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

[Fire52388]

Anybody who praises the game for its "balance" is welcomed by me to quit Brawl, join the World RPS Society and play Rock Paper Scissors competitively. After all each move is so perfectly balanced right? No one is going to dominate with rock, paper, or scissors and that's what makes it such a great game LOLZ!

Is that seriously how simply you dismiss people who talk about balance? Of course they aren't saying that everyone has an equal chance of winning and the odds are exactly the same. Balance means that more characters are viable to compete at a full-blown tourney level. Just think about Melee--no one would have ever had a chance playing as young link or pichu in a tourney. A lot of people feel Brawl is not quite the same in this respect. Again, they clearly aren't talking about some "perfectly balanced" game where it's all about odds and not skill.

 

[LavisFiend]

ummm why would smashballs b used in tourney play anyway ... its an item ... thats just stupid ... and if u can't train urself to keep up with wats happening obviously smash isnt' for u ... go play street fighter or sumthing ...

Explain yourself. Right now.

 

[Lixivium]

Is that seriously how simply you dismiss people who talk about balance? Of course they aren't saying that everyone has an equal chance of winning and the odds are exactly the same. Balance means that more characters are viable to compete at a full-blown tourney level. Just think about Melee--no one would have ever had a chance playing as young link or pichu in a tourney. A lot of people feel Brawl is not quite the same in this respect. Again, they clearly aren't talking about some "perfectly balanced" game where it's all about odds and not skill.

My problem is that people always bring up Brawl's improved "balance" over Melee as a merit without ever recognizing that it's a cheap, lazy sort of balance resulting from taking away options and variety.

 

[Demon Kirby]

INTELLIGENT POSTS

Have been on the decline in this thread.

This thread was tighteous glory at first . . . not so much anymore.

 

[Pink Reaper]

BRAWL IS LESS BALANCED THAN MELEE

Whats with everyone saying Brawl is more balanced then Melee? Is it because Fox isn't is good? Seriously, this is confusing me. Do you people understand how broken top tier characters are in Brawl? Toon Link is so much more broken than Fox in Melee its not even funny. His spam game makes him untouchable by anything less than other higher tier characters. Any character that has no projectile, is slow, or is just generally susceptible to spam(read: EVERYONE but Pit) isn't even going to be able to compete with him. At least in Melee lower tier characters were at least usable and the top tiers weren't unbeatable.. Toon Link for God Tier.

 

[Fire52388]

Of course, granted there are some cheap clones still but I doubt that will ever change. Besides those clones I would hardly call it a "cheap, lazy sort of balance" either. The characters who are balanced aren't done through cheap means, they just have unique movesets of their own. I don't mean for every character of course--I personally hate metaknight and his moveset when spammed. That's not what I would mean when talking about balance. I'm talking about the fact that different characters like Lucario, Marth, and Lucas all have the possibility of winning against each other and all have very unique fighting styles.

 

[LavisFiend]

BRAWL IS LESS BALANCED THAN MELEE

Whats with everyone saying Brawl is more balanced then Melee? Is it because Fox isn't is good? Seriously, this is confusing me. Do you people understand how broken top tier characters are in Brawl? Toon Link is so much more broken than Fox in Melee its not even funny. His spam game makes him untouchable by anything less than other higher tier characters. Any character that has no projectile, is slow, or is just generally susceptible to spam(read: EVERYONE but Pit) isn't even going to be able to compete with him. At least in Melee lower tier characters were at least usable and the top tiers weren't unbeatable.. Toon Link for God Tier.

In all honesty, I think people say it is balanced because they can pick anybody and fight people on equal level.

Mainly because of the one size fits all weight.

 

[CasshernDGZ]

Well I thought what I said had some validity to it, I guess I was wrong =(...

 

[Lixivium]

The characters who are balanced aren't done through cheap means, they just have unique movesets of their own.

That's just about the only things unique about each character now. Everybody falls at about the same speed (some D-airs notwithstanding), has the same aerial DI (except for Wario and Squirtle), recovers the same way - by autosweetspotting (except Sonic and Dedede). Stuff that's still sort of unique like ground speed and grab games are less important because you have less options for approach AND followed up.

