Reasons I think Sm4sh can become the highlight Smash game @ EVO

[Mr.Jackpot]

Everything you said except for #2 is exactly what people said about Brawl. When it comes down to it, how well a scene succeeds in the long term is based around the gameplay and the skill cap, everything else is icing on top that won't help or last in the long term (compare 08 Melee and Brawl scene to 13 Melee and Brawl scene). From what Sakurai's said so far I can't see it being a competitively deeper game (bar a whole bunch of great accidents like MvC2, but they'll probably be patched out).

I didn't say there was anything wrong with Melee (even though there are flaws, since no game is perfect), I just prefer a game that's a just a tad bit slower paced. A game where you have more of a sense what's happening on screen. This is essentially what I'm looking for:

Though I'd rather see the game played by competitive players to see how that'd look.

Trailer was hype but that gameplay video was pretty awful and higher level Smash 4 better look nothing like that. As with any faster-paced game, you can see what's going on if you actually learn how to play it, and the few crazy tech/walljump/crouch-cancel/Mango moments that you have to watch twice are the hypest youtube moments and are usually explained by the commentary.

I'm kind of confused to why so many people in this thread seem to care about Evo when they'll suck up Smash 4 just like they sucked up Brawl no matter what the gameplay will be like and haven't been to a Smash tournament in their lives.

 

[greenluigiman2]

What do I have to not be serious about? Being a different style of game and being a game with a lot of mistakes and inherent problems are different circumstances. Just because Brawl was directed with a philosophy towards the former doesn't mean it dodged the bullet that was the latter.

Whether or not Brawl "dodged the bullet that was the latter" is subjective though.You can NOT prove it. I can point out numerous things in Melee that I see as a mistake and a problem, but you might disagree.

What can be proven is which game got a higher critical rating, which was Brawl... just saying.

Everything you said except for #2 and #4 is exactly what people said about Brawl.

Fixed

Trailer was hype but that gameplay video was pretty awful and higher level Smash 4 better look nothing like that.

It was only bad because of the way they were playing. In terms of the actual gameplay, it looked like what I've always wanted in a Smash game.

As with any faster-paced game, you can see what's going on if you actually learn how to play it, and the few crazy tech/walljump/crouch-cancel/Mango moments that you have to watch twice are the hypest youtube moments and are usually explained by the commentary.

I know Melee dude, I've played it for every year it's been out. I don't need someone explain to me why my opinion is wrong. Also, I didn't say I can't see what's going on, I said I prefer a game that has more of a sense of what's happening on screen.

 

[MrGamer419]

if every single gamecube controller on the planet stops working then i can see this happening

 

[Ulevo]

It isn't subjective though.

An example of subjective is me talking about whether or not I think the Brawl airdodge was a better choice over the Melee airdodge. Or how the removal of L-Cancelling was preferable versus leaving it in. These can't be proven because they're (mostly) preference based, even if you could make compelling arguments for them.

An example of objective is crap like having a Marth infinitely grabbing Lucas in to a kill move. Or how horrendously balanced the cast of characters were. Or how removing mechanics like wall grapples did nothing but remove elements from the game without giving something in exchange.

I'm not going to argue about this with you right now when I'm going to be talking about it all later. But you're either extremely uninformed of the specific intricacies of the game and how they effect competitive play or you're turning a blind eye because you enjoy playing Brawl.

 

[greenluigiman2]

It isn't subjective though.

Yes it is, end of discussion.

I didn't read the rest of your post, but if you want to "prove" it go ahead and make a video or a new topic or something like you said you would.

 

[kackamee]

It isn't subjective though.

An example of subjective is me talking about whether or not I think the Brawl airdodge was a better choice over the Melee airdodge. Or how the removal of L-Cancelling was preferable versus leaving it in. These can't be proven because they're (mostly) preference based, even if you could make compelling arguments for them.

An example of objective is crap like having a Marth infinitely grabbing Lucas in to a kill move. Or how horrendously balanced the cast of characters were. Or how removing mechanics like wall grapples did nothing but remove elements from the game without giving something in exchange.

I'm not going to argue about this with you right now when I'm going to be talking about it all later. But you're either extremely uninformed of the specific intricacies of the game and how they effect competitive play or you're turning a blind eye because you enjoy playing Brawl.

Wobbling was in Melee to counter your example.
And please explain to me in what way Brawl was "horrendously balanced"? Outside of Metaknight and Ganondorf, the two major outliers, the rest of Brawl's cast was actually fairly well balanced for the size of the roster/type of game it is.

