• 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?

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

reborn394

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
133
Location
New York, NY
Melee: Guess you come in and discuss...Items? We then fight.

Brawl: It's nice visuals, alot of stuff to do, no stop doing them...can we fight?
 
memphischains

memphischains

Smash hhkj'
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
3,953
Location
Boston, MA
Where did everyone go?
I was enjoying these comments.

Anywho, I think its about time to wrap this thread up, I'm starting to see a loop action...
 
S

smashguy62

Smash Rookie
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
13
while i think melee had better moves i think brawl is better just because they made the game where you have to just use your own style
 
Golem the Stern Father

Golem the Stern Father

Smash Champion
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
2,379
Location
TyfighterLAND. Location#2: Illinois? Yeah.
Pink Reaper said:
Alright everyone, you have a week from Friday to set up flights here to Cali. We can have *pound* 4 here in my garage, it can fit anywhere from 10-300 people >.>

I NEED TV'S AND CUBES

lol
Click to expand...
Craaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaap!!
I have a tournament (non-Smash related) that following weekend, looks like someone else will bring the tube. :rotfl:
 
metalmonstar

metalmonstar

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
1,081
Well it is clear that Brawl is competitive but how competitive is it? Does it compare to the competitiveness of melee? These are obviously the questions that scar is trying to ask. The majority here have already formulated their opinion on the issue. For hundreds of pages people have been debating whether brawl is more or less competitive than melee. The members here have gone through page after page discussing brawls potential depth and current depth and level of competitiveness.

Just a slight recap to make sure I understand things correctly.

1. Competitiveness is "innate property of a game allowing better players to win consistently."

2. There is too much luck involved in Brawl in order to have top level players consistently win

3 Brawl has a lack of punishment system.

4, Brawl rewards the defensive player.

I think that is a pretty accurate representation of the pro melee arguments.

Then we have the pro brawlers which state

1. It is too soon to make such a judgement

2. Brawl has a different kind of depth

3. Brawl requires a player to mix up and predict opponents in order to effectively land hits.

4. Camping is just a phase in which players will have to learn to deal with in order to progress the game.

5. Camping doesn't have that large of an advantage that the pro meleers make it out to have.

6. Randomness in the game isn't that bad or groundbreaking.

6. Brawl pwns end of story

I think that is fairly accurate of the other side also. Looking at both statements it seems that over the course of all these pages little has been stated that actually states what make gives brawl its competitiveness or lack thereof.

According to scar's definition, "innate property of a game allowing better players to win consistently."
That seems like a reasonable definition not the one I would use but the one that all arguments in this thread will have to rely on.


So the only arguements that seem to hold any weight in accordance with the main topic of this thread is that.

1. Randomness makes it so anyone can win
2. The reward system makes it better to play a defensive game in which anyone can pick up


On the other side
1. Randomness isn't that groundbreaking
2. Camping hasn't been broken as people make it out to be.
3. The best players still win.

It seems to me that if not already said a logical argument is that the best haven't been determined yet as players are still developing. So that would be potentially a fourth point of the pro brawlers.

With these points we have long list of examples, explanation, and personal experiences.

It seems to me that the competitiveness of brawl as defined by scar is obvious.

It has been stated by pro meleers that brawl rewards defensive play which means that camping in its many forms would be the optimum strategy. Whether this is a phase or the actual trend is really mute point. Camping is fairly easy to pick up anyone can do it that seems to be there main argument. With any strategy though there has to be degrees of skill. So if camping is the best strategy then the best camper will be the one who wins. Thus the best player will win, which satisfy the definition. Better campers should win and will win.

If your playing a defensive game much of the randomness should be eliminated. Tripping punishes the attacker not so much the defender. Thus the defender doesn't need to worry about tripping as much.

The only argument I can foresee is that game will turn into campfest in which no one will win. However if you are the best camper you will know of ways to beat other campers. Which will in turn either cause them to continue trying to out camp you in which they will lose or trying to become the aggressor which is as of now is an inferior strategy and thus they will still lose. Games may become incredibly boring but nothing in the definition mentions that games need to be exciting. The best will find a way to win and keep winning.

Brawl isn't a coin toss and I really can't think of very many games that are.

Now I don't have a definition for competitiveness but it is my belief that competitiveness of a game is based on two properties.

1. The depth at which the game is played and potentially can be played at.
2. Players that are willing to play the game intensely.

Brawl of course has these two properties with varying degrees that of course are debateable and have been debated.

At this current time it is generally accepted that Melee has more depth. Brawl on the other hand has a larger community and more players which means there are better odds of the game being played at an intense level if it doesn't already have more players playing at high levels.

Which one holds more weight? Again this question is debatable. You can have a deep game that no one plays so it can't be competitive. However shallow games tend to be less attractive to the competitive crowd and die out earlier.

So finally it comes down to my opinion. In my opinion, Brawl is currently less competitive than Melee. It is also in my opinion that one day Brawl will become more competitive though.
 
L

LOL_Master

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
1,378
Location
New Jersey
it's possible for everyone to realize melee is greater than brawl competitively, it's impossible for everyone to admit melee is greater than brawl
 
D

dj_pwn1423

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
466
Location
SoCal
people its pointless to argue that brawl is better than melee (at least in the competitive aspect) because its simply not true.
brawls meta game is a little brat that has no idea of wtf is happening right now.

I still believe with some luck brawl can grow to be a descent competitive title with a community far grater than melee's ever was.
 
