Scar on the Melee vs Brawl debate: What does competitive really mean?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scar

#HarveyDent
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
6,066
Location
Sunnyvale, CA
#1
Please at least familiarize yourself with this first post or what has been said in the last page before throwing in an aggressive opinion.




DISCLAIMER

There are plenty of threads in Brawl General Discussion where you can go and rant and rave and make no sense and everyone will join you. This thread is for INTELLIGENT discussion. If you want to whine, please go do so somewhere else.

If you want to say "rofl u guyz r arguin im just gon play brawl," or "This argument is irrelevant" or whatever it is that clearly will not benefit the conversation, you are not alone, people agree with you, but this is the wrong thread. Please post it somewhere else!


Disobeying those rules from now on will put you on the List of People Scar Thinks are Stupid. I know most of you don't care, if you're going to be a moron you're going to do it and not worry about it. For all of those who have some semblance of self-respect, try not to earn your place at the bottom of the thread.

Finally, I do not have time to respond to everyone, and when I do, rest assured, everything I say will be coherent and true, unless I say specifically that I'm not sure about something. Unfortunately I can't give examples of everything, but try to trust me, and if you want examples perhaps Brookman will give them to you.

If you think there is something wrong with my logic then absolutely challenge me on it, but if I say, "Brawl is lacking in combos," don't tell me about your 0-70% with Metaknight vs your friend's Ganon. Interpret those words instead as "few characters have reliable combos."

Things Scar is NOT saying that people consistently read somehow


-Melee players should consistently win in Brawl as much as they did in Melee
-Advanced techs make Melee deep
-I hate Brawl
-*whine whine whine*

Introduction

As you know or will soon find out, I firmly believe that Melee is a more competitive game than Brawl. Also better competitive, but that's neither here nor there.
This thread is not here to argue that point (though I will do that from time to time). My main goal is to focus on the reasons for why opposing sides can't seem to agree on anything ever.

Hating on Brawl

An important preliminary point to make is that MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT SAYING THAT BRAWL IS BAD.

Most people who are "anti-Brawl" play it and have fun with it.

Most people who are "anti-Brawl" and good at Melee are also good at Brawl.


No one who is "anti-Brawl" is telling you not to play the game.


What we are arguing is that Brawl is a less competitive game than Melee. A big reason for why this debate gets nowhere is because
we have failed to define the word "competitive."

Competitive vs Competition

If you look it up in a dictionary, you will find a very different definition. Sometimes the dictionary is not the place to go. Words are clumsy tools we use to try to convey thoughts. We must define the word on our own.

The definition of competitive that has received the most support is the innate property of a game allowing better players to win consistently. This yields my mantra, that which I repeat over and over to prove my point.

Those who should win will win.


It is necessary to point out that this has nothing to do with the competition you will face. There is a big difference between competition and competitiveness.

Also, competitiveness is a scale. By definition, someone better than someone else at anything will on average win more. Competitiveness can only be talked about relatively, since everything that isn't completely random has a certain amount of competitiveness.

Brawl is competitive to a degree, but pro-Melee debaters will argue that on average, better players will win more consistently in Melee than equally skilled competitors in Brawl.

Also we will argue that contests are settled with dominance in Melee between players of NEARLY EQUAL SKILL! In Brawl, win/loss ratios are much closer to the 50% mark unless it's between two players of vastly different skill levels.

Important consequences:

The argument "I think any game can be competitive" is no longer valid. It is clear that you are simply saying, "people can compete in any game." It is also clear that this statement points out plain fact.

The problem is that you are confusing competition with competitiveness. Shallow games are not competitive, but you can find competition in them.

Leave Brawl Alone: Brawl Supporters Never Make Any Good Points Ever


During many arguments, Brawl supporters frequently use blanket statements closing the door to all further debate.

I have noticed that most Brawl debates start out with someone pointing out a reason for why they thing Brawl is limiting or inferior. Then someone will say "stop hating on Brawl." This is extremely irritating for the initial poster because all of their points were ignored for a blanket statement that's overused.

The biggest point Brawl advocates make is not really a point at all. It's usually just "Stop hating" or "Stop bashing" or, as I like to put it, "Leave Brawl alone." It feels like we are bullies picking on Brawl because it's puny and can't stand up for itself. You guys just don't like seeing this and tell us to stop.

You need to give us reasons for WHY we should stop and WHY we're wrong!


Points Already Addressed


Upcoming is a list of other statements that translate into "Leave Brawl alone." They have been covered time and time again, but for some reason a Brawl supporter will bring these things up randomly in debates.

This is the argument and appropriate counter argument. If anyone wants to address any of these and further the discussion, please feel free to. At this point, these discussions seem to have reached a clear and obvious end.

1) It's not Melee 2.0, you can't compare the two games

This is silly. We are debating "which game is more competitive," so we must compare the two games. Arguing that this is irrelevant doesn't make any sense, since it's clearly important to competitive Melee players. Our feelings are important, too.

