Embrio
Smash Cadet
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2008
- Messages
- 59
http://forums.shoryuken.com/showthread.php?t=152758 The thread has been closed though...guess some guys cant handle the truth lol. Beware though u might end up retarted after reading all those post.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Scar on the Melee vs Brawl debate: What does competitive really mean?
- Thread starter Scar
- Start date
- Status
Endless Nightmares
Smash Master
****ing ninja posts
Jack Kieser
Smash Champion
Um, last time I checked, Melee was never gone. It was less prevalent (MAYBE), but certainly wasn't gone, and probably never will (should) be.
I think that brawl is definitly less competetive than melee simply because of items like the smash ball. I f your new at the game you can still kill a veteran because of one item. Brawl is too based off of chance and not skill. but nintendo will tell you that their not trying to make a competitive game. their trying to make it fun for casual gamers.
so far as the whole thread goes the answer quite obvious. Melee is more competitive.
so far as the whole thread goes the answer quite obvious. Melee is more competitive.
Endless Nightmares
Smash Master
>__________________________________________>
uh turn items off thanks.
damn you i choked on my gatorade reading that post
uh turn items off thanks.
damn you i choked on my gatorade reading that post
Emblem Lord
The Legendary Lord
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2005
- Messages
- 9,720
- Location
- Scotch Plains, NJ
- NNID
- ShinEmblemLord
- 3DS FC
- 3926-6895-0574
- Switch FC
- SW-0793-4091-6136
Embrio: Actually I agree. Most smashers don't understand fighting games at all.
Aesir
Smash Master
Unless they've actually played one. >_>
Endless Nightmares
Smash Master
Most fighting game players don't understand Smash at all.
Rhubarbo
Smash Champion
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2007
- Messages
- 2,035
BY JACK KIESER:
"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?"
Rhubarbo: Combos my friend are not just memorized sequences, they're more than that. When an opponent is ready to make a move, you can execute a move that nullifies there's and adds hits them. After that hit, you can then progress to punishing them for making the wrong move at the wrong time. That's what combos are, punishment for executing an in-appropriate move. And, when in combo, you aren't helpless, you have DI my friend, something that wasn't in Street Fighter (I don't think it was). You have 8 different ways of DIing and each way allows you to approach the foe differently.
Example (it might not be perfect): In Melee, as Marth, if I got d-tilted by Sheik then u-aired, I might DI away from her diagonally down then do a f-air as she tries to approach me for the next hit.
As you can see, combos aren't pure memorization and just flashy imputs, both players have a say in any combo and both players have to improvize on the whim.
The thing is, in Brawl, there is no real replacement for combos. A replacement would be a fighting system that has specific moves for each character that counter other moves (i.e a Sheik f-smash would counter pikachu's u-tilt). Brawl is basically Melee minus combos (and the ledge game for that matter).
"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?"
Rhubarbo: Combos my friend are not just memorized sequences, they're more than that. When an opponent is ready to make a move, you can execute a move that nullifies there's and adds hits them. After that hit, you can then progress to punishing them for making the wrong move at the wrong time. That's what combos are, punishment for executing an in-appropriate move. And, when in combo, you aren't helpless, you have DI my friend, something that wasn't in Street Fighter (I don't think it was). You have 8 different ways of DIing and each way allows you to approach the foe differently.
Example (it might not be perfect): In Melee, as Marth, if I got d-tilted by Sheik then u-aired, I might DI away from her diagonally down then do a f-air as she tries to approach me for the next hit.
As you can see, combos aren't pure memorization and just flashy imputs, both players have a say in any combo and both players have to improvize on the whim.
The thing is, in Brawl, there is no real replacement for combos. A replacement would be a fighting system that has specific moves for each character that counter other moves (i.e a Sheik f-smash would counter pikachu's u-tilt). Brawl is basically Melee minus combos (and the ledge game for that matter).
pockyD
Smash Legend
but we understand fighting games
the reason a lot of smashers don't play your "standard" fighting games is because we prefer the distinct feel that smash has, and despite its shortcomings, brawl is still far more similar to melee/ssb64 than it is to street fighter or mvc or guilty gear or whatever you kids are playing these days
saying that a "true" fighting game player would understand more about smash than your average (ugh, average as of 6 months ago before a ton of new joiners brought down our average IQ by approximately 50 apparently) smasher about smash (lol i used the word 'smash' a lot) is something I would easily disagree with
Jack Kieser
Smash Champion
I like how Rhubarbo copy/pasted that ENTIRE POST; dude, I have to say... why? 
I'm going to use this opportunity to post something else I thought about while I was driving. It's a metaphor, so buckle down, people.
Combos in Smash are like a rock song.
