The lack of l canceling is not a bad thing.

[BuSHiDo]

BuSHiDo/56k:[/B] The reason why some of G&W's aerials couldn't be L-canceled in Melee was because they simply did not end once he landed. They kept going 'til the full animation had come out.

Well, either way, the point I was trying to make was that since it couldn't be l-canceled, G&W players held back those moves most of the time which hurt the depth of the character. So naturally if there's no l-canceling but some moves still lag in brawl, then those moves will be held back most of the time too, again messing with the depth of the game.

 

[Yuna]

Well, either way, the point I was trying to make was that since it couldn't be l-canceled, G&W players held back those moves most of the time which hurt the depth of the character. So naturally if there's no l-canceling but some moves still lag in brawl, then those moves will be held back most of the time too, again messing with the depth of the game.

1) No they didn't. In fact, they were used quite a lot because the hitboxes were so large you could space them so you wouldn't get shieldgrabbed unless you faced Marth.
2) There wasn't much else he had going for him on aerial approach. Either he used one of those moves or he simply didn't try an aerial approach at all. It's not messing with the depth of the game. That's how G&W is "supposed" to be played. It's playing according to the depth of the game.
3) Almost nothing has changed where G&W's aerials are concerned when it comes to aerial approach. He didn't magically gain a better approach. It's just that a majority of the cast now has the same crappy aerial approach as he did.

 

[Rash]

So much truth. In addition, they should remove the ability to hit people as well. I mean, there's no reason not to hit people to knock them out.

Now you're just being a ****.

Time to take a break, pal.

As a Smash Regular, I know Brawl will be awesome and will have the same longevity as Melee. To some, Melee got boring without the metagame. To others like myself, it's still just a classic multiplayer game which no one seems to hate. Some treat it as a party game, others like a test of skill and ability. No none is left out. Thus, the game has the appeal and longevity that the devs set out for it.

My thoughts on the competitive scene: Brawl will split up competitors far more than Melee did. On one side, you'll have those people who enjoy Brawl and try to develop a new metagame for it, considering that it's a new game and that the competitive level has always been established by the players, not the devs. On the other side, you'll have those who are trying to re-establish the same metagame that was present in Melee, but now in Brawl (which BTW is a game that has completely revamped characters and physics). These people will fail and will become known as "purists" who eventually just return to playing Melee competitively. There will be two separate entities.

 

[Yuna]

As a Smash Regular, I know Brawl will be awesome and will have the same longevity as Melee. To some, Melee got boring without the metagame. To others like myself, it's still just a classic multiplayer game which no one seems to hate. Some treat it as a party game, others like a test of skill and ability. No none is left out. Thus, the game has the appeal and longevity that the devs set out for it.

You see, we're not talking about its longevity as a party game but its longevity as a competitive game. The Smash scene was huge here in the west for Melee. It won't be for Brawl.

Those who treat it like a party game might be larger in number, smaller in number or the same. Those who play it competitively will almost certainly shrink in number compared to the Melee scene.

This could all he been avoided had they bothered to make the game deep. Show me a single casual player whose enjoyment of the game has suffered because there's depth (they're free to ignore) in it.

My thoughts on the competitive scene: Brawl will split up competitors far more than Melee did. On one side, you'll have those people who enjoy Brawl and try to develop a new metagame for it, considering that it's a new game and that the competitive level has always been established by the players, not the devs.. On the other side, you'll have those who are trying to establish the same metagame that was present in Melee. These people will fail and will become known as "purists" who eventually just return to playing Melee competitively. There will be two separate entities.

Yeah, that's a lot of bovine manure right there.

 

[Rash]

Yeah, that's a lot of bovine manure right there.

Care to tell me why?

How is it illogical that Smash, having three games in the series that play in three moderately unique ways, will have three separate factions of competitiveness based on what the players want out of their metagame?

 

[Yuna]

Care to tell me why?

How is it illogical that Smash, having three games in the series that play in three moderately unique ways, will have three separate factions of competitiveness based on what the players want out of their metagame?

Because it's not really two separate parts of the competitive Brawl scene if one part "goes back to Melee".

What about the many of us who will try to play the new game, come up with a new metagame and all, but still rule the game unworthy of our attention? We'll have tried and failed to enjoy it.

And you know what, all three factions existed in the change from SSB64 to SSBM. Sure, there will be more "splitting" as a lot of people will deem Brawl crap and stick with Melee, but you talk about it as if it's bad, calling us "purists" and failures.

