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

[Pink Reaper]

I want to know how people are determining what skill level someone is at in Brawl before they argue that the worse player will win more often in Brawl than they will in Melee. You can't say that Brawl doesn't test skill if you are comparing skill across games (such as saying "i'm a better melee player than you, therefore I should always beat you in Brawl"). I think people are more closely matched in this game than before because of the fact that it's a new game, and people had at most 2 months to practice in it.

Lets put it like this Emmy, I rarely play brawl, and yet I can still beat people who play ALOT. This shouldn't happen.

 

[thumbswayup]

What exactly is wash dancing? Before this thread I had never heard of it.

 

[Keitaro]

What exactly is wash dancing? Before this thread I had never heard of it.

It's when you dance while washing the dishes.

 

[Plairnkk]

I want to know how people are determining what skill level someone is at in Brawl before they argue that the worse player will win more often in Brawl than they will in Melee. You can't say that Brawl doesn't test skill if you are comparing skill across games (such as saying "i'm a better melee player than you, therefore I should always beat you in Brawl"). I think people are more closely matched in this game than before because of the fact that it's a new game, and people had at most 2 months to practice in it.

No, people are closely matched in this game because thats the way the game was intended to be. There is very little alotted into the gameplay to seperate players from one another, so the matches are most of the time going to be close.

Anybody who can put their bias aside for more than 10 seconds will agree that brawl is much slower and more one dimensional than melee. Whether or not that means one will still play brawl due to the larger community, tourneys, etc is up to them and that is perfectly fine, but to even compare brawl to melee as a competitive game is simply a disgrace.

Maybe that will change in time, maybe it wont. (I tend to believe it won't since i feel the phyics engine is so intentionally limiting). All i'm saying is for now those who blindly follow brawl with a guaranteed thought in their mind that the game will turn out better over time are being simple minded and ignorant to the simple facts it was not intended to be a competitive game.

Personally I hope something DOES happen to fix the struggling game engine, but I don't forsee it happening. Until then myself and a lot of other serious players won't be able to take brawl seriously.

It's not that we wanted melee 2.0, but we certainly didn't want melee .5

 

[kainzero]

No, people are closely matched in this game because thats the way the game was intended to be. There is very little alotted into the gameplay to seperate players from one another, so the matches are most of the time going to be close.

Anybody who can put their bias aside for more than 10 seconds will agree that brawl is much slower and more one dimensional than melee. Whether or not that means one will still play brawl due to the larger community, tourneys, etc is up to them and that is perfectly fine, but to even compare brawl to melee as a competitive game is simply a disgrace.

Maybe that will change in time, maybe it wont. (I tend to believe it won't since i feel the phyics engine is so intentionally limiting). All i'm saying is for now those who blindly follow brawl with a guaranteed thought in their mind that the game will turn out better over time are being simple minded and ignorant to the simple facts it was not intended to be a competitive game.

Personally I hope something DOES happen to fix the struggling game engine, but I don't forsee it happening. Until then myself and a lot of other serious players won't be able to take brawl seriously.

It's not that we wanted melee 2.0, but we certainly didn't want melee .5

Okay. Let's say Brawl is slower. Does that make it any worse? Not really. That just means you don't have to think on your feet as fast. Turn based strategy games have a different feeling than real time strategy games.

I agree that they've reduced the depth of the game. Does that make it any worse? No, it just means you have to work harder on very basic things. Instead of learning both set-ups and followups, you only have to learn set-ups. Instead of a death combo, you only get a jab combo. That doesn't mean it's any worse. You can call it boring, unmotivating, high-risk / low reward. But there's still the potential for separation of skill.

why can't we?

what makes mew2king better than silent wolf? can you quantify that?

I don't know who they are; I've never followed the Smash scene and I don't know how relative in skill they are to each other. Nor would I trust my analysis based on watching a couple videos. I can't tell the difference between a 2650 and a 2100 player in chess. But there is a difference there, and someone would know.

