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

[Pink Reaper]

Toon Links good, but he isn't that good. And from what I can tell, most people don't even think he is the best character let alone potentially "unbeatable".

Thats because everyone's hung up on Marth, which is odd, because he's not nearly as good as people want to pretend. Yes, he can play mostly like he did in Melee, and yes he's good, but even he's susceptible to spam.

 

[DRaGZ]

But how do you deal with a Toon Link who knows when to spam AND when to be offensive?

Toon Link has the potential to be unbeatable if played properly and that wouldn't be true if it weren't for the broken game mechanics. Toon Links defensive/spam game is no better than Y. Link's in Melee, but all the changes made to Brawl just made him a monster in the spam game. However he was also designed to be one of the best offensive characters, and as such makes him one of the most over powered characters in the history of smash. Now, its not like other games don't have broken characters(Akuma says hi) however this is one of the first times ever that the game mechanics make a character too good rather than just poor character design(seriously, someone at capcom knew what they were doing when they made Akuma, they just did it anyways)

Toon Link's spam game is way better simply because of his arrows, not necessarily because of the game's mechanics. They no longer need to be charged to have a massive distance. The fact that they travel slowly and that you can pop-out two at a time in a hop only makes it more viable to have several out at a time.

If he knows what he's doing, he won't be spamming for very long. From what I have been gathering on Toon Link (I've been trying to play both as and against him a lot because I want to make him a secondary main), he's most certainly best played by applying pressure on approach with projectiles before leading into his awesome aerial game. A campy Toon Link is only effective to a certain extent; specifically, reverting far too much into a campy style as Toon Link greatly limits your potential and, quite frankly, allows most characters to move in and take advantage of you.

And I'm by no means saying he's unbeatable when you use him properly either. I've beaten EDKT's aggressive Toon Link, that is approaching with projectiles and dominating with his aerial game, a few times with my R.O.B. But he's definitely a lot more difficult: I've been finding it necessary for R.O.B. to revert to a campy game to counter an aggressive Toon Link then to capitalize when the opponent makes an error in spacing judgment, usually resulting either in an increase of 40-60% damage for Toon Link or a KO if he's already damaged enough. I've only found this out very recently, but it's allowing me to finally find holes in Toon Link's otherwise fabulous gameplay, and finally letting me win a few ^_^.

Toon Link is top-tier material, for sure, but it's not because he's campy, it's because he's a nasty offensive master.

 

[MajinSweet]

Thats because everyone's hung up on Marth, which is odd, because he's not nearly as good as people want to pretend. Yes, he can play mostly like he did in Melee, and yes he's good, but even he's susceptible to spam.

Actually, a lot of people are starting to look at Snake as "best character". And to show you what I mean, take a look at Ikki's tier list. I hear he has been updating this list every week as he learns more about the game. Since he has probably played the game more than most, I think its at least reliable and good for the sake of discussion. I'm not saying this is some concrete example or anything, its all subject to change, but it just shows the contrast of opinion at this point.

[SS Rank]
Snake, ROB, Metaknight

[S Rank]
Falco

[A Rank]
Toon, G&W, Marth, Diddy, Zamus, Fox, Mario, Pit

[B Rank]
Pikachu, Sheik, Wolf, Wario, IC, Samus, Luigi, Lucario, Bowser, DK, Kirby

[C Rank]
Peach, Olimar, DDD, Lucas

[D Rank]
Link, Ike, Ness, Pokemon Trainer, Falcon, Sonic

[E Rank]
Zelda

[F Rank]
Jigglypuff

[G Rank]
Ganon, Yoshi

 

[Pink Reaper]

Toon Link's spam game is way better simply because of his arrows, not necessarily because of the game's mechanics. They no longer need to be charged to have a massive distance. The fact that they travel slowly and that you can pop-out two at a time in a hop only makes it more viable to have several out at a time.

If he knows what he's doing, he won't be spamming for very long. From what I have been gathering on Toon Link (I've been trying to play both as and against him a lot because I want to make him a secondary main), he's most certainly best played by applying pressure on approach with projectiles before leading into his awesome aerial game. A campy Toon Link is only effective to a certain extent; specifically, reverting far too much into a campy style as Toon Link greatly limits your potential and, quite frankly, allows most characters to move in and take advantage of you.