This may be a valid argument elsewhere, but IT IS NOT VALID IN THE CONTEXT OF MELEE VS BRAWL.

2) Brawl has only been out for a short amount of time, how long did it take to find Melee ATs

This would be relevant if the two games experienced similar launches. They didn't. Melee had a few SSB64 players who knew about z-cancelling, and there was no central intelligence like SmashBoards to really unite the community and combine everyone's knowledge.

Now, at Brawl's launch, there are thousands of players working day and night to find something - ANYTHING to abuse. There were even players doing this in early February, immediately after the game was released in Japan. So far, nothing of note has advanced the metagame to anything to be considered remarkable.

Final Remarks

The point of this thread is mainly to further the discussion of which game is more competitive, Brawl or Melee. I really want us to all be talking about the same things when we debate, and I strongly feel that we are all talking about different things.

==EDIT==
It has been brought to my attention that about half of the people on the pro-Brawl side of the community believe that at this point, Melee is a more competitive game. I did not know this, so perhaps this thread is for the other half of the pro-Brawl community.
=======

Also since I don't argue on the pro-Brawl side of things, I really don't know what pro-Melee players get hung up on and when we argue things that aren't correct. If anyone wants to contribute something they think pro-Melee players are thick-headed about please do and we'll try to figure out why they're wrong and don't realize it.

I hope that this will shed light on a few different issues, but most importantly, the difference between competitiveness and competition. I hope we can work with and refine this definition until we feel that it becomes what we are actually trying to debate.

IMPORTANT POSTS - TL;DR

These posts are good, and the discussion after them is worth reading if you care to follow.

Legend:
** = Real Important
- = Real Bad

Card: What exactly do you want?
Scar: Brawl's lack of a punishment game, Comboing in Melee is difficult!
E.G.G.M.A.N.: Why it's not too early to have this debate
AlphaZealot: The History of Melee Advanced Techs (Missing the point IMO)
**Cactuar: Fundamentals of Fighters and why Brawl doesn't fit
**almightypancake: Thinking outside the box, Why there is hope
Scar: Extreme example of a game that has competition but is not competitive
**almightypancake: Important Consequences of Brawl's Current Metagame
Tipzntrix: An opinion on why Brawl is just as competitive as Melee
Scar: Gambling vs Competing, Why I disagree with Tipzntrix
-Dogenzaka: Why you should never completely ignore the original post
Replacement100: An important question about the OP and response
Wiseguy: Why the OP is nothing special and otherwise wrong and response
almightypancake: Why this thread is NOT stupid and pointless
**TehChocobo: Please Have a Nice Tone in this thread
**JesiahTEG: Why Technical Ability Should Be Rewarded
TheKneeOfJustice: Brawl as a game Lacking Consequences
Mew2King: Specific Examples for Why Brawl Requires Luck
FaceLoran: On skill vs other factors
Cactuar: High-level Brawl play, I am a brilliant player
SynikaL: The ultimate compromise and conclusion


Unintelligent Posters: People Scar Thinks are Stupid


Dogenzaka: For providing Webster's definition of "Competition"
B-Run: For blatantly ignoring the Disclaimer in this post.
LavisFiend: For persistently contributing nothing and ignoring the disclaimer.
NekoBoy085: For speaking with authority while demonstrating no knowledge whatsoever
 

Zek

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 1, 2005
Messages
784
#2
I think it's pretty obvious to anyone that knows what they're talking about that Brawl is a less competitive game than Melee. But IMHO it's also a much better game than Melee and it still has more than enough competitive potential.
 

Scar

#HarveyDent
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
6,066
Location
Sunnyvale, CA
#3
I agree with the first part especially, and I made this thread so that everyone knows what they're talking about. This is for the people who don't know what they're talking about that frustrate me oh, so much.
 

Noypi_GjD

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
473
#4
I think it's pretty obvious to anyone that knows what they're talking about that Brawl is a less competitive game than Melee.
I disagree, it still appears that there is a lot of controversy on this topic still. I don't know if Brawl is more competitive yet.


But IMHO it's also a much better game than Melee and it still has more than enough competitive potential.
Care to explain why it is?
Excellent post their Scar, I found that it addresses many of the current arguments here at Smashboards. I agree, Brawl appears to be more of a party game however I don't like the name "anti-brawl" :laugh: more like "pro-melee" :chuckle:
 

Fandangox

Smash Lord
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
1,475
Location
Oh look I changed this
#5
What we are arguing is that Brawl is a party game. We think that it is not as competitive as Melee and never will be. A big reason for why this debate gets nowhere is because [/SIZE] we have failed to define the word "competitive."

Competitive vs Competition

If you look it up in a dictionary, you will find a very different definition. Sometimes the dictionary is not the place to go. Words are clumsy tools we use to try to convey thoughts. We must define the word on our own.

The definition of competitive that has received the most support is the innate property of a game allowing better players to win consistently. This yields my mantra, that which I repeat over and over to prove my point.

Those who should win will win.


Ofcourse, but Brawl isnt even near to be a party game (well unless we play it with all items and those kind of stages) because the income is decided by skill, so it is a fighting game (the way we play it) so still: those who should win WILL win.



I have noticed that most Brawl debates start out with someone pointing out a reason for why they thing Brawl is limiting or inferior.
You need to give us reasons for WHY we should stop and WHY we're wrong![/B]

Points Already Addressed


Upcoming is a list of other statements that translate into "Leave Brawl alone." They have been covered time and time again, but for some reason a Brawl supporter will bring these things up randomly in debates.

This is the argument and appropriate counter argument. If anyone wants to address any of these and further the discussion, please feel free to. At this point, these discussions seem to have reached a clear and obvious end.

1) It's not Melee 2.0, you can't compare the two games

This is silly. We are debating "which game is more competitive," so we must compare the two games. Arguing that this is irrelevant doesn't make any sense, since it's clearly important to competitive Melee players. Our feelings are important, too.

This may be a valid argument elsewhere, but IT IS NOT VALID IN THE CONTEXT OF MELEE VS BRAWL.

2) Brawl has only been out for a short amount of time, how long did it take to find Melee ATs

This would be relevant if the two games experienced similar launches. They didn't. Melee had a few SSB64 players who knew about z-cancelling, and there was no central intelligence like SmashBoards to really unite the community and combine everyone's knowledge.

Now, at Brawl's launch, there are thousands of players working day and night to find something - ANYTHING to abuse. There were even players doing this in early February, immediately after the game was released in Japan. So far, nothing of note has advanced the metagame to anything to be considered remarkable.

I agree with you, but really the game have been out for just two months, and there is people who still try to play brawl and find those techineques as is brawl was melee, so we just need more time.
Final Remarks
[/COLOR][/COLOR]
10 char????
 

Beat

Smash Ace
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
889
Location
Philadelphia
#6
wtf scar leve brall aloan!

Heh, sorry. Anyways, nice work on this thread, it needed to happen. I like the point of competitive vs. competition. I mean, we can all have a competition in who can clap the longest, but I don't think that's exactly competitive. That's actually an awful analogy.

IMO, Brawl is basically a patience battle with the occasional mix-up in style. Whoever can tolerate spamming the moves with the least lag while staying safely out of grab-range for the longer period of time will win. It's a camping game, baby, and I'm pitchin' a pretty big tent.
 

Scar

#HarveyDent
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
6,066
Location
Sunnyvale, CA
#7
Even though that post was nearly indecipherable I will address what you've said that I disagree with.

Ofcourse, but Brawl isnt even near to be a party game (well unless we play it with all items and those kind of stages) because the income is decided by skill, so it is a fighting game (the way we play it) so still: those who should win WILL win.
This argument has already been had, and I suppose I should edit the first post with this. But many elements of skill have been removed and the game is now much easier for people to pick up. Random elements, most notably and horrifically tripping, keep the game from being fair and truly competitive.

The point is that better players will win with MUCH MORE FREQUENCY in Melee than in Brawl.
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2008
Messages
64
#8
So... are you saying limited is less competitive? I don't know if you know or care, but when limits are put in, it usually makes it weaker, but much more competitve. Take racing AS AN EXAMPLE: So race two evenly matched ford focuses, both stock, everything exactly the same. Who will win? The better driver. so by limiting the upgrades, the competition is better. So take both of those ford focuses, and race them against another ford focus that has upgrades (intake, exausts, etc)
 

Fandangox

Smash Lord
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
1,475
Location
Oh look I changed this
#10
Even though that post was nearly indecipherable I will address what you've said that I disagree with.



This argument has already been had, and I suppose I should edit the first post with this. But many elements of skill have been removed and the game is now much easier for people to pick up. Random elements, most notably and horrifically tripping, keep the game from being fair and truly competitive.

The point is that better players will win with MUCH MORE FREQUENCY in Melee than in Brawl.
Ramdon elements such as tripping and... tripping, really there arent many ramdom elements, I have been playing the game with my friends who dont play the game competetively and I always win, because I play better than them. (with Items and without items)
oh and I apologize for my extremely bad english
 

Vitamin

Smash Rookie
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
6
#11
I agree with the original post.

Brawl is by no means a subpar game. And I think it requires a "different", more slow-paced, type of skill to play, like the Smash Bros. on N64.

I prefer Melee over Brawl, but hey--Brawl is fun too.

I just wish I would stop tripping.
 

Scar

#HarveyDent
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
6,066
Location
Sunnyvale, CA
#12
Real life examples will never make any sense in this debate. You are setting rules, not limiting what the people can do. Video games can limit what characters can physically do. Before they could slide on the ground, now they can't.

You hopefully won't wake up tomorrow to find that you can't move your index fingers, but between video games, that change can be made.
 

Rorus Raz

Smash Rookie
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
18
#14
You make good points. Heck, all these threads do.

But what is your aim? To encourage players to stick with Melee? These threads tend to go downhill and provoke hostility from both sides. You claim to not be trying to persuade us to stop playing Brawl, so I'm lost as to what your goal with these threads are.

Personally, I don't have a problem with pleas to not abandon Melee for Brawl. But since you specifically deny that, I'm a bit confused. Is this comparison for the heck of it?
 

NeroeXIII

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
84
Location
Canada
#15
Okay, you may be right, brawl may not be AS competetive as Melee, but it will be competetive nonetheless.. This games to big not be competetive. Its also not that shallow, Sure not as deep as melee, but not as shallow as some crappy "lets-scam-little-kids-game." It WILL be competetive..Just not as competetive as Melee.

Anyway, noone will be able to FIRMLY say brawl wont be as competetive as melee, until a year goes by. If theres not AT in a year or so. there probably never will.
 

Scar

#HarveyDent
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
6,066
Location
Sunnyvale, CA
#16
Personally, I don't have a problem with pleas to not abandon Melee for Brawl. But since you specifically deny that, I'm a bit confused. Is this comparison for the heck of it?
I don't mind people playing Brawl, I play it and I have a lot of fun. But I hate to hear people saying that it can be as competitive as Melee. It just can't be. This is a debate that's important to me, and this thread is here to make sure we're all using the same definitions and to ask pro-Brawl debaters not to get the wrong idea.

We're not hating, we're just discussing. Let's have a discussion.

Okay, you may be right, brawl may not be AS competetive as Melee, but it will be competetive nonetheless..
Sure. Remember when we would just yell at eachother and not understand why the other person can't understand? This is so much better!

Anyway, noone will be able to FIRMLY say brawl wont be as competetive as melee, until a year goes by. If theres not AT in a year or so. there probably never will.
I hate arbitrary durations of time. Where did you get this figure? Why is it important how much time has passed?

If one person is looking for something for a year, he will probably not find as much as an entire community of gamers looking for something over the span of a month. It depends on the diligence, and we are all searching real hard.
 

Matsuyama

Smash Cadet
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
64
Location
Rockville, Maryland
#17
I'd have to agree that random elements affecting your gameplay are completely unfair.

Take for example some levels in the game. Most were banned because they have "random" occurrences where they can affect the gameplay between the two combatants. Obviously, the unlucky player who gets affected by the level will automatically be at a disadvantage. Stages like Battlefield, Final Destination, Dreamland 64, etc., all have little to no "random" occurrences that can affect the gameplay between the two fighting players.

In the same ideology, tripping, this "random" occurrence, is thus completely unfair. I hate to trip and be grabbed + combo'd easily. It just does not make sense.
 
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
638
#18
I don't believe that less exploits/techniques discovered and made up by the community over 6 years automatically means Brawl isn't competitive, or possibly less for that manner.

Anyway, don't you have something better to do than post a huge wall of text unoriginally defining the competitive nature of Brawl like everyone else has already done, on a Saturday?
 

Rorus Raz

Smash Rookie
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
18
#19
I don't mind people playing Brawl, I play it and I have a lot of fun. But I hate to hear people saying that it can be as competitive as Melee. It just can't be. This is a debate that's important to me, and this thread is here to make sure we're all using the same definitions and to ask pro-Brawl debaters not to get the wrong idea.

We're not hating, we're just discussing. Let's have a discussion.
Alright, I understand.

I was never a competitive Melee player, so that's about all I have left to say on this.
 

Scar

#HarveyDent
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
6,066
Location
Sunnyvale, CA
#20
Anyway, don't you have something better to do than post a huge wall of text defining the competitive nature of Brawl like everyone else on a Saturday?
lol. Wow. Personal shots. Real cool.

Plus it has nothing to do with the advanced techs. It has to do with the shallow overall gameplay. This thread, again, is not here to discuss the specifics. It's here to help further the debate in countless other threads.
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
1,307
Location
(KoJapes) Rochester, NY
#21
@ Randomness. There are a few more. How about the Double Jump Aerial Super Jumps? Those are pretty random. It happens sometimes and you die, that's not fun. Then there are some inconsistencies I've found in priorities. When move move has a history of going through another, then for some reason, stops doing so (even without move decay).
 

Card

Smash Lord
Joined
Sep 19, 2001
Messages
1,237
Location
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
#22
Scar said:
The point of this thread is mainly arbitration.
Scar, I tip my hat to you since this is an incredibly well thought out and executed post... Something that is really missing from these boards.

Now, as much as I hate to do this, I think this entire thread is not arbitration, but this is just a counterproductive post on the Brawl Discussion boards.

Basically all I see this post as describing is the following;
  1. People who hate on Brawl are misunderstood and are not actually as much anti-brawl as you think.
  2. People who have the most skill should win in whatever game they are playing.
  3. People who like Brawl (over Melee) never make any good points about their game, and use weak blanket statements.
  4. People who like Brawl (over Melee) continue to use the same two statements which are invalid.