 

[greenluigiman2]

An example of objective is crap like having a Marth infinitely grabbing Lucas in to a kill move. Or how horrendously balanced the cast of characters were. Or how removing mechanics like wall grapples did nothing but remove elements from the game without giving something in exchange.

Okay, I went ahead and read the rest of your post... and you're still wrong. This is subjective. This is only a problem or a mistake if you make it one. I've beaten Meta Knights with Ganondorf and Zelda. I've never been infinitely grabbed by Marth. None of this affects the overall game. This is all subjective problems for people who play competitively. YOU ARE WRONG.

 

[Jaedrik]

And this is what we call opinion. (:

The difference is that I can objectively prove this. lol

Wait... so you're actually serious? I... I'm...

Depth lends to competition in a fighting game, it is always, beyond a doubt, better to have a deep game than a shallow game. Fighting games, in this way, must be competitive to be good, or in comparative words, better. This is not disregarding the casual player, the casual player does little with depth, and is rarely influenced by it, there is absolutely NO harm to them done when depth is added. Unless you consider more skilled people bodying them harmful . . . which it isn't.

Brawl had less depth than Melee, therefore it can easily be considered a 'mess up', objectively.
Now, if you don't consider depth at all important, then there you go, but in game design, it is universally considered that more depth = better, complexity is the real killer that sometimes, unfortunately, goes along with it.
Now, attempting to evaluate the relationship between the depth and complexity in Melee is difficult, I for one find it easy, the mechanics are all incredibly fluid, I mean, come on, literally all you have to do to SHFFL is tap jump, aerial attack, press down, hit a bumper button, fast. That's not complex. Wavedashing is just jumping then immediately after pressing shield and a downwards diagonal direction. These things are not complex, but they add incredible amounts of depth.
Brawl, on the other hand, was neither complex nor deep, admittedly less complex than Melee, but only by hairs of widths at that, but far less deep, so much so that I consider it a mess up, that is all.

I encourage you all to check out Extra Credits, a series about sound game design, they have a ton of videos and they are all very, very informative.

 

[greenluigiman2]

Brawl had less depth than Melee, therefore it can easily be considered a 'mess up', objectively.
Now, if you don't consider depth at all important, then there you go, but in game design, it is universally considered that more depth = better, complexity is the real killer that sometimes, unfortunately, goes along with it.

I think you people need to learn the meanings of objective and subjective.

 

[Mr.Showtime]

To be honest...if anything. Brawl will die when Smash4 is released. I kind of doubt people will go back to that game to play it competitively. Kind of how people still play Melee over 64. Its just a polished version of it.

 

[Ulevo]

Wobbling was in Melee to counter your example.
And please explain to me in what way Brawl was "horrendously balanced"? Outside of Metaknight and Ganondorf, the two major outliers, the rest of Brawl's cast was actually fairly well balanced for the size of the roster/type of game it is.

Yes, because match ups like Pikachu vs Fox are acceptable.

Also, what are you referring to about Wobbling? I'm not understanding your point.

Okay, I went ahead and read the rest of your post... and you're still wrong. This is subjective. This is only a problem or a mistake if you make it one. I've beaten Meta Knights with Ganondorf and Zelda. I've never been infinitely grabbed by Marth. None of this affects the overall game. This is all subjective problems for people who play competitively. YOU ARE WRONG.

What? First of all, your personal score on who you can and cannot beat doesn't have any merit here. Secondly, how is this a subjective problem? We're not talking about whether or not you can win against these tactics. We're talking about whether or not these are good design concepts for the games overall health. Ask yourself, would you intentionally put these or leave these things in a Smash game if you were in charge of the games development? No sensible game designer would.

Also, as per the very last line of your post. The entire context we're having these discussions under is for competitive play. If that is not the case, it essentially means is that you're pushing your casual values on what effects the games competitive scene negatively on a forum for competitive players. In which case it's a waste of time to talk with you.

I want you to keep that in mind so we're on the same page.

 

[Jaedrik]

I think you people need to learn the meanings of objective and subjective.

It is a law of sound game design that more depth is better. There's no two ways about it.

 

[kackamee]

Brawl had less depth than Melee, therefore it can easily be considered a 'mess up', objectively.Now, if you don't consider depth at all important, then there you go, but in game design, it is universally considered that more depth = better, complexity is the real killer that sometimes, unfortunately, goes along with it.

