Sakurai does not want Smash to be a competitive franchise

[cjrocker]

If it just boils down to personal preference, what's the point of the debate?

Because a)we as humans are naturally competitive, or b)people give obviously stupid reasons for said preferences and fail to back them up with logic.

 

[Dark Sonic]

^^Bingo.

P.S. it seems like flyinfilipino likes to start debates.

 

[flyinfilipino]

^^Bingo.

P.S. it seems like flyinfilipino likes to start debates.

Erm, I didn't start anything here.

I just wanted to know what you're looking for in these debates.

 

[OmegaXXII]

Question. If it's alright for you to hate Brawl, why is it unacceptable to hate Melee? You seem to treat preferring Brawl as thought it were a defect of character.

because...

1. "we" Melee players have more than enough to back up any reason to say why it's better.

2. Brawl players on the other hand, aren't providing any legitimate reasons as to why Brawl is actually better, just saying stuff like "because it's has more characters", that's not good enough.

but enough about that, Sakurai should just trace back and take a good look at what he's done wrong with Brawl and actually put some emphasis into improving on things that needed working such as online lag for example.

 

[Firus]

Well, from the point of view of a once ignorant now partially-knowledgable 08er, most of us 08ers do come in here ignorant. But ignorance and stupidity are two different things, with ignorance being a lack of knowledge and stupidity being the inability to learn (or something close to it). The problem, however, is that the most ignorant 08ers aren't here for competitive Smash, meaning at least comp on a level of going to tourneys with more than their inner circle of friends. (Personally, I came here to learn Sonic, because there's no way in hell you can even compete with him without knowing certain info about him.) They present no meaningful info or feedback, try to challenge what's generally accepted with no grounds of backup, say that edgehogging is cheap, etc., and that's going to happen. I remember seeing this one sig about how M2K said that Mewtwo was the best character in the game when he was new here (02 was the year said statement was made), but now M2K is one of, if not, the best. That's not saying that everyone will be M2K, but everyone has the potential to learn, and what the 08er stereotype is at the base is that an 08er is unwilling to learn. To me, this has proven to go half and half... you have 08ers who came here with a base of info and after time has passed learned enough about to Smash to at least be competent, and then you have 08ers who come here with the same base of info and fail to learn completely. The latter of the 08ers are who give the rest of the 08ers a bad name.

Yes. This is exactly it.
I was ignorant when I first joined as well. There's definitely a difference between simply not knowing and simply being an unaccepting idiot. Truthfully, I was probably an unaccepting idiot at first. I had the mindset that anyone going back to Melee was a moron, and was at first not willing to accept that Brawl was worse because...for some reason, the concept seemed morally wrong. But as time went on, and actually, thanks to this thread, I realized that it's not black and white and...yeah. I just didn't realize how poor of a game Brawl was.

But then there are people who will always like Brawl and who will always bring stupid arguments (or none at all) to the table. Those people are the kind who give '08ers a bad rep.

Tu respicio.

OH MY GOD.

YOU USED LATIN.

YOU WIN AT LIFE.
(At least, I believe you did.)

Spoiler

tu ad vitam vicis

If it just boils down to personal preference, what's the point of the debate?

If politics really just boil down to personal preference and opinion, why debate those?
Because honestly, they do, when you think about it. Politics are opinion.

 

[flyinfilipino]

If politics really just boil down to personal preference and opinion, why debate those?
Because honestly, they do, when you think about it. Politics are opinion.

Isn't the debate supposed to be about which game is competitively a better choice, either Melee or Brawl? If almost all the people that matter have pretty much come to a general concensus, then...what?

 

[GofG]

Isn't the debate supposed to be about which game is competitively a better choice, either Melee or Brawl? If almost all the people that matter have pretty much come to a general concensus, then...what?

Shhh... we aren't allowed to talk about that.

 

[Corigames]

The thing is:

Even if Melee supporters reclaim Melee as the singular Smash tournament title, there are still going to be constant flows of people coming here and other places to learn competitive Brawl. No matter what we say, new people will come and they will do it for brawl. Does this mean there is no way to truly settle the debate? Probably... Does it really matter? Not really... however, I would like to see Melee and Brawl on more balanced terms than what they are now.

 

[flyinfilipino]

The thing is:

Even if Melee supporters reclaim Melee as the singular Smash tournament title, there are still going to be constant flows of people coming here and other places to learn competitive Brawl. No matter what we say, new people will come and they will do it for brawl. Does this mean there is no way to truly settle the debate? Probably... Does it really matter? Not really... however, I would like to see Melee and Brawl on more balanced terms than what they are now.

What do you mean by "balanced terms"?

 

[Corigames]

As many Melee tournaments as Brawl tournaments in tournaments over time and attendance.

 

[Dark Sonic]

^^That would be sweet!!

 

[Mardyke]

Melee players have given their reasons for disliking Brawl multiple times. Brawl players have not given a reason why they dislike said game, and the few that do merely cling to stereotypes as their main argument. I would love to see a Brawl supporter say they like Brawl more than Melee without the "Cuz I say so" attitude, or the half ***** "Melee 2.0" debate.

2. Brawl players on the other hand, aren't providing any legitimate reasons as to why Brawl is actually better, just saying stuff like "because it's has more characters", that's not good enough.

I've no doubt someone has, but just to clarify, has anyone on the Melee side actually asked?

I'll admit, from my experience on this thread (yes I'm an 08er and haven't seen every other Brawl-vs.-Melee thread, please don't cling onto that) it seems as if you're being ballsy enough to even just say that you like Brawl more and are willing to defend it. But I gladly can speak for why I personally like Brawl more if you don't mind putting up with me talking about Brawl in general, not just from a competitive or for-fun standpoint, including its gameplay aspect (which lest we forget constitutes my opinion and my opinion alone, people are free and encouraged to express themselves, maintain their own standpoints and/or personally disagree.)

I'd also like to stress that I also adore Melee and consider it a brilliant game, for the record.


Firstly, consider what a 'proper' sequel is. Is it updating the game for another generation? I began considering the question when I got Halo 3 and dug right into it. The game was fun, it was shiny, it was whatever you could logically want, but it somehow felt...too familiar. The numerous nods and tributes to the previous Halo games, while heartwarming for at least the first time through, started to become stale for me rather quickly.

It didn't add up for me: by all means Halo 3 was a great game, wasn't it? So why wasn't I feeling tingly about it the same way I did with the original. The Assault Rifle was back, they showed me some Halo places, they set up the script and everything, so why wasn't I feeling the special thrill of it like before?

The answer I got was that it wasn't that complete a sequel. See, from my definition, a sequel isn't just an update, it's an evolution. Something that differs from its predecessor, yet captures the spirit and feelings that made it amiable, so that they can both be cherished. It isn't best if a follow-up simply replaces the original, or the point of playing it.

Which is the long way of saying that's why I like Brawl so much. It's a good sequel, if nothing else. In terms of the series it has its own charm, its own soul, which doesn't necessarily replace Melee's, it doesn't deprive it of any legacy other than "yeah, this was the second game. The third pretty much added more to it". It isn't Melee 2.0, in the same way that Melee was not Super Smash Bros. 2.0 I was impressed by how much different Melee was to the original Smash Bros., which is partially why I loved it so much. It felt like a real sequel. I find Brawl easy to appreciate because it's not trying to compete with Melee. I suppose it's arguable as to whether or not this whole point is relevant, but I still consider it important, especially when we look at how polished a game Brawl is.

