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

[The Halloween Captain]

Think ISJR will drastically alter the metagame, like L-cancelling and wave techniques did for melee? Also, is Snake's mortar slide a general AT, same as Pikachu's QAC turned out to be?

There's also the B-attack C-sticking techniques, which are very good for Lucas/Ness, but there's a good chance they aren't tournament legal.

 

[Melomaniacal]

Think ISJR will drastically alter the metagame, like L-cancelling and wave techniques did for melee?

I think it CAN. I mean, it's nothing BUT useful, especially for characters like Marth and Luigi.

Edit: Ha, beat your edit!

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

I actually have no idea where I said that, and where you're getting this from. I said that because I am the better player, I nearly always beat my brother and good friend, both of which are not scrubs. Our skill gaps are not large, yet I beat them because I am the better player. This could be said in Melee as well (same example). I didn't say I win "most of the time," I said I have lost maybe three or four matches. I didn't even mention how often I won in Melee, but since you brought it up, I'll say that I won JUST as much. And we all pretty much know that Melee is more competitive, I just don't think that it's so much more competitive that Brawl needs to be discarded. BOTH games are competitive, end of story.

And there's the problem again, "Brawl is simply the inferior game, opinions aside." That IS an opinion, not a fact. I mean, hell, if you want to go by fact, Brawl is superior. Brawl has a larger fan base, therefore it must be a superior game, right?
(I'm not trying to say Brawl IS better, I'm just going by the facts. I'm pretty neutral on which game is better).

I still don't think you understand the general idea of superiority. But first, i'll tackle another issue:

Simply because you can hold your own against your brother doesn't necessarily mean anything. Other than the fact that these matches where never scene beyond your residence, there is a a huge plethora of players who possibly exist around the same skill gap, which in Brawl's favor, is extremely narrow depending on which character you use. If you want to convince people that Brawl (And yourself) are acceptable, show some videos. But, it doesn't necessarily support the isue of "why brawl is competitive" either.

Now, since what I just said was completely irrelevant, let's speak on the superiority.

I honestly can't agree that a fan base makes a game more superior to another. Some other fighting games for example may have a larger fanbase for an overall shallow game. If Mortal Kombat had a large fanbase, does that mean the game is superior to, let's say, Guilty Gear? I wouldn't think so personally.

Without a doubt, both Melee and Brawl both posses superior attributes. the only thing superior in Brawl's case is the "more" factor. More stages, characters, items (irrelevant), and modes. But what Brawl gievs takes away from it's harmonious gameplay. Brawl has been striped down to a game more basic than the original SSB64. Melee's superiority lies in gameplay, and in my opinion, better aesthetics and overall presentation:

Melee Has...

-Distinct Character falling speeds
-Inertia
-Shield stun
-Power shielding that makes sense
-A practical but not spammable Air Dodge
-Strait forward ledge mechanics
-Amazingly fast speed.
-Consecutive hit capability(On casual and tournament level play)
-Advanced tournament play mechanics.
-"Retro" factor
-Better Camera angle
-Balance (Yes. I said it)

Sure, Brawl is fun, but it lacks all of this and in return you have a slower, shallow game. I can acknowledge that Brawl has more, but it doesn't feel like the smash that I have known and love for the last decade. Honestly answer this, do you really love Brawl for what it is? Or are you stuck in denial trying to love the game for what it will never become(Competitively superior)?)

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Honestly, I love Brawl for what it is.

It's a game that has a huge competitive fan base, and is slow enough that camping can be viable. So its one of the few tourney games I can enjoy.

Unlike most smashers, I always prefered camp tactics back in melee with counters for approaches, and while I could play fast, melee was like fighting at double normal speed when you got to the elites. Brawl seems more tactical with time for thought mid-game, and less fast-pace.

The one thing I will say against Brawl is that most the stages are too flat, and reward camping too much. This goes especially for the extremely popular Final Destination.

 

[Melomaniacal]

I still don't think you understand the general idea of superiority. But first, i'll tackle another issue:

Simply because you can hold your own against your brother doesn't necessarily mean anything. Other than the fact that these matches where never scene beyond your residence, there is a a huge plethora of players who possibly exist around the same skill gap, which in Brawl's favor, is extremely narrow depending on which character you use. If you want to convince people that Brawl (And yourself) are acceptable, show some videos. But, it doesn't necessarily support the isue of "why brawl is competitive" either.

Now, since what I just said was completely irrelevant, let's speak on the superiority.