This whole comment is subjective in itself.
What you said about it being "universally" considered that depth=better, that could be taken in a multitude of ways to the point where I don't even consider it true. Depth could be in terms of content, gameplay, etc.
Assuming that we are talking about gameplay, there are games that have so much "depth" that much of it isn't used and is just extra content for the sake of being there. Does that make it a better game just because a character has 70 moves when 20 of them aren't even useful? Saying that Brawl doesn't have as much "depth" as Melee (which is subjective), doesn't inherently make it a mistake, or a mess up.

 

[Mr.Showtime]

It is a law of sound game design that more depth is better. There's no two ways about it.

This is true. Depth gives a game more longevity (perfect example of why Melee still exists). Brawl can be played competitively too, but just not on the same level. This is why Melee outshines Brawl at EVO. The competitive scene for Melee is ENORMOUS compared to the Brawl competitive scene. (138k viewers at EVO proved this)

 

[greenluigiman2]

What? First of all, your personal score on who you can and cannot beat doesn't have any merit here.

Yes it does, because it renders the issues of "balancing" irrelevant. If the game wasn't created to be played solely competitively, then balance is only a subjective problem. I often play Brawl casually with my sisters and my friends because everybody loves Smash. None of them even know which characters are the best. Most of them think Ike and Sonic are. If you keep the closed mind that you have then you'll never understand this

Secondly, how is this a subjective problem? We're not talking about whether or not you can win against these tactics. We're talking about whether or not these are good design concepts for the games overall health.

Good design is SUBJECTIVE.

Ask yourself, would you intentionally put these or leave these things in a Smash game if you were in charge of the games development? No sensible game designer would.

The fact that you're even asking me this just goes to show that the matter at hand is subjective. There are a lot of things I would do differently than both Melee AND Brawl. Things that to me, would make the game better, but to you, may make the game worse. It's all subjective.

 

[Ulevo]

This whole comment is subjective in itself.
What you said about it being "universally" considered that depth=better, that could be taken in a multitude of ways to the point where I don't even consider it true. Depth could be in terms of content, gameplay, etc.
Assuming that we are talking about gameplay, there are games that have so much "depth" that much of it isn't used and is just extra content for the sake of being there. Does that make it a better game just because a character has 70 moves when 20 of them aren't even useful? Saying that Brawl doesn't have as much "depth" as Melee (which is subjective), doesn't inherently make it a mistake, or a mess up.

That isn't depth, that's complexity. Depth by definition is a layer of substance within a games design that allows for variable, rewarding, relevant decisions that can be made by the player. Anything beyond that is perceived depth, or complexity. It's important to distinguish between the two.

 

[kackamee]

Yes, because match ups like Pikachu vs Fox are acceptable.

Also, what are you referring to about Wobbling? I'm not understanding your point.

What? First of all, your personal score on who you can and cannot beat doesn't have any merit here. Secondly, how is this a subjective problem? We're not talking about whether or not you can win against these tactics. We're talking about whether or not these are good design concepts for the games overall health. Ask yourself, would you intentionally put these or leave these things in a Smash game if you were in charge of the games development? No sensible game designer would.

Also, as per the very last line of your post. The entire context we're having these discussions under is for competitive play. If that is not the case, it essentially means is that you're pushing your casual values on what effects the games competitive scene negatively on a forum for competitive players. In which case it's a waste of time to talk with you.

I want you to keep that in mind so we're on the same page.

Your point that Marth being able to grab release Lucas into a move is bad game design, also refers to wobbling, among many other grab shenanigans in Melee.

 

[kackamee]

This is true. Depth gives a game more longevity (perfect example of why Melee still exists). Brawl can be played competitively too, but just not on the same level. This is why Melee outshines Brawl at EVO. The competitive scene for Melee is ENORMOUS compared to the Brawl competitive scene. (138k viewers at EVO proved this)

Brawl wasn't at EVO, so you can't say that it wouldn't have reached these numbers.

That isn't depth, that's complexity. Depth by definition is a layer of substance within a games design that allows for variable, rewarding, relevant decisions that can be made by the player. Anything beyond that is perceived depth, or complexity. It's important to distinguish between the two.

Sure, it's depth. It's adding more variables that could potentially have relevant decisions. Having more moves means more options. But having more moves doesn't make for an inherently better game even if it does give it more depth.