Like it or not, I don't see how anyone can call Brawl a game that hasn't had any level of commitment put into its development. One thing that very much impresses me about it - yes, on a level high enough to warrant favouritism - is the amount of polish the game overall was able to receive. I'm not sure whether you want me to focus on the competitive aspect, so I'll refrain from adding the overall impression just yet.

As for gameplay, the obvious factor, I decided to go back to Melee just before posting and do a good runthrough of it to see how it felt, then go through Brawl to compare. I honestly liked the way Brawl plays more. The air dodge was implemented much better and dodging on the ground actually feels viable. The slightly slower pace gives both players more elbow room to think and act, and still retains the hectic fury the series is synonymous with. The physics feel smoother in Brawl, despite the speed, and better to use in a sense that transcends simply having a more recent engine. I found some combos easier and harder to pull off than others in both games, and the tuning of characters accustomed me better in Brawl than Melee (I don't care if Captain Falcon's knee of justice isn't demonic any more, his regular jabs are nasty now :D ). It may not have wavedashing, but I honestly feel happier on Brawl than Melee. (To clarify, Melee is still awesome - remember that I don't think that Brawl was intended to replace Melee's flavour, just add to the Super Smash Bros. series).

There are probably numerous other details I'm missing, and many more that I've listed that people disagree with. That's fine. I don't mind Melee continuing to thrive at all - in fact, I'd encourage it, if that's what people truly want to do. But at the same time I honestly prefer Brawl from a competitive standpoint.

Spoiler

And now for the above to be written off as disrespectful/redundant/however you like. :D

 

[Jack Kieser]

...and in about 5 minutes, either coreygames, RDK, Dark Sonic, or Yuna will come in and tear your post to shreads.

 

[Mardyke]

...and in about 5 minutes, either coreygames, RDK, Dark Sonic, or Yuna will come in and tear your post to shreads.

im new to this game n the shopkeeper 4got to add teh manual sir how do I block????

 

[Genoisdabest]

I've been saying this for a while in the other related topics. The competitive scene was the brain child of the fans, not Sakurai. He essentially meant it to be another party game; we the people took it to a different level. Personally, I think both ways of playing are perfectly fine. I love a 3-stock, no items battle on Final Destination just as much as I love a battle with items flying all over the place. That was the vision, guys. It was MEANT to be random, goofy, and completely nuts. There's nothing wrong with mastering a character and winning tournaments, but don't hold it against the guy next to you if Snorlax wins a match for him.

 

[Iron Thorn]

As to why I like Brawl better: In Melee, I had pretty much limited myself to Zelda/Sheik and only Zelda/Sheik (hey, I was a dumb 12-13 year old back then) and felt limited and stifled, but still didn't dare try anything else. With Brawl coming up, I thought "hey, Pit looks pretty awesome, and so does Metaknight. Maybe I'll give them a spin for once." So when I finally got the game for my birthday, I picked up Pit, gave him a go, decided he was pretty gewd, took him as main. Same for Meta Knight and, eventually, R.O.B., Wolf, and Toon Link. So it was basically a fresh start for me, and having more mains made the game more fun, because I could (obviously) do more stuff. Plus there were more characters that I WANTED to main and enjoyed playing as. Young Link = ...NEXT! R.O.B. = WE HAVE A WINNER! Although people complain about the game being too easy, the lower learning curve of Brawl made it easier to branch out and try new stuff. Playing with Pichu felt completely and utterly awkward, and I went back to Zelda/Sheik momentarily. On the other hand, R.O.B. seems to be second nature.

Also, Brawl has a lot more to offer with regards to 1-player mode (the SSE is a matter of opinion, but I loved that shiz) and since my bro is at college, my sister "outgrew" video games (but still plays with me sometimes), my friends only come over once every few weeks, and online is a sack of excrement, I find myself going over and over the SSE trying for %100 completion, a flag on every stage, and collecting all the stickers and trophies I can get my paws on. I also enjoy putting as many dents in the challenge wall as I can. I'm probably rare in this enjoyment of doing the same old crap multiple times, but the death rattle of a Primid is just...so...satisfying D:

The online, though it be a sack of excrement, opens up a lot of opportunities and is my only chance for anythng close to competitive play. Heck, it's the only way I get to play with people other than my bro (when he's home), my sister (when she decides to humor me), or my friends (when they come over). With Melee, 9 times out of 10 it was me and the CPUs, which got very old very fast.

A lot of this I attribute to not appreciating Melee's full potential as an 11-year-old hack (Though I doubt I could ever go back, Melee was definitely one of the best games of its time and I loved it. Melee WAS a mistake - Sakurai made such an awesome game that anything coming after would seem like crap in comparison ) I hadn't touched by GCN for months - maybe a year - before getting Brawl, and definitely not Melee. If I'd been playing Melee up to the release date, I might think differently. But I kind of forgot it existed, so except for "WHAR ROY!? WAI HE NOT HEER?" I probably don't see the flaws you guys do.

And confession time: I love the brawl graphics. I admit it, I'm a wh*re for pretty pictures - and I loved Melee graphics back in the day with the same adoration. "Holy crap Kelly, check this out! Zelda has nostrils! And TEETH!"
I think sometime I ought to have the gals over and we'll play a Melee bout for S's and G's. Maybe we'll go WHUT and then turn the Wii on. Maybe we'll rediscover the best game of my preteens.

Anyway, I seem to have gone on an incoherent tangent as usual, talking about myself instead of the topic. I'd like to close this wall of text with a wish for mutual respect, thriving competitive scenes for both Melee and Brawl, and a Smash 4 director who takes tripping out of the game.

 

[SpaceFalcon]

Brawl sucks.

 

[GofG]

I've no doubt someone has, but just to clarify, has anyone on the Melee side actually asked?

I'll admit, from my experience on this thread (yes I'm an 08er and haven't seen every other Brawl-vs.-Melee thread, please don't cling onto that) it seems as if you're being ballsy enough to even just say that you like Brawl more and are willing to defend it. But I gladly can speak for why I personally like Brawl more if you don't mind putting up with me talking about Brawl in general, not just from a competitive or for-fun standpoint, including its gameplay aspect (which lest we forget constitutes my opinion and my opinion alone, people are free and encouraged to express themselves, maintain their own standpoints and/or personally disagree.)

Nice disclaimer.

I'd also like to stress that I also adore Melee and consider it a brilliant game, for the record.

Oh wait, you weren't done. Okay, your disclaimer is fine.

Firstly, consider what a 'proper' sequel is. Is it updating the game for another generation? I began considering the question when I got Halo 3 and dug right into it. The game was fun, it was shiny, it was whatever you could logically want, but it somehow felt...too familiar. The numerous nods and tributes to the previous Halo games, while heartwarming for at least the first time through, started to become stale for me rather quickly.

It didn't add up for me: by all means Halo 3 was a great game, wasn't it? So why wasn't I feeling tingly about it the same way I did with the original. The Assault Rifle was back, they showed me some Halo places, they set up the script and everything, so why wasn't I feeling the special thrill of it like before?

The answer I got was that it wasn't that complete a sequel. See, from my definition, a sequel isn't just an update, it's an evolution. Something that differs from its predecessor, yet captures the spirit and feelings that made it amiable, so that they can both be cherished. It isn't best if a follow-up simply replaces the original, or the point of playing it.

In other words, Halo 3 is not as "fun" a game as Halo 2 or 1? What about how competitive it is? Any game played on a competitive level is more fun than any game played on a non-competitive level. I don't know enough about Halo to say, but if Halo 3 is a better competitive game than H2 or H:CE, then Halo 3 will end up being more fun at higher levels.