 

[Brookman]

I played cort in Brawl last night, and his primary strategy (with snake) is throw grenades, plant mines and ****, DC up smash randomly, and shield into f tilt/up tilt.

Sounds fun, and advanced, and skillful, right?

 

[thumbswayup]

Sounds like Brawl.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Sounds like Snake. You know, I wonder if all of the Melee players who are actually trying to get really good at Brawl (and I include myself here for the reason I'm going to explain) are approaching this from the wrong angle. I know its been said before, that we shouldn't play Brawl as though it's Melee, but the TBS - RTS analogy got me to thinking (again), and I can see how we might be messing ourselves up here simply by thinking too fast. For instance, I could play Marth in Melee relatively well (like that even means anything; anyone could play Melee Marth well), but in Brawl I can never land a hit with him. It's not spacing, as I'm always in range... the problem is that I'm thinking too fast. I input the commands too quickly or don't give Marth enough time to catch up with me. I'm used to having to think at a speed almost faster than conscious thought, and Brawl just is too slow for that... too deliberate.

So, naturally we'd get our ***** kicked or find it too different if we're not thinking correctly. Maybe we should try slowing ourselves down, instead of trying to speed the game up. It's obviously not meant to be played at the speed we're trying to play it at, and when I just take my time and make sure every action is a conscious thought (instead of trying to play instinctually), I do better with Marth, more like I did in Melee. Try playing Brawl more deliberately and see if there is a change in your style of play; I'm sure we'd do better if we allowed ourselves to really think while we play (I mean, if the game give us the time, why not use it?).

Just my two cents based off that analogy.

 

[Rapid_Assassin]

Okay. Let's say Brawl is slower. Does that make it any worse? Not really. That just means you don't have to think on your feet as fast. Turn based strategy games have a different feeling than real time strategy games.

I agree that they've reduced the depth of the game. Does that make it any worse? No, it just means you have to work harder on very basic things. Instead of learning both set-ups and followups, you only have to learn set-ups. Instead of a death combo, you only get a jab combo. That doesn't mean it's any worse. You can call it boring, unmotivating, high-risk / low reward. But there's still the potential for separation of skill.

This is exactly where I'm going with this. If there was no potential for separation of skill, I'd win against every single person in the world 50% of the time, and lose the other 50% of the time. There are people who I've played against who never beat me at all. A friend of mine said that there were a lot of people he knows who couldn't even take a stock off of him in Brawl ever.

It's definitely slower, and a lot easier to pick up. Does this make it bad? It just makes it different. To some people, these differences could be considered bad, but think about this: are you competitive in every fighting game you ever decided to play casually? If not, what made you decide on the ones that you are competitive in?

 

[Scar]

Okay. Let's say Brawl is slower. Does that make it any worse? Not really. That just means you don't have to think on your feet as fast. Turn based strategy games have a different feeling than real time strategy games.

I agree that they've reduced the depth of the game. Does that make it any worse? No, it just means you have to work harder on very basic things. Instead of learning both set-ups and followups, you only have to learn set-ups. Instead of a death combo, you only get a jab combo. That doesn't mean it's any worse.

idk All of the things you're saying doesn't make Brawl worse I suppose HAVE to be a matter of opinion. Competitively I believe that the game is in fact made worse (less competitive) because:

• it's so much slower and doesn't punish the inability to think quickly
• ...it's less deep? seems obvious to me.
• there are no followups, therefore winning setup battles is more/less worthless and making mistakes goes unpunished

I also believe that this is fairly obvious: in a match between a person who can think quickly, understand nuances, and is technically good enough at the game engine to quickly attack and follow up vs a person who is awful at all these things, they are on a more/less even playing field.

That, to me, is awful and wrong.

Edit for Rapid Assassin:
There is a level of competitiveness in the game and there is very frequently someone who wins a noticeable majority of matches vs other players. My argument is that competitively, it simply doesn't add up to Melee AT ALL.