Hooray for balance!

 

[Alukard]

Wait wait...

Alukard..are you trying to say that Smash > Street Fighter?

Dude...you wanna step outside?

lol ... ur in the worng forum to start talking like that lol... and i didn't say smash over SF ... i'm just saying ... if someone is complaining about this games speed ... go play sumthing slower and SF came to mind cuz it is slower ... but its mad good right

That's just about the only things unique about each character now. Everybody falls at about the same speed (some D-airs notwithstanding), has the same aerial DI (except for Wario and Squirtle), recovers the same way - by autosweetspotting (except Sonic and Dedede). Stuff that's still sort of unique like ground speed and grab games are less important because you have less options for approach AND followed up.

Hooray for balance!

thats not all for balance tho ... fox was cheap cuz he can run and shoot u a million times and just simply do an unbelieveably quick attack like his .... ummm aything ... and u will die ... like toon link is fair ... plz spare me that bull lol

 

[Radical Dreamer]

Wait wait...

Alukard..are you trying to say that Smash > Street Fighter?

Dude...you wanna step outside?

Smash > Street Fighter.

tbh!

 

[Firebert]

I'm not even going to say anything about tripping. Read "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut and you'll get an idea of how tripping makes me feel about Brawl.



Anybody who praises the game for its "balance" is welcomed by me to quit Brawl, join the World RPS Society and play Rock Paper Scissors competitively. After all each move is so perfectly balanced right? No one is going to dominate with rock, paper, or scissors and that's what makes it such a great game LOLZ!

Uh... If you say so...

 

[LavisFiend]

Smash > Street Fighter.

tbh!

YOU ARE A MONSTER!

 

[Fire52388]

Smash>Street Fighter<<duck hunt (the ultimate fighting game[secretly])

 

[Firebert]

Smash>Street Fighter<<duck hunt (the ultimate fighting game[secretly])

If it were, then I could kill that dog...

 

[TheKneeOfJustice]

2. A sport dry of upsets IS boring. No one said that gaming was supposed to become a coin toss, but the skill gap for an upset will probably become bigger.

Because Mango winning Pound 3 after having the hardest losers Bracket in EXISTENCE wasn't an upset?

Of course, granted there are some cheap clones still but I doubt that will ever change. Besides those clones I would hardly call it a "cheap, lazy sort of balance" either. The characters who are balanced aren't done through cheap means, they just have unique movesets of their own. I don't mean for every character of course--I personally hate metaknight and his moveset when spammed. That's not what I would mean when talking about balance. I'm talking about the fact that different characters like Lucario, Marth, and Lucas all have the possibility of winning against each other and all have very unique fighting styles.

Please, just... dear god. Have the decency to think first.

 

[Witchking_of_Angmar]

Smash>Street Fighter<<duck hunt (the ultimate fighting game[secretly])

This is an impossible inequality as all inequality signs have to be the same. Correctly formulated, it goes like this:

Duck hunt>>Smash>Streetfighter

or

Streetfighter<Smash<<Duck hunt

 

[WoapGang]

Off Topic......

 

[Fire52388]

This is an impossible inequality as all inequality signs have to be the same. Correctly formulated, it goes like this:

Duck hunt>>Smash>Streetfighter

or

Streetfighter<Smash<<Duck hunt

Unless. . . street fighter and duck hunt are actually in a separate partition. Then the two inequalities are unrelated, more like:

Smash>street fighter, duck hunt>>street fighter

 

[Fire52388]

Please, just... dear god. Have the decency to think first.

On a more serious note. . . really now? Have the decency to respond by criticizing posts instead of flaming. As easy as it is to simply flame people on this topic by making blanket insults, the point is to respond intelligently. Responding intelligently not only implies a thought-out response, but one that actually goes beyond petty insults or flaming. I obviously wasn't claiming to be absolutely correct. If you disagree, good---that's what this forum is for. But have the decency to either not respond or actually respond with you're own reasoning.

 

[Midguy]

I came back to see if anything worth talking about has been going on here. Its gone even further downhill.