And I'm by no means saying he's unbeatable when you use him properly either. I've beaten EDKT's aggressive Toon Link, that is approaching with projectiles and dominating with his aerial game, a few times with my R.O.B. But he's definitely a lot more difficult: I've been finding it necessary for R.O.B. to revert to a campy game to counter an aggressive Toon Link then to capitalize when the opponent makes an error in spacing judgment, usually resulting either in an increase of 40-60% damage for Toon Link or a KO if he's already damaged enough. I've only found this out very recently, but it's allowing me to finally find holes in Toon Link's otherwise fabulous gameplay, and finally letting me win a few ^_^.

Toon Link is top-tier material, for sure, but it's not because he's campy, it's because he's a nasty offensive master.

Once again, your talking about a very offensive Tink(even if he's using projectiles, if he's approaching, he's offensive) Tink can actually play very defensive with his arrows covering long range, his Boomerang covering....well, everywhere(very versatile if you know how to use it well) and his bombs covering just about everything else. From there it's easy to simply force an approach, THEN becoming highly aggressive. Also, its entirely possible to just rack up damage with Tink and run away without ever going for the kill while running out the clock. Its amazingly cheap, but its hilarious if you do it.

Yes, I like calling Toon Link "Tink" deal with it >_>

Edit:@Majin, Ikki's tier list has always bothered me as characters that are almost unanimously considered the best by everyone else(DDD comes to mind) are placed rather low.

Edit Edit: WTF, Bowser better than DDD AND Olimar o.O No.....just no.

 

[DRaGZ]

Actually, a lot of people are starting to look at Snake as "best character". And to show you what I mean, take a look at Ikki's tier list. I hear he has been updating this list every week as he learns more about the game. Since he has probably played the game more than most, I think its at least reliable and good for the sake of discussion. I'm not saying this is some concrete example or anything, its all subject to change, but it just shows the contrast of opinion at this point.

[SS Rank]
Snake, ROB, Metaknight

[S Rank]
Falco

[A Rank]
Toon, G&W, Marth, Diddy, Zamus, Fox, Mario, Pit

[B Rank]
Pikachu, Sheik, Wolf, Wario, IC, Samus, Luigi, Lucario, Bowser, DK, Kirby

[C Rank]
Peach, Olimar, DDD, Lucas

[D Rank]
Link, Ike, Ness, Pokemon Trainer, Falcon, Sonic

[E Rank]
Zelda

[F Rank]
Jigglypuff

[G Rank]
Ganon, Yoshi

Wow...Ikki thinks Snake is the best character? That's really awesome...I'd love to have a good Snake player take me to town...it would feel really satisfying.

 

[DRaGZ]

Once again, your talking about a very offensive Tink(even if he's using projectiles, if he's approaching, he's offensive) Tink can actually play very defensive with his arrows covering long range, his Boomerang covering....well, everywhere(very versatile if you know how to use it well) and his bombs covering just about everything else. From there it's easy to simply force an approach, THEN becoming highly aggressive. Also, its entirely possible to just rack up damage with Tink and run away without ever going for the kill while running out the clock. Its amazingly cheap, but its hilarious if you do it.

Yes, I like calling Toon Link "Tink" deal with it >_>

I'm fine if you call him Tink. He's a little guy anyway.

I've been telling you, that's doesn't work very well. I know you can run away a lot with Toon Link, I haven't seen this work well at all against a player who knows what the heck he's doing. A Toon Link that's trying to rack up damage solely through camping generally fails because it's relatively easy to approach him anyway.

To put it simply:

A campy Toon Link is, at a high enough level of play, a weak Toon Link because it's easy to capitalize upon him. At most, this tactic will do about 20-30% damage before the Toon Link realizes he needs to be more aggressive with his sword (I've seen this happen time and time again). A freakin' average Wolf can handle his projectiles because they're slow enough to be predictable and mostly avoided. (compare this to R.O.B., whose projectiles are absurdly fast and unpredictable aimed)

On the other hand, an aggressive Toon Link with projectile approaches and tight aerial gameplay is dangerous. There's hardly anything you can do against this guy except camp yourself, like with R.O.B. or Snake, or have a character that's quick and can outprioritize, outrange his hitboxes, or just plain bewilder him, like Marth or Sonic (yes, I said Sonic). Once a Toon Link decides to become tightly aggressive, it's a matter of character match-ups and how well the opposing player can handle the way his character functions against this Toon Link.