For simplicities sake, I'll just refer to the pronoun "you" when referring to people who firmly believe Melee to be more competitive than Brawl, and "we"/"us" when referring to people who prefer Brawl over Melee (for whatever reasons)

So just what is it exactly you want from us?

Do you want us to parade the streets of SmashBoards with signs saying that Melee is more competitive than Brawl? Do you want us to just give up on this game and not bother playing it because Melee is more competitive? What exactly does it take for you "pro-melee" players to just leave us alone? I'm still baffled over a thread like this, which is so horrendously cluttered with obvious pro-melee statements (as you already admitted in your opening line).

I'm still wondering what the true purpose of all of this is.... really. It's not arbitration, that is all I can say.

Like I said earlier, but I will reaffirm. It's threads like these that keep the community and Smash Brawl from continuing to evolve. Look, Brawl is limited compared to Melee. They removed a lot of advanced techniques which opened up a world of options that they had in Melee. Any Brawl player who says otherwise is only fooling themselves and shouldn't be taken seriously in the first place. Do you need like the entire Brawl community to admit that Brawl is less competitive than Melee in order to get on with evolving the game?

But instead of doing what you and other "pro-melee" players do and focusing on what ISN'T in Brawl (and indirectly, what is in Melee) and focusing on WHAT BRAWL IS and working with that.

Now though, don't get me wrong; You are absolutely right with your entire post. I just think that this thread belongs in the pile of "Beating the dead horse." Fine, Brawl is less competitive. Fine, Brawl is limited. Fine, the pro-melee crowd is right about everything when comparing the two games. Is that what you want to hear? Because it sounds to me that you still haven't moved on with just how bad Brawl is in comparison to Melee.

I believe the proper saying for this would be "If Sakurai gives you lemons, make lemonade" and that is clearly what has happened when Sakurai gave us our Lemon... Smash Brawl. You along with all the other pro-melee crowd are still surprised that you are holding a Lemon in your hand, and it seems like you won't do something with it until everyone else around you acknowledges that you have a Lemon in your hand in order for you to just move on and make Lemonade.

Scar said:
This thread, again, is not here to discuss the specifics. It's here to help further the debate in countless other threads.
No, it's not. This thread is here to continue to remind everyone that you along with the pro-melee crowd are holding a Lemon in your hand. Meanwhile I'm waiting at my Lemonade stand, and trying to improve my technique in order to make it taste all the more sweeter.

I don't mean to sound harsh (I especially think you don't deserve it because I respect your opinion greatly), but can we please get over it and work towards evolving Brawl. This thread accomplishes absolutely nothing apart from keeping us back at Square One in Brawl's evolution process.


PS: I just realized I really abused that Lemon metaphor :laugh: I thought it fit so perfectly..
 

Scar

#HarveyDent
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
6,066
Location
Sunnyvale, CA
#23
lol I approve of the lemon metaphor. And I'm doing my best to evolve Brawl, I already came up with a glitch and named it Stage Scarring. It's on the Wolf boards. I want Brawl to evolve. Really to be honest, the point of this thread was to define competitive. I swear to God that's all I was trying to do.

While I was at it I threw a lot of other things in there that just irritated me because we weren't getting anywhere in other threads.

And yes, I agree, it must be irritating to be constantly bugged with people claiming that Brawl is inferior. But I think that if people truly believe that Brawl is worth their time that they shouldn't care what other people say about it.

Well, they should care. They should just not worry about it. I really do see your point, I just thought that this would be a better way of saying what really needs to be said than cluttering up other threads with my opinions.
 
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
638
#24
lol. Wow. Personal shots. Real cool.

Plus it has nothing to do with the advanced techs. It has to do with the shallow overall gameplay. This thread, again, is not here to discuss the specifics. It's here to help further the debate in countless other threads.
Yeah, and I like the overall gameplay, different as it may be. Different doesn't mean bad, necessarily (not talking about techs).

Anyways, my point was that these wall-of-text posts about the competitive side of Brawl have been made numerous and plenty over the past week, and I don't see why another, once again revealing nothing different, had to be posted >:
 

Scar

#HarveyDent
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
6,066
Location
Sunnyvale, CA
#25
Yeah I've looked at all the other ones and they haven't been arguing their points properly. This one is organized point by point and puts forth definitions and their consequences.

In other words, no one is going to come into this thread and post "leave Brawl alone" unless they're either admitting that they're just sick of hearing that Brawl is inferior even though it's true, such as Card's post, which had great points, opened my eyes to the other side of things, and ultimately furthered this discussion; or they're you, with two worthless posts contributing nothing other than a cheap shot and an opinion on Brawl's gameplay.
 

Scion

Smash Cadet
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
42
Location
St. Louis
#26
Scar, I still feel you failed to answer Card's question.

