Quality games last, and their ****ty ripoffs die. Cry more.

I want you to take a step back, take a breather, and then realize....

It's the very mindset that you just expressed that partially put Brawl in the position where it is today.

Melee became much more popular because of the documentary, true. When Brawl players almost selflessly and graciously lent Melee the support they needed to be played at EVO 2013 or MLG, what happened? They turned around and they spat in our face. Brawl players do have their issues, but the unecessary, condescending elitism that you just demonstrated makes our problems worse than what they already are.

The issue here is that you are confusing subjectivty with objectivity; You are basing your opinion of "Brawl is a "bad" game" as if it was an actual fact, and it isn't. You even went as far as to say it's a "perfect" game....? Exactly how arrogant does one have to be to view something that's "perfect" and something else so horrible that it could even cause cancer? Truth is: It's actually the Melee players that can't accept that their game is busted. Wavedashing is an exploit where it breaks the fundamental grounds of the concept of zoning, but that's not what breaks the game; Dash Dancing is what makes the game broken. With Dash Dancing you almost never have to commit to anything. Such grounds does not exist and any other fighter.

That kind of mindset is a what will end Melee in due time, surely enough. Which is a shame because I actually like Melee as I do all of the Smash games, but you don't care about the players, or enjoyment of the game; you just care about the competition, which to a point is fine, but worst of all, the money you get from it. This mindset doesn't care what it has to do to get what it wants; even if that means throwing people like your friends/comrades under a RTA bus. That's also another thing.

The notion of #OneUnit is a complete joke

I'm not even talking about just Melee players, but Smash players in general. The only way in which it would apply is for the common love for Smash, but Melee players (mainly) have made it perfectly clear that they want nothing more than the destruction of just about anything Smash related that's not Melee. I hear people say all the time that the "Smash Community is a "family" " and I'm sorry, but that's just a bold-faced lie and you all know it too. Why is it a bold faced lie? Because this is a Community that was and still is built on a foundation of acquaitanceship. Most of you think that even possibly your closest "friends" are your friends, but often times they're probably not. Not to say that they AREN'T your friend as it's possible that it may or may not be the case, but everyone is confusing acquaintanceship with friendship. Don't fall for that garbage, they are NOT the same.

Putting on that "face" and telling people that lie that we are all "family" so that you can not only get what you personally want, but to rob people of the values and honesty they're trying to achieve is practically a villainous move.

Melee is getting and still is very popular, but never forget to give credit where it's due.

 

[BO/\K]

Oh my god he said dash dancing is broken oh my god

 

[Deleted member 245254]

I want you to take a step back, take a breather, and then realize....

It's the very mindset that you just expressed that partially put Brawl in the position where it is today.

Melee became much more popular because of the documentary, true. When Brawl players almost selflessly and graciously lent Melee the support they needed to be played at EVO 2013 or MLG, what happened? They turned around and they spat in our face. Brawl players do have their issues, but the unecessary, condescending elitism that you just demonstrated makes our problems worse than what they already are.

The issue here is that you are confusing subjectivty with objectivity; You are basing your opinion of "Brawl is a "bad" game" as if it was an actual fact, and it isn't. You even went as far as to say it's a "perfect" game....? Exactly how arrogant does one have to be to view something that's "perfect" and something else so horrible that it could even cause cancer? Truth is: It's actually the Melee players that can't accept that their game is busted. Wavedashing is an exploit where it breaks the fundamental grounds of the concept of zoning, but that's not what breaks the game; Dash Dancing is what makes the game broken. With Dash Dancing you almost never have to commit to anything. Such grounds does not exist and any other fighter.

That kind of mindset is a what will end Melee in due time, surely enough. Which is a shame because I actually like Melee as I do all of the Smash games, but you don't care about the players, or enjoyment of the game; you just care about the competition, which to a point is fine, but worst of all, the money you get from it. This mindset doesn't care what it has to do to get what it wants; even if that means throwing people like your friends/comrades under a RTA bus. That's also another thing.

The notion of #OneUnit is a complete joke

I'm not even talking about just Melee players, but Smash players in general. The only way in which it would apply is for the common love for Smash, but Melee players (mainly) have made it perfectly clear that they want nothing more than the destruction of just about anything Smash related that's not Melee. I hear people say all the time that the "Smash Community is a "family" " and I'm sorry, but that's just a bold-faced lie and you all know it too. Why is it a bold faced lie? Because this is a Community that was and still is built on a foundation of acquaitanceship. Most of you think that even possibly your closest "friends" are your friends, but often times they're probably not. Not to say that they AREN'T your friend as it's possible that it may or may not be the case, but everyone is confusing acquaintanceship with friendship. Don't fall for that garbage, they are NOT the same.

Putting on that "face" and telling people that lie that we are all "family" so that you can not only get what you personally want, but to rob people of the values and honesty they're trying to achieve is practically a villainous move.

Melee is getting and still is very popular, but never forget to give credit where it's due.

Listen dude I agree with your distaste for Melee elitism and what not but the whole 2nd half of this post including your final statement don't seem relevant to anything.

 

[EPsilon933]

Also, I saw mention of a Wii U remake of Melee. Not saying you're wrong or anything, but honestly think about how that would go about. A large majority of people will still prefer the original over the remake by far. Why? One, it'll probably be more redone than PAL, many of the things will be changed or added to make the game "more fun". Id probably be surprised with the number of people who think the remake would be a 1:1 copy or PAL... or even worse NTSC. For example, lets say they made it so that Fox/Falco couldn't jump out of shine. THATS HUGE. I know thats a pretty over exaggerated example that most likely wont happen... but what if it did? think about it lol, do you really want a remake?

Remake? As in not a lazy port? Wouldn't that be much easier and more profitable for Nintendo? Among the versions of the game, they should ideally release the PAL version on Wii U VC. It has better character balance among the top 8. Fox and Sheik are slightly nerfed