 

[TheKneeOfJustice]

Of course, granted there are some cheap clones still but I doubt that will ever change. Besides those clones I would hardly call it a "cheap, lazy sort of balance" either. The characters who are balanced aren't done through cheap means, they just have unique movesets of their own. I don't mean for every character of course--I personally hate metaknight and his moveset when spammed. That's not what I would mean when talking about balance. I'm talking about the fact that different characters like Lucario, Marth, and Lucas all have the possibility of winning against each other and all have very unique fighting styles.

If you insist.

Cheap clones? Because there aren't cheap non-cloned characters. Good job. There is also nothing cheap. If by saying one character who has a large number of advantages over most of the cast, then that would still be wrong. Cheap is a very specialized word for a character or strategy who when used, should virtually never use. That's cheap. Something that takes no skill that yields top level results.

And just look at one set of clones in particuar. Falcon and Ganondorf. Those two are horrendous now. I don't know why you felt the need to refer to clones as cheap, when there are several characters in that upper level tier that are just as good if not better than any of the clones. Being a clone is not directly related to being imbalanced at all.

Pichu had the possibility to win against Fox and Sheik. Did it do it often? Not at all. There was still the possibility. Any character when played correctly should be able to a win a match-up some of the time, regardless of how bad it is. Doesn't mean they all REALISTICALLY have the possibility. There is no balance in this game, and because of that, even though some people would like to think all characters have a chance (with match-up percentages supporting this on the side), does not mean it is true.

 

[Scar]

This is an impossible inequality as all inequality signs have to be the same. Correctly formulated, it goes like this:

Incorrect, it's just a poor inequality. We can say nothing about the relationship between Brawl and Duck Hunt. <3

 

[Fire52388]

If you insist.

Cheap clones? Because there aren't cheap non-cloned characters. Good job. There is also nothing cheap. If by saying one character who has a large number of advantages over most of the cast, then that would still be wrong. Cheap is a very specialized word for a character or strategy who when used, should virtually never use. That's cheap. Something that takes no skill that yields top level results.

And just look at one set of clones in particuar. Falcon and Ganondorf. Those two are horrendous now. I don't know why you felt the need to refer to clones as cheap, when there are several characters in that upper level tier that are just as good if not better than any of the clones. Being a clone is not directly related to being imbalanced at all.

Pichu had the possibility to win against Fox and Sheik. Did it do it often? Not at all. There was still the possibility. Any character when played correctly should be able to a win a match-up some of the time, regardless of how bad it is. Doesn't mean they all REALISTICALLY have the possibility. There is no balance in this game, and because of that, even though some people would like to think all characters have a chance (with match-up percentages supporting this on the side), does not mean it is true.

You're right, I didn't mean to say "cheap" with clones. I meant to say that there have always been some pointless clones in Super Smash bros. that don't add anything to the game. Now:
1) I very carefully NEVER said that all the characters were balanced, just a higher number from Melee.
2) Of course when I'm talking about "balance" I mean those characters realistically have a chance against each other. It would be pointless to talk about a "balance" otherwise as there is a situation where any character could beat any other.
3) Balance is really talking about the difference between tiers. Despite other arguments, tiers will obviously exist in Brawl given the time for them to form. I'm simply saying that from what we can see so far it looks like the gap between the tiers is smaller, meaning that the difference in the potential a lot of characters have is a lot smaller.

 

[Tomato Kirby]

For me, it is such a dirty trick. A buffed Kirby for SSBB, but I realize SSBM is a better game overall, at least for now...Oh well.

So if it is proven Melee>Brawl, what does this do for the competitive scene? Will it be possible for Melee to make a comeback, or will Brawl just continue on to dominate? Probably more important is whether it would be a good idea to try and get people to come back to SSBM due to a possibly split community at that point.

Finally, what seems to be the average amount of damage done during the punishment phase compared between the two games? I ask this since I read from this thread that there is a lack of punishment in this game.

I still hold out hope for SSBB.

 

[LOL_Master]

street fighter 2 turbo is sooo good

 

[ComradeSAL]

...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.

To me this definition seems incomplete. What you are describing is how skill-testing a game is - something correlated to competitiveness, but not equivalent.