O

orintemple

Smash Lord
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
1,237
Location
Chicago, IL
dj_pwn1423 said:
people its pointless to argue that brawl is better than melee (at least in the competitive aspect) because its simply not true.
brawls meta game is a little brat that has no idea of wtf is happening right now.

I still believe with some luck brawl can grow to be a descent competitive title with a community far grater than melee's ever was.
Click to expand...
The community will be bigger for sure, it just won't be quite as passionate I fear. Brawl just doesn't have what it takes to give the rush that Melee did in the competitive world. I feel like a big part of that reason is that the game's overall skill level balancing due to the simplicity of it allows there to be WAY more good players than there ever were in Melee. So even if the competitive scene exists full force, I feel like we won't really have any players who we can say are the top pros, because everyone will be so close in skill if they are serious about the game.

Of course there will always be those who shine brighter than the others, but there will be so many people who could be considered pro level that it will overshadow the big timers a little. Either that or there will be very few who play the game seriously enough to be considered pro level that the general competitive scene will be mostly those who are just out of "scrub" standing.
 
e105beta

e105beta

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
256
dj_pwn1423 said:
people its pointless to argue that brawl is better than melee (at least in the competitive aspect) because its simply not true.
brawls meta game is a little brat that has no idea of wtf is happening right now.
Click to expand...
Prove your groundless assumption
 
Beat

Beat

Smash Ace
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
889
Location
Philadelphia
LOL_Master said:
it's possible for everyone to realize melee is greater than brawl competitively, it's impossible for everyone to admit melee is greater than brawl
Click to expand...
Snake, Lucario and Ike are in Brawl. Melee is more competitive. Brawl has 100% more Solid Snikeario.
 
K

Koga

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
352
orintemple said:
The community will be bigger for sure, it just won't be quite as passionate I fear. Brawl just doesn't have what it takes to give the rush that Melee did in the competitive world.
Click to expand...
That rush though is "ooh, look shiny combo and tech skill, maybe with enough practice i can do that one day"

I admit its human nature to like things flashy, but i wish people would realize that not shiny doesn't equal not good. I mean Super Mario Strikers Charged is a great competative game that's insanely deep but i isn't very flashy at all.
 
arrowhead

arrowhead

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 20, 2006
Messages
723
Location
under a rock
Koga said:
That rush though is "ooh, look shiny combo and tech skill, maybe with enough practice i can do that one day"

I admit its human nature to like things flashy, but i wish people would realize that not shiny doesn't equal not good. I mean Super Mario Strikers Charged is a great competative game that's insanely deep but i isn't very flashy at all.
Click to expand...
you completely misunderstand. completely
 
e105beta

e105beta

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
256
coreygames said:
You talk a lot but say nothing as well. May I ask you the same thing? What makes Brawl better?
Click to expand...
I really haven't made any ungrounded claims, but ok.

I don't necessarily think Brawl is innately better, ok nm, yeah I do. It is not completely superior, just overall superior. Remember, this is my opinion, and since you can't really use statistics in a debate like this, nor do "facts" really work because everyone prefers different things, these are the reasons why I believe Brawl is better than Melee.

It's easier to get into, but of course, on Smash Boards, that just means n00b friendly, my mistake. I mean, all the n00bz are winning in Brawl because of it. I'm sorry, but if you are seriously being beaten by some smash-spamming Ike, or an arrow spamming Pit, you have a lot of room for improvement. In Melee, it seems to me, has one way to get good. The best players use generally, not exactly, but generally the same framework to win matches. Brawl seems to use much more mind work and improvisation than does Melee. As far as I have experienced, the end all be all of the high level Melee match is to combo somebody to death. Dodges here and there, look for the openings, smack off a few hits, OPENING! Combo!!!!!----->Death. People say the gameplay seems deeper in Melee, but I don't see depth beyond learning the ATs, maneuvers, and combos. Once you've learned everything, you just have to apply it, and whoever is better at pulling off button combinations wins. I like Brawl better because it seems to me to have multiple pathways to get better. In Melee, faster characters were the better characters. Most people used them. In Brawl, not so much. The journey to become a high level player is much more varied. You don't need to master all the ATs, and combos, and stuff. You can find your own method of playing, and still be good. Melee was an extremely offensive game, focusing on speed to overwhelm the opponent. Brawl has lowered that offensiveness and raised the defensiveness. People used to the offensive game don't want to or can't get used to the slower, differently focused offense/defense wise game. Nothing wrong with that. Melee is the better game for you. That DOESN'T make Melee better than Brawl, or even more competitive at that. Now, I have absolutely nothing at the moment to back this statement, but Brawl seems to be much more balanced character wise.

To me it seems that the word competitive can only be explained in each person's point of view. Perhaps competitiveness is different for each group of people. Some people prefer the offensive game, some people prefer the defensive game, some people prefer a little bit of both. A subject like this, I think, can't be brought down into one, strict, definition. I loved Melee, I just love Brawl more, so I moved on.

*Flame Shield*

Also, Brawl has Ike and Snake.
 
K

Koga

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
352
arrowhead said:
you completely misunderstand. completely
Click to expand...
No i understand the depth that melee has and i do respect it. however, saying that brawl wont have that "rush" just means it has less room for blind fanboyism, which is what generates that rush

You probably wont have fanboiz screaming Kens name at tournys anymore ( I know that's an exaggeration but stick with me) and that is kinda what keeps a game going from a tourny organizers standpoint. Turnout and fan following. Its just like sports. If it was just the teams that played and no one watched then it wouldn't be less competative.

However games develop a large following do to the fact that we can watch and strive for that level, if even innately, within ourselves
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom