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

[Eggm]

Knee of justice got mindgamed, funny post brookman, MELEE 4 LIFE.

 

[Scar]

thx 4 da fix Brookmangz. <3

 

[veloS]

A lot, and I mean a lot, of good points were made by both sides of the argument. However, you can piss on every little detail of the game all you want, there are truly only TWO things that truly matter when playing a fighting game:

1. Is it FUN?
2. Is it BALANCED?

IMHO, Brawl is a shatload of fun, maybe even more so than Melee, purely because if its quantity and diversity in entertainment. Yes, overall, the game is SLIGHTLY slower, but I really don't mind that.

And one thing I know for sure, having played Brawl ever since its japanese release... There are A LOT more high-tier (read: usable) characters in Brawl than there were in Melee (where speed indeed ruled the metagame... which sucked for me, as I kind of fell in love with Ganondorf's playstyle). Therefore, IMHO, its balance is better, which makes the game better... especially on a competitive level.

Sure, Brawl might be less balanced items-wise, but I don't think it's a coincidence that items are easily toggled on or off.

To summarize: Brawl's more fun, alright. Slightly.

EDIT: Yes, I know this thread isn't about 'fun', but about 'compeitiveness', but I hope this little post will make you think about what makes that competitiveness so interesting.

 

[veloS]

OK, you know what?

Having read the whole Smash Boards thread, I now also agree that Melee is more competitive ("Better players win more") than Brawl. However, I do NOT agree that 'competitive' equals 'better'.

To put a long story short, if you know all there is to know about your main in Melee (advanced techs, combo's, edge-gaurding techs, etc.) there'll be a point in your metagame where you just won't grow anymore. Brawl on the other hand, will force player to be more than just someone who knows his character inside out... a player will have to truly soak up anything that happens in EVERY single match. Sure, there might be more luck-based things, but that will keep someone fresh over and over again, each and every round, instead of barging in, chain-grabbing and wave-dashing the same strategy every single round.

Like in REAL fights (although I doubt anyone here has ever been in one) you must not only trust your own skills, but also use your surroundings, have a bit of luck and think of ways to overcome odds that are bigger than your own.

I prefer Brawl. Melee's too sterile.

 

[thumbswayup]

IMHO, Brawl is a shatload of fun, maybe even more so than Melee, purely because if its quantity and diversity in entertainment. Yes, overall, the game is SLIGHTLY slower, but I really don't mind that.

Slightly slower? LOL, ok I stopped reading your post after that becuase i couldn't stop laughing.

 

[giantimi]

Slightly is an understatement!

 

[Aesir]

I don't even browse their forums anymore: I consider SRK to be a cesspool of human thought. That community is so wrapped up in the idea that they can be better than us at our own game, it's unlikely they'll contribute much of anything to the development of Brawl.


-Syn

They're infected with this virus called hype.

For melee I heard they weren't even going to bother with our rule set by try their own thing or something.

But chose ours because they were pressed for time. >_>

 

[veloS]

Slightly slower? LOL, ok I stopped reading your post after that becuase i couldn't stop laughing.

I'm happy to have entertained you with that small detail.

If you truly stopped reading (which you haven't) then that only shows how closed-minded you are.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Melee? Sterile?

Holy crow. That is the most ridiculous thing that I have read in this thread concerning Brawl's defense (and this is coming from the guy who staunchly supports Brawl). Melee is not a bland game. There's actually a lot going on, especially if you're the one playing.

Smooth Criminal

 

[veloS]

Melee? Sterile?

blahblahblah 'not bland' blahblahblah

I never said 'bland'. I said 'sterile'. By which I meant its competitive gameplay. I prefer Brawl's.

I never said 'Bland'. Smash Bros is the antithesis of bland.

 

[Rhubarbo]

Brawl is more sterile because it removes many great aspects from Melee. Go play Melee, then go play Brawl, then you tell me what is more fun! If you say Brawl, chances are you're just defending Brawl because you got into the hype and dedicated so much time analyzing the game.

 

[goateeguy]

sorry for not going thru the 100+ pages of replies .

this is my opinion on what you just said. yes the better players will likely win more often, but there's not as much in brawl to set them apart. in melee there were so many advanced techniques it took years to perfect them, and it felt good perfecting them because that was one more trick you could use to own someone. in brawl the best you get is upsmash out of dash. there's just so little to learn here that i really prefer melee even just a few weeks in.