In all competitive games, players need to want to start playing the game competitively. If no one is playing a game, it is not competitively viable, because much of a competitive game's depth comes from the innovation of the pooled minds of all of its players.

I'm not saying that popularity is everything, just that it is an important factor that cannot be ignored in these discussions. There are countless examples of strategically complex games that are not competitively viable because no one plays them. They might be too boring, under-advertised, or just too much of a hassle to learn.

More depth does not always lead to a more competitive game if the increased depth leads to a decreased competitive player base. If you play poker with a 50000 card deck and everyone gets 200 hole cards to make their hand, you might have a more complex game but not a more competitive one.

In my opinion, a game's competitiveness is measured by the difficulty a player has in becoming the best player in the world at that game. A reasonably intelligent adult can become the best tic-tac-toe player in the world in maybe half an hour. It will take a lot longer than that to become the best at either brawl or melee.

 

[g-regulate]

scar just stfu and play brawl. who cares if you cant l cancel and wavedash. like, who really cares. who cares what is more competitive. no matter what your opinions are, none of the good melee players play melee anymore. all the good players in md/va play brawl religiously now, so even if people did play melee, MELEE is not as competitive anymore, because not as many good people play it, making tournaments less competitive. thats the sad truth.

 

[thumbswayup]

everyone should just play both. all the time.

 

[Mechageo]

To me this definition seems incomplete. What you are describing is how skill-testing a game is - something correlated to competitiveness, but not equivalent.

In all competitive games, players need to want to start playing the game competitively. If no one is playing a game, it is not competitively viable, because much of a competitive game's depth comes from the innovation of the pooled minds of all of its players.

I'm not saying that popularity is everything, just that it is an important factor that cannot be ignored in these discussions. There are countless examples of strategically complex games that are not competitively viable because no one plays them. They might be too boring, under-advertised, or just too much of a hassle to learn.

More depth does not always lead to a more competitive game if the increased depth leads to a decreased competitive player base. If you play poker with a 50000 card deck and everyone gets 200 hole cards to make their hand, you might have a more complex game but not a more competitive one.

In my opinion, a game's competitiveness is measured by the difficulty a player has in becoming the best player in the world at that game. A reasonably intelligent adult can become the best tic-tac-toe player in the world in maybe half an hour. It will take a lot longer than that to become the best at either brawl or melee.

I was about to post that the only way to determine how competitive a game is would be to determine the number of players who want to play it competitively.

Suddenly, I stumbled upon this post I quoted and instantly didn't have to say as much.

 

[rajendra82]

I was about to post that the only way to determine how competitive a game is would be to determine the number of players who want to play it competitively.

Suddenly, I stumbled upon this post I quoted and instantly didn't have to say as much.

But you felt the need to post anyway and say what you didn't have to say.

 

[House M.D.]

This whole discussion is about the evidence we can provide to support this. The claim that Brawl is less competitive than Melee directly yields that the better player will not win as consistently as he could in Melee. For all of the people who cannot comprehend arguments, I am hypothesizing four completely different people, one better and one worse at their respective games by a fixed amount.

The main bases for this claim are the random aspects and the game mechanics that limit players, and fail to reward players for hitting their opponent, and fail to punish players for screwing up. It is explained with somewhat more depth in the opening post.



1st) Yes there is a consequence, but it's practically nothing. It's worthless to arbitrarily say 8% because you will clearly say "you're exaggerating." But there is NO EXAGGERATION and nothing false in saying that SSBM punishes players far better than Brawl relative to mistakes made.



This is not the conversation we're having. We're talking about broad flaws in game mechanics. You can't say "some characters have follow ups," there should be a way for each and every character to punish the hell out of a player who just used a stupid move right in front of you. There simply isn't.

Specific solutions to broad problems are not solutions.

