Why do people keep thinking Brawl is slow and bad, is this true or not?

[N.T.A.O ChangeOfHeart 死の剣]

So it's like this, "Brawl is slow" why? "Because it's slow". Or let's write that "Brawl's better" "you trip in that game". So basically people have bs excuses and know Brawl is better or different?. So here's where I get confused, so if Brawl is slow and "bad" then why do SO many people put their time and energy into that game in the past, heck, I'll even write the tutorials are more than Smash-4 Melee combined. The admiration was there, people found out SO MUCH useful techniques and diversity that honestly not even Melee had. Now hold on "fan-boys" I didn't imply it was "better" I simply implied that it had more "diversity" as in? Brought people to the competitive world, changing the tier list more than Melee, and 64 ever has. Okay you get the point there and you're bored move on. Okay. "Slow" the game is "slow" how? An example of this "slow" theory many give sanctuary in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMuCAl_Mkvs

Yes it's a "TAS" I had to use this since the other video I wanted to show has been deleted for a reason I don't know of. In general by looking at the game it doesn't seem that slow huh? You can view nothing but technicalities and interesting Di and techs, huh? Well that's Brawl and yes, even the Snake vs MK mu has the same technicalities but decreased which is the key word "all" need to admire not "slow" but in some cases "low paced AT TIMES".

So what Brawl has is this:

DI

SDI

TDI

Special designed technical character specifics

Online play

Competitiveness

Diversity

Hacking

So on.

So Brawl honestly is nothing but an amazing game, the interface may look simple, but the game is honestly quite technical and is the closet game to Melee to be designed with technical play and technicality (not including mods but the game in general).

What I feel impacted me about Brawl was the diversity as in "nothing stays the same" the way people thought of ZSS was changed by a certain individual, by the way people thought of DK was changed by a certain individual, by the way people thought Peach was changed by as well by a certain individual, and people thought MK was near "invisible" only to find out that people broke through the barrier and showed MK wasn't that invisible and he can be beaten and badly, nothing stays the same. The evolution of Brawl changes and it will continue to change, the game was made to exceed over the limit. Yes yes "Wave dash" I'm aware of that certain glitch that was found by a person not the game just like Snake's Motor Slide and was used just like Wave dashing. "Tripping" yes that's a problem, but I don't view how that will make a game "bad" that honestly just throws a chance card in there not a troublesome entity but pure luck. This problem can be disinterested with a code hack just to let you know. Hey Nintendo changes Smash-4, why not Brawl, fix the few problems about the game without changing the game completely like PM which I have nothing against.

To summarize, the game isn't "bad" nor "slow" the game is quite fast paced and has SO MUCH technicalities, diversity that this game could never get out of date neither is Melee so hush about that, any game that stays true to itself for years and years like Marvel vs Capcom 2 deserves to live on immorality. And finally the game was and is the closet entity towards technicality and diversity Melee wise. So do you agree or do you all have your own plot twists? Sigh of course Smash-4 players will mention their game yet that isn't the topic. Once more the topic is "Why do people keep thinking Brawl is slow and bad, is this true or not?" Give your claims as to why you feel this way. Thanks.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Well, the game isn't necessarily bad. In fact, it's quite fun. The random tripping is an annoyance, but the main problem people have with the game is its slower pace when compared to Melee. Dare I say it's even slower than Smash 64. Add the non-existent hitstun, negating any real combo potential, and you've got a game that, while good, has flaws that some find troublesome. All in all, it's still a competitively viable game, just not as fast-paced as Melee.

P.S. The online sucked then, and if the servers were still up today, it'd still suck now.

 

[_Keno_]

This board is not for discussing smash, or and definitely nothing related to the melee-brawl argument which has gone on for years.