You made this thread in order to avoid cluttering the forums up with your opinions about how melee is more competitive than brawl, but you still havn't told us what you're trying to accomplish?.. Whether or not Brawl is as competitive or not, it is what it is. You said it yourself, you'll continue to play brawl because it's fun. So why spend time worrying about how it's different than the last game?
 
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
638
#27
or they're you, with two worthless posts contributing nothing other than a cheap shot and an opinion on Brawl's gameplay.
Your posts are pointless.
His are.
Mine are.
This section is pointless.

It has been deemed pointless by the stupid pessimists that wreak havoc here because they don't have anything better to do.

So Brawl is different. Big freaking deal. No one forces the Melee players to play Brawl, and they can't force us to play Melee either.

No progress is made with this discussion or argument, no matter how many threads are made. It's a matter of opinions getting thrown at eachother. "Brawl is better" "No, Melee is better" infinitely being discussed.

It's all just a matter of opinionated debate. It leads to nowhere.
 

Card

Smash Lord
Joined
Sep 19, 2001
Messages
1,237
Location
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
#28
Well, they should care. They should just not worry about it. I really do see your point, I just thought that this would be a better way of saying what really needs to be said than cluttering up other threads with my opinions.
For the record... your thread is the only one (out of threads which discuss the competitive merit of Brawl) that I have ever bothered replying to. That says a lot ;)

At this point I just want the boards and the entire community to move on. I've tried to voice my thoughts on the issue and get the community to focus on the future but alas, my voice wasn't heard as much as I had hoped, and we end up having the same threads still being created and discussed over and over. You know it's very frustrating for me to have my voice get smothered just by the massive discussions people have about "What Brawl is not." I really want to be a part of the evolution process, and influence the way our game is played and enjoyed by the thousands of players around the world. I want to see this game flourish and develop before my eyes. This'll sound really corny, but I cannot wait to see what tasting lemonade the community will churn up (pun intended! :laugh:)

But it seems like before that can happen... the community needs to evolve first... and we just quite aren't there yet.
 

Scar

#HarveyDent
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
6,066
Location
Sunnyvale, CA
#29
So Brawl is different. Big freaking deal. No one forces the Melee players to play Brawl, and they can't force us to play Melee either.
The fact that this is in my thread leads me to believe that you are incredibly dense and not worth debating with. I clearly point out that this is not my aim and has nothing to do with my message. I play Brawl, no one is forcing me to, I don't care who plays what, I play Melee too, you do what you want. This is clearly what I'm saying, and you are just not understanding or refusing to understand.

@Scion, the true purpose of this thread is to clearly point out the difference between competitive and competition, and to define competitive so that everyone knows what everyone is saying when people talk about the relative competitiveness in Brawl.

I believe that by this definition it is plain fact that, at this point, Brawl is a competitive game but not as competitive as Melee. Speculation on Brawl's future is of course fine but not something I'm prepared to comment on since it's just speculation.

Edit: This is in Card's thread. If no one ever says this ever again, then the goal of my thread has been realized.

Nah, the game will always be shallow, but as I've said from Day 1, the game will likely be more competitive than Melee due to popularity (Brawl's accessibility being a large factor there).
 

Hydde

Smash Lord
Joined
Mar 28, 2006
Messages
1,819
Location
Panama(Central america)
NNID
Rahrthur
#30
In my humble opinion... a lot of people on this board are suffering from the "Post Melee" Symdrome.
What this is?, well, most of the users here are frustated by the fact that brawl was not was most of us were expecting. I know, is difficult to accept that this game, which could had been like the epitome of competiton , turned out in other way. But at least, im trying to accept that fact, and like Card said, im trying to play the game without thinking too much in te past.
Melee was IMO the best game i have played in my life, hands down, and i desired so much for brawl to be the continuation of that game.. but its not.. is another game with another characteristics and another point of view.
A lot of the forumers here, express their sadness and frustration with this "anti brawl" threads, a lot of them do it even without noticing why is the real reason behind the posts.

All of us, we are kind of not conform with what we got, but this is life and we cant do anything to change things.

Brawl is a good game without doubts...and still has a lot to offer. Me? Ill give it a shot and a chance to demonstrate. Im having lots of fun with my pals and online mode. IM trying to enjoy the game as it is.

Its time to look at the present people...and accept things as they are... if not.... there is melee, which will always be what we know it is.
 

boxelder

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
86
Location
Montreal
#31
I just don't see how inescapable combos and lame throw combos (u-throw, u-air ZOMG PRO) take more skill than Brawl's system. I also don't see any trend at all in matches I've watched where the lesser player lucks into wins. In fact, with it harder to suicide I'd actually say there less random outcomes. I can see how players who play fox and liked to jump around canceling all lag and unbalancing the game to the point that only a handful of the roster could even hope to compete might feel that brawl offers less by way of glitches to exploit for unfair advantage. But performing six button presses in a second isn't what makes a game fun, or competitive for that matter.