Scar, your rational argument seems solid, but you didn't answer my question which is what "empirical results" support this? Of course, there haven't been too many brawl tournaments yet so it seems the answer to my query is "very little." Once a critical mass of tournaments have occurred, we will see if your reasoning is supported (difficulty of punishing means results are inconsistent) or if perhaps we still are thinking about the game in the wrong way and m2k (or whoever) consistently wins tournaments.

comment: this debate is still warranted as much as any, but please realize that rational analysis is limited in the face of empirical results and, while this debate is a pleasant exercise in the meanwhile, definitive answers are many tournaments away.

p.s. if asked to bet, i would predict that the empirical results will support your hypothesis, but am not totally convinced.

 

[greenblob]

To offer some more insight into the "competitiveness" of a game, I will quote Sirlin's "Playing to Win."

Imagine a majestic mountain nirvana of gaming. At its peak are fulfillment, “fun,” and even transcendence. Most people could care less about this mountain peak because they have other life issues that are more important to them, and other peaks to pursue. There are a few, though, who are not at this peak, but who would be very happy there. These are the people I’m talking to with this book. Some of them don’t need any help; they’re on the journey. Most, though, only believe they are on that journey but actually are not. They got stuck in a chasm at the mountain’s base, a land of scrubdom. Here they are imprisoned in their own mental constructs of made-up game rules. If they could only cross this chasm, they would discover either a very boring plateau (for a degenerate game) or the heavenly enchanted mountain peak (for a “deep” game). In the former case, crossing the chasm would teach them to find a different mountain with more fulfilling rewards. In the latter case, well, they’d just be happier. “Playing to win” is largely the process of shedding the mental constructs that trap players in the chasm who would be happier at the mountain peak.

 

[Newskool]

I wasn't going to say this originally, but I'm in a bad mood anyway, and I feel it's right. Lemme apologize beforehand if I'm taking it out on you.

If you have no patience for reading on the internet, I'm gonna get this out of the way now, so that you can leave and get back to brawl. If you want the short version, just read this-

GET-OVER-IT

Think back to all of the melee vs brawl threads you've read. Notice anything? They're almost all created by pro melee people right? Why do you think that is? Well, let me let you in on a little secret that none of the melee elitists seem to get.

NO ONE WHO IS PRO BRAWL WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THIS.
THAT, my friend, is why you rarely get a good point from brawl supporters. I mean, look around at the brawl boards. Do you see us making threads like "Brawl is 10 times better than Melee ever was"? NO. We're talking about brawl. That's what the Brawl boards are for. But the Melee elitists seem to want to come onto the boards and whine about "Brawl isn't as competitive as melee!" and, "What was Sakurai thinking?"

And that's what it is- whining. I don't care if it's from a random casual or a genuine pro, it's still whining. And that is what you are doing, whining. Very intelligent whining, but whining. You claim to have started this topic to (is this right?) define the difference between competitive and competition? Yeah, I don't believe that for a second. I think you're just another guy who had their unrealistic expectations for brawl failed and wants to complain.

And how long are you going to keep this up? Are you still going to be talking about how much more competitive melee was 1 year from now? 3 years? 5 years? It's better to just bring this to a stop now.

Now, what I want you to do is forget about melee momentarily and ask yourselves this question- "Will I enjoy playing brawl competitively?"

If you answered yes, well there you go. It's time to move on for you. You can start training right now. Hell, help with the search for AT's, if you want more depth.

If you answered no, well, the melee boards are still up, and I'm assuming your copy still works? Go to it!

Just keep you whining off this board.

 

[QED]

I'm definately a pro-Melee player but I can agree with what Newskool is saying here. However, some people, as I am, are upset and extremely dissapointed with what the third installment of SB has become. I know I was when I picked up and played Brawl for the first time. Heck, I still am and I ***** to all my casual friends who play Brawl with me. You know why? Because it's not as simple as "you can keep playing Melee if you want." There are going to be a lot less Melee action around because of Brawl. There aren't going to be as many Melee tournaments due to the simple fact that the majority of the people will flock towards Brawl (because there are obviously phucktons more casual players than hardcore players). So I find this thread as coping space... lol . (this is just for me. I'm pretty sure Scar has more meaningful intent to this thread)

Anyways I haven't read all of it (got through the first 40 pages or so). So I may be repeating someone but let me say this:

1.
@Trebor saying ATs in Melee lead to less mindgames:
It seems like he's talking about only one side having ATs. I assume we can agree that ATs lead to more options. If we can agree on that, what happens if both sides happen to be able to do ATs? You got yourself one heck of a match to play (or in my case, watch). Seriously, I can not stop myself from watching Ken, Isai, KDJ, Bombsoldier, etc. vids. On the other hand Brawl vids...