I honestly can't agree that a fan base makes a game more superior to another. Some other fighting games for example may have a larger fanbase for an overall shallow game. If Mortal Kombat had a large fanbase, does that mean the game is superior to, let's say, Guilty Gear? I wouldn't think so personally.

Without a doubt, both Melee and Brawl both posses superior attributes. the only thing superior in Brawl's case is the "more" factor. More stages, characters, items (irrelevant), and modes. But what Brawl gievs takes away from it's harmonious gameplay. Brawl has been striped down to a game more basic than the original SSB64. Melee's superiority lies in gameplay, and in my opinion, better aesthetics and overall presentation:

Melee Has...

-Distinct Character falling speeds
-Inertia
-Shield stun
-Power shielding that makes sense
-A practical but not spammable Air Dodge
-Strait forward ledge mechanics
-Amazingly fast speed.
-Consecutive hit capability(On casual and tournament level play)
-Advanced tournament play mechanics.
-"Retro" factor
-Better Camera angle
-Balance (Yes. I said it)

Sure, Brawl is fun, but it lacks all of this and in return you have a slower, shallow game. I can acknowledge that Brawl has more, but it doesn't feel like the smash that I have known and love for the last decade. Honestly answer this, do you really love Brawl for what it is? Or are you stuck in denial trying to love the game for what it will never become(Competitively superior)?)

What do you mean I "still" don't get it? I haven't ever talked to you, nor have I ever discussed this topic. Whatever, not important

Well, the brother thing was just one example, I have another post explaining that I do have tournament experience.

Anyway, I think you took the "Brawl is superior" thing way too seriously. I was just joking around, saying that since more people play Brawl, that must make it a superior game.
As I have said before, I have put A LOT of thought into it before I decided that I prefer Brawl. I know all the pros and cons, and yet I still prefer playing Brawl. This doesn't mean that I don't play Melee anymore, I love both games. I just decided that I would prefer to devote more time into Brawl. I will always love Melee, there's no way I would ever just toss away all the knowledge and skills I took so much time to learn and master. Whether Brawl will become a superior competitive game or not really doesn't matter. It will be played competitively, and I'll right there to enjoy it, just as Melee will. I will continue to play Melee and Brawl.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Honestly, I really think that the concept of determining (either through facts or logic) which game is more competitive is ******** almost to the extent of the Special Olympics. In order to determine which game is 'more competitive', a standard axiom of competitiveness must be established, but most people define 'competitive' as 'what Melee is'. Because an assumption of what 'competitive' is must first be established before any debate can happen, the concept breaks down. It's like trying to say 'X is more like Y than Y is.' Of course Melee is more competitive if we are using Melee as a measure of what competitive is! And Brawl is certainly not Melee, so if we say that Melee is definitely the measure of competitiveness, Brawl, by the very definition we've established, can never be competitive. The entire train of though is one big cyclical-reasoning clusterf**k, a giant logical fallacy. A measure of 'competitiveness' must be established independent of both Brawl and Melee in order to get anywhere, which means that no one in the Smash community could ever be the person to define 'competitive'; we're all too biased.

So, this entire debate will NEVER be based in anything other than bias and logical fallacy, regardless of whose side you're on. There are NO facts, only opinions. So... everyone stop speaking as if we have any idea of what is concrete fact, because we don't.

 

[EC_Joey]

Are you kidding? ISJR looks beastly in the hands of a good Lucario, especially considering all of his good combo moves are aerials. Besides, who doesn't fear the Wall of Manliness?

From what I've seen so far it looks like it will be used more by certain characters because some aerials have too long of a startup or duration. However, I do like the prospect of it being applied to certain B moves. A Falco laser wall would be ridiculous.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Variola - There are very few b-moves that ISJR works for. Falco is unknown, but considered extremely doubtful.

Jack - melee might be the standard, but only because most people define a game's competitiveness by the amount of skill it takes to master its ATs and the speed of play. Melee is faster, and people are more aware of its ATs, so it is considered more competitive right now.