 

[greenluigiman2]

It is a law of sound game design that more depth is better. There's no two ways about it.

There are no laws to sound game design.

This is like saying Transformes objectively sucks because there are laws to sound film making. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Ulevo]

Yes it does, because it renders the issues of "balancing" irrelevant. If the game wasn't created to be played solely competitively, then balance is only a subjective problem. I often play Brawl casually with my sisters and my friends because everybody loves Smash. None of them even know which characters are the best. Most of them think Ike and Sonic are. If you keep the closed mind that you have then you'll never understand this

We're talking under the context of competitive play specifically because that is the basis for this whole discussion. If you can't understand that, why are you even on this website contributing to these topics? You're doing more harm than good in doing so.

YThe fact that you're even asking me this just goes to show that the matter at hand is subjective. There are a lot of things I would do differently than both Melee AND Brawl. Things that to me, would make the game better, but to you, may make the game worse. It's all subjective.

No, it's not. There are very established, very accepted things in our society (not just games) that can be termed politically correct by an objective standpoint because of the foundation we've placed on that context. We don't need to argue that the world is a sphere because the shape of the earth is precisely what constitutes a sphere in the first place. That is an objective statement. It's also generally accepted in gaming that design choices that remove the relevant choices from the game, or otherwise negatively impact the players experience (in this case competitively) like with the example I gave on how Marth can infinitely and easily chain grab Lucas to death, are objectively bad.

If you can't understand this then we won't make any progress talking about it further.

 

[Mind Ranger]

Smash 4 can get into EVO without needing to "replace" Melee. They aren't even really dependent on each other. Just because Melee is in EVO doesn't mean Smash 4 can't be.

Agreed, although I think the ssb4 tournaments will be more hyped, since they are a much newer fresher experience.

 

[Ulevo]

Brawl wasn't at EVO, so you can't say that it wouldn't have reached these numbers.
Sure, it's depth. It's adding more variables that could potentially have relevant decisions. Having more moves means more options. But having more moves doesn't make for an inherently better game even if it does give it more depth.

Having more moves on its own doesn't merit a better game. Having more moves that have their own distinguishing properties and merits does, provided the number of moves does not overwhelm the player and make effective decision making indistinguishable.

 

[Mr.Jackpot]

You're point that Marth being able to grab release Lucas into a move is bad game design, also refers to wobbling, among many other grab shenanigans in Melee.

Marth has a really easy time getting grabs in Brawl and they're an integral part of his neutral/approach game even outside of grab release advantaged match-ups because of his huge grab range. Grab release shenanigans also work at 0% on unconditionally, and they're extremely low execution on top of everything else.

Ice Climbers have a terrible time setting up grabs because of their poor grab range among other things, and wobbling only works when you have Nana, who someone who knows the matchup will always split up first, and only works at 40%-50% onwards if it's executed perfectly.

 

[Mr.Jackpot]

Agreed, although I think the ssb4 tournaments will be more hyped, since they are a much newer fresher experience.

That's what we all said (and hoped) about Brawl.

 

[greenluigiman2]

We're talking under the context of competitive play specifically because that is the basis for this whole discussion.

No we're not. This little discussion that we're having now has nothing to do with the actual topic of this thread. It's like you're not even paying attention. The basis for the thread's discussion is whether or not Sm4sh can make it big at EVO.

You said Sakurai "messed up" with Brawl and that you could objectivity prove it. This implies that you're speaking about the game as a whole. Stop derailing my thread.

 

[kackamee]

Having more moves on its own doesn't merit a better game. Having more moves that have their own distinguishing properties and merits does, provided the number of moves does not overwhelm the player and make effective decision making indistinguishable.

I agree.

Marth has a really easy time getting grabs in Brawl and they're an integral part of his neutral/approach game even outside of grab release advantaged match-ups because of his huge grab range. Grab release shenanigans also work at 0% on unconditionally, and they're extremely low execution on top of everything else.

Ice Climbers have a terrible time setting up grabs because of their poor grab range among other things, and wobbling only works when you have Nana, who someone who knows the matchup will always split up first, and only works at 40%-50% onwards if it's executed perfectly.

All of this didn't really matter. How they get the grabs has nothing to do with the "bad gameplay design" that is being referred to.

 

[Ulevo]

Marth has a really easy time getting grabs in Brawl and they're an integral part of his neutral/approach game even outside of grab release advantaged match-ups because of his huge grab range. Grab release shenanigans also work at 0% on unconditionally, and they're extremely low execution on top of everything else.