Which is the long way of saying that's why I like Brawl so much. It's a good sequel, if nothing else. In terms of the series it has its own charm, its own soul, which doesn't necessarily replace Melee's, it doesn't deprive it of any legacy other than "yeah, this was the second game. The third pretty much added more to it". It isn't Melee 2.0, in the same way that Melee was not Super Smash Bros. 2.0 I was impressed by how much different Melee was to the original Smash Bros., which is partially why I loved it so much. It felt like a real sequel. I find Brawl easy to appreciate because it's not trying to compete with Melee.

All this business about whether or not its a sequel is irrelevant to how fun it is to play it, or how competitive it is.

I suppose it's arguable as to whether or not this whole point is relevant, but I still consider it important, especially when we look at how polished a game Brawl is.

Huh?

Like it or not, I don't see how anyone can call Brawl a game that
hasn't had any level of commitment put into its development.

Huh?

One thing that very much impresses me about it - yes, on a level high enough to warrant favouritism - is the amount of polish the game overall was able to receive.

You and I have entirely different ideas about the definition of the word "polished." The graphics are polished. The menu design is polished. The translation from Japanese to English was polished.

The gameplay was very, very far from polished. At nearly any level of play, Metaknight and Snake dominate. D3 has grab-release infinites on several characters, something that should have been TESTED FOR. Marth has a grab release infinite on two characters, something that also should have been TESTED FOR. The Ice Climbers can throw a character between each other, infinitely, something that should have been TESTED FOR. Blastzones are pointless and just make it weird to recover with Ness and Lucas. The game has to load the model for Sheik/Zelda/Charizard/Ivysaur/Squirtle if you want to transform, lagging the game up. Let's see your explanation for why it's polished...

I'm not sure whether you want me to focus on the competitive aspect, so I'll refrain from adding the overall impression just yet.

This is a website for the discussion of competitive smash.

As for gameplay, the obvious factor, I decided to go back to Melee just before posting and do a good runthrough of it to see how it felt, then go through Brawl to compare. I honestly liked the way Brawl plays more.

That is your perogative.

The air dodge was implemented much better and dodging on the ground actually feels viable.

The air dodging, coupled with the decrease in hitstun, eliminates all but the most basic combos. What made dodging on the ground nonviable in Melee?

The slightly slower pace gives both players more elbow room to think and act,

The entire competitive community disagrees with you.

and still retains the hectic fury the series is synonymous with.

A wet 'n' wild circus act of a win is not the same thing as a calculated flawless victory. The "hectic fury" of which you refer to does not exist in Brawl.

The physics feel smoother in Brawl, despite the speed, and better to use in a sense that transcends simply having a more recent engine. I found some combos easier and harder to pull off than others in both games, and the tuning of characters accustomed me better in Brawl than Melee (I don't care if Captain Falcon's knee of justice isn't demonic any more, his regular jabs are nasty now :D ).

They probably feel smoother just because the game is slower. Again, more opinion that i'm not going to argue against.

It may not have wavedashing, but I honestly feel happier on Brawl than Melee.

Blah, more stuff about how wavedashing was important in Melee even though it wasn't.

(To clarify, Melee is still awesome - remember that I don't think that Brawl was intended to replace Melee's flavour, just add to the Super Smash Bros. series).

THIS. THIS IS WHY WE SHOULD GO BACK TO MELEE; BRAWL WAS NOT MEANT TO REPLACE MELEE AND THERE'S NO REASON FOR US TO BE PLAYING IT RIGHT NOW

There are probably numerous other details I'm missing, and many more that I've listed that people disagree with. That's fine. I don't mind Melee continuing to thrive at all - in fact, I'd encourage it, if that's what people truly want to do. But at the same time I honestly prefer Brawl from a competitive standpoint.

You did not even mention anything about competition anywhere in your post.

 

[Dark Sonic]

...and in about 5 minutes, either coreygames, RDK, Dark Sonic, or Yuna will come in and tear your post to shreads.

Hah, your prediction was wrong!!! It was GofG who did it.

Though I must say I agree with GofG on pretty much his entire post. Though Mardyke is entitled to his own opinion (but even opinions can be met with scrutiny(I probably spelled that wrong(parenthesis FTW))).

edit:Well, I wouldn't say that every game is more fun on a competitive level. After all, TicTacToe sucks balls when both players know what they're doing.

 

[Jack Kieser]

In all fairness, the point of his post was to explain why he liked Brawl more, which was the only question leveraged at him at the time (that I know of). Oh, and the part about a competitive game being inherently more fun... that's BS. It's more fun at a competitive level, yes, but that means nothing at a casual level, just like a casual game isn't necessarily fun on a competitive level. They are two mutually exclusive levels of gameplay that cater to different wants/needs in terms of fun, so just saying 'competitive = more fun' like everyone thinks competition is fun is just shortsighted and biased.

...carry on.

 

[RDK]

Here comes the cavalry.

I've no doubt someone has, but just to clarify, has anyone on the Melee side actually asked?

I'll admit, from my experience on this thread (yes I'm an 08er and haven't seen every other Brawl-vs.-Melee thread, please don't cling onto that) it seems as if you're being ballsy enough to even just say that you like Brawl more and are willing to defend it. But I gladly can speak for why I personally like Brawl more if you don't mind putting up with me talking about Brawl in general, not just from a competitive or for-fun standpoint, including its gameplay aspect (which lest we forget constitutes my opinion and my opinion alone, people are free and encouraged to express themselves, maintain their own standpoints and/or personally disagree.)

I'd also like to stress that I also adore Melee and consider it a brilliant game, for the record.

Then it begs the question--why do you like Brawl more? What could it possibly offer that Melee doesn't?

Firstly, consider what a 'proper' sequel is. Is it updating the game for another generation? I began considering the question when I got Halo 3 and dug right into it. The game was fun, it was shiny, it was whatever you could logically want, but it somehow felt...too familiar. The numerous nods and tributes to the previous Halo games, while heartwarming for at least the first time through, started to become stale for me rather quickly.

I wonder what that sounds like. It's on the tip of my tongue. Bah, I'm sure I'll get it by the end of the day end of this post.

It didn't add up for me: by all means Halo 3 was a great game, wasn't it? So why wasn't I feeling tingly about it the same way I did with the original. The Assault Rifle was back, they showed me some Halo places, they set up the script and everything, so why wasn't I feeling the special thrill of it like before?

The answer I got was that it wasn't that complete a sequel. See, from my definition, a sequel isn't just an update, it's an evolution. Something that differs from its predecessor, yet captures the spirit and feelings that made it amiable, so that they can both be cherished. It isn't best if a follow-up simply replaces the original, or the point of playing it.

The only problem is that Brawl was just a sequel. Sakurai didn't care about building on what made Melee great (or maybe he did--only it was on what he thought made it great). His primary goal was to make money, and further his ridiculously outlandish view on gaming.

It's even arguable that he captured the "spirit and feelings that made it amiable". I would certainly describe Brawl as "amiable" though--because that's all it is. Amiable. It was made not to offend anyone, and so that little 5th grade boys wouldn't go home and slit their wrists after losing a match.

Which is the long way of saying that's why I like Brawl so much. It's a good sequel, if nothing else. In terms of the series it has its own charm, its own soul, which doesn't necessarily replace Melee's, it doesn't deprive it of any legacy other than "yeah, this was the second game. The third pretty much added more to it". It isn't Melee 2.0, in the same way that Melee was not Super Smash Bros. 2.0 I was impressed by how much different Melee was to the original Smash Bros., which is partially why I loved it so much. It felt like a real sequel. I find Brawl easy to appreciate because it's not trying to compete with Melee. I suppose it's arguable as to whether or not this whole point is relevant, but I still consider it important, especially when we look at how polished a game Brawl is.