Also, I doubt many people will try to employ the same metagame to Brawl as to Melee (this is total bovine manure and only an idiot would try that). Even with games such as the Guilty Gear XX where each new installment only introduces "a few" changes, the entire metagame changes radically from installment to installment. And competitive players go with the flow and try to figure out the new metagame.

Only players who have no idea how competitive play and metagame works would try to employ the same metagame as the old one.

So I call uninformed and faulty thinking bovine manure on it.

 

[Israfel]

Because it's not like comparing apples to oranges, so to speak. They have the same core mechanics, except melee offers a lot more depth in the form of movement options, combo potential, etc. Brawl is not a completely new genre of game, so comparisons are going to be made. Brawl shouldn't get to abandon the depth of melee and get off scott-free just because it happens to have a different title. It's one thing to have a completely new game on your hands, it's another to get a new game with the same core mechanics but has been watered down overall.

 

[Rash]

Only players who have no idea how competitive play and metagame works would try to employ the same metagame as the old one..

Well, to me it just looks like that's what some people are doing. Verbally, anyway.

The way people talk about Brawl without l-canceling, you'd think they were talking about Melee without l-canceling.

I know that the games aren't completely different. But, they are different, nonetheless. More similarities and differences will show up over time as people actually begin to play the game. And therein lies my biggest issue with this entire argument: most people haven't spent more than a day with Brawl, if they even spent any time with it at all. I'm not saying some miracle will arise once players get their hands on the game, but we'd get more confirmation on what's there, what's not, and what kinds of new potential or lost potential may have arisen from various players once everyone's played enough to pass thorough judgement.

To me, Smash is just a very very good videogame. To others, it's far more than that. If I were as dedicated to it as many of the other members of SmashBoards, I'd try to squeeze every possibility out of Brawl and would spend months trying to define what it is both as a regular and competitive game. To some, things are looking up. To others, things are looking down. My suggestion to everyone is to just not give up on Brawl too early.

 

[Mama]

Only people who are simple minded will try to judge the longevity of a game based on the meta game of a game before it. Seriously Yuna save your credibility in my eyes and reassess your views and arguments. You are certainly not impressing me at all.

 

[ncstate21]

um...they still have L canceling. Check quick techniques at the dojo.

 

[flyinfilipino]

um...they still have L canceling. Check quick techniques at the dojo.

"Ukemi" is "teching".

*hey, you don't go to NC State do you?

 

[froz3ntear]

one of the best posts i've read so far.

in melee tournaments, everyone l cancels naturally and without thought.

if they remove L cancelling, no one can L cancel. whats the difference then? everyone's still even.

thats not even true. L canceling added technical skill to the game, and sure, many players can L cancel consistently, but it takes a lot of skill to L cancel in awkward positions that could cost you the game... half canceled neutral airs with cf, or rising stomps, a lot of people get into the habbit of fastfalling and L canceling but thats not always the best way to attack like on fod on a short platform, if you wanted to short hop half nair, fall through platform uair, jab, repeat, it takes a lot of tech skill to do that. L canceling was an essential part of melee. If every move is laggy on landing now, it takes away options like using short range attacks to provide pressure (sheik's fair to jabs), if that can always be shield grabbed, its useless now, and you could try to land behind people, but if theres lab, instant upb's out of the shield will win, so sheik's only move to attack ground players while in the air will be well spaced bairs.

taking out L canceling took out the ability to pressure people, falco's pillaring on the shield, my cf's ability to neutral air gentlemen and repeat on the shield.

Now, i'm not saying taking out L canceling is a game breaking thing... but as a competitive person, I hate for variables to be taken out... movement options like wavedashing, technical skill like L canceling, I like to push the game to the limit and like someone said, casuals won't notice added depth so it only affects people who want to push the game to the limit... I still think the game will be fun though and have enough variables to keep me entertain and outplay people, but taking out L canceling wasn't really a great thing, it took out the close range fighting pressure on shield and finding the right time to counter and turned things into a spacing outfighting game... but then again... these are just first impressions... i can't wait to get my hands on the game.

 

[Yuna]

Only people who are simple minded will try to judge the longevity of a game based on the meta game of a game before it. Seriously Yuna save your credibility in my eyes and reassess your views and arguments. You are certainly not impressing me at all.