2.
@People Q_Qing and asking for others to stop comparing Brawl to Melee:
Why the heck not? It's only natural as humans to compare things from the same genre, not to mention the same f'in franchise. Besides, comparison leads to good analysis, and that in turn, leads to conclusions. And what do conclusions do? Offer viable solutions. ZOMFG BASIC PRINCIPLE OF HUMAN PROGRESSION.

Although I do blame many people who compare and analyze but just stop there for making the pro-brawl people feel angry. I'm pretty sure Scar started this thread to get to a conclusion and find good solutions. From what I see, my solutions would be more Melee tournies! Wewtz! lol.

3.
@people saying Brawl should be given more time.
Yes Brawl shoudl be given more time. Just dont' expect it to be too long before most applicable techiniques would be discovered. It would be a fraction of the time compared to Melee. You know why? Because we already have a foundation of knowledge from Melee. Sure it ain't the same game but I'm pretty sure that most players would know where to search for advanced techniques. And with tools such as Wiifii and smashboards, the spread of information would be many, MANY times faster than what Melee experienced years ago.

4.
Research before speaking:
I've played 64, Melee and Brawl to a pretty hefty extent. Watched phucktons of videos of the world's top players (Ken, etc.) and live games of local smashers (DSF, Hugs, Zel, etc. you now know I'm from WC ). Learned or attempted most ATs I can find with both Melee and Brawl. I'm not a professor of Smash but I did my research and experiments on both sides. It seems like a lot of people who side with Brawl lack the research in Melee. You can't really make a fair argument unless you know both to a certain extent, no? People should at least know the competitive scene rather than to complain about Melee's so-called "glitches" that their friends did to them -_-




To add a fun note:
After playing Brawl heavily since its release, I went back to Melee yesterday. Sure, I missed half of my shorthops/L-cancels, did my Up-Bs with Marth looking the opposite direction from the ledge, dodged into the air attempting to wavedash and overcaculated my recoveries to the ledge, but man was it exhilirating.

Heck, it was so much better than tripping into my own mine with Snake. Wait... no.. that was quite epic in terms of hilarity. Hah. Brawl is like a joke, people love it because it's funny, but not many will take it seriously.

 

[Fletch]

To add a fun note:
After playing Brawl heavily since its release, I went back to Melee yesterday. Sure, I missed half of my shorthops/L-cancels, did my Up-Bs with Marth looking the opposite direction from the ledge, dodged into the air attempting to wavedash and overcaculated my recoveries to the ledge, but man was it exhilirating.

Heck, it was so much better than tripping into my own mine with Snake. Wait... no.. that was quite epic in terms of hilarity. Hah. Brawl is like a joke, people love it because it's funny, but not many will take it seriously.

I can sympathize with you; going back to Melee after playing Brawl with it's dumbed-down controls is a lot more difficult. You really realize the precision and skill that Melee requires after playing Brawl.

 

[Fire52388]

I wasn't going to say this originally, but I'm in a bad mood anyway, and I feel it's right. Lemme apologize beforehand if I'm taking it out on you.

If you have no patience for reading on the internet, I'm gonna get this out of the way now, so that you can leave and get back to brawl. If you want the short version, just read this-

GET-OVER-IT

Think back to all of the melee vs brawl threads you've read. Notice anything? They're almost all created by pro melee people right? Why do you think that is? Well, let me let you in on a little secret that none of the melee elitists seem to get.

NO ONE WHO IS PRO BRAWL WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THIS.
THAT, my friend, is why you rarely get a good point from brawl supporters. I mean, look around at the brawl boards. Do you see us making threads like "Brawl is 10 times better than Melee ever was"? NO. We're talking about brawl. That's what the Brawl boards are for. But the Melee elitists seem to want to come onto the boards and whine about "Brawl isn't as competitive as melee!" and, "What was Sakurai thinking?"