 

[veloS]

Brawl is more sterile because it removes many great aspects from Melee. Go play Melee, then go play Brawl, then you tell me what is more fun! If you say Brawl, chances are you're just defending Brawl because you got into the hype and dedicated so much time analyzing the game.

I am greatly tempted to just flame you, but I'm above that.

Never assume you know how or why I think certain things; it's weak and it's no way to argue.

I didn't buy into the hype at all (why would I if I can play melee whenever the hell I want), and if I did, the two months of solidly playing Brawl would have cured that.

Being wrong when preferring Brawl is NOT a fact. It's an opinion, so may I suggest you take out your frustrations elsewhere before making these idiotic assumptions?

Having just fired up Melee again for a match or two, I can safely say that yes, I DO prefer Brawl. Saying that Brawl's more sterile purely because 'stuff got taken out', is the most ridiculous argument I've read so far. The only thing I miss is the L-cancelling, but then again, Brawl doesn't need it as much as Melee does.

So I'll tell you which game I find to be more fun... Brawl. I don't hate Melee (I love it more than you think) but it just ticks my boxes. Go cry in a corner if you cannot comprehend that.

 

[goateeguy]

I am greatly tempted to just flame you, but I'm above that.

Never assume you know how or why I think certain things; it's weak and it's no way to argue.

I didn't buy into the hype at all (why would I if I can play melee whenever the hell I want), and if I did, the two months of solidly playing Brawl would have cured that.

Being wrong when preferring Brawl is NOT a fact. It's an opinion, so may I suggest you take out your frustrations elsewhere before making these idiotic assumptions?

Having just fired up Melee again for a match or two, I can safely say that yes, I DO prefer Brawl. Saying that Brawl's more sterile purely because 'stuff got taken out', is the most ridiculous argument I've read so far. The only thing I miss is the L-cancelling, but then again, Brawl doesn't need it as much as Melee does.

So I'll tell you which game I find to be more fun... Brawl. I don't hate Melee (I love it more than you think) but it just ticks my boxes. Go cry in a corner if you cannot comprehend that.

dude, you are way too emotional about this. have you considered that what he said may be his opinion too? and how can you only miss l-canceling? advanced techs gave so much more depth to the game than you'll admit

 

[Veil2222]

I'm under the same impression and experience veloS, likewise I'm getting pretty tired of the "you favor brawl, therefore it is factual that you suck at melee, are a noob, and don't know what you're talking about" arguments, they've really killed off a lot of good debate in this thread. I now prefer Brawl both for fun and competition, mostly because I can play the characters I like since the characters are more balanced.

Side note, AT's aren't the only thing that give depth, to me, the airdoge gave this game plenty more options along with control schemes and more agressive edgeguarding.

 

[Jack Kieser]

I posted this in Gimpy's thread on Brawl's supposed 'backwards progression'. I figured it was relevant to this thread too, so I'm quoting it for the benefit of you guys in here as well. It poses a question to the community, so please answer it if you have time. Oh, and I apologize in advance for the wall 'o text.

Ok, I want to ask this question because I've posted it to other gamers before, and I'd like to get people like Gimpy and Mookie's opinions on this.

For the longest time, fighting games (in general) have rewarded one thing in particular: combos. As was mentioned either in this thread or Scar's thread, the humble beginnings of what we consider the competitive fighting scene today really started with a mistake; during the development cycle for Street Fighter 2, the programmers discovered that it was possible to 'cancel' moves into other moves, allowing for a continuous steam of uninterruptible moves (once the first hit of the 'combo' was landed, of course). Ever since, the concept of the 'combo' has been the cornerstone of every fighting game. Speed, control, 'mindgames'... whatever technical skill or property any given game allows or exudes, the properties can always be reduced to 'does it allow for a combo?',

For as long as I remember, fighting games have showcased this kind and only this kind of skill. If you could think (and move) quickly enough to input a series of particular commands, you were skilled enough to win. Watch any recording of any 'pro' match in any fighting game since SF2 and you will see each player has patterns that will inevitably emerge, combos and series of moves that seem to work every time and that are used almost reflexively. That is the core of what fighting games reward nowadays: muscle memory. Mindgames, what is considered to be the cousin of the combo, in many ways, is usually only necessary up until that first hit is landed, but after that if you know what moves to use in which order and at what time, you are basically golden. After all, that's what a 'combo' is: a series of inescapable and uninterruptible moves.

We, as a competitive gaming community, have taken this to heart. We have decided that the combo is still king, and that the most skilled player is basically the one with the best reflexes. That is fine... to a degree. But, as Thomas Jefferson is oft misquoted to say (although this detracts from the truth of the statement in no way), 'Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.' Ever since Brawl came out (and honestly, probably before then), certain gamers have shared the sentiment that skill does not only come from sheer speed and memorization skills, but also from wit and control. It seems that this is what Brawl will reward in the long run: not players who memorize complex series of moves and commit to muscle memory the movements to perform them, but players who think well on their feet and can deal with (and capitalize on) many different circumstances.

The question I pose to the community is this. For so long, we have convinced ourselves that the 'combo is king', and that the only skill worth rewarding is the ability to commit these combos to memory and to speedily use them when possible. Why can we not reward wit and quick thinking instead, or even as well? Why must we dismiss Brawl simply because we can't combo? After all, every other skill we seem to reward (such as 'mindgames') are simply a means to an end, skills that lead to the same place, to the combo. Why must we discredit and discount Brawl because it rewards a different kind of skill, as though that skill (and thus the game that rewards it) is inherently 'less skillful'? Why can't 'different' be 'equal'?

Why can't we view Brawl as it is, a chance to shift the competitive paradigm in a way that hasn't been done since SF2? A chance to change (or even just supplement) our thinking with a dissenting view that is separate, but just as equal?

 

[Mr.MoJo21]

GUys you just got to realize that even though these games are both Smash, They are simply 2 different games. We arn't gonna turn brawl into melee, just accept the fact that melee is getting old and Brawl is completely different but newer game. If you don't like don't play it. Just enjoy the fun in brawl online. it is a party game not competitive like melee. Just have fun with it.

 

[pockyD]

some people need to read the first post

 

[Keitaro]

I really really really hate when people say "if you don't like it, don't play it". Dammit it pisses me off!!

Even if the person doesn't like playing the game the quote solves nothing.

 

[Veil2222]

A lot of people will argue that it's just as competitive as melee, please don't state that it's not as fact. I agree with the idea of your post Jack, and so far that is the exact transition I've had to make in brawl to do well. I don't worry about combo set-ups anymore, but if one comes up I have to be fast enough to switch gears and capitalize on it. Same with with punishing and opening, I have to think about the situation to see what is appropriate to do. I don't know how this idea will pan out in the long run though.

 

[veloS]

dude, you are way too emotional about this. have you considered that what he said may be his opinion too?

Yeah, but unlike him, I don't state my opinions as facts and insinuate that the other person's a gullible idiot.

and how can you only miss l-canceling?

You tell me! How can I love spaghetti? How can I dislike hiphop? I just do!

advanced techs gave so much more depth to the game than you'll admit

Dude, now YOU're making stupid assumptions. Read my post; I never said advanced techs didn't add depth.

My point is that I just didn't enjoy a lot of them (anymore). Then Brawl came along, spicing things up again.

Just for the record, I know how to wavedash, do some insane combos, etc., etc. But that doesn't mean I have to praise Melee for it over Brawl.

 

[Xengri]

Hahahahahhaha!
Ha.
Heh….
No.

Having read the whole Smash Boards thread, I now also agree that Melee is more competitive ("Better players win more") than Brawl. However, I do NOT agree that 'competitive' equals 'better'.

Competitive equals better for competitive players ( I know, I know, amazing concept). Brawl’s a fine game if you’re just a causal player but, if you’re someone that enjoys traveling to tournaments just to play other good players, and maybe win some cash, then you’ve got reason to be peeved with Brawl.

To put a long story short, if you know all there is to know about your main in Melee (advanced techs, combo's, edge-gaurding techs, etc.) there'll be a point in your metagame where you just won't grow anymore.

Just from this, I’m convinced that you were not part of competitive Melee. See, knowing all the advance techs is only the prerequisite for playing competitive Melee. It doesn’t end there, it starts there!
After you know what your character can do, know you have to extend on that. Adv. techs are just tools, knowing when and, where to use the tools is what makes you a good player. Just knowing how to do the tech isn't going to help you if you can't use it efficiently in real matches.

As for combos, Melee had very few pre-planned combos. Most of Melee’s combos where on the spot, and, were created by the attacker to adjust to what the defender is doing (Di and, such).
Watch a few combo vids, you’ll understand what I’m trying to say (Ken combos don‘t count. It‘s famous for a reason in that, it‘s one of the few pre planned combos that work).

Brawl on the other hand, will force player to be more than just someone who knows his character inside out... a player will have to truly soak up anything that happens in EVERY single match.

Cause Melee did not do this how? Especially since in Melee you had a much better control of you’re character, so you can you know. “Soak up anything that happens” better and, with less predictability.

Sure, there might be more luck-based things, but that will keep someone fresh over and over again, each and every round, instead of barging in, chain-grabbing and wave-dashing the same strategy every single round.

Melee had bare minimum look (and, only with a few characters) yet, it still managed to produce unpredictable players. Besides, it defiantly didn’t have people using the camping strategy every single round.

 

[Eggm]

I'm under the same impression and experience veloS, likewise I'm getting pretty tired of the "you favor brawl, therefore it is factual that you suck at melee, are a noob, and don't know what you're talking about" arguments, they've really killed off a lot of good debate in this thread. I now prefer Brawl both for fun and competition, mostly because I can play the characters I like since the characters are more balanced.

Side note, AT's aren't the only thing that give depth, to me, the airdoge gave this game plenty more options along with control schemes and more agressive edgeguarding.

You realize melee players who prefer brawl always get told they suck at melee lol. Also it wasn't only the removal of AT's that removed depth, it was the lack of hit stun and overall floatyness that decreased mindgames, read my thread (I know you did already talking to others.) Aggressive edge guarding was alive and kicking in melee too, but you also had the option of edge guarding from on the stage without auto sweet spot, so it was more overall depth in that department too, anyway you slice it melee is deeper and more competitive.

 

[veloS]

I'm under the same impression and experience veloS, likewise I'm getting pretty tired of the "you favor brawl, therefore it is factual that you suck at melee, are a noob, and don't know what you're talking about" arguments, they've really killed off a lot of good debate in this thread. I now prefer Brawl both for fun and competition, mostly because I can play the characters I like since the characters are more balanced.

Well, it's nice to see that SOME people do share my views. Thanks, bro.

that is the exact transition I've had to make in brawl to do well. I don't worry about combo set-ups anymore, but if one comes up I have to be fast enough to switch gears and capitalize on it. Same with with punishing and opening, I have to think about the situation to see what is appropriate to do.

And THAT's exactly why I prefer Brawl over Melee.

To make a long story short (and unsubtle): Melee's about advanced tech, speed and offense. Brawl's about adapting, using the chaos to your advantage and defense. I prefer the latter, whether it's more 'competitive' or not.

 

[Veil2222]

Xengri, again, most of your post was fueled by opinion. That's all fine and good, but recognize it as such. Plenty of people feel Brawl has more to offer, even eventually more so than melee. I don't care if you say "you only think so cause I doubt you ever played melee competitively and don't know what you're saying" just expect that part of your post to be ignored, because it's nothing but presumptive opinion and aids nothing to the conversation.

Most of what he's saying is, Brawl pulls people out of the mindset of approach-opening-combo-chase, there's different steps in different pacing and different order. Most people drop that idea immediately and claim it's inferior. As for the camping idea, I've yet to run into it in my entire smashing community. Again, feel free to say "That's because you're all noobs", but that will just be disregarded as it has no bearing on the conversation.

 

[Wind Owl]

I posted this in Gimpy's thread on Brawl's supposed 'backwards progression'. I figured it was relevant to this thread too, so I'm quoting it for the benefit of you guys in here as well. It poses a question to the community, so please answer it if you have time. Oh, and I apologize in advance for the wall 'o text.

Please read this post.

 

[Cort]

So... who wants to come over and play Melee?

 

[Jack Kieser]

I'm a sad panda... I worked hard on that wall of text up there. Doesn't anyone disagree with my post?