When did I do that? I put forth a whole bunch of examples why Brawl itself cannot live as long as Melee and not long altogether. I never said "It won't live as long as Melee simply because it's inferior".

Also, do you have any insight into competitive fighting? I've made it abundantly clear I'm speaking of Brawl strictly in the competitive sense.

When Tekken 4 came out, everyone hated it. It was so inferior to Tekken 3, a game that was very similar to Tekken 4, yet vastly better. What happened? They ignored Tekken 4 and stuck with Tekken 3 (and Tekken Tag) for tournaments.

When Naruto: Gekitou Ninja Taisen EX came out, everyone hated it. It was so inferior to Naruto: Gekitou Ninja Taisen 4, a game that was very similar to Tekken 4, yet vastly better. What happened? They stuck with GNT4.

History shows that when a new game in a fighting game series is vastly inferior to its predecessor, the community will stick with the "old" game.

But that's beside the point. I have never judged the future longevity of Brawl based on Melee. I'm judging it based on what's in the game. Even new players will find it restricting and limited. Because of said restrictions, limits and subsequent lack of depth, it won't possibly last as long as Melee did (is still doing).

 

[DRaGZ]

Yuna, as much as I agree with your assertions, I can't help but disagree with your predictions on the competitive scene in Brawl. I think you're vastly underestimating the power of Nintendo fanboys.

 

[Tanzz]

Yuna, as much as I agree with your assertions, I can't help but disagree with your predictions on the competitive scene in Brawl. I think you're vastly underestimating the power of Nintendo fanboys.

I agree.
Even though the removal of L-canceling (Wding, and general speed of the game) will probably make brawl less deep of a game, I think competetive players will try to embrace it a bit more (than other trash sequels like tekken 4), due to the "Nintendo" aspect.

 

[Yuna]

I agree.
Even though the removal of L-canceling (Wding, and general speed of the game) will probably make brawl less deep of a game, I think competetive players will try to embrace it a bit more (than other trash sequels like tekken 4), due to the "Nintendo" aspect.

"Because it's Nintendo"? Yeah, great argument there. We're all just Nintendo fanboys who don't care about depth.

Yuna, as much as I agree with your assertions, I can't help but disagree with your predictions on the competitive scene in Brawl. I think you're vastly underestimating the power of Nintendo fanboys.

Most of us competitive players aren't blind Nintendo fanboys. Especially not when we still have Melee, which is (at this moment, as far as we know) a lot deeper, gives us a lot more freedom and a lot more options than Brawl!

We're not gonna latch onto the Nintendo bandwagon and hail Brawl as God of Games for the next 6 years despite its lack of control, depth and freedom.

 

[Tanzz]

We're all just Nintendo fanboys who don't care about depth.

It's not that fanboyism will completely override any lack of depth that brawl brings to the table, and make all competetive smashers play it blindly, even though its (possibly) a crappier game.
I just think Brawl has a much bigger potential to hold on to dedicated nintendo fans, and make smashers like myself, who don't want to see depth removed, play it competetively anyway.

Unless its like Mario Kart...

In which case, Long live Melee!

 

[Yuna]

It's not that fanboyism will completely override any lack of depth that brawl brings to the table, and make all competetive smashers play it blindly, even though its (possibly) a crappier game.
I just think Brawl has a much bigger potential to hold on to dedicated nintendo fans, and make smashers like myself, who don't want to see depth removed, play it competetively anyway.

Yeah, you see, that is fanboyism, favouring an obviously inferior game over a superior one despite the two being highly similar, using the same premise and sharing a core basis.

 

[SheerMadness]

From what I've seen in videos and actually playing the game myself I don't think Brawl can be competitive. Granted, its only been out for 3 weeks but its physics just dont seem friendly for competitive play.

 

[Tanzz]

Yeah, you see, that is fanboyism, favouring an obviously inferior game over a superior one despite the two being highly similar, using the same premise and sharing a core basis.

Hmmm... That's true.
But I don't think Brawl's inferiority is necessarily confirmed... yet.

 

[Endless Nightmares]

After playing the game, what I've noticed is that I could do a lot of things in Brawl that I wouldn't even attempt in Melee because I'd get punished so badly. There is more lag all around, not just from aerials. It seems like everything has ridiculous amounts of stun time. There's less options to cancel things like dashes, b moves etc, and there are less movement options. It's like everyone's cold molasses.