And that's what it is- whining. I don't care if it's from a random casual or a genuine pro, it's still whining. And that is what you are doing, whining. Very intelligent whining, but whining. You claim to have started this topic to (is this right?) define the difference between competitive and competition? Yeah, I don't believe that for a second. I think you're just another guy who had their unrealistic expectations for brawl failed and wants to complain.

And how long are you going to keep this up? Are you still going to be talking about how much more competitive melee was 1 year from now? 3 years? 5 years? It's better to just bring this to a stop now.

Now, what I want you to do is forget about melee momentarily and ask yourselves this question- "Will I enjoy playing brawl competitively?"

If you answered yes, well there you go. It's time to move on for you. You can start training right now. Hell, help with the search for AT's, if you want more depth.

If you answered no, well, the melee boards are still up, and I'm assuming your copy still works? Go to it!

Just keep you whining off this board.

Oh thank you. . . so much. And with that note I think I will now stop bothering with arguments that people ignore on this thread and leave.

 

[LouisLeGros]

No one who is pro Brawl wants to talk about this?

I never see the people who are pro brawl making threads about how great of a competitive game it is. I never see pro brawlers making threads about just how awesome the tournaments are going to be with how dominate spamming and campy play will be.

I see some pro brawlers trying to point out how it is more balanced. I don't really feel like they support this point very well when taking the competitive scene into consideration.

 

[Endless Nightmares]

I wasn't going to say this originally, but I'm in a bad mood anyway, and I feel it's right. Lemme apologize beforehand if I'm taking it out on you.

If you have no patience for reading on the internet, I'm gonna get this out of the way now, so that you can leave and get back to brawl. If you want the short version, just read this-

GET-OVER-IT

Think back to all of the melee vs brawl threads you've read. Notice anything? They're almost all created by pro melee people right? Why do you think that is? Well, let me let you in on a little secret that none of the melee elitists seem to get.

NO ONE WHO IS PRO BRAWL WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THIS.
THAT, my friend, is why you rarely get a good point from brawl supporters. I mean, look around at the brawl boards. Do you see us making threads like "Brawl is 10 times better than Melee ever was"? NO. We're talking about brawl. That's what the Brawl boards are for. But the Melee elitists seem to want to come onto the boards and whine about "Brawl isn't as competitive as melee!" and, "What was Sakurai thinking?"

And that's what it is- whining. I don't care if it's from a random casual or a genuine pro, it's still whining. And that is what you are doing, whining. Very intelligent whining, but whining. You claim to have started this topic to (is this right?) define the difference between competitive and competition? Yeah, I don't believe that for a second. I think you're just another guy who had their unrealistic expectations for brawl failed and wants to complain.

And how long are you going to keep this up? Are you still going to be talking about how much more competitive melee was 1 year from now? 3 years? 5 years? It's better to just bring this to a stop now.

Now, what I want you to do is forget about melee momentarily and ask yourselves this question- "Will I enjoy playing brawl competitively?"

If you answered yes, well there you go. It's time to move on for you. You can start training right now. Hell, help with the search for AT's, if you want more depth.

If you answered no, well, the melee boards are still up, and I'm assuming your copy still works? Go to it!

Just keep you whining off this board.

QFFT! Someone sticky this post lol, finally someone explains it well.

No one who is pro Brawl wants to talk about this?

Right!

I never see the people are pro brawl making threads about how great of a competitive game it is.

EXACTLY.

I never see pro brawlers making threads about just how awesome the tournaments are going to be with how dominate spamming and campy play will be.

EXACTLY.

I see some pro brawlers trying to point out how it is more balanced. I don't really feel like they support this point very well when taking the competitive scene into consideration.

You know why? No one who is pro Brawl wants to talk about this.

 

[Pink Reaper]

You know why? No one who is pro Brawl wants to talk about this.

Yes but they should be. In stead of all the, "Whats your favorite Song" threads, Pro-Brawlers should be addressing the fact that their game may not in fact be good enough to take over for Melee. In stead of just saying "Just get over it and move on" you should take the time to prove that we SHOULD move on, that Brawl is actually worth it.