Seriously? Fine let me summarize my comment then.
Your summary cannot help if you cannot use proper grammar and spelling.
Players bash Brawl all the time (especially Smash-4 players)
This is a complete statement in itself. Why does it continue into the next line?
who shouldn't even be taken seriously towards how the game is even designed, is that better?
No, it's not.
The first half of your statement regards players bashing
Brawl. Okay, I understand that. The second half... "taken seriously towards how the game is even designed". That makes no sense.
What does negative feedback have to do with game design? How did those two ideas wind up in the same sentence?
Are you saying that those who bash
Brawl did not understand how the game was designed? Are you saying that they don't take
Brawl's design seriously, and are overlooking valid points because of it?
I'm just taking wild stabs in the dark here, because your statement, taken at face value, is utterly meaningless.
I'm basically shutting their typing mouths through a simple counter sentence attack "Brawl already had this "tech" and many more".
I can actually understand that statement, but it is irrelevant, as I'll point out in just a second.
Next I wrote I don't act like a typical competitive player that writes garbage to players they fight against or Wi-Fi against. I'm simply fed up with morns attacking Brawl when they should look in the minor and see just how "superior" Smash-4 really is.
While I appreciate that you do treat your opponent with respect, I should point out that your argument is meaningless. There is no objective standard for "superiority" when it comes to entertainment value, which is what a game is meant to provide. They find
Smash 4 more entertaining than
Brawl, and they do have legitimate arguments to back that up.
Also, the word is "mirror", not "minor".
Lastly I'm assuming users in general try to act innocent when they can't really defend the situation, so they'll write "it's for the new players and we already know Brawl had all this".
Even if the two games were technically identical (which they're not, as everything from basic physics like falling to discrete mechanics like tripping have changed), the point is still irrelevant, because there is far more to
Smash as a game than just the "techs".
In fact, removing a technical skill can actually make a game functionally better, if it improves flow, conveyance, and enjoyment.
Finally the person describing the "tech" renames that "tech" so what does that mean? Simply trying to use Smash-4 to fake new 'techs" like Izaw's "Zaw dashing" when it's simply a perfect pivot walk. Thanks.
Renaming techs is indeed stupid, but it's hardly something restricted to
Smash players, or even video games. Look up the name of any football play and you'll see just how stupid a basic pass can sound.