Of course, you technically can be very campy at first with Toon Link and then switch to aggro, but what's the point when he's already much better at being aggro? Why waste time being campy and potentially putting yourself open when you can actually do a lot more damage with a highly-pressuring offense?

EDIT: And what's so hard in believing Bowser's better than DeDeDe? The amount of speed and range Bowser received in his game, combined with his hellishly world-flipping Bowser Slam, gives him a lot of boosts. Personally, I think they're on the same par: DeDeDe has much more combo potential, especially with his chain grabs and aerial+float spamming, but Bowser's just fast enough and certainly powerful enough to keep the opponent pressured.

 

[The_Woebegone_Jackal]

silly

I'm not sure if we've all been playing the same game...

In boxing it is important to read your opponents movement, and to react to his decisions. Often you will have a chance to punish them for a mistake, though often it is for only a few hits before he forces you to space yourself and figure out your next move.

Brawl has become much like boxing in that it emphisizes the individual move more then the ability to string them togather, forcing fighters to attack in short bursts instead of prolonged combos. This makes it more of a thinking mans game then Melee had been. The ability to punish a mistake hasn't been taken away but greatly amplified instead. Watch some videos of high level play or lvl9 computers (they are masters of punishment, even if the rest of their game is predictable) and you'll notice how easy it can happen. But much like a boxing match it is rare that a single mistake will cost a fighter an entire match (or a stock for that matter). This puts a stronger focus on learning to read your opponent and looking for openings or countering then Melee did (not to say that it wasn't there).

There are some veterans (and even some newbies) that don't like this style of play and would rather stay/go with Melee and that is fine to prefer a faster play style with long combo strings. But just because some choose, or have the inability/lack of will to cope with a change in style does not mean it is not competitive nor does it mean it won't flourish. MMA is much flashier, faster paced, and offers many more options for its fighters that boxing doesn't... but boxing is still around and competitive as ever.

One last thing... Street Fighter 2 has alot less options (including combos)for its players than its newer siblings, fighters often getting in only a few hits before having to back off and decide their next move. Yet to this day its still played competitively.

 

[DRaGZ]

I'm not sure if we've all been playing the same game...

In boxing it is important to read your opponents movement, and to react to his decisions. Often you will have a chance to punish them for a mistake, though often it is for only a few hits before he forces you to space yourself and figure out your next move.

Brawl has become much like boxing in that it emphisizes the individual move more then the ability to string them togather, forcing fighters to attack in short bursts instead of prolonged combos. This makes it more of a thinking mans game then Melee had been. The ability to punish a mistake hasn't been taken away but greatly amplified instead. Watch some videos of high level play or lvl9 computers (they are masters of punishment, even if the rest of their game is predictable) and you'll notice how easy it can happen. But much like a boxing match it is rare that a single mistake will cost a fighter an entire match (or a stock for that matter). This puts a stronger focus on learning to read your opponent and looking for openings or countering then Melee did (not to say that it wasn't there).

There are some veterans (and even some newbies) that don't like this style of play and would rather stay/go with Melee and that is fine to prefer a faster play style with long combo strings. But just because some choose, or have the inability/lack of will to cope with a change in style does not mean it is not competitive nor does it mean it won't flourish. MMA is much flashier, faster paced, and offers many more options for its fighters that boxing doesn't... but boxing is still around and competitive as ever.

One last thing... Street Fighter 2 has alot less options (including combos)for its players than its newer siblings, fighters often getting in only a few hits before having to back off and decide their next move. Yet to this day its still played competitively.

I was going to compare it to boxing as well. But I'm sure that someone is going to retort that fighting games aren't realistic and that comparing a real-life sport to fighting games isn't an accurate comparison, etc.

There's a retort for everything. That's why nothing every gets done when everyone sits in computer chairs typing away.

 

[The_Woebegone_Jackal]

I was going to compare it to boxing as well. But I'm sure that someone is going to retort that fighting games aren't realistic and that comparing a real-life sport to fighting games isn't an accurate comparison, etc.

There's a retort for everything. That's why nothing every gets done when everyone sits in computer chairs typing away.

I'm glad to hear someone thinks logicaly. But you're right, many will retort it by saying that but honestly, its a fare comparison. There have been far to many logical comparisons in this world to exclude video games from being part of it.