Edit: @ Jack Kieser, I agree, people who try to make Brawl more like Melee (faster I guess) aren't thinking about things correctly. Things should be experimented with and strategies should be different than they are now, and yes that would make some people lose a bunch of matches in that innovation phase, but it's probably going to be a better way to make progress than to try and make the game faster.

 

[Brookman]

Yo scar, falcon ditto?

 

[Jack Kieser]

Well, Scar, in all fairness, who says that 'the inability to think quickly' needs to be punished? I mean, that's what we're used to, but obviously Brawl is not testing that particular player mettle. Nor was it built to, most likely. I think Brawl doesn't set well with a lot of competitive players expressly because it wasn't built to make distinctions between players according to the lines we have had established for 5+ years playing tournament Melee; it makes a whole new set of distinguishing lines, and personally, I think its our job to work to find out what exactly those lines are to be from now on.

The obvious difference is that Brawl doesn't test for reflexes (in thought, at least) and doesn't test for tech skill (very much). But, it obviously tests for something, or else every match would be a coin toss (I'm pretty sure everyone playing Brawl has either won or lost pretty consistently against /= skilled players).

Oh, and all of my friends are the kinds of people who were terrible at Melee for the reasons you described; in a 1v1 match, I own all of them, so it obviously (at least in my case) doesn't make every match an immidiate 'level playing field', or else they'd win simply by picking Ike (I make the work for Ike wins, dammit).

 

[Witchking_of_Angmar]

Thinking quickly is exciting. Speed is exciting.

Imagine watching two snails race. Sort of defeats the purpose of a race, right? Likewise, smash is a fighting game, and fighting games should be fast.

Brawl tests knowledge of the game, which can be gained by sitting in front of your computer screen for hours and learning what counters what. That is boring, especially since there's very little to know about the game.

 

[Brookman]

It tests for your reaction time plenty. How precisely can you press R followed then how fast can you drop the shield and punish?

 

[Witchking_of_Angmar]

it tests for your reaction time plenty. How precisely can you press R followed then how fast can you drop the shield and punish?

You can drop your shield frame perfectly by letting go of R while being hit, so not much reaction time being tested there.

 

[Scar]

Well, Scar, in all fairness, who says that 'the inability to think quickly' needs to be punished?

I mean everything you say is valid, and it doesn't NEED to be punished but in my opinion it should. It's something that a video game fighter should push, and someone should have an advantage if they're just smarter than the other person.

Being forced to think fast necessitates creativity in strategies and followups. Followups which I suppose don't exist anymore. That's frustrating.

 

[Brookman]

You can drop your shield frame perfectly by letting go of R while being hit, so not much reaction time being tested there.

You are so smart *pats head*

want a cookie?

 

[Jack Kieser]

Thinking quickly is exciting. Speed is exciting.

Imagine watching two snails race. Sort of defeats the purpose of a race, right? Likewise, smash is a fighting game, and fighting games should be fast.

Brawl tests knowledge of the game, which can be gained by sitting in front of your computer screen for hours and learning what counters what. That is boring, especially since there's very little to know about the game.

Fighting games have been fast, not should be fast. That thinking is how innovation gets smothered. Like the strategy game analogy above, they are obviously similar styles of game played at different speeds, and they are both exciting in they're own ways. I find Brawl not exciting as in 'yelling and sitting on the edge of your seat', but exciting as in 'quietly focused on the match, body tense the whole time'. Now, that may not be your cup of tea, but that doesn't mean that we can't try to have a fighting game that works like that. It's called 'experimentation', and to be honest, that all the entire Smash series was from the beginning: an experiment in a new fighting game style.

 

[Witchking_of_Angmar]

Iono, it just seems to me that something with the word "fighting" in it should be something.... you know, lively. Fast paced. Action filled.

When I play a fighting game, I want to play something fast, not chess.

@Brookman: Can I have a lolly instead?