When you are fighting in Brawl, you have the option for single hits and combos (I'm convinced that everyone in Brawl has at least one combo, whether or not it is applicable in a variety of situations or not). Well, single hits are like a lead guitar's melodic line and combos are like solo riffs. If you have a song, any rock song, with only a melodic line played by the lead guitarist and no solos, the song gets boring. You stop listening intently to the lead guitar because its not evolving with the song. On the same token, however, if a rock song is 5 minutes of solo riffs worthy of cramping even the most trained Guitar Hero's hands, the song is too chaotic and you lose the impact of the solo.
How this relates to Smash: Smash is built off this principle, thanks to Brawl. The majority of battles will be played out with either single hits or tiny combos of two to three hits. This is very crucial because this is where mindgames really come into play. Prediction is key at these times. When you get an opportunity, though, you bust out with your combo. Melee had matches that were full of 'solos', and because of this we think that if a match isn't comprised of only 'solos', then the battle is too slow or too uninteresting. That's our fault, though, and it's a matter of perceiving the necessity of combos incorrectly (in my opinion) for too long. Now, Brawl is forcing us to only use our combo 'solos' when they are truly necessary and useful, instead of trying to find a place for a combo with every landed hit.
When combos and single hits are used in concert with each other, a beautiful song is played in the form of a dynamic and evolving battle, one that changes pace with time instead of retaining a frantic pace at all times. This is where Brawl has the potential to exceed Melee: in creating truly dynamic battles that aren't one 'solo' after another.
This metaphorical argument was brought to you by 'Mario Minor', by Powerglove.
I'm going to use this opportunity to post something else I thought about while I was driving. It's a metaphor, so buckle down, people.Combos in Smash are like a rock song.
When you are fighting in Brawl, you have the option for single hits and combos (I'm convinced that everyone in Brawl has at least one combo, whether or not it is applicable in a variety of situations or not). Well, single hits are like a lead guitar's melodic line and combos are like solo riffs. If you have a song, any rock song, with only a melodic line played by the lead guitarist and no solos, the song gets boring. You stop listening intently to the lead guitar because its not evolving with the song. On the same token, however, if a rock song is 5 minutes of solo riffs worthy of cramping even the most trained Guitar Hero's hands, the song is too chaotic and you lose the impact of the solo.
How this relates to Smash: Smash is built off this principle, thanks to Brawl. The majority of battles will be played out with either single hits or tiny combos of two to three hits. This is very crucial because this is where mindgames really come into play. Prediction is key at these times. When you get an opportunity, though, you bust out with your combo. Melee had matches that were full of 'solos', and because of this we think that if a match isn't comprised of only 'solos', then the battle is too slow or too uninteresting. That's our fault, though, and it's a matter of perceiving the necessity of combos incorrectly (in my opinion) for too long. Now, Brawl is forcing us to only use our combo 'solos' when they are truly necessary and useful, instead of trying to find a place for a combo with every landed hit.
When combos and single hits are used in concert with each other, a beautiful song is played in the form of a dynamic and evolving battle, one that changes pace with time instead of retaining a frantic pace at all times. This is where Brawl has the potential to exceed Melee: in creating truly dynamic battles that aren't one 'solo' after another.
This metaphorical argument was brought to you by 'Mario Minor', by Powerglove.
I think too many people try to compare Smash to a "normal" fighting game, which is pointless, as Smash has more in common with Platformers than it does with most fighting games(how many other fighting games let you spend the entire match with your back to your opponent?) So comparing Smash to other fighters is meaningless.
Also, fun forum game: Find everyone with a join date of October/November. Then put them on your ignore list >_>
>_>
Yeah, and following the analogy, without solos, we instead have two guitarists taking turns hitting a single note in alternating fashion.
Yeah, and following the analogy, without solos, we instead have two guitarists taking turns hitting a single note in alternating fashion.
aho43
Smash Lord
In melee there was DI + smash DI to get out of combos. The bigger thing is that combos in melee actually put you in some sort of advatantageous position and could be done at higher percents to get a KO. The problem with brawl isn't that better players won't beat players worse than them, they definitely still will. the problem is that the game has made defense such a strong aspect to the game that the game will eventually evolve into everyone playing very defensively. personally i am of the opinion that this leads to the game being less fun and more frustrating to play. having a balanced game that has both strong offense and defense is the game i'd rather play. and if a game is going to be tipped in either direction with offense or defense being stronger, id take overpowered offense over overpowered defense anyday, as this leads to more exciting(imo at least) gameplay.
Jack Kieser
Smash Champion
Yes, without solos... But, that's not what I said, now is it? I said with properly placed solos. The problem people are having with Brawl is they're trying to turn every advance against the opponent into a Melee-style combo, which is not going to happen. If you learn your character enough to know what combos they do possess and when and where you can use them, however, then you get somewhere.