I'm not completely sure what I'm trying to say here, but it seems like you don't have to think things out as much, and you can get away with a lot of obvious stuff that should be punishable, but isn't. Less "mindgames" I guess.

For example, I can approach with G&W's bair a lot easier now in Brawl. If I hit with it, they get hit multiple times with more stun than I've even seen once in Melee. If they shield it, it also puts ridiculous amounts of stun and pressure on the shield. So after I land, they're still in shieldstun and I can jump and do another aerial. I would've been shieldgrabbed in melee like that *snap*

 

[Shack]

if a move is hard to land or has a lot of lag and u cant use it effectively, sux for u. Learn how to use the move, dont jsut press a button after it and expect it to become better. THe lag is put there for a reason.

 

[Endless Nightmares]

If a move is that bad, there's really no point in using it. Duh.

"Learning" how to use the move? More like, learning how not to use the move. lol

 

[TheMagicalKuja]

After playing the game, what I've noticed is that I could do a lot of things in Brawl that I wouldn't even attempt in Melee because I'd get punished so badly. There is more lag all around, not just from aerials. It seems like everything has ridiculous amounts of stun time. There's less options to cancel things like dashes, b moves etc, and there are less movement options. It's like everyone's cold molasses.

I'm not completely sure what I'm trying to say here, but it seems like you don't have to think things out as much, and you can get away with a lot of obvious stuff that should be punishable, but isn't. Less "mindgames" I guess.

For example, I can approach with G&W's bair a lot easier now in Brawl. If I hit with it, they get hit multiple times with more stun than I've even seen once in Melee. If they shield it, it also puts ridiculous amounts of stun and pressure on the shield. So after I land, they're still in shieldstun and I can jump and do another aerial. I would've been shieldgrabbed in melee like that *snap*

You see, this is how **** is BALANCED (somewhat, at least moreso than Melee), and from what I played I agree. Increased air time means that interfering with foes in the air is much easier--Sonic and Metaknight would possibly be screwed without it.

 

[reelbigfishstix9]

If a move is that bad, there's really no point in using it. Duh.

"Learning" how to use the move? More like, learning how not to use the move. lol

^^ this guy speaks truth.

 

[Yojimbo]

Yeah, you see, that is fanboyism, favouring an obviously inferior game over a superior one despite the two being highly similar, using the same premise and sharing a core basis.

And that is based on opinion, which doesn't give anything to your arguement.

There isn't anything wrong with sticking with Melee. If that is what you feel like you want to do, then go for it; no one is going to stop you or anyone else. It is just silly to argue that a game doens't have the same depth as a game that has been played extensively for the past six or seven years. You're judging it before anyone has had long play with it other than a select few in the U.S. or the japanese player base.

You can argue with footage from videos and what not, but Melee didn't evolve in a week. Or a month.

 

[Rash]

You see, this is how **** is BALANCED (somewhat, at least moreso than Melee), and from what I played I agree. Increased air time means that interfering with foes in the air is much easier--Sonic and Metaknight would possibly be screwed without it.

So wait, is this a bad thing or a good thing?

Sometimes people in here can sound so critical that you can never tell when they're being positive or negative.

 

[180OP]

after 13 pages, this has probably been mentioned ...but i have time to killl at college.... sooo now that lcancelling is gone, you cannot be totally reckless with your aerial moves and and not feel the sense of danger of being punished.

players will have strategize with moves to use at specific times. This is not entirely a new thing but will take time for some to get used to. some moves have brutal lag, some have no lag. so there is a new type of depth here.

have fun.

 

[Yuna]

After playing the game, what I've noticed is that I could do a lot of things in Brawl that I wouldn't even attempt in Melee because I'd get punished so badly. There is more lag all around, not just from aerials. It seems like everything has ridiculous amounts of stun time. There's less options to cancel things like dashes, b moves etc, and there are less movement options. It's like everyone's cold molasses.

There's also more shieldhitstun. You lag more from hitting a shield. And just because G&W's Bair has more shieldstun now doesn't mean everyone else he's got has it. Ever tried, you know, any other aerial on their shield?

For example, I can approach with G&W's bair a lot easier now in Brawl. If I hit with it, they get hit multiple times with more stun than I've even seen once in Melee. If they shield it, it also puts ridiculous amounts of stun and pressure on the shield. So after I land, they're still in shieldstun and I can jump and do another aerial. I would've been shieldgrabbed in melee like that *snap*

Shieldhopped Nair/Fair/Bair. Problem solved. And it's not like you actually shieldpressure spamming Bair alone, especially not when there's no good followup to it other than running away, jumping away (if you spaced it right) or spotdodging.