 

[arrowhead]

the definition of competitive was established before brawl came out. and melee currently fits it more than brawl

 

[Melomaniacal]

Honestly, I really think that the concept of determining (either through facts or logic) which game is more competitive is ******** almost to the extent of the Special Olympics. In order to determine which game is 'more competitive', a standard axiom of competitiveness must be established, but most people define 'competitive' as 'what Melee is'. Because an assumption of what 'competitive' is must first be established before any debate can happen, the concept breaks down. It's like trying to say 'X is more like Y than Y is.' Of course Melee is more competitive if we are using Melee as a measure of what competitive is! And Brawl is certainly not Melee, so if we say that Melee is definitely the measure of competitiveness, Brawl, by the very definition we've established, can never be competitive. The entire train of though is one big cyclical-reasoning clusterf**k, a giant logical fallacy. A measure of 'competitiveness' must be established independent of both Brawl and Melee in order to get anywhere, which means that no one in the Smash community could ever be the person to define 'competitive'; we're all too biased.

So, this entire debate will NEVER be based in anything other than bias and logical fallacy, regardless of whose side you're on. There are NO facts, only opinions. So... everyone stop speaking as if we have any idea of what is concrete fact, because we don't.

This is a really good point, and I couldn't agree with you more. It all leads up to the fact that BOTH games are competitive. One game being more competitive than the other is completely irrelevant. It just doesn't matter. Although I, like most people, still do believe that Melee is more competitive.

The only thing going against your argument is the fact that Brawl IS a sequel. This means to most people "moving on." And that's where the hostility comes out of, and that's where the problem starts.

 

[thumbswayup]

Learning curve =/= competitiveness.

Also, if you really think the learning curve is so much lower, then go learn how to ISJR. Its ridiculously difficult.

ISJR?

Ok, learning curve may not equal competitiveness, but options per second does. The less you have to think and do the less competitive it is.

 

[EC_Joey]

Variola - the only B move I have heard of it applying to is Pika's Quick Attack
Jack - melee might be the standard, but only because most people define a game's competitiveness by the amount of skill it takes to master its ATs and the speed of play. Melee is faster, and people are more aware of its ATs, so it is considered more competitive right now.

Wrong. Go read more about ISJR, and then this: Cactuar's Post About Game Mechanics and Competitive Play

In order to determine which game is 'more competitive', a standard axiom of competitiveness must be established, but most people define 'competitive' as 'what Melee is'. Because an assumption of what 'competitive' is must first be established before any debate can happen, the concept breaks down. It's like trying to say 'X is more like Y than Y is.' Of course Melee is more competitive if we are using Melee as a measure of what competitive is! And Brawl is certainly not Melee, so if we say that Melee is definitely the measure of competitiveness, Brawl, by the very definition we've established, can never be competitive. The entire train of though is one big cyclical-reasoning clusterf**k, a giant logical fallacy. A measure of 'competitiveness' must be established independent of both Brawl and Melee in order to get anywhere, which means that no one in the Smash community could ever be the person to define 'competitive'; we're all too biased.

So, this entire debate will NEVER be based in anything other than bias and logical fallacy, regardless of whose side you're on. There are NO facts, only opinions. So... everyone stop speaking as if we have any idea of what is concrete fact, because we don't.

Cactuar provides a standard of competitive play based on essential game mechanics that can be seen as universal to all fighting games. Specifically, a ratio between push & pull, and punishment. If we use this as the standard to compare Melee and Brawl to, we can determine how they relate, and this circular debate ends. Melee is more competitive than Brawl.

 

[Melomaniacal]

ISJR?

Ok, learning curve may not equal competitiveness, but options per second does. The less you have to think and do the less competitive it is.

Infinite Second Jump Renewal.
There's two topics on it in the Brawl Tactical forum.
I think this video gives a decent showcase of it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paIO9BrxKsc.

 

[Jack Kieser]

@Variola - The problem with Cactuar's post is that, again, it is written by someone inside the Smash community. You can't say 'I'm writing a list of design principles common to all fighters' and include 'edgeguarding' as one of them. If someone like Sirlin, for instance, came up with a list of elements necessary for competitive fighting game design, I'd be more inclined to listen. Remember, I said 'no one in the Smash community could ever be the person to define 'competitive'; we're all too biased', and I stand by that statement. I certainly can't do it, and no one else with a vested interest in Smash (regardless of which Smash game) could do it either because of the bias. We all have a game we prefer, and don't be like a mother asked about which child she likes more and say, 'I love them both!' If anyone REALLY thought about it, we ALL have a preference (even if it isn't by a large degree).