No, it's not trying to compete with Melee--which is the whole problem. What made Melee so great is utterly absent in Brawl. It doesn't even add to the series. Sakurai made purposeful steps to take away from the game in terms of how it could be played competitively.

Like it or not, I don't see how anyone can call Brawl a game that hasn't had any level of commitment put into its development.

I have no doubt Sakurai and his team put ****fulls of time into the development of Brawl. However, the problem is that he was a dead ringer for the wrong type of person to be making a competitive fighter. In fact, the game is probably worse off for him putting so much time into it--it gave him a chance to take the emphasis off of what makes it a fighter and onto what makes it a thinly disguised Mario-Party-esque posterboy for the Nintendo Wii. If he wouldn't have touched the game at all I'd be happier than I am now.

One thing that very much impresses me about it - yes, on a level high enough to warrant favouritism - is the amount of polish the game overall was able to receive. I'm not sure whether you want me to focus on the competitive aspect, so I'll refrain from adding the overall impression just yet.

In my personal opinion, I like Melee's "polish" better. In Melee I like how the characters look, I like how the stages look--hell, I even like the Melee menus better than the Brawl ones. And I can honestly say I haven't spent a great amount of time in any of the loads of half-***** "special features" he shoved into the game's rectum.

As for gameplay, the obvious factor, I decided to go back to Melee just before posting and do a good runthrough of it to see how it felt, then go through Brawl to compare. I honestly liked the way Brawl plays more. The air dodge was implemented much better and dodging on the ground actually feels viable. The slightly slower pace gives both players more elbow room to think and act, and still retains the hectic fury the series is synonymous with. The physics feel smoother in Brawl, despite the speed, and better to use in a sense that transcends simply having a more recent engine. I found some combos easier and harder to pull off than others in both games, and the tuning of characters accustomed me better in Brawl than Melee (I don't care if Captain Falcon's knee of justice isn't demonic any more, his regular jabs are nasty now :D ). It may not have wavedashing, but I honestly feel happier on Brawl than Melee. (To clarify, Melee is still awesome - remember that I don't think that Brawl was intended to replace Melee's flavour, just add to the Super Smash Bros. series).

I'm sorry, but this post is so utterly idiotic and uninformed I'm not even going to dignify it with an intelligent response. Congratulations. I am now dumber for having read it.

There are probably numerous other details I'm missing, and many more that I've listed that people disagree with. That's fine. I don't mind Melee continuing to thrive at all - in fact, I'd encourage it, if that's what people truly want to do. But at the same time I honestly prefer Brawl from a competitive standpoint.

Spoiler

And now for the above to be written off as disrespectful/redundant/however you like. :D

Dear God,

Please kill them all.

Love RDK

 

[Fletch]

Stuff

Red Stuff

**** guys, I wanted this one, you're too fast.

 

[Pink Reaper]

**** guys, I wanted this one, you're too fast.

Your too slooooow.

 

[Mardyke]

Nice disclaimer.

Oh wait, you weren't done. Okay, your disclaimer is fine.

I only wish it were finer so that you wouldn't have gone off the angle that you did. >_<

In other words, Halo 3 is not as "fun" a game as Halo 2 or 1? What about how competitive it is? Any game played on a competitive level is more fun than any game played on a non-competitive level. I don't know enough about Halo to say, but if Halo 3 is a better competitive game than H2 or H:CE, then Halo 3 will end up being more fun at higher levels.

Oh dear. I suppose firstly I'll answer the notion of "But if it's more competitive though, the amount of enjoyment doesn't matter, right?" As a gamer, I must disagree. Firstly, I can't just say "Who cares about how competitive it is if it isn't fun?!", I'll have to give a bit more depth to that. It's a common principle that you should always try to do what you enjoy for a living, and that principle does hold firm for competitive gaming. I'm NOT saying it's not fun to win or play competitively in a good fight for the record before you start (it's half the reason why I'm defending Brawl). You can get good like mad at Halo 3 and probably pull off killing spree after killing spree, which I did my share of, but if I'm not enjoying it then can I become the best? I'd find it hard to believe; enthusiasm for the subject at a level that corresponds with enthusiasm for the victory is vital. I'm not a hardcore Halo 3 player any more. But those who still play it still have fun just playing in the spirit of the game. So in that level, yes, enjoyment is a strong motivational factor.

Secondly, before you get click-happy with that reply button, the part on Halo itself and its quality is completely and absolutely IRRELEVANT to the point I was trying to make. I was explaining to you that this was the point when a personal realisation came about to me. So thanks a lot ***hole, you just wasted all our time.

Spoiler

Joking, joking, I don't mean that. Just having a laugh.

All this business about whether or not its a sequel is irrelevant to how fun it is to play it, or how competitive it is.

Now this is overlooking the topic I've raised entirely. This is part of my answer to "Why do I like Brawl more than Melee?", not "Why Brawl is more competitive than Melee".

Huh?

I had originally gone more in depth on the consideration of this topic, but I thought "Nah, someone will criticise it for being irrelevant to competitive play". Yet it happens anyway.

Huh?

Invested time. Level of quality and quantity of material within the game. Replayability factor. Appeal factor. Originality. I'd go further in depth if I didn't feel that the amount of it in Brawl wasn't staring everyone straight in the eye.

You and I have entirely different ideas about the definition of the word "polished." The graphics are polished. The menu design is polished. The translation from Japanese to English was polished.

The gameplay was very, very far from polished. At nearly any level of play, Metaknight and Snake dominate. D3 has grab-release infinites on several characters, something that should have been TESTED FOR. Marth has a grab release infinite on two characters, something that also should have been TESTED FOR. The Ice Climbers can throw a character between each other, infinitely, something that should have been TESTED FOR. Blastzones are pointless and just make it weird to recover with Ness and Lucas. The game has to load the model for Sheik/Zelda/Charizard/Ivysaur/Squirtle if you want to transform, lagging the game up. Let's see your explanation for why it's polished...

Well my opinion of 'polished' transcends gameplay and looks at the entire game. The stages are more varied and exciting, the soundtrack is inspiring, yada-yada-yada, more reasons that you're going to not care about, yada-yada-yada.
Anywho!

From a competitive standpoint, I can speak on personal experience and personal experience solely. I have a friend who I usually play Brawl with for fun whenever we meet, and we have some darn fun fights. One night just recently, I convinced him to turn off the items so we could have a serious, skill-dependant fight. So it was three stock no items, he broke out Fox and I broke out Bowser (first time against him, though I'd used him a fair bit by myself), and Final Destination. (Durr-hurr.)

I only wish I had a replay to show. It wasn't exactly top-tourney material, but it was the most intense game I'd ever fought. We were both taking it as seriously as could be, busting out moves neither of us had before. It was down to the wire, hit for hit, almost all the way. I was busting my brain for ways to break his momentum and foil his strategy. I had huge successes, but he kept following up by being the unpredictable lout he was. He won it by the edge of his teeth, but I really couldn't care less. I just knew I'd given it my all and so had he.

That was an adrenaline rush that dwarfs anything Melee ever gave me.

I suppose it links back to what Sakurai said in that article - artistically, it's the spirit from competition, the earnest effort, that matters most. We weren't freakin' pros in that match, if it was a top player either of us were facing it would have probably ended far sooner than it did. But we put all we freakin' had into that fight, and that's what made it important. I know you disagree, I know many people do, and that's fine. I know Brawl's a fun, if not great, game to play competitively, and that's fine enough for me.