And that's just one improved move. It's like saying Peach's fair is faster now, hence she must have a lot of new approaches that totally negates the fact that she just lost float-canceling.

And that is based on opinion, which doesn't give anything to your arguement.

There isn't anything wrong with sticking with Melee. If that is what you feel like you want to do, then go for it; no one is going to stop you or anyone else. It is just silly to argue that a game doens't have the same depth as a game that has been played extensively for the past six or seven years. You're judging it before anyone has had long play with it other than a select few in the U.S. or the japanese player base.

You can argue with footage from videos and what not, but Melee didn't evolve in a week. Or a month.

I've actually, you know, played the game.

Also, the post you quoted has nothing to do what you just rambled on about. "Fanboyism" was used to describe the practice of sticking with Brawl even if (if) it's obviously inferior to Melee in almost every way because "It's Nintendo and it's the new one".

 

[Shag]

after 13 pages, this has probably been mentioned ...but i have time to killl at college.... sooo now that lcancelling is gone, you cannot be totally reckless with your aerial moves and and not feel the sense of danger of being punished.

players will have strategize with moves to use at specific times. This is not entirely a new thing but will take time for some to get used to. some moves have brutal lag, some have no lag. so there is a new type of depth here.

have fun.

^^ gotta agree with this, since i main zelda and ganon, i get about sick of foxes and captain falcons mindlessly spamming the **** out of aerials. Especially with Zelda's inability to shield grab in melee (&*^*^ 13 frame grab) either way i think that the beginning of this post was 100% true, once you could L cancel there was no reason not to, now we can't there's no reason 2 complain, it's not like we're gonna be fighting someone who can so we outta stop crying and figure out what the hell to do about flying bowsers and ****

-Shag

 

[Skler]

I spent most of my time playing Brawl tapping shields with moves that have good range and stun so I could never be punished. I can fair a shield now (as Link) and NEVER be punished because I can't miss an l-cancel. How deep is that?

A:

Spoiler

Not very.

 

[Galt]

Everything Yuna has said in this thread is completely true. I've been playing the game for the last week, and he's absolutely right: it's designed to be uncompetitive, and it's really not fun for non-casual play at all.

People keep saying that you can't figure out the game in a week or two, but they don't understand: with Brawl, you absolutely can figure out the game in two weeks. There is NO DEPTH. You don't have options. You don't have combo potential. You can't approach safely. The game is made to favor the camper. We play on 3-stock matches because 4 stocks took WAY too long. You think things are more balanced without ATs and with factory-set lag on all moves, but you're wrong: it means ANY ADVANTAGE which a character has is that much harder to get around. And do you know what follows from that? MARTH. Marth has every advantage. You thought Marth and Fox were hard to beat in Melee? Marth is now unbeatable. You simply have no chance. They nerfed his throw combos, but as those among you who haven't played the game will soon discover, he doesn't need them: he has up-B out of shield. It kills.

There's this other myth that edgeguarding is deeper now. IT ISN'T. You can't actually do it. You all think you'll jump out there and hit me as I'm returning to the edge, but you won't. Why? AIRDODGING IS COMPLETELY SAFE NOW. I'll go right through you every time. I don't have to worry about not being able to make it back. And even if you did hit me, unless I were at a very high percent, I wouldn't die from it anyway. I'd just float back to the stage, usually without even needing my up-B.

Mindgames don't exist now. You can't put on pressure. You can't vary your approaches. The lack of Melee's abilities was filled by nothing. YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BECOME GOOD AT THIS GAME. Sakurai has stated that several times.

I hated playing with items in Melee, but in Brawl, it's almost better. At least with items, you can hit people, and they'll die earlier.

I know more people will agree/understand once they've played the game for themselves, but I'm telling you now: Brawl is going nowhere. Brawl is the only fighter I've ever seen which actually took steps backward in its development on purpose. Fighting franchises don't scorn the depth which players add; they don't remove the things which give certain characters advantages; they don't try to put all players on some imaginary equal playing field. They embrace the things which work, and regulate the new depth instead of removing it, and the series gets better with time as the designers and players learn to perfect the system. Brawl is the exact opposite of that. I'd rather play Smash 64 than Brawl. And I really don't like 64.