Anyways, here's my two cents:

Brawl was literally designed to be non-competitive. The L-dodge system was redone specifically to remove wavedashing and tripping was added as random element against dashes, (which also removed dash-dancing as a viable technique). Hitstun was purposefully lowered to remove as many potential combos as possible, and the fallspeed/movement speed of characters was reduced to slow down the game (which also prevents combos). Edgeguarding was made much more difficult by removing the precision required to grab ledges, and most recoveries are way more than enough to make it back to the stage.

However, the anti-design itself does not make brawl a bad game, what does make it a bad game is the over-centralization of Metaknight and the inability to make creative combos.

Yes, there are techniques in the game and advanced tactics. My personal favorite AT is glide-tossing, and I think it's one of the few techniques that actually improved brawl. The majority,however, are just guaranteed chain-grabs or infinites. Most characters have a FEW combos that be memorize, but beyond that, creativity is severely lacking.

I do think brawl is more fun to watch than smash 4 though, as long as it isn't a metaknight ditto.

 

[Sucumbio]

Moved to brawl forum bc DH is not for smash topics thx

 

[N.T.A.O ChangeOfHeart 死の剣]

Moved to brawl forum bc DH is not for smash topics thx

That thread is dead so that is why I posted it here, my apologies, this is like the only thread that is alive that discusses problems, and this is not doubt a problem that has been going on since 2008. Alright man thanks appreciate the hospitality.

 

[Blue Warrior]

Brawl is slower, and linking to a TAS in which both players are deliberately creating a light show doesn't prove anything. In normal gameplay, stalling is easy, combos are sometimes as easy as locking the opponent into place and using one move repeatedly, and practically anything is punishable at low percents because the hitstun is almost nonexistent on a lot of moves.

Brawl is unquestionably a worse game competitively than Melee because of specific design choices and terrible balance. Several characters have very basic infinites on a bulk of the cast, others are capable of stalling with glide shenanigans, and the character viability distribution is without a doubt the worst in the series, with roughly 8 out of 35 characters being viable and the top 1 slot being so overcentralizing that it's banned from certain tournaments.

As for why people devote time into it... some people just enjoy it. Brawl isn't a terrible game, and if you're cool with a game that has cheesy bull**** because there's some aspects about it that you like, you can sink time into it. You can be competitive with any game; that doesn't mean that it's well designed for it.

If you want to talk about how good of a game it is in general, I'd say it's pretty good. Its physics make it more accessible than Melee, and there a lot of unique characters and some interesting features that are fun to play around with at least casually. Your TAS is a good example of one type of casual fun. But if you want to talk about "which is faster", Melee is unquestionably faster paced in normal or competitive gameplay because the mechanics favor aggression over passivity. The technical aspect has little to do with it.

 

[N.T.A.O ChangeOfHeart 死の剣]

Brawl is slower, and linking to a TAS in which both players are deliberately creating a light show doesn't prove anything. In normal gameplay, stalling is easy, combos are sometimes as easy as locking the opponent into place and using one move repeatedly, and practically anything is punishable at low percents because the hitstun is almost nonexistent on a lot of moves.

Brawl is unquestionably a worse game competitively than Melee because of specific design choices and terrible balance. Several characters have very basic infinites on a bulk of the cast, others are capable of stalling with glide shenanigans, and the character viability distribution is without a doubt the worst in the series, with roughly 8 out of 35 characters being viable and the top 1 slot being so overcentralizing that it's banned from certain tournaments.

As for why people devote time into it... some people just enjoy it. Brawl isn't a terrible game, and if you're cool with a game that has cheesy bull**** because there's some aspects about it that you like, you can sink time into it. You can be competitive with any game; that doesn't mean that it's well designed for it.

If you want to talk about how good of a game it is in general, I'd say it's pretty good. Its physics make it more accessible than Melee, and there a lot of unique characters and some interesting features that are fun to play around with at least casually. Your TAS is a good example of one type of casual fun. But if you want to talk about "which is faster", Melee is unquestionably faster paced in normal or competitive gameplay because the mechanics favor aggression over passivity. The technical aspect has little to do with it.