 

[Jack Kieser]

Well, IMO, Brawl is fast paced... just not as fast paced as Melee was. I mean, Brawl is slower, but it isn't snail pace. When comparing the two games, the speed difference is obvious, but overall, I think we all overstate the speed that Brawl is played at. It's like, I love DBZ, but sometimes if they didn't slow things down, you wouldn't be able to understand or appreciate the fight, right? That's why I think a lot of DBZ fighting games fail: because they try to make the player run as fast as the choreographed fights on the show, and because that's just too fast for most of us, people can't really enjoy it. Same basic concept, I think. So yeah, speed is important, but too much (or too little) speed only makes things worse. It has to be enough speed, which of course is a different amount for each person. I think it just so happens that, for most people (not us), Melee was too fast, so they slowed it down a little.

 

[thumbswayup]

Budokai 3 was a great Dbz game. All the others sucked.

 

[Spiral]

Brawl isn't meant to be competitive. It's just meant to be fun, not to prove you're better then everyone else. You guys actually managed to argue about this for 154 pages? Just wow.......

The problem with true competitive games is that when you play with a steady group of friends a pecking order tends to emerge. Once it gets to the point where your friends can't beat you or you can't beat your friends, people stop playing, because it's not fun.

Smash Bros Brawl has taken a similar approach to poker. You have to let the newbs win sometime or else they stop playing.

I mean.... this game is silly, you've got jetpacks made out of barrels, pokemon, tanks 3/4 the size of the screen, crazy italians on motorbikes eating people, weird space aliens and a princess who kills people by throwing turnips at them, and you're complaining that it's not competitive? Hmm. Methinks you are playing the wrong game. This was never intended to be Chess or Starcraft.

When you watch cartoons do you complain that they aren't realistic?

 

[Jack Kieser]

Budokai 3 was a great Dbz game. All the others sucked.

I am quoting this for f*ckin TRUTH.

 

[Egret]

I mean.... this game is silly, you've got jetpacks made out of barrels, pokemon, tanks 3/4 the size of the screen, crazy italians on motorbikes eating people, weird space aliens and a princess who kills people by throwing turnips at them, and you're complaining that it's not competitive? Hmm. Methinks you are playing the wrong game. This was never intended to be Chess or Starcraft.

Melee was competitive. What you're listing has nothing to do with the competetivity especially since we don't play with items anyway.

 

[NekoBoy085]

Iono, it just seems to me that something with the word "fighting" in it should be something.... you know, lively. Fast paced. Action filled.

When I play a fighting game, I want to play something fast, not chess.

@Brookman: Can I have a lolly instead?

You're pretty foolish if you think Brawl is slow. As for speed in a fighting game, go play some VF5 which is easily the deepest 3D fighter to date. Not as fast as melee or brawl but clearly a MUCH more competitive game.

 

[Scar]

Brawl isn't meant to be competitive. It's just meant to be fun, not to prove you're better then everyone else. You guys actually managed to argue about this for 154 pages? Just wow.......

Neither was Melee, but it became something competitive. We're not arguing whether it was meant for competitive play or not, that would be silly, and I suppose if you read the discussion you would know that. So this point is really not significant.

The problem with true competitive games is that when you play with a steady group of friends a pecking order tends to emerge. Once it gets to the point where your friends can't beat you or you can't beat your friends, people stop playing, because it's not fun.

This paragraph is much more significant. Yes, I agree. This is how things go, and this is a truly competitive game we're discussing. The people who don't have fun anymore feel that they have reached their limit, and either give up or continue to miserably play, never making any progress because their attitude sucks.

These people are scrubs. I started playing Melee and everyone ***** me all the time. I was terrible. But that's the way the game goes, you start at the bottom because you know that if you keep trying, at some point, you'll be at the top. Or at least see how far you can get.