 

[Scar]

No, Dragz. This is not the retort I come up with. I understand that analogies are just those, and that they don't completely hold when scrutinized. They are simply a tool to help me understand the other person's point.

My retort would be what it always is: Brawl does not make anyone think more. It makes people guess more, and gives everyone an equal chance in hitting eachother, which is not what Melee's competition was. Melee made players think smart and come up with the best possible move for each situation.

Brawl forces us to choose between equally good options depending on the other person's move. This is not a "thinking man's game." This is a more complicated version of Rock, Paper, Scissors. I have explained this a few times.

Also, if a boxer puts their gloves down and is an idiot, he'll get slammed with a really hard punch for being so stupid. Punishment is a very important part of all types of competition, and my logic states that a game completely lacking in this aspect must have a lot of other things going for it to make it viable as an accurate test of skill.

In Melee, if you are that stupid, you will die. In Brawl, if you are that stupid, you will get grabbed for 10% at most or smash attacked for 15% and no threat to your life. Brawl lacks a punishment game.

 

[DRaGZ]

No, Dragz. This is not the retort I come up with. I understand that analogies are just those, and that they don't completely hold when scrutinized. They are simply a tool to help me understand the other person's point.

My retort would be what it always is: Brawl does not make anyone think more. It makes people guess more, and gives everyone an equal chance in hitting eachother, which is not what Melee's competition was. Melee made players think smart and come up with the best possible move for each situation.

Brawl forces us to choose between equally good options depending on the other person's move. This is not a "thinking man's game." This is a more complicated version of Rock, Paper, Scissors. I have explained this a few times.

Also, if a boxer puts their gloves down and is an idiot, he'll get slammed with a really hard punch for being so stupid. Punishment is a very important part of all types of competition, and my logic states that a game completely lacking in this aspect must have a lot of other things going for it to make it viable as an accurate test of skill.

In Melee, if you are that stupid, you will die. In Brawl, if you are that stupid, you will get grabbed for 10% at most or smash attacked for 15% and no threat to your life. Brawl lacks a punishment game.

Well, I wasn't specifically saying that you were the one making these retorts, merely that this is probably the argument going to be made by someone who is going to respond to that post.

Also, I know your argument, you've stated it a few times already. It doesn't change my opinion. And my arguments surely won't change yours. That's why I think we're just talking in circles here.

 

[Rhubarbo]

No, Dragz. This is not the retort I come up with. I understand that analogies are just those, and that they don't completely hold when scrutinized. They are simply a tool to help me understand the other person's point.

My retort would be what it always is: Brawl does not make anyone think more. It makes people guess more, and gives everyone an equal chance in hitting eachother, which is not what Melee's competition was. Melee made players think smart and come up with the best possible move for each situation.

Brawl forces us to choose between equally good options depending on the other person's move. This is not a "thinking man's game." This is a more complicated version of Rock, Paper, Scissors. I have explained this a few times.

Also, if a boxer puts their gloves down and is an idiot, he'll get slammed with a really hard punch for being so stupid. Punishment is a very important part of all types of competition, and my logic states that a game completely lacking in this aspect must have a lot of other things going for it to make it viable as an accurate test of skill.

In Melee, if you are that stupid, you will die. In Brawl, if you are that stupid, you will get grabbed for 10% at most or smash attacked for 15% and no threat to your life. Brawl lacks a punishment game.

I love the Rock, Paper, Scizzors comment! Have you seen the recent 1-up video with Gimpy, Hugs and Nealdt? Search it up and see!

 

[AphoticBankai]

You raise many good points, and for the most part, I'm going to say I'll agree that Melee is, at least as of now, more competitive than Brawl is.

However, I find that the better player still wins very often, I'm not sure if I just understood the 50% win argument or what, but while I was playing my friends, even using random character, they all lost. We were all of seemingly equal skill level in Melee, the wins were divided pretty equally amongst us all, and now I'm the one that comes out on top. Whether that's because I'm just better suited to Brawl's playing style, or because I improved and they did not, I don't know.

But of course, a single person's experience with the game cannot decide how competitive it is, I'm just giving it as an example I can hold up.