This is a website for the discussion of competitive smash.

I thought it was a discussion on Smash in general with the competitive nature being a significantly popular element. My bad? :O

That is your perogative.

Mustn't...use....Obvious....picture....

Anyway, thanks for seeing that.

What made dodging on the ground nonviable in Melee?

It was easier and handier in Brawl, I found.[/quote]

The entire competitive community disagrees with you.

I know a lot of experienced people do, but not everyone. And they're free to feel that way, to stretch that point a liiiiiiitle bit further.

A wet 'n' wild circus act of a win is not the same thing as a calculated flawless victory. The "hectic fury" of which you refer to does not exist in Brawl.

It definitely does in a four-way. :D

They probably feel smoother just because the game is slower. Again, more opinion that i'm not going to argue against.

That you responded to it kinda implies that you are.

THIS. THIS IS WHY I THINK WE SHOULD GO BACK TO MELEE; BRAWL WAS NOT MEANT TO REPLACE MELEE AND THERE'S NO REASON FOR US TO BE PLAYING IT RIGHT NOW

Fixed.

You did not even mention anything about competition anywhere in your post.

Gee, I actually forgot that point. Oh well, I added it in with the Bowser-vs.-Fox fight in this point; guess I was too busy telling you about how much fun I found Brawl in general. Like I said I was doing.

 

[Corigames]

...and in about 5 minutes, either coreygames,

I'm glad that you have such high regards for me to jump on such things with swift timing :D

 

[RDK]

OMG, you're so funny. See what he did there, guys? You're a clever one, you are.

Oh dear. I suppose firstly I'll answer the notion of "But if it's more competitive though, the amount of enjoyment doesn't matter, right?" As a gamer, I must disagree. Firstly, I can't just say "Who cares about how competitive it is if it isn't fun?!", I'll have to give a bit more depth to that. It's a common principle that you should always try to do what you enjoy for a living, and that principle does hold firm for competitive gaming. I'm NOT saying it's not fun to win or play competitively in a good fight for the record before you start (it's half the reason why I'm defending Brawl). You can get good like mad at Halo 3 and probably pull off killing spree after killing spree, which I did my share of, but if I'm not enjoying it then can I become the best? I'd find it hard to believe; enthusiasm for the subject at a level that corresponds with enthusiasm for the victory is vital. I'm not a hardcore Halo 3 player any more. But those who still play it still have fun just playing in the spirit of the game. So in that level, yes, enjoyment is a strong motivational factor.

Secondly, before you get click-happy with that reply button, the part on Halo itself and its quality is completely and absolutely IRRELEVANT to the point I was trying to make. I was explaining to you that this was the point when a personal realisation came about to me. So thanks a lot ***hole, you just wasted all our time.

Spoiler

Joking, joking, I don't mean that. Just having a laugh.

Now this is overlooking the topic I've raised entirely. This is part of my answer to "Why do I like Brawl more than Melee?", not "Why Brawl is more competitive than Melee".

Both of these points (and while we're at it, the past 3 pages of discussion) could have been avoided if you would have not posted at all. The title of the thread is "Sakurai does not want Smash to be a competitive franchise", not "Tell us your pansy viewpoints on how Brawl is more polished or is more fun than Melee LOL".

Also, SWF is competitive Smash site. If you want to fap to how happy the Brawl aesthetics make you, go to Gamefaqs or Nsider.

I had originally gone more in depth on the consideration of this topic, but I thought "Nah, someone will criticise it for being irrelevant to competitive play". Yet it happens anyway.

You must be a mind reader.

Invested time. Level of quality and quantity of material within the game. Replayability factor. Appeal factor. Originality. I'd go further in depth if I didn't feel that the amount of it in Brawl wasn't staring everyone straight in the eye.

All opinions, and all debatable. Once again--the point of the thread is to talk about its competitive merit, not how shiny the menus are.

From a competitive standpoint, I can speak on personal experience and personal experience solely. I have a friend who I usually play Brawl with for fun whenever we meet, and we have some darn fun fights. One night just recently, I convinced him to turn off the items so we could have a serious, skill-dependant fight. So it was three stock no items, he broke out Fox and I broke out Bowser (first time against him, though I'd used him a fair bit by myself), and Final Destination. (Durr-hurr.)

I only wish I had a replay to show. It wasn't exactly top-tourney material, but it was the most intense game I'd ever fought. We were both taking it as seriously as could be, busting out moves neither of us had before. It was down to the wire, hit for hit, almost all the way. I was busting my brain for ways to break his momentum and foil his strategy. I had huge successes, but he kept following up by being the unpredictable lout he was. He won it by the edge of his teeth, but I really couldn't care less. I just knew I'd given it my all and so had he.

That was an adrenaline rush that dwarfs anything Melee ever gave me.

I suppose it links back to what Sakurai said in that article - artistically, it's the spirit from competition, the earnest effort, that matters most. We weren't freakin' pros in that match, if it was a top player either of us were facing it would have probably ended far sooner than it did. But we put all we freakin' had into that fight, and that's what made it important. I know you disagree, I know many people do, and that's fine. I know Brawl's a fun, if not great, game to play competitively, and that's fine enough for me.

Nobody cares about your personal experience, especially when none of that experience is grounded in a good tournament setting.

Okay, so you think Brawl is more intensely competitive than Melee. So what? The entirety of the competitive community disagrees with you.

And if you think that's really what Sakurai intended, you're sadly misinformed.

I thought it was a discussion on Smash in general with the competitive nature being a significantly popular element. My bad? :O

You thought wrong. Read the thread title.

Also, tell me when you spot the There Will Be Blood reference in the post.

I have a milkshake. +10COOKIES

 

[Jack Kieser]

Ok, so here's what I've gathered so far. Melee people are decrying Brawl for lacking all of the aspects that made Melee competitively viable, while Brawl people (in this case, Mardyke) enjoy Brawl in spite of, and possibly because, Brawl lacks these features.

Let me point out the contradictions that keep confusing me about this whole situation.

RDK, you say that Brawl is a step back from Melee, and specifically that had Sak spent less time on it, Brawl would be a beter competitive game. What I think is contradictory here is that Melee was a mistake, and THAT is why it is competitive. We keep comparing Brawl in the context of a Melee that, in all technicality, was never supposed to exist. Had Sak had the time to work on Melee like he worked on Brawl, then Melee would have been VASTLY different, and you probably would have hated it (compared to what you think about it now). So why are we comparing Brawl (in terms of advancement of the series) to a Melee that, as far as the devs are concerned, should have never happened?

You see, in Sak's eyes, Melee was probably the step back. The game didn't turn out how he had intended. If you're doing calculations and you screw up one of them, you don't go, "Well, that turned out wrong," and then go make the same mistakes next time you calculate. You correct the problems if you can and never make the mistakes again. That's exactly what happened. You're basically condemning Brawl for not being a mistake, too. You're saying, 'Well, Sak sure have just not cared and screwed this one up, too.' Of course he won't! You may have liked how his first mistakes turned out, but that doesn't mean everyone (or Sak) does or will!

All Mardyke is saying is that he respects that Brawl is not a mistake this time around (or rather, doesn't emulate the same mistakes that Melee made, though Brawl now makes new ones). I think a lot of people who actually enjoy Brawl (as opposed to the people who just begrudgingly play it) echo these sentiments. When Mardyke says that Brawl is just a sequel, he doesn't mean that it isn't anything more; he means that the game was purposefully made to be different, and that it comes down to a matter of preference.