Ice Climbers have a terrible time setting up grabs because of their poor grab range among other things, and wobbling only works when you have Nana, who someone who knows the matchup will always split up first, and only works at 40%-50% onwards if it's executed perfectly.

It's a lot more then that. Melee's shields are not broken. In fact, you can effectively pressure characters inside their shield and punish them for shielding should they opt for that option. There is also a lot more effective offensive options to space and work around a characters grab game in Melee, while those options are in dire supply in Brawl. It's exactly why you see M2K platform camp with Meta Knight on Smashville and do nothing but rising Tornado and dairs against Ice Climbers, while someone like Mango vs Wobbles can actually rush down an IC's in Melee despite the threat of the grab.

Although I'm not sure why we're talking about this.

No we're not. This little discussion that we're having now has nothing to do with the actual topic of this thread. It's like you're not even paying attention. The basis for the thread's discussion is whether or not Sm4sh can make it big at EVO.

You said Sakurai "messed up" with Brawl and that you could objectivity prove it. This implies that you're speaking about the game as a whole. Stop derailing my thread.

Why would I be talking about the game as a whole on a competitive Smash website? Even though I genuinely believe the competitive facets of the game directly and positively/negatively effect the casual aspects, it is not my main focus.

You should be perfectly aware of what the context is of this discussion.

 

[Blazing Pit]

So, why are you guys fighting? Who cares if some people think Melee is better than Brawl or vise versa? Who cares if one thinks that the Sm4sh game is gonna replace Melee or not? The important thing is that PIT FINALLY HAS SHIELDS ON BOTH SIDES, which is awesome because I can now not worry about which side pit is facing. It also sucks because more people are gonna use him, and it makes me feel less different (not saying I was the only one to use him though).

 

[Blazing Pit]

Obviously, shields on both sides isn't the only change to him, but it is my favorite thing about him.

 

[Mr.Showtime]

Brawl wasn't at EVO, so you can't say that it wouldn't have reached these numbers.
Sure, it's depth. It's adding more variables that could potentially have relevant decisions. Having more moves means more options. But having more moves doesn't make for an inherently better game even if it does give it more depth.

Brawl has been at EVO in the past....I went to EVO in 09 and entered Brawl then.
If you didn't know...guess we know how much publicity that got. =P

 

[greenluigiman2]

So, why are you guys fighting? Who cares if some people think Melee is better than Brawl or vise versa?

I don't care at all. I'm arguing the fact that which game is better is subjective. This Ulevo clown is trying to tell me that Sakurai "objectively" messed up with Brawl.

Who cares if one thinks that the Sm4sh game is gonna replace Melee or not?

Because I really wanna see the game at EVO.

 

[Jaedrik]

This whole comment is subjective in itself.
What you said about it being "universally" considered that depth=better, that could be taken in a multitude of ways to the point where I don't even consider it true. Depth could be in terms of content, gameplay, etc.
Assuming that we are talking about gameplay, there are games that have so much "depth" that much of it isn't used and is just extra content for the sake of being there. Does that make it a better game just because a character has 70 moves when 20 of them aren't even useful? Saying that Brawl doesn't have as much "depth" as Melee (which is subjective), doesn't inherently make it a mistake, or a mess up.

I think you people need to learn the meanings of objective and subjective.

Don't you understand? Brawl, not having as much depth as Melee makes it worse in the department of gameplay, especially when considering capacity to which a wide range of peoples can enjoy the gameplay. We are, in effect, removing all other thoughts of enjoyment such as character content, or stages. I can then apply this language to a mess up, an intentional mess up.

What we assert is
that such a thing exists, and
that it has a certain objective quality, which we call depth, to distinguish it from other qualities -- volume of content, complexity -- with which it is not identical; while
our statement further implies that the same quality will similarly appear to any normally constituted man, i.e. will affect his sense in the same way that it affects our own. (as in the input is the same, the outcome can indeed be different and still be objective.)
Accordingly, if in the real world such a condition of things obtains -- if, that is to say, the thing in question does exist and has in fact some peculiar and distinctive property whereby it affects my senses in a certain peculiar and distinctive way -- my judgement is true.

There's a lot of philosophy involved in such things, not just semantics, be careful about your 'objective' and 'subjective' there yourselves, don't brandish it and wave it around as such, and I'm sorry that I did so earlier.
However, the statement still stands, Brawl has less depth than Melee, depth by its definition in relation to game design is inherently a good thing, and monstrously so, and as it relates to my outcome, gives me greater flavor in the game and all people capacity to enjoy it.