In short: I have yet to see proof that Brawl is devoid of any and all combos entirely, and as such, we need to learn to work with what we have.
pockyD
Smash Legend
wow i really suck, i meant to say "but we understand smash" games, and i ended up saying the exact opposite
The_Smash_Champ
Banned via Warnings
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2005
- Messages
- 397
Thanks for your post, you are correct!.Melee is such a good game. Brawl will get boring very fast trust me. Probably i got bored of it faster because of the amount i played. The game got boring in 2 weeks(over 120 hours of game time) while melee hasnt got boring yet. Melee's depth is unmatchable, better yet Brawls lack of depth isnt matchable either. Many people will argue that Brawl is better, but really people, look at the part that keeps the game moving and sadly i bet there will be a point this year or next year when brawl will be almost gone, unless someone finds a way to speed up the game. Everyone that comments about Brawl being better always seem to make a stupid point.However it is impossible to make people play melee now, i say we keep our good melee players and keep going to tournaments. If melee is going to die, Brawl wont live very long after.
Wiseguy
Smash Champion
Know what's crazy? As popular as this thread is, only four people have ever made a stupid post. Pretty impressive.
On the oft chance you read this Scar, I gave my best shot at reaming myself with an attempt at an intelligent post: http://smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=4208451&highlight=soup#post4208451
It was not responded to in kind. Or at all, oddly enough.
I think I've been appropriately punished. Please remove me from your list of shame.
SKnickers03
Smash Journeyman
please enlighten me as to what dictionary defines competiveness in such a way that it explicitly preordains the outcome of a given competition..."BY DEFINITION, SOMEONE BETTER THAN SOMEONE ELSE AT ANYTHING WILL ON AVERAGE WIN MORE"...give me an ISBN # of the dictionary or web address...if you cant provide one...your entire argument is based on pretentious information and doesnt deserve further discussion by me (or anyone else), as your entire thread seems to be grounded on this rather peculiar and seemingly biased definition of a common term.
If you can support this alleged definition with some concrete evidence ill happily delve into my counter-argument
Rhubarbo
Smash Champion
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2007
- Messages
- 2,035
Brawl doesn't have true combos. A true combo to me is 3 consecutive hits or more. The only way you achieve this in Brawl is by using certain character's natural a moves because they happen in quick succession. (Speaking of which, if moves had less lag, combos would be back. Super Smash Bros Brawl Turbo ftw)!
Your analogy makes combos seem like a solo effort. But, like I mentioned, these solos are a result of one player being punished by making an error, and they aren't true solos because the other players has many DIing options.
Referring to the analogy, Brawl is more like two people playing their instruments, stopping, and then someone performing the same solo over and over (because combos in Brawl can't be improvised, they have to be memorized and are always the same thing).
Btw, Brawl's mind games are there just to score hits, in Melee, mindgames score hits and multiple combos.
Also, you can't deny that combos are more fun and exhilarating opposed to fleeing and going for another hit.
Rhubarbo
Smash Champion
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2007
- Messages
- 2,035
You my friend are a typical noob. That is not to be blamed because you are obviously new to the competitive Smash community. If you took the time to master Melee (which is what I did here while waiting for Brawl) you'd realize that Brawl has many, many, many options removed. What does removing options mean, it means that it takes less skill to perform things.
Imagine hockey allowing players to hold the puck and skate with it
Imagine Baseball with bases 5 times the size (direct mention to auto sweet spotting)
Imagine Basket Ball without three pointets
Imagine Basket Ball with traveling allowed
Imagine tennis allowing the ball to bounce infinite times and outs being the only way to lose
Imagine Foot Ball without Field Goals
This would make these games less competitive no? That is what Brawl does, it staples of Smash like combos, edgehogging, edgeguarding, grabbing and more.
Adi
Smash Lord
How thick are you. Even if this isn't the Webster definition of competitiveness one game is obviously superior if it has more depth.
Jack Kieser
Smash Champion
HAHAHA... all our bickering over Brawl and Melee broke Smashboards!!! HAHAHA!
Wiseguy
Smash Champion
There's a lesson there somewhere...
Jack Kieser
Smash Champion
Jack Kieser
Smash Champion
**** double posts.
choknater
Smash Obsessed
Optimism will pull through somehow.
All I hear are complaints and conclusions.
Irrelevant.
Brawl is fun. As long as I can still win tournaments, I'm fine, heheh.
All I hear are complaints and conclusions.
Irrelevant.
Brawl is fun. As long as I can still win tournaments, I'm fine, heheh.
Wiseguy
Smash Champion
Oh well. If a couple months this whole thing will boil over. The folks who find Brawl lacking will learn to deal with it, continue playing Melee (much like the people still play Smash 64), or find a new fighting series to occupy their time.
