The problem is the risk-reward factor. Melee's risk-reward ratio is, for the most part, fairly balanced. The attacker has a lot of options going in. If the approach fails to inflict damage, the attacker has several ways to either reset the situation or, better, maintain pressure on the defending opponent. If the attacker manages to land a hit, he can press his newly gained advantage with a combo.
But every step of the way, the defender also has options with which he can turn the enemy's approach upside-down, or, as a last resort, at least reset the situation. And if he gets stuck in a chain of attacks, he can minimize the damage by making intelligent decisions, or he can even escape and fight back. The key point is that both attacker and defender have to constantly outsmart each other, because the resources with which they can fight each other are evenly matched.
In Brawl, the scales are tipped too far in the defender's favor. The attacker is forced to place himself at a disproportionately high risk for a very small reward. There is very little that the attacker can do to approach the defender without putting himself at a disadvantage, and even if he manages to land a hit, he cannot press his advantage because the situation almost automatically resets itself. The rewards of a successful defense are similarly small, but the risks are also substantially lower. As a result, there is every incentive to camp and defend, and almost no incentive to play offensively, because aggression places you in unnecessary danger.
While a defensive strategy is not inherently bad--many competitive Melee players thrived off of more a defensive gameplan--a well-designed game should not discourage either offense or defense. Melee struck a great balance between offense and defense. But in Brawl, you are discouraged from playing aggressively, leaving you with little choice but to camp. Because of this, a huge amount of strategic variety has been lost in the transition between the two games, and depth inevitably suffers as a result.
"But every step of the way, the defender also has options with which he can turn the enemy's approach upside-down, or, as a last resort, at least reset the situation. And if he gets stuck in a chain of attacks, he can minimize the damage by making intelligent decisions, or he can even escape and fight back.
The key point is that both attacker and defender have to constantly outsmart each other, because the resources with which they can fight each other are evenly matched."
If these two hypothetical Melee players are playing the exact same character, maaaayyybbbeee. In Melee, you had your high tier offensive powerhouses and then you had everyone else. Not exactly evenly matched by a long shot.
"There is very little that the attacker can do to approach the defender without putting himself at a disadvantage, and even if he manages to land a hit, he cannot press his advantage because the situation almost automatically resets itself. The rewards of a successful defense are similarly small, but the risks are also substantially lower. As a result, there is every incentive to camp and defend, and almost no incentive to play offensively, because aggression places you in unnecessary danger."
If that turns out to be right (not everyone agrees) then the most skilled "camper" will win. And we'll have tournaments where people devise the best camping strategies to ensure victory. It's still skill based, which means competition will thrive.
But with so many characters in Brawl, and with so little experience with them, I don't see how you can know definitely that new offensive strategies won't develop.
"While a defensive strategy is not inherently bad--many competitive Melee players thrived off of more a defensive gameplan--a well-designed game should not discourage either offense or defense. Melee struck a great balance between offense and defense. But in Brawl, you are discouraged from playing aggressively, leaving you with little choice but to camp. Because of this, a huge amount of strategic variety has been lost in the transition between the two games, and depth inevitably suffers as a result."
The way I see it, matches may be defense oriented - but you'll also have longer matches. And since delivering a KO requires SOME offensive action, we're sure to see short blasts of agression. Different kinds of strategies will develop around this new formulae, but ONLY time will tell if it turns out to be lacking in strategic variety.
I don't buy this argument. It's true that Brawl's ease of execution means more players will have access to a larger percentage of options. But technical barriers aside, Melee plainly offers more options to its players. From a strategic standpoint, the choices you make in Melee are just as important, if not more important, than any of the decisions you can make in Brawl. Accessibility has nothing to do with the game's depth at the highest levels of play.
Taking out elements like L canceling might remove some options. But going from 26 playable characters to 39 (including Squirtle, Sheik, etc.) definitely ADDS options. Particularily in more of them are actually viable in competitive matches.
Not to mention that the ammount of nuances in a character like Snake. (No one knows even now what that character is truly capable of.)
So yeah. Claiming that Brawl with lackin in strategic options at this point is sheer lunacy. It's far, far too early to make such claims.