 

[Mr.Jackpot]

All of this didn't really matter. How they get the grabs has nothing to do with the "bad gameplay design" that is being referred to.

Yes it does. If Brawl Marth had Melee Ness's grab range and Luigi's traction you can be sure as hell that Lucas and Ness mains wouldn't be worried about it. Wobbling only worker at a high/mid percent makes it near indistinguishable from other solid punishes in the game like Fox's Shine->USmash or Sheik's DThrow->Fair.

 

[greenluigiman2]

Don't you understand? Brawl, not having as much depth as Melee makes it worse in the department of gameplay

Tell that to the millions of people who prefer Brawl. If Melee were the objectivity better game and Brawl was the objectivity worse game then that means it is something that would be acknowleged by every single person who's played both games. A game CANNOT be factually good or bad. It's all a matter of opinion. I can't believe anybody's even arguing against this fact.

 

[Mr.Jackpot]

All of this didn't really matter. How they get the grabs has nothing to do with the "bad gameplay design" that is being referred to.

Yes it does. If Brawl Marth had Melee Ness's grab range and Luigi's traction you can be sure as hell that Lucas and Ness mains wouldn't be worried about it. Wobbling only worker at a high/mid percent makes it near indistinguishable from other solid punishes in the game like Fox's Shine->USmash or Sheik's DThrow->Fair.

 

[kackamee]

Obviously, shields on both sides isn't the only change to him, but it is my favorite thing about him.

Welcome to Smashboards! And we aren't fighting, we are just arguing on whether Brawl was a 'Mess up' or not. Also, try not to double post, try to edit your first post. Just a heads up (:

Brawl has been at EVO in the past....I went to EVO in 09 and entered Brawl then.
If you didn't know...guess we know how much publicity that got. =P

Brawl at EVO 09 had items, smash balls, etc. It's irrelevant to now. And I forget how many views Brawl got at Apex 2013, but I remember it being a lot. And if it could ride the viewership that EVO itself set up for Melee, I'm very sure it could've gotten many viewers too had it been there instead.

 

[Jaedrik]

Tell that to the millions of people who prefer Brawl. If Melee were the objectivity better game and Brawl was the objectivity worse game then that means it is something that would be acknowleged by every single person who's played both games. A game CANNOT be factually good or bad. It's all a matter of opinion. I can't believe anybody's even arguing against this fact.

We are, in effect, removing all other thoughts of enjoyment such as character content, or stages. I can then apply this language to a mess up, an intentional mess up.

our statement further implies that the same quality will similarly appear to any normally constituted man, i.e. will affect his sense in the same way that it affects our own. (as in the input is the same, the outcome can indeed be different and still be objective.)
Accordingly, if in the real world such a condition of things obtains -- if, that is to say, the thing in question does exist and has in fact some peculiar and distinctive property whereby it affects my senses in a certain peculiar and distinctive way -- my judgement is true.

You seem to have missed some of my post.

 

[Mr.Showtime]

Brawl EVO 09 didn't have items.

http://www.smashboards.com/threads/...d-doubles-july-17th-19th-las-vegas-nv.229075/

 

[Mr.Jackpot]

Tell that to the millions of people who prefer Brawl. If Melee were the objectivity better game and Brawl was the objectivity worse game then that means it is something that would be acknowleged by every single person who's played both games. A game CANNOT be factually good or bad. It's all a matter of opinion. I can't believe anybody's even arguing against this fact.

People have different default preferences but it's definitely possible to break down a game in terms of it's depth, technical execution, and pacing by analyzing it's mechanics and metagame and it's been done time and time again. But you can shut your ears and and be this guy all day and no one will stop you.

 

[greenluigiman2]

You seem to have missed some of my post.

It doesn't matter what the rest of your post said, the part that I quoted was false. I didn't read the rest because it's not important to me.

but it's definitely possible to break down a game in terms of it's depth, technical execution, and pacing by analyzing it's mechanics and metagame and it's been done time and time again.

Of course it's possible, I never denied that and it doesn't change anything. The overall quality of a game will always differ based on who's playing it. This means that Sakurai "messing up" Brawl is not something that can be objectively proven, which is what I'm arguing. To me, Sakurai DID NOT mess up Brawl. To me, Brawl is a great game.