And when that happens Brawl will still have a thriving community of Smashers who play for kicks with friends, battle online, and have spirited tournaments. The Great Brawl/Melee Flamewar of '08 will be nothing but a painful memory.
Jack Kieser
Smash Champion
You, sir, are a very honorable and admirable person. Only time will tell if you're right, though.
SKnickers03
Smash Journeyman
my intention wasnt to be rude...but its argumentation basics...if your entire argument is based on certain evidence, its the writer's job to athenticate that evidence...otherwise, youre just dishing out generalizations...and generalizations dont mean much...i can respect his stance (i mean the guy did crank out an essay's worth of information) but his definition of competitiveness just seems too generic
and as for melee having more depth...i dont think theres much of a difference between the two
SKnickers03
Smash Journeyman
how does removing components make something less competitive? in all the examples you provided...those alterations change the game, not the level of competiveness...there's a significant difference between the two...if hockey players were allowed to hold the puck, aspiring professionals would practice holding the puck and thus make that adaptation and increase in skill given those new circumstances...does holding the puck mean it's easier to win??...no...because your playing with others that are equally adapted (or perhaps more adapted and more skilled) than you are...consequantly the never ending question of who is the best is still being posed.
The_Smash_Champ
Banned via Warnings
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2005
- Messages
- 397
You people defending brawl never make good points you know that? he is trying to explain how the learning curve for brawl is so easy compared to melee's, so easy that its actually worth fighting about. We are trying to explain that brawl has no future, no matter how hard you try you wont make brawl even close to melee. This isnt a basketball game with a bigger hoop, this is a basket ball game with hoops on the ground the size of half the field, you can only walk, and you play with beach balls. Anyways Brawls is easy to learn and very communist game. People complaining about brawl are usually the better players, so stop saying we arent skilled people.
Shai Hulud
Smash Lord
Relying on Webster definitions for complex ideas is pretty stupid. In the end it doesn't matter what word we use, since we're arguing about an idea. We could say Brawl has a smaller skill gap than Melee, leading to less stratified tournament placings and mean the same thing. Objecting to his definition of "competitive" is really missing the point.
We mean specifically a whole host of criticisms when we say Brawl is less competitive.
Wiseguy
Smash Champion
1) Doubleposting is against forum rules. Please use your edit button.
2) It's pretty simple: Scar made up his own defintion of competitive. He took a word from the english language, which everyone sees as important and valuable, and claims that competitiveness boils down to "consistently rewarding skill."
Is accurate skill measurement part of competitiveness? Sure. But there is more to it than that. A clear winner, a clearly defined set of rules, someone to compete against and a competitive spirit, are all just as important. Hense: he's wrong in stating that Brawl is less competitive, unless your taking about his made up version of the word.
So you're basically right.
Jack Kieser
Smash Champion
Guys, don't argue semantics. I tried that a while back, and it wasn't pretty. Even though I was right. Basically, don't tell someone that they're misusing a word; it will lead to death here on Smashboards.
The_Smash_Champ
Banned via Warnings
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2005
- Messages
- 397
SKnickers03
Smash Journeyman
those defending Brawl see the game's accessibility as a positive thing...the more accessible the game, the more people there will be playing it...the more people playing it, the more competition there will be...the more competition there is, the more fun and excitement a player can get out of his $50 investment.
and to respond to your first sentence...a criticism i have of the anti-brawlites is that their arguments regarding the removal of "advanced" techniques and such are purely self-centered...the bottom line is that those who were on top with melee want to stay on top...Brawl's potential to increase the competitive value of the franchise threatens their position and they can't stand that...your argument has little to do with "no competition" than it has to do with your uneasiness of MORE COMPETITION
and finally...i never questioned anyone's skill level...you may be the very best out there for all i know...my argument is strictly dedicated to countering the notion that Brawl has little to no competitive value
Wiseguy
Smash Champion
This is madness, though. People who say "the way you play isn't competitive, because X, Y, and Z" are no different than those who say "the way you play isn't fun, because you refuse to play with items on New Port City."
These words alredy have established meanings. No group of players has a monopoly on either competition or fun, because different players get these things in different ways. If Scar wanted to argue "Brawl does not reward skill as much as Melee" he should have said that. As it stands, I suspect he wanted to create some drama.
arrowhead
Smash Ace
having more people play a game does not make it any funner. that should be obvious. it's the gameplay that matters. and so far, it's far below melee's standards and will likely never rise to it.
btw, it's the noobs that want advanced techs out that are self-centered. if they don't want to take the time to learn the techs, they don't have to play competitively. leaving the techs in does not negatively affect casual play at all but it certainly limits competitive play.
- Status