For instance, RDK said that the following paragraph didn't deserve a response:

The air dodge was implemented much better and dodging on the ground actually feels viable. The slightly slower pace gives both players more elbow room to think and act, and still retains the hectic fury the series is synonymous with. The physics feel smoother in Brawl, despite the speed, and better to use in a sense that transcends simply having a more recent engine. I found some combos easier and harder to pull off than others in both games, and the tuning of characters accustomed me better in Brawl than Melee (I don't care if Captain Falcon's knee of justice isn't demonic any more, his regular jabs are nasty now :D ). It may not have wavedashing, but I honestly feel happier on Brawl than Melee.

I'll go ahead and explain why it's perfectly valid. Mardyke talks about the changed air dodge. There is nothing inherently anti-competitive about the changed air dodge system. It makes total sense to be able to air dodge multiple times and that air dodging wouldn't affect directional momentum. But, in the context of a mistake (i.e., Wavedashing), changing an unintuitive and non-common sense air dodge system seems ludicrous. But, we only find a problem when we compare Brawl's airdodge to an unintentional use of Melee's physics, so that's our problem, not Sak's. (I'd need more clarification about Melee's spot-dodges before I understand enough about that to comment).

Why is it inherently bad that Brawl runs at a slower speed? Short answer: it isn't. Long answer: It isn't, and you need to stop being such an unreasonable ****. Some people acutally *gasp* prefer a game that isn't as fast as Melee was. At times, Melee was too fast for some people, and to belittle and berate those people because they couldn't handle or enjoy something that was too fast for them is just shortsighted. Not everyone's mind works at the same speed, so decrying someone for liking Brawl's slower pace (which does allow players more time to think and react, btw) is refusal to recognize a matter of opinion.

As for the physics system, it probably feels smoother due to the change in pace, but also because the physics system got a complete overhaul. Havok just works that way, and I don't see anything stupid or anti-competitive about Brawl's physics engine and it's smoothness. If someone can explain this to me, please do.

See, the whole argument of 'What does Brawl have that Melee doesn't?' is, ultimately, a strawman argument. That Brawl doesn't offer things that Melee does is completely irrelevant if the things Melee offered were never a priority in the first place. When you get all perturbed at someone not caring about a lack of combos, or Brawl's hitstun, or whatever, you're effectively complaining that someone doesn't have your standards, which, last time I checked, is perfectly fine. So, someone doesn't care about certain aspects of Melee (which might have been, and probably were, mistakes in design anyway)? Big deal. That someone cares and seeks out different things (or less things!) in a competitive game than you shouldn't be a problem; again, Melee still exists for all those with high standards. It's like if I thought someone who liked playing competitive Pkmn RBY was dunb because there were more hidden variables in RSE (or DPP). Maybe that person doesn't care?

Maybe Mardyke doesn't care about the exact same things you do? Maybe a couple thousand competitve Brawl players just don't care about the same gameplay elements that you do? Is that SO wrong?

EDIT: Good god, you guys move fast when you want to.

 

[Fletch]

Let me point out the contradictions that keep confusing me about this whole situation.

RDK, you say that Brawl is a step back from Melee, and specifically that had Sak spent less time on it, Brawl would be a beter competitive game. What I think is contradictory here is that Melee was a mistake, and THAT is why it is competitive. We keep comparing Brawl in the context of a Melee that, in all technicality, was never supposed to exist. Had Sak had the time to work on Melee like he worked on Brawl, then Melee would have been VASTLY different, and you probably would have hated it (compared to what you think about it now). So why are we comparing Brawl (in terms of advancement of the series) to a Melee that, as far as the devs are concerned, should have never happened?

Why is this relevant? All that matters is that we got an end product that was amazing, then Sakurai saw that, and purposely destroyed it. What was intentional matters not, all that matters is what we got our hands on (and it was good).

 

[Jack Kieser]

Why is this relevant? All that matters is that we got an end product that was amazing, then Sakurai saw that, and purposely destroyed it. What was intentional matters not, all that matters is what we got our hands on (and it was good).

Amazing by who's standards? THAT'S why it's relevant. It was good to you, but maybe not to others. Or maybe not as much as other's may think Brawl is. The point is, people have different tastes and look for different things in a competitive game, and for anyone to say 'THIS is what a competitive game HAS to be' and belittle those who disagree or just look for something different, I think, is intolerant and wrong, especially when you already HAVE what you want in the first place.

 

[Turbo Ether]

Halo 1: Competitive by accident
Halo 2: Less competitive on purpose, hated by high level players

SSBM: Competitive by accident
SSBB: Less competitive on purpose, hated by high level players

I see a pattern here. The Halo community got over it, so can the Smash community. And if you don't want to get over it, too bad, you can't change the game. Deal with it, quit or back to Melee.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Halo 1: Competitive by accident
Halo 2: Less competitive on purpose, hated by high level players

SSBM: Competitive by accident
SSBB: Less competitive on purpose, hated by high level players

I see a pattern here. The Halo community got over it, so can the Smash community. And if you don't want to get over it, too bad, you can't change the game. Deal with it, quit or back to Melee.

YES.

10dealwithit's

 

[.Marik]

Wow, I'm still surprised that this topic hasn't died off....

I mean, all the possible points and views have been discussed..... >_>

Sheesh....

 

[flyinfilipino]

Why is this relevant? All that matters is that we got an end product that was amazing, then Sakurai saw that, and purposely destroyed it. What was intentional matters not, all that matters is what we got our hands on (and it was good).

Yes, Sakurai purposely made it different. Why does that still make it ok to bash people for liking something different? There's no reason.

10butitsthecoolthingtodos

 

[Turbo Ether]

Seriously, seven pointless months of *****ing about Brawl. We get it, Melee is more competitive, no one gives a **** about which one you like better. Halo 1 was a better competitive game than Halo 2, but Halo 2 still went on to have a bigger, more lucrative tournament scene by far. No one died in the process.

 

[RDK]

Ok, so here's what I've gathered so far. Melee people are decrying Brawl for lacking all of the aspects that made Melee competitively viable, while Brawl people (in this case, Mardyke) enjoy Brawl in spite of, and possibly because, Brawl lacks these features.

Let me point out the contradictions that keep confusing me about this whole situation.

RDK, you say that Brawl is a step back from Melee, and specifically that had Sak spent less time on it, Brawl would be a beter competitive game. What I think is contradictory here is that Melee was a mistake, and THAT is why it is competitive. We keep comparing Brawl in the context of a Melee that, in all technicality, was never supposed to exist. Had Sak had the time to work on Melee like he worked on Brawl, then Melee would have been VASTLY different, and you probably would have hated it (compared to what you think about it now). So why are we comparing Brawl (in terms of advancement of the series) to a Melee that, as far as the devs are concerned, should have never happened?

Because the whole point of Mardyke's post was to compare the competitive merit of the two games; not just the aesthetics. And even then, it's, at its core, a matter of opinion.

That being said, my purpose was to explain to him that, from a competitive viewpoint, Brawl is not a worthy successor. To someone who plays for kicks and not for money, yes, it can be considered a worthy successor. But we're not talking about aesthetics.

You see, in Sak's eyes, Melee was probably the step back. The game didn't turn out how he had intended. If you're doing calculations and you screw up one of them, you don't go, "Well, that turned out wrong," and then go make the same mistakes next time you calculate. You correct the problems if you can and never make the mistakes again. That's exactly what happened. You're basically condemning Brawl for not being a mistake, too. You're saying, 'Well, Sak sure have just not cared and screwed this one up, too.' Of course he won't! You may have liked how his first mistakes turned out, but that doesn't mean everyone (or Sak) does or will!

See my above reply.