I also think that the guessing game is one of my favorite parts of Brawl. You see a Zelda wrap up in the trails of Farore's Wind and have to predict where it is they'll move to so you can hit them when they come out, or just something of that sort. The prediction game. Imo, being able to predict well requires a very deep knowledge of the game as well as lots of experience playing so you can learn from the situations where you predicted incorrectly, and hopefully predict correctly the next time.

But, at this point in time, I'll agree it seems that the general consensus is that Melee has more competitiveness built into it. The whole "You make a mistake you're out of here" factor plays the biggest part in that, but at the same time, that's not the kind of competitiveness I enjoy, I'm a bigger fan of the predict the next move and get inside it sorta game. Maybe in time the metagame will switch over to that style of play.

Still, great points, love the topic.

 

[Rhubarbo]

^Brawl is pretty much a noob's game. When developing the game, Sakurai was taking suggestions. One of those suggestions were that the gameplay is slowed down and that it's easier to recover. Look what happened. Sakurai probably thinks "Smash is a game that is meant to be enjoyed by all family members. I mean, whos mom doesn't love watching a guy with a bazooka destroy an Italian plumber?"

I just finished playing some Melee, and I must say, it's so outstanding, you can't even compare it to Brawl, which is a step back to what the game was like in the 64 version (everyone the same weight e.c.t).

 

[Lant]

Right now, Melee can be played more competitevly than Brawl, I'll agree.

Melee is faster paced than Brawl, the physics engine allows for abuse of techniques such as Wavedashing and so on, the DI isn't as 'heavy' so you can string up more combinations. It's all well and good, but when you look at it logically, Smash Bros is designed to be a 4 player game that heavily revolves around the whacky items and unique stages etc.

I personally prefer Brawl over Melee as it feels more like the 64 version, and I have tons of fun playing it, I don't really mind if I lose or win. In Melee it wasn't really fun, because I would always win, and no items, Fox/Falco tournaments bored the crap out of me. I like using a character because they appeal to me, not because it gives me the biggest tactical advantage.

I digress, I'll agree that Melee is a better comepetitive game than Brawl (though that could change in the future) Yet I am of the opinion that Brawl is a better game.

TL;DR To me, Melee is Smash Bros: Tournament edition.

[/rant]

Spoiler

Besides, I have DOA4, AoT, COD4 and.. god forbid, Halo 3 to play competitevly.

 

[Newskool]

No, Dragz. This is not the retort I come up with. I understand that analogies are just those, and that they don't completely hold when scrutinized. They are simply a tool to help me understand the other person's point.

My retort would be what it always is: Brawl does not make anyone think more. It makes people guess more, and gives everyone an equal chance in hitting eachother, which is not what Melee's competition was. Melee made players think smart and come up with the best possible move for each situation.

Brawl forces us to choose between equally good options depending on the other person's move. This is not a "thinking man's game." This is a more complicated version of Rock, Paper, Scissors. I have explained this a few times.

Also, if a boxer puts their gloves down and is an idiot, he'll get slammed with a really hard punch for being so stupid. Punishment is a very important part of all types of competition, and my logic states that a game completely lacking in this aspect must have a lot of other things going for it to make it viable as an accurate test of skill.

In Melee, if you are that stupid, you will die. In Brawl, if you are that stupid, you will get grabbed for 10% at most or smash attacked for 15% and no threat to your life. Brawl lacks a punishment game.

O.K, I'll bite.

Your Rock Paper Scissors analogy only applies if you are only taking every move as it comes and not paying attention to your opponents overall strategy. In competitive brawl, you're going to have to play your opponent as well as the game. In the beginning of the game, you probably will have to do some guesswork, but eventually, you'll get a feel for your opponent and have some idea of what they're going to do. Then, the guesswork is removed.

Professional chess players study their opponents games extensively before ever playing them. I'm not saying that you'll have to watch tape of your opponent, but it might help to have some idea of what they play like. Know thy enemy.

One more thing: you kind of twisted the boxing analogy around there. A boxer putting their gloves down in the middle of a fight would be like a gamer dropping their controller in the middle of a match.

 

[The_Woebegone_Jackal]

O.K, I'll bite.

Your Rock Paper Scissors analogy only applies if you are only taking every move as it comes and not paying attention to your opponents overall strategy. In competitive brawl, you're going to have to play your opponent as well as the game. In the beginning of the game, you probably will have to do some guesswork, but eventually, you'll get a feel for your opponent and have some idea of what they're going to do. Then, the guesswork is removed.

Professional chess players study their opponents games extensively before ever playing them. I'm not saying that you'll have to watch tape of your opponent, but it might help to have some idea of what they play like. Know thy enemy.

One more thing: you kind of twisted the boxing analogy around there. A boxer putting their gloves down in the middle of a fight would be like a gamer dropping their controller in the middle of a match.

I'm glad you said that because that would be more the equivalent, rather than missing a smash attack or the like. In boxing if you miss a right hook you may get clocked once or twice but in no way, unless you are worn down significantly, will you loose the round or match. Much like Brawl where if you miss a Fair or Ftilt etc etc you may get smashed etc etc for some damage but rarely will it cost you the match or a stock unless you are in the high percentages. The severity of punishment isn't what is was in Melee but it does exist, and its still important to know how to and when to punish.

 

[crazygoose]

I love the Rock, Paper, Scizzors comment! Have you seen the recent 1-up video with Gimpy, Hugs and Nealdt? Search it up and see!

Yes, yes. I think we've all seen the video by now.

I also think that all reasonable people here realize what tools they made themselves out to be.

 

[Demon Kirby]

Lant, I agree with practically almost everything you said.

 

[House M.D.]

as for the rps analogy, here's how it breaks down. in melee, an uthrow with marth on fox lead to a chaingrab, but to keep it going required reading the fox's DI. there were right choices and there were wrong choices. in comboing, there weren't necessarily right/best choices, but there were good and bad choices; there was little rps aspect and it required sufficient skill to be interesting. in brawl, it basically always possible to get out of a combo so the only way to keep the "combo" going is rps.
however, do not confuse rps, which is about prediction, with mindgames, which are about manipulation. kdj's melee dash dances had sick mindgames in them. in brawl, even though things are slowed down, subtle decisions in spacing are still insanely important mindgames. the payoff isn't as great and with reduced speed they are less effective, but the rps dynamic is less important in brawl than it may seem

 

[BigRick]

One last thing... Street Fighter 2 has alot less options (including combos)for its players than its newer siblings, fighters often getting in only a few hits before having to back off and decide their next move. Yet to this day its still played competitively.

Even though there is no combos, doing a single mistake in street fighter can leave you at a great disadvantage because the game is very restricted. Positioning/Health advantage is very important and at high level play, losing it because you got hit once by a low forward can cost you the match.

 

[The_Woebegone_Jackal]

Even though there is no combos, doing a single mistake in street fighter can leave you at a great disadvantage because the game is very restricted. Positioning/Health advantage is very important and at high level play, losing it because you got hit once by a low forward can cost you the match.

I understand that completely.
The only reason I brought it up was to say that having less options (options thus far Melee>Brawl) doesn't mean it isn't or won't be as competitive.

 

[LouisLeGros]

I understand that completely.
The only reason I brought it up was to say that having less options (options thus far Melee>Brawl) doesn't mean it isn't or won't be as competitive.

I'll just say I disagree, well atleast for smash and most of the fighting genre.

I don't think it can't be competitive or that it won't be competitive, but with the connotation of competitiveness and this debate I see melee as the more competitive game.

 

[Pink Reaper]

I understand that completely.
The only reason I brought it up was to say that having less options (options thus far Melee>Brawl) doesn't mean it isn't or won't be as competitive.

Well you have to remember that the melee side is talking about options AND a punishment game, both of which Brawl lacks. If a game lacks a huge amount of options but has powerful punishments it is possible to keep it competitive as it will force players to perfect what options they have. However in Brawl there's no reason to try all that hard as even if you screw up its not that big a deal.

 

[arrowhead]

the main reason many of us prefer melee can be seen through the smaller dislikes: no l-cancelling, less hitstun, and floaty characters. what do these changes affect the most? restricted combos. many characters can barely get two hits off before their opponent can escape. most of the fun in melee was creating the combos. in brawl, that aspect of the game was severely limited because of something no advanced tech can change: game mechanics. melee is like improvising jazz, and brawl is like following the sheet music.

having less options doen't necessarily make a game less competitive, but this doesn't fully apply to sequels of a game. sequels are supposed to add depth to the previous game. but the sad part of brawl was that it did precisely the opposite of that. and that makes all the difference. yes, brawl is a good game. i would be estatic if it were the sequel to smash64. but it's not. we have already experienced the godliness of melee that instead of loving brawl, we hate it for being toned down.