The things people complain about seem just flat out wrong. Throws are useless just because they don't give free combos? Really? It's useless to throw someone off the edge and punish the return now? And some characters can combo out of throws , for example Dedede, and Toon Link.

Does it really take more skill to land a five hit combo on a player who has no hope of fighting back than someone who can respond, or dodge, or do all sort of things other then play the balloon in a game of keep up. Why? Seriously, answer this question. Please. For the love of god answer it. Why?

On top of that the stages are better, the roster is more varied and balanced, COMBOS DO EXIST. Watch some youtube clips back to back and see how big the difference REALLY is in comboing, and chaining together attacks. It's not that different in terms of how control shifts at all. The graphics are better, it supports wifi, and last but certainly not least, it's not half a decade old and played to ****ing death. it's fresh.

So here, I've offered you all sorts of points outside of "stop hating" so respond.
 
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
638
#32
The fact that this is in my thread leads me to believe that you are incredibly dense and not worth debating with. I clearly point out that this is not my aim and has nothing to do with my message. I play Brawl, no one is forcing me to, I don't care who plays what, I play Melee too, you do what you want. This is clearly what I'm saying, and you are just not understanding or refusing to understand.
The fact is, I never wanted to debate. Debating is freaking pointless. You can't debate the competitive side of Brawl, as it has already been done many times to no victory, as it is an OPINIONATED decision.

I just don't see how inescapable combos and lame throw combos (u-throw, u-air ZOMG PRO) take more skill than Brawl's system. I also don't see any trend at all in matches I've watched where the lesser player lucks into wins. In fact, with it harder to suicide I'd say I actually say there less random outcomes. I can see how players who play fox and liked to jump around canceling all lag and unbalancing the game to the point that only a handful of the roster could even hope to compete might feel that brawl offers less by way of glitches to exploit for unfair advantage. But performing six button presses in a second isn't what makes a game fun, or competitive for that matter.
And yet, among the dirt and mud are words of truth.
 

Scion

Smash Cadet
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
42
Location
St. Louis
#33
Really, there is no such thing as a degree of competitiveness. Why are the outcomes different between two players with equal skill playing in brawl and melee? It's because they're different games. Melee players can't just expect to pick up a new game and believe that their skill from Melee is going to carry over, no. People are going to have to develop new strategies to beat they're opponents who they feel are less skilled because they couldn't win in Melee.
 

Scar

#HarveyDent
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
6,066
Location
Sunnyvale, CA
#34
What this is?, well, most of the users here are frustated by the fact that brawl was not was most of us were expecting. I know, is difficult to accept that this game, which could had been like the epitome of competiton , turned out in other way. But at least, im trying to accept that fact, and like Card said, im trying to play the game without thinking too much in te past.
I agree with this entire post, and clearly agree with everything Card is saying as well. I appreciate a movement to move forward too, but I don't think anyone is going to move forward until it is widely accepted that Melee is a more competitive game than Brawl. Honestly.

The reasons for why we can still move forth even after that realization is that Brawl is (perhaps) more balanced, prettier, has better music, and (a more shallow reason) is the most recent installment. I, however, think it's necessary for me to address the reality of the situation while there are still masses of people out there saying and believing that at this point in time Brawl is as competitive as Melee.
 

Scion

Smash Cadet
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
42
Location
St. Louis
#35
I still support my previous statement. People need to adjust to brawl. The gameplay is different so obviously the people who dominated in melee won't right away in Brawl. I know you don't like to hear this Scar, but I think in time the people who figure out their own techniques in brawl will become "skilled" and win over the unskilled.
 

Scar

#HarveyDent
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
6,066
Location
Sunnyvale, CA
#36
The fact is, I never wanted to debate. Debating is freaking pointless. You can't debate the competitive side of Brawl, as it has already been done many times to no victory, as it is an OPINIONATED decision.
I am trying to argue that it's not opinionated but plain fact. Your pessimistic outlook on debating as a futile banter just reinforces my opinion that you never listen to anyone and have no idea when you're wrong. Yes, debating with you has been fruitless, so no, I'm not going to do it. Everyone else is making good points though, so I'm going to talk to them.

Does it really take more skill to land a five hit combo on a player who has no hope of fighting back than someone who can respond, or dodge, or do all sort of things other then play the balloon in a game of keep up. Why? Seriously, answer this question. Please. For the love of god answer it. Why?
Combos exist in Brawl merely as two or three hits in a row or as a string of attacks that just sort of connect in sequence. These sequences of attacks are almost always a product of someone winning in Rock, Paper, Scissors in quick succession.

Cactuar can (and hopefully will) explain this better than I can, but in all fighting games there are at least two parts. The first part is neutrality. Both fighters are fine and they are simply baiting the other person into attacking, or trying to successfully land a hit themselves. This part of the game is largely Rock, Paper, Scissors. You guess what the other person is going to do, and then punish them for it. If you're wrong, you will most likely get punished.