 

[D20]

Super Smash Brawl is Mario Party for people with short attention spans.

 

[Revven]

Everything Yuna has said in this thread is completely true. I've been playing the game for the last week, and he's absolutely right: it's designed to be uncompetitive, and it's really not fun for non-casual play at all.

People keep saying that you can't figure out the game in a week or two, but they don't understand: with Brawl, you absolutely can figure out the game in two weeks. There is NO DEPTH. You don't have options. You don't have combo potential. You can't approach safely. The game is made to favor the camper. We play on 3-stock matches because 4 stocks took WAY too long. You think things are more balanced without ATs and with factory-set lag on all moves, but you're wrong: it means ANY ADVANTAGE which a character has is that much harder to get around. And do you know what follows from that? MARTH. Marth has every advantage. You thought Marth and Fox were hard to beat in Melee? Marth is now unbeatable. You simply have no chance. They nerfed his throw combos, but as those among you who haven't played the game will soon discover, he doesn't need them: he has up-B out of shield. It kills.

There's this other myth that edgeguarding is deeper now. IT ISN'T. You can't actually do it. You all think you'll jump out there and hit me as I'm returning to the edge, but you won't. Why? AIRDODGING IS COMPLETELY SAFE NOW. I'll go right through you every time. I don't have to worry about not being able to make it back. And even if you did hit me, unless I were at a very high percent, I wouldn't die from it anyway. I'd just float back to the stage, usually without even needing my up-B.

Mindgames don't exist now. You can't put on pressure. You can't vary your approaches. The lack of Melee's abilities was filled by nothing. YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BECOME GOOD AT THIS GAME. Sakurai has stated that several times.

I hated playing with items in Melee, but in Brawl, it's almost better. At least with items, you can hit people, and they'll die earlier.

I know more people will agree/understand once they've played the game for themselves, but I'm telling you now: Brawl is going nowhere. Brawl is the only fighter I've ever seen which actually took steps backward in its development on purpose. Fighting franchises don't scorn the depth which players add; they don't remove the things which give certain characters advantages; they don't try to put all players on some imaginary equal playing field. They embrace the things which work, and regulate the new depth instead of removing it, and the series gets better with time as the designers and players learn to perfect the system. Brawl is the exact opposite of that. I'd rather play Smash 64 than Brawl. And I really don't like 64.

Despite this exceedingly angry post towards Brawl, I'm still going to play Brawl competitively. But, the real question here is: will you play Brawl for what it is? Can you truly hate Brawl? I don't remember a time when Smash 64 was played competitively during its years until much later after Melee was out. I thijnk Brawl still needs more time, I don't care what you say that "lulz u cn lrn brwl in too w33k$" because I still played Melee without L-Canceling for four years, I didn't even find out about those techs until the 8th flippin' grade (2005). I played Melee from 2001 to 2005 (four years) without L-Canceling and it was still a **** good game. Techs or no techs the game for me will be good and still have that competitive feel because you'll want to be better than someone, and when someone has that drive to be the best they find things nobody looks for.

I see your point and I will hold my judgement on a competitive scene, but, for myself I will enjoy it the way I enjoyed Melee without L-Canceling for very many years.

 

[DRaGZ]

"Because it's Nintendo"? Yeah, great argument there. We're all just Nintendo fanboys who don't care about depth.


Most of us competitive players aren't blind Nintendo fanboys. Especially not when we still have Melee, which is (at this moment, as far as we know) a lot deeper, gives us a lot more freedom and a lot more options than Brawl!

We're not gonna latch onto the Nintendo bandwagon and hail Brawl as God of Games for the next 6 years despite its lack of control, depth and freedom.

Oh I know you guys won't, but there are a lot more fanboys than there are competitive players. Maybe I shouldn't have said "Nintendo" fanboys, but rather fanboys in general, and, to be honest, you guys are the vast minority.

Hell, in any case, I think the fact that people are defending Brawl as much as you are attacking it on a board that's supposed to be about competition demonstrates my point.

 

[Endless Nightmares]

I thijnk Brawl still needs more time, I don't care what you say that "lulz u cn lrn brwl in too w33k$" because I still played Melee without L-Canceling for four years, I didn't even find out about those techs until the 8th flippin' grade (2005). I played Melee from 2001 to 2005 (four years) without L-Canceling and it was still a **** good game.

How many times do we have to say this, this argument does not work! Because we're talking about competitive smash.