EDIT @Wind Owl: Hey, I remember reading that post! Remember in mine where I talk about a shift in thinking? Yeah, that means not accepting that post as gospel truth and instead seeing it at face value: as a single system in a world of possible systems, no one more valid than the other. But thanks for looking out for me.

 

[veloS]

Brawl’s a fine game if you’re just a causal player but, if you’re someone that enjoys traveling to tournaments just to play other good players, and maybe win some cash, then you’ve got reason to be peeved with Brawl.

Ehr, not really. I do travel to cities in The Netherlands for tournies, and I still like the changes made. I am NOT a casual player, I play this game with 'pro's' more than any other multiplayer game (yes, even more than my beloved Guilty Gear).

Just from this, I’m convinced that you were not part of competitive Melee. See, knowing all the advance techs is only the prerequisite for playing competitive Melee. It doesn’t end there, it starts there!

I never denied that. What I meant, is that in Melee, everyone spent so much time mastering the techniques (and banning levels, characters and items) that the game itself didn't matter as much anymore. It sounds vague, but do you get the point?

Anyway, I've had the same Melee matches for about the last two years now. People stopt getting better after they know how to kill other pro's in less than ten seconds. At least here they did.

As for combos, Melee had very few pre-planned combos. Most of Melee’s combos where on the spot, and, were created by the attacker to adjust to what the defender is doing (Di and, such).

I know, I know, you should see my Marth in action.

Cause Melee did not do this how? Especially since in Melee you had a much better control of you’re character

Whooo there, buddy. 'Different' control of your character, not per se 'better'. Have you even gotten used to the floatyness yet? You must hate the original.

“Soak up anything that happens” better and, with less predictability.

Less predictability? I know anecdotal evidence isn't really evidence, but sorry, in my experience, Brawl has been less predictible than Melee every single match I've played competitively the last month. And I like that.

Besides, it defiantly didn’t have people using the camping strategy every single round.

If you know how people play, you know how to react. I sure as hell don't camp, and once I start raking up kills, people start playing differently as well.

 

[Xengri]

Xengri, again, most of your post was fueled by opinion. That's all fine and good, but recognize it as such. Plenty of people feel Brawl has more to offer, even eventually more so than melee. I don't care if you say "you only think so cause I doubt you ever played melee competitively and don't know what you're saying" just expect that part of your post to be ignored, because it's nothing but presumptive opinion and aids nothing to the conversation.

Most of what he's saying is, Brawl pulls people out of the mindset of approach-opening-combo-chase, there's different steps in different pacing and different order. Most people drop that idea immediately and claim it's inferior. As for the camping idea, I've yet to run into it in my entire smashing community. Again, feel free to say "That's because you're all noobs", but that will just be disregarded as it has no bearing on the conversation.

Opinion, how so?
I couldn't care less if some people like Brawl better, I can't stop them from doing that.

But, he said that, Melee is "sterile", I took that as, him saying that it has no more to offer and that the skill roof has been reached, which just isn't true.
Like Brawl all you want, that has nothing to do with me.

 

[veloS]

Xengri, again, most of your post was fueled by opinion. That's all fine and good, but recognize it as such. Plenty of people feel Brawl has more to offer, even eventually more so than melee. I don't care if you say "you only think so cause I doubt you ever played melee competitively and don't know what you're saying" just expect that part of your post to be ignored, because it's nothing but presumptive opinion and aids nothing to the conversation.

Most of what he's saying is, Brawl pulls people out of the mindset of approach-opening-combo-chase, there's different steps in different pacing and different order. Most people drop that idea immediately and claim it's inferior. As for the camping idea, I've yet to run into it in my entire smashing community. Again, feel free to say "That's because you're all noobs", but that will just be disregarded as it has no bearing on the conversation.

Thanks for putting my opinion into words better than I did! Great post.

 

[Veil2222]

I've replied to other people quoting that post too, basically, what I said was that cactars explanation was one of situational experience. Though I don't doubt his findings based on what he's seen are accurate, they don't apply to the matches I've played, which makes me believe there are other people that his ideas don't apply to, enough to at least make that argument well... arguable. There are plenty of defense/camping breaking strategies and they're all situational to the characters involved, so the opposing side doesn't have a nice blanked idea to try to refute cactars ideas, so it doesn't seem like the other side has anything, but there's defiantely plenty there.