That wasn't my point, I didn't compare Brawl to Melee man, I'm only analyzing why many believe it's a "bad" game in general; I used Melee as an example and Brawl that Brawl is the only game that is the closet to Melee towards Tech skill (not including mods but the originality in general). And the TAS video wasn't the video I wanted to use first, the original video I wanted to link was taken down. And the point of showing a TAS was the options it provides towards the game, everything you saw can be done by a human if they choose to mimic which Demi-God performance. I already know Smash-64 and Melee are the best games period. I'm just analyzing why they take pity towards Brawl. Like all the years Tier list changes, most combo videos, tutorials, TAS, and matches in general.

That is what baffles me, heck! I still search towards Brawl and now people are hacking the Smash-4 characters into Brawl. I chat with them a while back and they wrote "barwls great!" And no they're plenty of "competitive" players that Brawl and look to Brawl as well like myself. Not only that, but some PM players would tolerate a game of Brawl and not Smash-4 for example. So? What makes the game "bad" is it honestly tripping and a strong gimmick character known as MK? Really? Those two flawed entities will change their mind THAT MUCH over two problems towards the rest of the game has o offer, heck! Since people were fortunate enough to crack the code for hacking towards Brawl, they could honestly just DISABLE TRIPPING with the hacks now. There one big problem is solved, now MK. Hmm, experiment? Thanks.

 

[Blue Warrior]

You talk about how frequently tier lists have changed over a long period of time, but you glimpse over the fact that Metaknight lords over every single one of them, with one flavor of the month looming under him as the "almost as viable but harder to play" alternative. Tier lists are slower to change or change less radically when the dominant strategy remains constant; if Metaknight did not exist or was banned from every tournament, the metagame would develop much quicker since top play doesn't revolve around how every character can deal with the single god tier.

And like I said, what makes Brawl "bad" are design choices like gliding and tripping, AND abysmal balance. Random pratfalls and The C-stick With Wings only make up a part of the problem -- just look at how all of the characters are handled. Incredibly basic design-trope characters like Mario were completely botched, and otherwise decent characters like Donkey Kong and Lucas were rendered uncompetitive by infinites and chaingrabs. There are hard counters everywhere. I'm not even sure if Competitive vBrawl would have worked if the ruleset didn't explicitly limit sharking and indefinite cape stalling.

Also, you missed my point on the TAS -- there, the players cooperated to create a dynamic and aggressive light show, but one of them could have just as easily defected and instead used their TAS might to stall the other out or otherwise make the match super boring. And it would have been far easier than in Melee, because again, sharking, low hitstun, infinites etc. The game is only fast if both players allow it to be; if the dominant strategy is slow, the game will play slowly.

You're asking why people think Brawl is a bad game, but I think most of these people you're talking about actually don't believe Brawl is an objectively bad game; they believe it is an objectively inferior title to Melee, and there's good arguments for and against this. Your apologetic stance toward Brawl seems to revolve less around things Brawl does better than Melee, and more around externally modifying the game so that it can work. Mind, people have done so with mods like Balanced Brawl, and if it weren't for legal concerns and Project: M being a better competitive game, it might have seen a lot more attention.

 

[BlueXenon]

Many melee players began to hate Brawl the moment they realized it wasn't Melee 2.0. The melee community spread their hatred both in tournaments and on social media and twitch. There are many valid criticisms about Brawl, however, some criticisms are based solely on the fact that it's not melee 2.0. I hate when people say that the lack of hitstun in Brawl is its main problem. The lack of hitstun is what made Brawl a unique game. Instead of getting guaranteed combos, you had to follow up on your hits by using reads, conditioning, baits, frame traps etc. and this gave Brawl a lot depth. Sometimes you'd incorrectly guess your opponent's landing option and they would get a free reset to neutral. Melee players believe that you're supposed to get a huge reward for hitting your opponent in a certain way, so it was difficult for them to accept Brawl's changes in that aspect.