 

[Pink Reaper]

Honestly, I really think that the concept of determining (either through facts or logic) which game is more competitive is ******** almost to the extent of the Special Olympics. In order to determine which game is 'more competitive', a standard axiom of competitiveness must be established, but most people define 'competitive' as 'what Melee is'. Because an assumption of what 'competitive' is must first be established before any debate can happen, the concept breaks down. It's like trying to say 'X is more like Y than Y is.' Of course Melee is more competitive if we are using Melee as a measure of what competitive is! And Brawl is certainly not Melee, so if we say that Melee is definitely the measure of competitiveness, Brawl, by the very definition we've established, can never be competitive. The entire train of though is one big cyclical-reasoning clusterf**k, a giant logical fallacy. A measure of 'competitiveness' must be established independent of both Brawl and Melee in order to get anywhere, which means that no one in the Smash community could ever be the person to define 'competitive'; we're all too biased.

So, this entire debate will NEVER be based in anything other than bias and logical fallacy, regardless of whose side you're on. There are NO facts, only opinions. So... everyone stop speaking as if we have any idea of what is concrete fact, because we don't.

Ankoku's post gave me an idea. It is quoted here for reference:




Is it possible that competitiveness can be roughly calculated through mathematics? The formula would have to go something like this.

(Offensive Strategies) x (Defensive Strategies) x (Speed of Gameplay) / (Probability of "random" loss) x (Predictability of movement)

Two questions about the above:

1. Can a games competitiveness be quantified by an equation?
2. What elements of the equation are missing and/or need correction?

That equation wouldn't work as you would have to have a way to find a universal constant for "Speed of Gameplay" and "Predictability of Movement," i.e a given gameplay speed that is considered 1 and a given level of predictability that is considered 1. Since you can't, it would be best it would be better to make change "Predictability of Movement" into "Movement options" using the number of movement options in all possible situations. If this number is high enough you'd have a large amount of movement options and a low level of predictability. Speed of Game play could be ignored as(assuming we're still doing Melee Vs. Brawl) it would be the same as both games run at 60 FPS so technically they have equal speed. Am I taking this too far?

Yeah in a few ways. I didn't mean for it to generate a finite "competitiveness" rating, just a rough way to put one game above another. By "Speed of Gameplay" I did not necessarily mean how fast the game runs. I think we can all agree that Melee is a more fast-paced game then Brawl, and that both are considerably faster than 64. If you were trying to generate a legitimate number for the game it might be more effective to do it on a scale of 1 to 10 or 1 to 100.

Also, in retrospect I think "Predictability" should be removed because it is really a joint factor of the number of strategies and the randomness.

Well, if you want to use "Speed of Gameplay" your still going to need a constant. Either that or you would need data on the average amounts of actions(inputs) per second done by players in both games. Theoretically this is possible but you'd need use the same players for both games and both players would have to be equally familiar with both(so it would be like taking Pc Chris' Falco vs Pc Chris' Snake, M2K's Marth vs M2K's.......Marth and so on) as you begin averaging down you could form a relative constant for both games for terms of "Gameplay Speed"

There you go Jack, all you have to do is get the data, we've got the equation for you.

 

[EC_Joey]

This is a really good point, and I couldn't agree with you more. It all leads up to the fact that BOTH games are competitive. One game being more competitive than the other is completely irrelevant. It just doesn't matter. Although I, like most people, still do believe that Melee is more competitive.

I think you kind of missed the point. If there is no established definition of "competitiveness" then everything is thrown out the window and you can't call either game competitive or not competitive, because it would mean nothing, just a word. However, I think Cactuar provided an adequate standard for competitive play in the post I linked to in my last post.

 

[Jack Kieser]

A measure of 'competitiveness' must be established independent of both Brawl and Melee in order to get anywhere, which means that no one in the Smash community could ever be the person to define 'competitive'; we're all too biased.

10readtheposts

 

[Melomaniacal]

I think you kind of missed the point. If there is no established definition of "competitiveness" then everything is thrown out the window and you can't call either game competitive or not competitive, because it would mean nothing, just a word. However, I think Cactuar provided an adequate standard for competitive play in the post I linked to in my last post.

The point is that both games are competitive, we all know that. Whether it's going by a "competitiveness equation" or not, we all know that both games are competitive.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

I think you kind of missed the point. If there is no established definition of "competitiveness" then everything is thrown out the window and you can't call either game competitive or not competitive, because it would mean nothing, just a word. However, I think Cactuar provided an adequate standard for competitive play in the post I linked to in my last post.

Actually, it seems to have become nothing more than a word for defining melee, it seems to have lost some of its meaning. Maybe we should judge the games only by how much fun we have playing them, and not which one is more "competitive."