 

[greenblob]

Think of it this way: Why do we hate Jiggly dittos? Why do we hate playing against Peach?

 

[Firebert]

Think of it this way: Why do we hate Jiggly dittos? Why do we hate playing against Peach?

Umm, because they're pink?
No offense to PR, of course.

 

[Pink Reaper]

Think of it this way: Why do we hate Jiggly dittos? Why do we hate playing against Peach?

are you joking? Jigglypuff ditto's are the best! Its the only match where a single rest will end the game >_>

 

[showdownkiller]

Being a noob, I'm not going to make an argument, just link to something and ask for comments. I've read sometihng like 50 pages of this thread, but haven't seen this in particular mentioned.

Sirlin.net has an article about guessing games, and considers them a great sign of depth. He references VF4 or 5. Anyways, http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_Yomi.htm


A) Does this at all apply to brawl? Some of the comments I've been reading seem to suggest that it does, and in a negative way.

B) If A), does the logic in that article make anyone happier? For that, indeed, is my only wish

Peace

 

[The_Woebegone_Jackal]

Well you have to remember that the Melee side is talking about options AND a punishment game, both of which Brawl lacks. If a game lacks a huge amount of options but has powerful punishments it is possible to keep it competitive as it will force players to perfect what options they have. However in Brawl there's no reason to try all that hard as even if you screw up its not that big a deal.

Punishment in Brawl is still there, just not as severe. Thats why I've used boxing as an analogy. In Brawl you can't be combed to death or as easily edge guarded and killed at 20%. Therefor it does take more 'skill' to kill an opponent because you will have to survive longer, racking up damage on your opponent and avoiding it yourself.

I've been calling Melee MMA for a while now, where if you get the right hit in you can finish even the most compatent opponent quickly. Brawl on the other hand is more about wearing down your opponent untill they are suceptible to a KO, like boxing. Its also true that Melee requires fighters to be more tech savvy but the mindset is that Brawl not requiring as much tech knowlage (so far anyway) or having as much gain from punishment will make it less competitive. This is odd because there is a great difference in play style and how fighters have to achieve a KO.

To sum it up:
Melee - High punishment yield and long combo strings for damage
Brawl - Low punishment yield and small combos or pecking at opponents for damage

I'm not accusing anyone but I do feel there are a select few whos feelings that Brawl is/will be less competitive then Melee have stemed from their personal like of Melee's style over Brawls (this in no way means they dislike Brawl). Personal feelings are not always the best way to make decisions about things. Thank god politics don't work that way...

 

[Pink Reaper]

Punishment in Brawl is still there, just not as severe. Thats why I've used boxing as an analogy. In Brawl you can't be combed to death or as easily edge guarded and killed at 20%. Therefor it does take more 'skill' to kill an opponent because you will have to survive longer, racking up damage on your opponent and avoiding it yourself.

I've been calling Melee MMA for a while now, where if you get the right hit in you can finish even the most compatent opponent quickly. Brawl on the other hand is more about wearing down your opponent untill they are suceptible to a KO, like boxing. Its also true that Melee requires fighters to be more tech savvy but the mindset is that Brawl not requiring as much tech knowlage (so far anyway) or having as much gain from punishment will make it less competitive. This is odd because there is a great difference in play style and how fighters have to achieve a KO.

To sum it up:
Melee - High punishment yield and long combo strings for damage
Brawl - Low punishment yield and small combos or pecking at opponents for damage

I'm not accusing anyone but I do feel there are a select few whos feelings that Brawl is/will be less competitive then Melee have stemed from their personal like of Melee's style over Brawls (this in no way means they dislike Brawl).

But by this argument your stating that Brawl is more about stamina than skill. The idea isn't to be good just better at surviving than your opponent.

 

[The_Woebegone_Jackal]

But by this argument your stating that Brawl is more about stamina than skill. The idea isn't to be good just better at surviving than your opponent.

There is a particular skill to surviving while dealing damage and avoiding it yourself. There will be people who are better at this then others.

 

[Zankoku]

IOW, the whole point of the game is poking at the opponent and avoiding getting poked until he reaches 100-150%, then using something strong and repeating? That doesn't sound like a particularly engaging test of skill to me.