The second part of the game is after guessing correctly or wrong, this part is the punishment aspect of games. After successfully landing hits, you have an advantage. After some hits there is no followup, usually after a very strong move. After others, like jabs, they set up for more punishment. You carry out combos with your advantage to the best of your ability until there is no real followup. Then the game goes back to neutrality.

All games have a balance of both of these parts. The best games have good balances of these.

Melee had a lovely balance of this. Uthrow > uair is usually not that rewarding unless you're fast enough to continue your combo out of it. It takes a lot of time and experience to become good enough to consistently combo. It really is difficult to combo in Melee. This is how the game rewards players for practicing.

Brawl seems to be all the first part. After each hit, players are back at the neutral position. After Ganon's dair at low to mid %s, Ganon is actually at a DISADVANTAGE. Other characters experience this punishment for successfully landing hits. This takes away from competitiveness, as it is very difficult to safely land hits at high % without being punished by death. Without a solid punishment game, matches are kept even when they shouldn't be.

Really, there is no such thing as a degree of competitiveness. Why are the outcomes different between two players with equal skill playing in brawl and melee? It's because they're different games.
This is not what I mean. I mean if you could calibrate players to a scale, if you could create Melee players with skill levels 6 and 5, the player with skill level 6 will win x% of the time. If you could create two entirely different Brawl players with skill levels 6 and 5, the player with skill level 6 will win y% of the time. It is my claim that x>y.

I DO NOT presume that players who are good in Melee will be just as good in Brawl. I think the skill that carries over between the two games is present, but definitely will never claim that person A is better in Melee and therefore will win in Brawl.
 

Scion

Smash Cadet
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
42
Location
St. Louis
#37
This is not what I mean. I mean if you could calibrate players to a scale, if you could create Melee players with skill levels 6 and 5, the player with skill level 6 will win x% of the time. If you could create Brawl players with skill levels 6 and 5, the player with skill level 6 will win y% of the time. It is my claim that x>y.

I DO NOT presume that players who are good in Melee will be just as good in Brawl. I think the skill that carries over between the two games is present, but definitely will never claim that person A is better in Melee and therefore will win in Brawl.
You can't say that players with skill levels 6 and 5 will stay that way with both games. The game is different and therefore their skill levels will be changed. X% > Y% wont' always be true, and because of the different playing styles of the games you can't determine what's going to happen based on the skill level in melee. Eventually, if player A works enough to become better than Player B, they will win more of the games. Not because of how they played in Melee but because of their newly develped skill in Brawl.
 

E.G.G.M.A.N.

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
284
#38
The fact is, I never wanted to debate. Debating is freaking pointless. You can't debate the competitive side of Brawl, as it has already been done many times to no victory, as it is an OPINIONATED decision.



And yet, among the dirt and mud are words of truth.
If you aren't in this thread to debate, then why ARE you here? Are you just trolling? Or do you have something you would like to contribute? The fact is that as of now, brawl has not matched melee in the sheer variety of executable techniques/exploits/whatever you want to call them. A creative player who might have been able to take advantage of these now has no outlet for their skill. In essence, everyone is sort of locked into the same basic actions: attack, roll, grab, jump, and perhaps a handful of other things. The fact is that melee had all sorts of cool little tricks could do, brawl, not so much. We may find more someday, but right now it just doesn't.
 
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
1,237
Location
Chicago, IL
#39
I love how people think they are all knowing about a game that came out about a month and a half ago. The game will either prove to be better competitively than Melee or it won't. No one has any god **** patience though so they can't just wait and find out they can only use "facts" that they have about a game that no one is really good at yet.

I don't really care if the game is more competitive anyway. Why? CAUSE IT DOESN'T MATTER!

This community is so huge there is going to be a giant competitive scene wether the game is better for competition or not.

I don't agree nor disagree with the OP about the competitive nature of the game, I am just tired of people trying to spew random "facts" about something that we have nowhere near enough info about. Its like a kindergartener trying to explain the intricacies of language after he just learned the alphabet.
 

E.G.G.M.A.N.

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
284
#40
I love how people think they are all knowing about a game that came out about a month and a half ago. The game will either prove to be better competitively than Melee or it won't. No one has any god **** patience though so they can't just wait and find out they can only use "facts" that they have about a game that no one is really good at yet.

I don't really care if the game is more competitive anyway. Why? CAUSE IT DOESN'T MATTER!

This community is so huge there is going to be a giant competitive scene wether the game is better for competition or not.

I don't agree nor disagree with the OP about the competitive nature of the game, I am just tired of people trying to spew random "facts" about something that we have nowhere near enough info about. Its like a kindergartener trying to explain the intricacies of language after he just learned the alphabet.
It's true we don't know much about the game yet, but we have to start SOMEWHERE. If we refuse to ever analyze or discuss, we will never learn anything. And we'll all be stuck as "kindergarteners" forever. We have some facts now. That is enough to start a discussion. We just want a good honest look at the game without random people coming and grumbling about some other topic (i.e. "not melee 2", "wavedashing", etc.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top