For instance, RDK said that the following paragraph didn't deserve a response:

I'll go ahead and explain why it's perfectly valid. Mardyke talks about the changed air dodge. There is nothing inherently anti-competitive about the changed air dodge system. It makes total sense to be able to air dodge multiple times and that air dodging wouldn't affect directional momentum.

Yeah, sure. Characters should be able to acheive relatively large frames of invincibility while still maitaining their fall with ridiculously small lag and downtime, and be able to execute it with little to no risk or punishability involved. That makes perfect sense competitively.

But, in the context of a mistake (i.e., Wavedashing), changing an unintuitive and non-common sense air dodge system seems ludicrous. But, we only find a problem when we compare Brawl's airdodge to an unintentional use of Melee's physics, so that's our problem, not Sak's. (I'd need more clarification about Melee's spot-dodges before I understand enough about that to comment).

That's the whole point of this discussion.

Why is it inherently bad that Brawl runs at a slower speed? Short answer: it isn't. Long answer: It isn't, and you need to stop being such an unreasonable ****. Some people acutally *gasp* prefer a game that isn't as fast as Melee was. At times, Melee was too fast for some people, and to belittle and berate those people because they couldn't handle or enjoy something that was too fast for them is just shortsighted. Not everyone's mind works at the same speed, so decrying someone for liking Brawl's slower pace (which does allow players more time to think and react, btw) is refusal to recognize a matter of opinion.

In a competitive setting (especially fighters), speed is good. If SF was slowed down to the point of being unbearable, would you play it? No. It's a fighter. It's supposed to be fast. The players with the best reflexes and good processing skills do better. It's something that needs to be trained in just as much as learning how to combo or space correctly.

As for the physics system, it probably feels smoother due to the change in pace, but also because the physics system got a complete overhaul. Havok just works that way, and I don't see anything stupid or anti-competitive about Brawl's physics engine and it's smoothness. If someone can explain this to me, please do.

Again, "smooth" is a matter of opinon. I find Brawl's physics engine to be clunky and, at fast paces, sometimes even unresponsive. I shouldn't have to explain why this is bad for competition.

See, the whole argument of 'What does Brawl have that Melee doesn't?' is, ultimately, a strawman argument. That Brawl doesn't offer things that Melee does is completely irrelevant if the things Melee offered were never a priority in the first place. When you get all perturbed at someone not caring about a lack of combos, or Brawl's hitstun, or whatever, you're effectively complaining that someone doesn't have your standards, which, last time I checked, is perfectly fine. So, someone doesn't care about certain aspects of Melee (which might have been, and probably were, mistakes in design anyway)? Big deal. That someone cares and seeks out different things (or less things!) in a competitive game than you shouldn't be a problem; again, Melee still exists for all those with high standards. It's like if I thought someone who liked playing competitive Pkmn RBY was dunb because there were more hidden variables in RSE (or DPP). Maybe that person doesn't care?

This is a competitive-minded thread on a primarily competitive site. If you couldn't care less about either game's competitive merit, then GTFO. Srsly.

Maybe Mardyke doesn't care about the exact same things you do? Maybe a couple thousand competitve Brawl players just don't care about the same gameplay elements that you do? Is that SO wrong?

If you come to a competitive Smash site and p!ss and moan about it, yes. Leave us alone.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Because the whole point of Mardyke's post was to compare the competitive merit of the two games; not just the aesthetics. And even then, it's, at its core, a matter of opinion.

That being said, my purpose was to explain to him that, from a competitive viewpoint, Brawl is not a worthy successor. To someone who plays for kicks and not for money, yes, it can be considered a worthy successor. But we're not talking about aesthetics.

No, the whole point of his post was to justify why he liked Brawl more than Melee. If you remember, you all said that no one who liked Brawl more had ever supplied reasoning, so he did. None of you asked for anything past that.

See my above reply.

As should you.

Yeah, sure. Characters should be able to acheive relatively large frames of invincibility while still maitaining their fall with ridiculously small lag and downtime, and be able to execute it with little to no risk or punishability involved. That makes perfect sense competitively.

Sure. Why not? First of all, what defines 'large'? The game runs slower; if characters had the same invincibility time as Melee characters did, it's be pointless to air dodge. Secondly, air dodge cooldown is plenty long enough. You know that just as well as Link's bombs do. Lastly, it is very easy to punish air dodge spam (or even responsible use) in Brawl if you're good on the prediction or have a fast character. No johns, RDK.

That's the whole point of this discussion.

Exactly. We only find a problem if we compare Brawl's air dodge mechanic to Melee's. But, what if you didn't like Melee's air dodge mechanic? Hmm? What then?

In a competitive setting (especially fighters), speed is good. If SF was slowed down to the point of being unbearable, would you play it? No. It's a fighter. It's supposed to be fast. The players with the best reflexes and good processing skills do better. It's something that needs to be trained in just as much as learning how to combo or space correctly.

Really?! Where is this written down? I'd like to know where this law is. If you have the patience to play a slower game, then no harm, no foul. If you're a ritalin-popping speed freak, then of course lack of speed will piss you off. The only time speed can interfere with competitivness is when both players are at different speeds. Past that, fast speed is just a preference and you know it.

Again, "smooth" is a matter of opinon. I find Brawl's physics engine to be clunky and, at fast paces, sometimes even unresponsive. I shouldn't have to explain why this is bad for competition.

Wow, we agree! 'Smooth' is a matter of opinion. You find the game unresponsive. Were that actually the case, we'd have a problem. I've never played a tournament match in which I found the controls unresponsive. Again, no johns.

This is a competitive-minded thread on a primarily competitive site. If you couldn't care less about either game's competitive merit, then GTFO. Srsly.

What? Who said anyone didn't care about competitive aspects as a whole? I said that certain specifics or details of Melee's 'competitive aspects' might not have mattered to people (like speed). So, to say those people are dumb for playing a game that doesn't have a detail they didn't care about in the first place is ********. Srsly, it's like if I *****ed at you for thinking Melee was better even though it lacked SSE. You don't care about SSE, so why is it logical for me to belittle you for liking a game that lacks something that wasn't a priority in the first place?

If you come to a competitive Smash site and p!ss and moan about it, yes. Leave us alone.

They're not coming to a competitive Smash site to piss and moan. They're coming to a competitive Smash site where YOU'RE pissing and moaning, and where they have to defend themselves for having an opinion. Srsly, leave them alone. SEE, I CAN DO IT TOO!!

 

[Mardyke]

Then it begs the question--why do you like Brawl more? What could it possibly offer that Melee doesn't?

There was no need to jab at this, I was getting to it in the post. Wasn't that evident?

Both of these points (and while we're at it, the past 3 pages of discussion) could have been avoided if you would have not posted at all.

Welcome to society, we're both part of it.

The title of the thread is "Sakurai does not want Smash to be a competitive franchise", not "Tell us your pansy viewpoints on how Brawl is more polished or is more fun than Melee LOL".

Also, SWF is competitive Smash site. If you want to fap to how happy the Brawl aesthetics make you, go to Gamefaqs or Nsider.

Oooookaaay, you missed the point entirely. See, people were asking for pro-Brawl players to give their opinion on why they liked the game more. I replied in kind.
And be honest - how much of even your posts, if we look back over even the past ten pages, has even been fairly on-topic?

The only problem is that Brawl was just a sequel. Sakurai didn't care about building on what made Melee great (or maybe he did--only it was on what he thought made it great). His primary goal was to make money, and further his ridiculously outlandish view on gaming.

I wouldn't call it a problem, personally. I'd tell you why, but we've been over it already.