 

[Pink Reaper]

There is a particular skill to surviving while dealing damage and avoiding it yourself. There will be people who are better at this then others.

Thats not skill thats camp spamming

seriously, think about it, best way to damage without getting damaged yourself? Camping.

 

[The_Woebegone_Jackal]

IOW, the whole point of the game is poking at the opponent and avoiding getting poked until he reaches 100-150%, then using something strong and repeating? That doesn't sound like a particularly engaging test of skill to me.

not in Melee terms no, you are right good sir.

But in Brawl the skill will lay in who knows best when to poke, when to prod, and how. The little damage that punishment yields forces players to become even more skilled in its applications to rack up damage. In an approach you have to be able to get in close so you can cause damage. In Brawl again that remains small compared to Melee but that puts even more emphasis on doing it while taking little to no damage yourself in the process.

Having to deal 150% damage before you can KO in most cases leaves alot of time for you to take damage or get KO'd yourself. Thus lies the skill so far that is Brawl. Seeing your opponent a 178% while you're at 64% is a safe bet you've earned that kill through your own skill and on your opponents end it will take some quick thinking and strategy to get you to 150% so he can KO you without dieing himself. Where as in Melee he could potentially kill you without dealing much more damage than you already have (not saying that in itself isn't a show of skill, just that between the two games its different).

 

[Pink Reaper]

not in Melee terms no, you are right good sir.

But in Brawl the skill will lay in who knows best when to poke, when to prod, and how. The little damage that punishment yields forces players to become even more skilled in its applications to rack up damage. In an approach you have to be able to get in close so you can cause damage. In Brawl again that remains small compared to Melee but that puts even more emphasis on doing it while taking little to no damage yourself in the process.

Having to deal 150% damage before you can KO in most cases leaves alot of time for you to take damage or get KO'd yourself. Thus lies the skill so far that is Brawl. Seeing your opponent a 178% while you're at 64% is a safe bet you've earned that kill through your own skill and on your opponents end it will take some quick thinking and strategy to get you to 150% so he can KO you without dieing himself. Where as in Melee he could potentially kill you without dealing much more damage than you already have (not saying that in itself isn't a show of skill, just that between the two games its different).

once again: SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM, CAMP! >.> <.< SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM. I don't even have to try and if I screw up, who cares, its 10% at worst and then back to spamming.

 

[The_Woebegone_Jackal]

Thats not skill thats camp spamming

seriously, think about it, best way to damage without getting damaged yourself? Camping.

EDIT

once again: SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM, CAMP! >.> <.< SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM. I don't even have to try and if I screw up, who cares, its 10% at worst and then back to spamming.

/end edit

camping? That only works for so long before it becomes predictable and avoidable. Either they will learn to approach through you're projectile game or just avoid it untill you yourself are forced to approach. Plus, there is shield dashing...

Remember that we know how to get through every character's 'camping' and projectile game in Melee because Melee has so much tournament data under its belt. There will be plenty of inventive ways to use techs we've already discovered not to mention (hopefully) future ones as well once Brawl has more data collected and seriously studied.

 

[arrowhead]

if the skill it takes to be good at the games are different and can't be compared, why would you pick the game with limited combos and slower gameplay?

it's much harder to avoid good projectile spamming in brawl due to the slowness and floatiness of the characters. and the person spamming is never the one forced to approach

 

[Pink Reaper]

EDIT /end edit

camping? That only works for so long before it becomes predictable and avoidable. Either they will learn to approach through you're projectile game or just avoid it untill you yourself are forced to approach. Plus, there is shield dashing...

Remember that we know how to get through every character's 'camping' and projectile game in Melee because Melee has so much tournament data under its belt. There will be plenty of inventive ways to use techs we've already discovered not to mention (hopefully) future ones as well once Brawl has more data collected and seriously studied.

Are you joking? Projectile spam is very powerful in Melee, even with all the data on it, Falco's lasers, Sheik's needles, Samus' everything are still powerful enough to make them incredible threats and the only reason its not unbeatable is because it limited them in options, however in Brawl, since those option limits are forced on even those who aren't spamming the advantage instantly goes to the camper.

And Waveshielding >>>> Shield Dashing.

 

[volbound1700]

Brawl is better.... I have played both quite a bit lately. Melee is too fast and the techniques in Melee where bugs.

Brawl has so much more and the flow seems better although slower.