 

[Team Giza]

L-canceling was a stupid concept. It was just a technical barrier that didn't really do anything for the game. Melee would have been a lot better off if the normal lag was already in half. I am glad they removed l-canceling from brawl... but I don't think they balanced characters correctly around the idea of it being removed.

 

[NOT Sliq]

If you don't play any game competitively in the sense that you go to tournaments frequently, then you are not capable of discussing the competitive potential of Brawl. It is like me talking about how to fix a car. I don't know anything about cars, so I couldn't possibly fix one. I could look and go, well this thingy right here moves that way, so it must be important, but that is an extremely shallow interpretation of the mechanics.

Brawl is going to kick *** for all of the people that didn't frequent tournaments. Brawl is going to suck **** for those that do. End of story.

Not a god**** person should reply to this unless you play some sort of game at a tournament level, because you inherently don't know what the **** you are talking about, and for some reason you can't fathom that you aren't a valid source of information on something you have very little experience with.

Next ***got that says Brawl is a new game gets punched in the ****. It is a new game, sure, but it isn't a cooking simulator now, it has the same core ****ing gameplay elements of Melee. It would be like they made Chess: the Wreckoning and changes the rules and made it ********, and people went, lol it's a new game.

L-canceling was a stupid concept. It was just a technical barrier that didn't really do anything for the game. Melee would have been a lot better off if the normal lag was already in half. I am glad they removed l-canceling from brawl... but I don't think they balanced characters correctly around the idea of it being removed.

I'd be fine if l-canceling was "automatic" (as in everyone had reduced lag), but that isn't the case. SOME moves have less lag, but others DON'T. The fact that there is LESS SHIELD STUN makes shielding broken and aerials awful.

If everyone had the same lag for their moves as Melee l-canceled, then at least slower characters would be able to, I don't know, not get ****ing rocked.

 

[Endless Nightmares]

Everything Yuna has said in this thread is completely true. I've been playing the game for the last week, and he's absolutely right: it's designed to be uncompetitive, and it's really not fun for non-casual play at all.

People keep saying that you can't figure out the game in a week or two, but they don't understand: with Brawl, you absolutely can figure out the game in two weeks. There is NO DEPTH. You don't have options. You don't have combo potential. You can't approach safely. The game is made to favor the camper. We play on 3-stock matches because 4 stocks took WAY too long. You think things are more balanced without ATs and with factory-set lag on all moves, but you're wrong: it means ANY ADVANTAGE which a character has is that much harder to get around. And do you know what follows from that? MARTH. Marth has every advantage. You thought Marth and Fox were hard to beat in Melee? Marth is now unbeatable. You simply have no chance. They nerfed his throw combos, but as those among you who haven't played the game will soon discover, he doesn't need them: he has up-B out of shield. It kills.

There's this other myth that edgeguarding is deeper now. IT ISN'T. You can't actually do it. You all think you'll jump out there and hit me as I'm returning to the edge, but you won't. Why? AIRDODGING IS COMPLETELY SAFE NOW. I'll go right through you every time. I don't have to worry about not being able to make it back. And even if you did hit me, unless I were at a very high percent, I wouldn't die from it anyway. I'd just float back to the stage, usually without even needing my up-B.

Mindgames don't exist now. You can't put on pressure. You can't vary your approaches. The lack of Melee's abilities was filled by nothing. YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BECOME GOOD AT THIS GAME. Sakurai has stated that several times.

I hated playing with items in Melee, but in Brawl, it's almost better. At least with items, you can hit people, and they'll die earlier.

I know more people will agree/understand once they've played the game for themselves, but I'm telling you now: Brawl is going nowhere. Brawl is the only fighter I've ever seen which actually took steps backward in its development on purpose. Fighting franchises don't scorn the depth which players add; they don't remove the things which give certain characters advantages; they don't try to put all players on some imaginary equal playing field. They embrace the things which work, and regulate the new depth instead of removing it, and the series gets better with time as the designers and players learn to perfect the system. Brawl is the exact opposite of that. I'd rather play Smash 64 than Brawl. And I really don't like 64.

From my experience playing Brawl, I have to agree 100% with this post.

 

[Revven]

How many times do we have to say this, this argument does not work! Because we're talking about competitive smash.

So... you're telling me the first two years (rough estimation) of Melee without ATs was unfun and not competitive even though we had tournaments anyway?