No, it's not trying to compete with Melee--which is the whole problem. What made Melee so great is utterly absent in Brawl. It doesn't even add to the series. Sakurai made purposeful steps to take away from the game in terms of how it could be played competitively.

You see it as taking away, I see it as changing to adapt. I suppose it's a case of the glass being half full or half empty. A competitive player can adapt and become good with whatever there is in the game, right?

I have no doubt Sakurai and his team put ****fulls of time into the development of Brawl. However, the problem is that he was a dead ringer for the wrong type of person to be making a competitive fighter. In fact, the game is probably worse off for him putting so much time into it--it gave him a chance to take the emphasis off of what makes it a fighter and onto what makes it a thinly disguised Mario-Party-esque posterboy for the Nintendo Wii. If he wouldn't have touched the game at all I'd be happier than I am now.

I hope we're agreed in that there's no sense in forcing any developer to do something that hampers their creativity (EA learned this the hard way). Whether Sakurai should direct the next Super Smash Bros. is dependant on what kind of game Nintendo wants. That's not our decision to make - Nintendo has always done their own thing and checked public feedback later, a strategy which has worked to the benefit of the people. I say it worked with Brawl in the overall aspect, including a competitive scene.

Though I do wish there were some companies who'd listen to the overwhelming side of the community (e.g. Blizzard).

Nobody cares about your personal experience, especially when none of that experience is grounded in a good tournament setting.

Okay, so you think Brawl is more intensely competitive than Melee. So what? The entirety of the competitive community disagrees with you.

And if you think that's really what Sakurai intended, you're sadly misinformed.

It doesn't matter if you choose to be as arrogant as to pretend that nobody can play a game competitively just because you can't or would rather not.

As for Sakurai's position, I'm confident I know more than you on that; referring back to the quote on how he felt about people's anger at Japan for losing the world cup is what I base my belief on his opinion of it. I mean, he states it so bloody clearly. 'As long as two people both try hard to the best of their ability, that's what counts, right?' (I know, not exact quote.)

That's what we did. I assume that's what you do too, even if you don't care for it.

I'm sorry, but this post is so utterly idiotic and uninformed I'm not even going to dignify it with an intelligent response. Congratulations. I am now dumber for having read it.

I love you too. I hope that's not all you can say at a debate, because the idea is that you maintain respect for the person you're arguing with. Why should I give your opinion a moment of my time if all you can say to mine is "You're an idiot, go away." ? The answer is I shouldn't.

Dear God,

Please kill them all.

Love RDK

Again, please, keep it reasonable so everyone else can do the same.

Maybe Mardyke doesn't care about the exact same things you do? Maybe a couple thousand competitve Brawl players just don't care about the same gameplay elements that you do? Is that SO wrong?

If you come to a competitive Smash site and p!ss and moan about it, yes. Leave us alone.

From that angle, it sounds like you're p!ssing and moaning about competitive players. Which is irony.

Furthermore,

They're coming to a competitive Smash site where YOU'RE pissing and moaning, and where they have to defend themselves for having an opinion. Srsly, leave them alone.

EDIT: I have to keep a second page open to watch the thread whenever I try to make a post. :D

 

[RDK]

No, the whole point of his post was to justify why he liked Brawl more than Melee. If you remember, you all said that no one who liked Brawl more had ever supplied reasoning, so he did. None of you asked for anything past that.

The basis was "Nobody ever supplied reasoning as to why they prefer Brawl as a competitive game ove Melee. At least that's what my question was. And I'm sure the other people who asked it meant that too (or at least the people of remote importance).

Sure. Why not? First of all, what defines 'large'? The game runs slower; if characters had the same invincibility time as Melee characters did, it's be pointless to air dodge.

Gimme a break. Don't even try to compare Melee's airdodge relative to it's game speed and Brawl's airdodge relative to it's game speed. That's just ridiculous, and if you think the benefits of the airdodge are complimentary to Brawl's speed relative to the airdodge's effects in Melee, it shows you know little about either game.

Secondly, air dodge cooldown is plenty long enough. You know that just as well as Link's bombs do. Lastly, it is very easy to punish air dodge spam (or even responsible use) in Brawl if you're good on the prediction or have a fast character. No johns, RDK.

People who know what they're doing don't spam it; they use it intelligently. It's inherently better and more useful than Melee's airdodge. In Melee, the airdodge was useful, but you'd get punished (and rightly so) for spamming it or using it badly. The same is true in Brawl, except that the airdodge is buffed to the point of ridiculousness.

Exactly. We only find a problem if we compare Brawl's air dodge mechanic to Melee's. But, what if you didn't like Melee's air dodge mechanic? Hmm? What then?

I don't give a flying **** whether or not you like it. I do care whether or not you think it's superior in terms of competitive merit.

Really?! Where is this written down? I'd like to know where this law is.

It's not a law; it's common sense. And if you're haivng trouble finding where it's "written down", I believe I just posted it.

If you have the patience to play a slower game, then no harm, no foul. If you're a ritalin-popping speed freak, then of course lack of speed will piss you off. The only time speed can interfere with competitivness is when both players are at different speeds. Past that, fast speed is just a preference and you know it.

So you think Melee would have become the tournament-giant it was if it had been at the same pace as Battleship? Gimme a break.

Wow, we agree! 'Smooth' is a matter of opinion. You find the game unresponsive. Were that actually the case, we'd have a problem. I've never played a tournament match in which I found the controls unresponsive. Again, no johns.

Again, that's my personal opinion, and it's from personal experience. Just because you've never encountered it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

What? Who said anyone didn't care about competitive aspects as a whole? I said that certain specifics or details of Melee's 'competitive aspects' might not have mattered to people (like speed). So, to say those people are dumb for playing a game that doesn't have a detail they didn't care about in the first place is ********. Srsly, it's like if I *****ed at you for thinking Melee was better even though it lacked SSE. You don't care about SSE, so why is it logical for me to belittle you for liking a game that lacks something that wasn't a priority in the first place?

SSE has absolutely nothing to do with the competitiveness of Brawl. Details matter when looked at competitively, which is the whole point of this discussion. Stop talking about personal preference in regards to aesthetics.

They're not coming to a competitive Smash site to piss and moan. They're coming to a competitive Smash site where YOU'RE pissing and moaning, and where they have to defend themselves for having an opinion. Srsly, leave them alone. SEE, I CAN DO IT TOO!!

The key phrase is "They're coming to a competitive Smash site". Don't come here and expect people to agree with you on points that are based in opinion and have absolutely nothing to do with the competitive aspects of the game.

 

[Mardyke]

The key phrase is "They're coming to a competitive Smash site". Don't come here and expect people to agree with you on points that are based in opinion and have absolutely nothing to do with the competitive aspects of the game.

I hate to be rude, but you should really practise what you freakin' preach. You're making it out to be a sin to prefer competitive Brawl over competitive Melee, when really it's up to people to decide that. Not just the people on the boards currently, not just the competitive people yet to come, but competitive people in general.

It's fine for there to be people to agree with you, but it's also fine for people to disagree with you. Like I do. Get that through your head please, for the sake of all of us. Don't write them off as being idiots, you're only ****ing yourself.

 

[Yuna]

Seriously, seven pointless months of *****ing about Brawl. We get it, Melee is more competitive, no one gives a **** about which one you like better. Halo 1 was a better competitive game than Halo 2, but Halo 2 still went on to have a bigger, more lucrative tournament scene by far. No one died in the process.

Since we're apparently throwing other games around, Soul Calibur III was less Competitively viable than Soul Calibur II. What happened? People stopped playing Soul Calibur altogether.