The average join date in this thread is June 2008. Therefore, I don't expect some of what I'm going to say to be understood by all. And why is it that Melee comparisons aren't valid? I see that coming from people who haven't played Melee competitively. If that's the case, and if you were to play Melee, you'd see why it's totally valid. I'm not hating on Brawl noobs (atm), I'm saying that you cannot understand the comparison because you have not experienced it personally...
Anyway, 3 random points I just brought up out of my head why Brawl isn't as competitive as it could be (generally as compared to Melee):
1. You don't have as much and as quick control over your character. Lack of Lcancelling, WD'ing, etc. means you can't move around as much to create openings, or fake creating openings. (making opponent whiff attacks, change what you were doing previously into something new to keep them guessing, etc. These are only 2 very simple stupid general examples b/c I really don't care about arguing this obvious and pointless topic any longer)
2. Survivability. Most people don't consider this a big element, but I think it's crucial. Simply living longer draws matches out. The longer a match is drawn out, the more chances the one has to turn the tides of the match. In theory, if one player is truly better it should not matter as they will have the smarts to stay on top and re-counter themselves, but the opportunities of a comeback increase with time. Again, nothing wrong with comebacks; they're tight and all, but you're essentially catering more and more to the losing player. That element in itself is anti-competitive in nature. Which sort of leads into the 3rd and most important point...
3. There's much less risk/reward factors. Everything's "safer" and therefore you have a convergence of moves into broader categories of what's usable or not, ultimately leading to spamming of only a few moves and of course tons of camping. Similar to what I said before, being able to survive longer, taking less knock back, and less stun time means that even if you whiff the laggiest attack possible, let's say, there's a finite amount of punishment you can possibly take. This again undermines the nature of what a competitive fighter should be: You miss big, you should pay big. Why do you think SF2 is considered by many to take most skill of any fighting game? Because you can't afford to make any mistakes.
And I can't do anything but lol @ items even being mentioned. What, are we in 2003 again?
Simple rebuttal: Even if the "stronger" items are banned, any time an item drops out of the sky or appears either right at your feet or at a spot much closer to you guaranteeing you'll get it or even making it a MINISCULE amount easier to get to, you've instantly introduced chance (or "luck"). To me I think of it as a direct ratio - Adding randomness unequivocally decreases the amount of skill needed, even if by a fraction. The cannot coexist at 100%, 100 being the maximum capacity of skill/chance ratio. In certain games (Poker, etc) there will always be a certain amount of luck (ie: the draw of the cards). No matter how much skill you have at the game, you will never be able to control what card comes next. Not to say Poker players don't have as much skill as any other group, although it is a different kind, there will always exist an element of chance.
From dictionary.com:
"the absence of any cause of events that can be predicted, understood, or controlled: often personified or treated as a positive agency"
"The unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems to have no assignable cause"
In Smash, stages introduce chance also. The difference is a stage change or hazard is constant, repetitive, and although at one time or the other could prove more useful for one person than the other (Cloud, Barrel, Lave) it will repeat its actions in a predictable pattern 100% of the time, and therefore present the opportunity for you (or the opponent) to utilize it later, meaning the burden of circumstance is completely under your control to make it happen. Although the whole "FD only" phrase is slewed and misused, it actually makes perfect sense: The stage (and Battlefield ,although Battliefield sux
) introduce no change or randomness, and therefore almost all elements of chance are removed.
General Summary: The objective in any competitive game IMO should be, which I hope most people in here realize already if they haven't heard it repeated on these boards a million times already, to reduce the amount of chance, therefore increasing the amount of skill needed.
Wow, that turned out much longer than I wanted it to. Again, just things I thought of on the fly. There's plenty more, lots that I've written before too, but this isn't for me. I'm way over trying to convince people which game has more to offer (which wasn't really the point of this post, just had to mention it) From a competitive standpoint, there's really nothing you can argue for on Brawl's behalf. My challenge, as I stated before, to anyone who plays Brawl and enjoys competition: Give Melee a legitimate shot. You'll soon learn which is more rewarding and why, when you brake it down logically, one can only be defined as a more competitive game...