 

[veloS]

Opinion, how so?
But, he said that, Melee is "sterile", I took that as, him saying that it has no more to offer and that the skill roof has been reached, which just isn't true.

I know it sounds harsh, but that's how I experience my Smash history for the last two years. I know what to expect whenever I play competitive Melee player, and I see them pick Sheik, or Fox or Marth or Mario or Peach or whoever.

It's only when we agree to use certain levels or items that the matches change... I've grown bored of Melee competitively, and Brawl has all the fundamentals to keep that from happening... even if the competitive community thinks that fundament is less 'fair' or 'deep'.

 

[Mew2King]

my reflexes are like average but i still manage to do decent

thing about brawl is there's a lot more luck/guessing/camping involved, luck can cause flukes to happen, and that's never good/fair, and camping isn't fun.

 

[Veil2222]

I'm still resigned to the idea that Brawl is going to be bigger than Melee in competition, for every one person sandbagged by Melee dogma two are gonna pick up Brawl in their place. In that case, Brawl will be more successful than Melee, at least that's what I see happening so far.

 

[curiousthoughtsbear]

I'm under the same impression and experience veloS, likewise I'm getting pretty tired of the "you favor brawl, therefore it is factual that you suck at melee, are a noob, and don't know what you're talking about" arguments, they've really killed off a lot of good debate in this thread. I now prefer Brawl both for fun and competition, mostly because I can play the characters I like since the characters are more balanced.

Side note, AT's aren't the only thing that give depth, to me, the airdoge gave this game plenty more options along with control schemes and more agressive edgeguarding.

This is an interesting post, because it exemplifies an argument which is completely contradictory.

It is stated by many that being balanced yields a greater variety of tournament viable characters. However last I checked it isn't the character that gets people to the final, it's their own mettle and technical prowess. People complain that there were so few usable characters in melee. That, in other words, is known as a JOHN. Anytime you blame the game and its nuances for your own defeat then it is likely a JOHN or related to JOHNNING. If you cannot beat a certain person with a certain character that means you are not good enough. There are tasks that seem insurmountable, but do not attribute loss to what is seemingly impossible. Blaming something extraneous for ones own loss is synonymous with being a sore loser; giving up adds insult to injury, for one is now a failure. And yeah, it's okay to be a failure at times in life. In fact, in many ways, failure is a learning tool to inspire new and potentially better avenues to success. What really irks me though is when a person is both a failure and a sore loser. That is someone that doesn't have the strength of will to face the world and its challenges but rather wants something for nothing.

Well it's only a video game right ............ hope that's not how y'all compete in real life, but it usually follows.


Melee is a better game because it has more to offer currently. I don't even see why you consider Brawl to be near the same level, it's clearly not and may never be. Debating whether it's better is futile.

 

[-Hoggle-]

I tried it, I mean it felt more like Melee but Brawl is not Melee, there are certain ways you can use Brawl's physics either way, I really dislike heavy Brawl, though, because it's nearly impossible to attack people offstage without dying. I love aggressive edgeguarding, I guess that would have to be sacrificed, but who knows.

I think if you could turn autosweetspotting off, Brawl would be far more competitive. After that, we'd turn L-Cancelling on, and after that, we'd be able to turn tripping off.

I'm not trying to be pro brawl of anything (i hate it competitively) but can't you not auto grab the edge by slap sticking the joystick up when doing your up b recovery. Also, you can dlx cancel a lot of aerials, which isn't the best l-canceling replacement but its decent. I honestly don't think the lack of technical tricks are what makes brawl crappy at competitive play. I think the most damaging aspect of the game isn't tripping but the fact that hit stun virtually doesn't exist in brawl and therefore combos no longer exist in smash brawl. The thing that worsens this even more on 1v1 competitive matches is that the most pro efficient play style in brawl isn't being aggressive, smart and getting creative combos but rather being defensive, random and campy. In short, the best way to prove that brawl is a competitive game is not by showing random technical techniques like wave-bouncing and etc...., but by showing how a player can effectively and competitively play through a match by making his own combos and not getting hit immediately afterwards by an opponent's random attacks and also not getting a cheap victory through shield and projectile camping

 

[veloS]

Melee is a better game because it has more to offer currently. I don't even see why you consider Brawl to be near the same level, it's clearly not and may never be. Debating whether it's better is futile.