The hatred towards Brawl rose significantly after the smash (melee) documentary was released. Additionally, PM players picked up on the hatred and began trash talking Brawl on social media as well. It's true that many melee veterans stopped hating Brawl in the past few years, but so many people joined the melee community after watching the documentary, which portrayed Brawl in a negative way.

 

[Louis Tursi]

The online sucked then, and if the servers were still up today, it'd still suck now.

I use Wiimmfi and the connection is fine. Even Project M's servers aren't that bad...so don't count your chickens before they hatch.

 

[Blue Warrior]

@ BlueXenon : Brawl is my least favorite game, hardly for any reason concerning physics as much as the fact that Melee is far more balanced. I guess the game's pacing doesn't concern me as much as the diversity of the playing field. The balance in Brawl was bad enough that about a year into it, my friends and I had to mod it to really be satisfied with it, even as 'casual' players.

On the other hand, while I would like it if it was easier to take off stocks in Sm4sh, I still enjoy the game a lot because it has a really finely tuned roster full of completely different playstyles. And it's pretty clear that the game is designed around two stock matches, so the pacing is not that bad.

 

[BlueXenon]

@ BlueXenon : Brawl is my least favorite game, hardly for any reason concerning physics as much as the fact that Melee is far more balanced.

This is not a fact and I completely disagree with you on this.
edit: I will agree that Melee's top tier is more balanced.

 

[Blue Warrior]

Well, that's not to say Melee is perfectly balanced. If anything, I think both 64 and 4 are better than Melee in this regard. But I think it's kind of a blessing that Fox ended up on top and not someone else just because of how technical he is; his skill curve gives players reasons to try and master him, but also plenty of reasons to practice with someone else.... Metaknight doesn't give you that.

Furthermore, it's not just about character viability spread, it's also counter relationships. I could never call a game that has such a polarizing character like Dedede "balanced".

 

[N.T.A.O ChangeOfHeart 死の剣]

You talk about how frequently tier lists have changed over a long period of time, but you glimpse over the fact that Metaknight lords over every single one of them, with one flavor of the month looming under him as the "almost as viable but harder to play" alternative. Tier lists are slower to change or change less radically when the dominant strategy remains constant; if Metaknight did not exist or was banned from every tournament, the metagame would develop much quicker since top play doesn't revolve around how every character can deal with the single god tier.

And like I said, what makes Brawl "bad" are design choices like gliding and tripping, AND abysmal balance. Random pratfalls and The C-stick With Wings only make up a part of the problem -- just look at how all of the characters are handled. Incredibly basic design-trope characters like Mario were completely botched, and otherwise decent characters like Donkey Kong and Lucas were rendered uncompetitive by infinites and chaingrabs. There are hard counters everywhere. I'm not even sure if Competitive vBrawl would have worked if the ruleset didn't explicitly limit sharking and indefinite cape stalling.

Also, you missed my point on the TAS -- there, the players cooperated to create a dynamic and aggressive light show, but one of them could have just as easily defected and instead used their TAS might to stall the other out or otherwise make the match super boring. And it would have been far easier than in Melee, because again, sharking, low hitstun, infinites etc. The game is only fast if both players allow it to be; if the dominant strategy is slow, the game will play slowly.

You're asking why people think Brawl is a bad game, but I think most of these people you're talking about actually don't believe Brawl is an objectively bad game; they believe it is an objectively inferior title to Melee, and there's good arguments for and against this. Your apologetic stance toward Brawl seems to revolve less around things Brawl does better than Melee, and more around externally modifying the game so that it can work. Mind, people have done so with mods like Balanced Brawl, and if it weren't for legal concerns and Project: M being a better competitive game, it might have seen a lot more attention.

MK honestly isn't the "Lord" it's now a mix between Snake, Ice Climbers, Falco, ZSS, Marth and MK. It's not that far away anymore man, people can now demolish him just like he can do the same. As the Tier list, you are wrong, the Tier list has changed at least like four times now, so? That's more than Smsh-64 and Melee combined. And the Brawl Tier list was the MOST popular Tier list at that time and tbh it still is but in a vague self-image if that makes any sense. And look man, the users have arrived to defend Brawl, do you see what I mean? Despite the fact that the WFC connection was disabled and people still want to play the game, why? Because it's a "good" game or just defend it, idk why they're here, I'll just write they enjoy Brawl whether it's just a title of the Smash franchise or a game they play still and enjoy.

That may be true that the game was not designed to become competitive; however, the game is forced to become competitive by the human eye. Humans are the most intelligent creatures and at the same time the most stupidest creatures there can be. As for making Brawl competitive and finding all these Advanced Techniques, finding ways around MK abuse, bringing out new hidden characters that shined like DK, ZSS and so much more, and yet still Brawling still yet the game is honestly now the most despised game and loved game. Brawl has now become the New York Yankees simple as that.

Melee is the better game I'm aware of that man, but that doesn't exclude Brawl from producing the same concept in a different fashion. Glide Tossing, Motor Slide, Footstools, Jab locks, and more Advanced Techniques. Yes yes, Melee is still the more competitive game and Brawl is a good game that was changed into something it's not. Just like Wave-dashing it was an accident and a great accident and well same to Brawl it's a great game but slower than Melee and that's the bottom line.

Yes, you are right there man, people need to realize that there will always be something better no matter the age or lack of popularity. If Melee players were only attacking Brawl because they believed Brawl would be the better game and it's not, then okay I get it now. Smash-4 now is acting the same with Brawl and by far not even close and there are easy reasons to believe it , yet they write it's "better" than every other game. I'm pathetically with a grieving face going to write that this is society. "The next new thing is the next best thing" which is completely irrelevant and discombobulated but that's the way they see it. Alright man, I understand now a little more, unless, you're making this up to shut me up which wont happen either if you're writing the truth or not. But I will lean towards your understanding since it does make sense. Thanks.

 

[Blue Warrior]

MK honestly isn't the "Lord" it's now a mix between Snake, Ice Climbers, Falco, ZSS, Marth and MK. It's not that far away anymore man, people can now demolish him just like he can do the same. As the Tier list, you are wrong, the Tier list has changed at least like four times now, so? That's more than Smsh-64 and Melee combined. And the Brawl Tier list was the MOST popular Tier list at that time and tbh it still is but in a vague self-image if that makes any sense. And look man, the users have arrived to defend Brawl, do you see what I mean? Despite the fact that the WFC connection was disabled and people still want to play the game, why? Because it's a "good" game or just defend it, idk why they're here, I'll just write they enjoy Brawl whether it's just a title of the Smash franchise or a game they play still and enjoy

I never said Metaknight is unbeatable. I said he's on top of everybody else, and he always has been. He has the best matchup spread and he's the easiest to play; this is reflected in tournament results. Just because certain characters have decent matchups against him doesn't mean he isn't overcentralizing.

All Brawl's tier list "popularity" (whatever that means) indicates is that's how many times certain character placings have changed. That doesn't mean the meta itself changes significantly; a majority of the characters you mentioned were top contenders for a long time, and even still, Metaknight remained a stronger pick than any of them.

Your posts are hard to read, so I'll just stop there.

 

[BlueXenon]

Well, that's not to say Melee is perfectly balanced. If anything, I think both 64 and 4 are better than Melee in this regard. But I think it's kind of a blessing that Fox ended up on top and not someone else just because of how technical he is; his skill curve gives players reasons to try and master him, but also plenty of reasons to practice with someone else.... Metaknight doesn't give you that.

Furthermore, it's not just about character viability spread, it's also counter relationships. I could never call a game that has such a polarizing character like Dedede "balanced".