 

[Mr. Rogu]

wanna know why so many people are complaining about brawl? fact: melees been out for like what 6, 7 years now. so many people are used to melee, they cant play brawl cause of its different gameplay. then because its new and different, they keep complaining and saying that the game sux. just give brawl time, we did for melee, brawl deserves a chance.

 

[Pink Reaper]

wanna know why so many people are complaining about brawl? fact: melees been out for like what 6, 7 years now. so many people are used to melee, they cant play brawl cause of its different gameplay. then because its new and different, they keep complaining and saying that the game sux. just give brawl time, we did for melee, brawl deserves a chance.

Im putting you on my ignore list.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Technically, because of Brawl's online features (the reason it is floaty) Brawl has much MORE potential to be competitive than melee. How many other fighting games can have massive tournaments held entirely online, or even support an online mode?

 

[EC_Joey]

@Jack Kieser - I don't think Cactuar's inclusion of the "edge" is valid because, as you said, the standard must be independent of Smash Bros. However, I feel that his definitions of Push & Pull and Punishment are well defined enough and applicable to every fighting game. After he applies these standards of measuring aspects of the game mechanics, we can see results from a comparison between the two games.

Edit:

Technically, because of Brawl's online features (the reason it is floaty) Brawl has much MORE potential to be competitive than melee. How many other fighting games can have massive tournaments held entirely online, or even support an online mode?

WHAT? Holy ****. I'm sorry, but I really think you should leave and stick to posting about Brawl, NOT Melee. This includes comparing Brawl to Melee. The reason for this is that online play does NOT make the game floaty, it only makes it laggy as ****. Also, because of the lag it makes it so that people who are more used to the lag have a slight advantage over people who are not used to the lag. I personally dislike online mode and find it disorienting, but GOOD GOD do your homework before you post.

 

[Melomaniacal]

Im putting you on my ignore list.

Haha, it's funny because I was literally typing about a response to him, explaining why that's wrong, then half way through I stopped and realized I was wasting my time.

However, there still is a slim chance that there is some game-changing stuff out there. What if we discover something else special with the ISJR?

Technically, because of Brawl's online features (the reason it is floaty) Brawl has much MORE potential to be competitive than melee. How many other fighting games can have massive tournaments held entirely online, or even support an online mode?

Yeah... but Brawl's online function is terrible. I can't even use my main because of the unavoidable online lag.

 

[thumbswayup]

Infinite Second Jump Renewal.
There's two topics on it in the Brawl Tactical forum.
I think this video gives a decent showcase of it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paIO9BrxKsc.

Thanks, I'll check it out when I get home.

Im putting you on my ignore list.

ROFL

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Melomaniacal: I already explained this, but Pika's QAC is both amazing, game changing, and derivative of ISJR. That was the first example of how the tactic changed Brawl's metagame even before it was technically discovered.

Online is terrible, but people sacrifice gameplay for convenience surprisingly often.

 

[Melomaniacal]

Melomaniacal: I already explained this, but Pika's QAC is both amazing, game changing, and derivative of ISJR. That was the first example of how the tactic changed Brawl's metagame even before it was technically discovered.

Online is terrible, but people sacrifice gameplay for convenience surprisingly often.

Well, I'm not one of those people I refuse to ever compete in an online tournament. It's just not the same.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Melomaniacal: I refuse to admit an online loss was really a loss myself. I actually main Lucario online because the timing for Pikachu is so bad.

 

[EC_Joey]

Melomaniacal: I already explained this, but Pika's QAC is both amazing, game changing, and derivative of ISJR. That was the first example of how the tactic changed Brawl's metagame even before it was technically discovered.

Online is terrible, but people sacrifice gameplay for convenience surprisingly often.

QAC is NOT game changing. It's situational and can be punished if you see it coming.

Sacrificing gameplay is exactly why Brawl is considered to be less competitive than Melee. If convenience takes priority over gameplay for most people, the in person tournament scene would not be what it is right now.

Technically, because of Brawl's online features (the reason it is floaty) Brawl has much MORE potential to be competitive than melee. How many other fighting games can have massive tournaments held entirely online, or even support an online mode?

WHAT? Holy ****. I'm sorry, but I really think you should leave and stick to posting about Brawl, NOT Melee. This includes comparing Brawl to Melee. The reason for this is that online play does NOT make the game floaty, it only makes it laggy as ****. Also, because of the lag it makes it so that people who are more used to the lag have a slight advantage over people who are not used to the lag. I personally dislike online mode and find it disorienting, but GOOD GOD do your homework before you post.

This is just in case you missed it from my edit. Please take my advice.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

QAC is NOT game changing. It's situational and can be punished if you see it coming.

Sacrificing gameplay is exactly why Brawl is considered to be less competitive than Melee. If convenience takes priority over gameplay for most people, the in person tournament scene would not be what it is right now.This is just in case you missed it from my edit. Please take my advice.

The fact is that there are online tournaments, and most melee fans recognize that these tourneys would be inpossible for their game because it is so much faster. Also, QAC brings Pika-spamming to a whole new level of irritation.

 

[Jack Kieser]

The fact is that there are online tournaments, and most melee fans recognize that these tourneys would be inpossible for their game because it is so much faster. Also, QAC brings Pika-spamming to a whole new level of irritation.

Sir, you bring post spamming to a whole new level of irritation.

EDIT: Ok, that was kind of a cheap blow.

 

[Aesir]

ISJR?

Ok, learning curve may not equal competitiveness, but options per second does. The less you have to think and do the less competitive it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paIO9BrxKsc


Virtually every character can do this, just some benefit more then others.

New l-cancel LOL.

 

[Demon Kirby]

And Ganondorf can't do it with his FAir, whcih would make him not suck as much.

Q.Q

 

[Zankoku]

The fact is that there are online tournaments, and most melee fans recognize that these tourneys would be inpossible for their game because it is so much faster. Also, QAC brings Pika-spamming to a whole new level of irritation.

No, it's impossible for Nintendo Wifi, which for some inexplicable reason has a minimum of 200ms latency, even when a couple rooms away in a college dorm. Meanwhile, I could play someone across the state in some other, much faster online fighter and get around 50ms latency.

 

[Mr. Rogu]

Im putting you on my ignore list.

hey i dont hate melee if thats what you think, its quite the opposite. its just seems like no one here is giving brawl a chance.

 

[Zankoku]

A huge number of people have given Brawl a chance, which is why they actually have concrete reasons for disliking Brawl. If you failed to see this and choose to stick by the most ******** argument for why people might dislike Brawl, then I really can't respect the validity of your opinion.

 

[Proverbs]

Not directed at anyone in particular but I thought this was an interesting combo video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn1y4aPwEVk

Granted, Brawl is not more competitive than Melee. However, it does seem that it can have its competitive moments.

 

[Ban3]

that combo vid... well it was okay but their DI was terrible and they didnt know how to airdodge and they played brawl...like melee

 

[EC_Joey]

hey i dont hate melee if thats what you think, its quite the opposite. its just seems like no one here is giving brawl a chance.

Look at me, quoting myself!

Most people are now in agreement that Melee is a more competitive game than Brawl. What we're now concerned with is the future. Some feel Brawl will flourish and grow into a competitive game after some time passes. Some of these people feel that Melee will diminish and be "put on the shelf" with SSB64.

Others feel that Brawl will be recognized for being a shallow party game and not viable for competitive play. Many of these people hope that people will turn to Melee and the Melee competitive scene will rise again.

For myself, I think of myself as part of the group that feels that Brawl has potential to grow into a competitive game, but that Melee will not be forgotten and tossed aside. I think at most Brawl tournaments at least one Melee setup is made available, and newcomers who joined the competitive scene because of Brawl will be introduced to the nuances of high level Melee gameplay.

I'm not saying that this will convert mass droves of Brawl players into Melee fanatics, I am only saying that perhaps some people will take a liking to Melee and discover for themselves what Melee is about, while still playing Brawl. Others will dislike Melee's high speed and sharp learning curve and stick to Brawl, which is fine.

What I hope for is that Brawl will continue to grow, and that Melee will still be a part of the Smash competitive scene.

 

[RDK]

hey i dont hate melee if thats what you think, its quite the opposite. its just seems like no one here is giving brawl a chance.

^ This crap needs to stop.

People with under 100 posts and an '08 join date need to stop coming in here and yelling "LEAVE BRAUL ALONEZ", and not providing any evidence or reason as to why we should stop "bashing" Brawl. I'm sorry if that sounds incredibly biased, but we form these stereotypes for a reason people. 95% of the people in the Brawl camp are like the above poster.

Try and boot up your thinking cap before coming into semi-intelligent threads. If not, then just shut up for the rest of us.