"ELITISM

It will never, ever get you laid."


*sigh*

Anyway, phrases like "it's clearly not" and "debating this is futile" really shows how ignorant you really are. Opinions are never facts, no matter how passionately you believe in them or how many supporters you have.

It is stated by many that being balanced yields a greater variety of tournament viable characters. However last I checked it isn't the character that gets people to the final, it's their own mettle and technical prowess. People complain that there were so few usable characters in melee. That, in other words, is known as a JOHN. Anytime you blame the game and its nuances for your own defeat then it is likely a JOHN or related to JOHNNING.

I completely agree on JOHNNING and being a sorry loser, but you're missing the point.

Brawl having more high tier characters is just more FUN. Besides, it gives good player even more ways to be good with. We weren't blaming Melee for anything.

 

[Xengri]

Ehr, not really. I do travel to cities in The Netherlands for tournies, and I still like the changes made. I am NOT a casual player, I play this game with 'pro's' more than any other multiplayer game (yes, even more than my beloved Guilty Gear).

No problem with you proffering Brawl over Melee, but calling Melee sterile is false.
And, really you said your self that, Melee is more competitive then Brawl.

Having read the whole Smash Boards thread, I now also agree that Melee is more competitive ("Better players win more") than Brawl.

^ See.
If it’s more competitive then, it’s better for the competitive players (Tournament goers, adv.tech users, frame scholars, etc.).

Since you liked Brawl more then Melee and, said that Melee is more competitive then Brawl, then it’s safe to assume you are a casual?

I never denied that. What I meant, is that in Melee, everyone spent so much time mastering the techniques (and banning levels, characters and items) that the game itself didn't matter as much anymore. It sounds vague, but do you get the point?

Anyway, I've had the same Melee matches for about the last two years now. People stopt getting better after they know how to kill other pro's in less than ten seconds. At least here they did.

You have to explain this, and a lot. The game doesn’t matter that much any more? People stop getting better after killing Pros in less then ten seconds?
What?

Whooo there, buddy. 'Different' control of your character, not per se 'better'. Have you even gotten used to the floatyness yet? You must hate the original.

Better control means, you have more options available to you.
Easy example, In Melee I had much more options out of a dash then I do in Brawl. What does floatyness have to do with control?

Less predictability? I know anecdotal evidence isn't really evidence, but sorry, in my experience, Brawl has been less predictible than Melee every single match I've played competitively the last month. And I like that.

You’re right, anecdotal evidence isn't evidence.

If you know how people play, you know how to react. I sure as hell don't camp, and once I start raking up kills, people start playing differently as well.

You may not camp, but, that doesn’t mean it’s the best tactic in Brawl.

Anyway, none of you’re replies had anything to do with what I was arguing against, so I’m guessing you lost track of what I was calling you wrong on.
You said that Melee has become sterile (stopped growing), and, I’m saying that’s not true. If anything, Melee may still have more to offer after 7 years then, Brawl does only after 2 months.

I know it sounds harsh, but that's how I experience my Smash history for the last two years. I know what to expect whenever I play competitive Melee player, and I see them pick Sheik, or Fox or Marth or Mario or Peach or whoever.

It's only when we agree to use certain levels or items that the matches change... I've grown bored of Melee competitively, and Brawl has all the fundamentals to keep that from happening... even if the competitive community thinks that fundament is less 'fair' or 'deep'.

Once again, anecdotal evidence isn't evidence.
But, just for the sake of it.
You're probably playing the same people to often, which doesn't really count seeing as that can apply to any fighting game in which you always face the same opponent.

And, if it's because of the stages and no items thing, again, that could apply to Brawl also.
After we get a solid banned stage list and, solidify the no items rule, it'll be the same way.
It'll just be even more routine because in brawl, there's less options open to players.

 

[Jack Kieser]

After we get a solid banned stage list and, solidify the no items rule, it'll be the same way.

Sorry to rain on your parade man, but there's a LOT of support for a unified standard item list, and everything scientific so far promotes the point that items actually prevent stale play in Brawl. I'm all for a 1v1 no item match every now and then, but we all really need to stop being so stubborn with our mindsets and try new gameplay options, considering Brawl is a new/different game and all.