The scrub mentality of "the game is no fun if you consistently lose" is a mark of poor attitude, immaturity, and insecurity. The fact that Nintendo caters to this says only that their target market is "Ages 4 and up," the only class of human beings excused for such character traits.

The problem here is obvious: the Smash/SWF community is more mature than that, and given the choice between a child's game and something that has been clearly demonstrated as more than that, Melee>Brawl competitively speaking.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Melee was competitive. What you're listing has nothing to do with the competetivity especially since we don't play with items anyway.

I'm serious; we really need to consider competitive item play, at least at first. All of the 'ISP' testing we've done says that it really can screw up camping (which is the big problem right now), and over at Crush Siblings they're going to be running a few item tournaments to see if that's really the case. I mean, what's the harm in trying, right? Worst case, we waste a few tournaments; best case, camping goes and eats a d*ck.

 

[Scar]

Camping is smart and requires a certain amount of skill. It's just overpowered in Brawl because there is no approach. The problem with items that will NEVER go away is when two people are at last stock, one at high percent one at low percent, the final match of the final set in grand finals, and a pokeball lands right next to the guy with high percent.

He throws it, it's a legendary, wow... way to win the whole tournament and 1st place prize money for no reason whatsoever.

 

[D20]

I'm serious; we really need to consider competitive item play, at least at first. All of the 'ISP' testing we've done says that it really can screw up camping (which is the big problem right now), and over at Crush Siblings they're going to be running a few item tournaments to see if that's really the case. I mean, what's the harm in trying, right? Worst case, we waste a few tournaments; best case, camping goes and eats a d*ck.

I'd much rather lose to a good camper than to bad player with random items.

 

[Spiral]

These people are scrubs. I started playing Melee and everyone ***** me all the time. I was terrible. But that's the way the game goes, you start at the bottom because you know that if you keep trying, at some point, you'll be at the top. Or at least see how far you can get.

The scrub mentality of "the game is no fun if you consistently lose" is a mark of poor attitude, immaturity, and insecurity. The fact that Nintendo caters to this says only that their target market is "Ages 4 and up," the only class of human beings excused for such character traits.

The problem here is obvious: the Smash/SWF community is more mature than that, and given the choice between a child's game and something that has been clearly demonstrated as more than that, Melee>Brawl competitively speaking.

Wow, elitest much? You're definately playing the wrong game.

So, because say I've played brawl for 200 hours and my friend has played for 1 and he gets his butt kicked every match, feels frustrated and doesn't want to bother learning, this makes him a scrub?

I hate to break it to you pal, plenty of people play games for fun, for entertainment. Not to achieve perfection, not to bang their head against a wall trying to defeat someone with much more experience. They play for fun. This game was made to be fun, and it is.

Complaining that Brawl is not competitive is like complaining that your Wii doesn't have a word processor. No **** sherlock.

 

[NekoBoy085]

I'd much rather lose to a good camper than to bad player with random items.

What about a better player with random items?

Never thought about that huh?

 

[Spiral]

Camping is smart and requires a certain amount of skill. It's just overpowered in Brawl because there is no approach. The problem with items that will NEVER go away is when two people are at last stock, one at high percent one at low percent, the final match of the final set in grand finals, and a pokeball lands right next to the guy with high percent.

He throws it, it's a legendary, wow... way to win the whole tournament and 1st place prize money for no reason whatsoever.

Imagine someone getting a fullhouse on the final card of texas hold-em and winning a tournament. I mean... we all know how Poker is dwindling in popularity right?

 

[Witchking_of_Angmar]

Wow, elitest much? You're definately playing the wrong game.

So, because say I've played brawl for 200 hours and my friend has played for 1 and he gets his butt kicked every match, feels frustrated and doesn't want to bother learning, this makes him a scrub?

I hate to break it to you pal, plenty of people play games for fun, for entertainment. Not to achieve perfection, not to bang their head against a wall trying to defeat someone with much more experience. They play for fun. This game was made to be fun, and it is.

Complaining that Brawl is not competitive is like complaining that your Wii doesn't have a word processor. No **** sherlock.

Well guess what? Getting better and improving in skill is fun for some people, too.

 

[Spiral]

Well guess what? Getting better and improving in skill is fun for some people, too.

You can still do that, just don't expect to win every match.

 

[NekoBoy085]

Dunno why you guys are arguing over depth in this game. I mean sure the players might play it competitively like in melee, but neither brawl nor melee are competitive games.

Compared to any half way decent fighter, smash bros is fairly shallow. But it's just by far the funnest that's all *shrugs*

It's like arguing which anime is worse, Naruto or One Piece, when clearly it doesn't matter because they both suck.

 

[Witchking_of_Angmar]

You can still do that, just don't expect to win every match.

I don't care if I lose against someone better than me if I know I'm learning from it. Who cares about losing?

 

[Jack Kieser]

@D20: Well, that's why you make an approved item list. I'm not saying turn every item on high, I'm saying we should broaden our perspective (since, you know, this is a different game) and see if certain items can bring anything new to the table thanks to the reduced hitstun and slower gameplay. I don't think that's too unreasonable.

 

[Scar]

So, because say I've played brawl for 200 hours and my friend has played for 1 and he gets his butt kicked every match, feels frustrated and doesn't want to bother learning, this makes him a scrub?]

Well this is a forum for competitive players pal. I'm assuming everyone here shares the same passion for Smash as I do, so it's assumed that I'm speaking competitively. You say elitist, I say "just like everyone else here."

Yes, from a competitive smasher's standpoint your friend is a scrub. He's starting out at the bottom and he's upset that he isn't at the top already. The other thing is that if you're ****** him and he's clearly not a competitive player then you're a jerk.

No, I'm not complaining that Brawl isn't competitive, I'm pointing it out. You may say "no **** Sherlock," but clearly I'm arguing with others, so why don't you go tell them what you think of them, if'n you're taking shots at me for agreeing.

Imagine someone getting a fullhouse on the final card of texas hold-em and winning a tournament. I mean... we all know how Poker is dwindling in popularity right?

Your quips are less than entertaining and have gone unappreciated. Especially when they're coming after bad points.

Poker is gambling. If you're going to play a video game, call it a test of skill, then compare it to gambling, then I would like to call you a moron, sir.

Edit: The more I think of this comparison the more awful it becomes. In this Hold 'Em example, there are (presumably) two players with two cards each and four community cards. Both players know the four community cards, if they're good enough then they know what can beat them, what the odds are that that card may come on the river... ultimately the fact that the guy catches a Full House comes down to luck within a skill-based infrastructure. That's just the way the game is played.

Smash is not entirely decided by which items drop where. A total n00b should not get extremely lucky with 3 good items and take 3 stupid stocks that easy, it's not the way the game is played. Not competitively.

 

[NES n00b]

Dunno why you guys are arguing over depth in this game. I mean sure the players might play it competitively like in melee, but neither brawl nor melee is a competitive game xD.

Compared to any half way decent fighter, smash bros is fairly shallow. But it's just by far the funnest that's all *shrugs*

It's like arguing which anime is worse, Naruto or One Piece, when clearly it doesn't matter because they both suck.

....Brawl is shallow, but Melee is pretty deep. Maybe not as deep as VF or GG, but **** it if it can't beat Street Fighter II Turbo and it is played (I am pretty sure this game is half way decent fighter). lol

 

[Pikachu'sBlueWizardHat]

Dunno why you guys are arguing over depth in this game. I mean sure the players might play it competitively like in melee, but neither brawl nor melee is a competitive game xD.

Compared to any half way decent fighter, smash bros is fairly shallow. But it's just by far the funnest that's all *shrugs*

THANK YOU. I've been waiting for someone else to say this.

I'm assuming everyone here shares the same passion for Smash as I do, so it's assumed that I'm speaking competitively.

Well you know what they say about assuming...