Your statement about Metaknight is incorrect. He might be broken at low to mid levels of play, but at high level play, metaknight players have to earn their wins like everyone else. It's true that he has by far the best moveset and match up spread, but in order to fully utilize his moves, a player needs to spend months developing their execution, and in order to take advantage of his amazing match up spread, a player needs to have an extreme amount of match up knowledge. Everyone knows the MK match up so MK players need to study every match up in the game to prevent upsets.

Do you notice how every top melee and smash4 player uses multiple characters to win? They do that for the purpose of counterpicking. If a character has a near-unwinnable match up against DDD, the player can use a different character.

@ N.T.A.O ChangeOfHeart 死の剣 Metaknight is definitely the best character, and Snake and ZSS aren't close to him on the tier list; they have extreme weaknesses.

 

[N.T.A.O ChangeOfHeart 死の剣]

I never said Metaknight is unbeatable. I said he's on top of everybody else, and he always has been. He has the best matchup spread and he's the easiest to play; this is reflected in tournament results. Just because certain characters have decent matchups against him doesn't mean he isn't overcentralizing.

All Brawl's tier list "popularity" (whatever that means) indicates is that's how many times certain character placings have changed. That doesn't mean the meta itself changes significantly; a majority of the characters you mentioned were top contenders for a long time, and even still, Metaknight remained a stronger pick than any of them.

Your posts are hard to read, so I'll just stop there.

No, if you want to be stubborn and write he's the best and here's clearly not anymore, so who is? Ice Climbers simple as that, if you were to ever write Ice Climbers aren't better, then by all means challenge a good Ice Climbers that know how to Chain Grab and somewhat play a strong offense game. Now compare that to MK were you"ll be playing a character that is fast with low damage attacks and a Nado that can be broken through by smart timing (first three frames) or strong attacks like for example Donkey Kong's Giant Punch.

You would be surprised how different things are now with MK, people are NOW yes now or to clarify mid 2014 was when they really started to figure him out by actually PUNISHING his Nado. MK isn't the same where he can just run in like a moron and do whatever the heck he wants to commit to. He camps now, he waits to spoke you with D titls, and wait when to throw a Nado out. Even Nario waits now because he knows he will get messed up if he throws those random and obvious attacks like Dash attack, Ground Shuttle loops and so forth.

I remember Nario went full moron against 9B the first match against his Ice Climbers, he got three stocked in under a minute. My point? MK waits now, he can't just go full moron, only the people that don't know how to fight MK are the ones that have trouble against him or will let him do whatever he wants to do due to being frightened and hearing/reading those urban legends of himself, sigh.

As for the rest of my comment, it reads fine, but it's for the best since you will be stubborn towards those viewpoints as well. You're writing to a Brawl player that has stayed, studied, experimented asphyxiate-ly, and experienced every play-style you can throw at me, aggressive, defensive, campy, smart aggression, and the famous MK Shuttle Loop abuse/Nado/ Down smash.

So a Melee player or PM player does not know what he is writing since he's absent from like years of playing Brawl. Your only source is reading compared to hands on which is 100% better and will better improve what people rant about Brawl.

Still hard to read?

Your theory of MK is wrong, Ice Climbers are worse there are videos that prove this. Your terminology towards Brawl has the mass of a 2008-2009 knowledge. What you write is true but outdated simple as that. Thanks.

@ BlueXenon

He really isn't anymore, if I had to write who is the best character or even more simple than MK winning, then I would write Ice Climbers. Well yes they have flaws and at the same time have advantages like Marth can poke MK if done cautiously, and understanding the character in general, Snake can just trade with MK, he lives longer and I honestly haven't viewed MKs murdering Snake as of late 2014 - 2015. The last Snake that started murdering was MVD so. ZSS just won Kvo in Japan against Edge a debut against the best MK in Japan so. Yes there is flaws and at the same advantages. In your perceptive view or the majority believe this yet MK hasn't really done anything as of late so idk why they still believe it, oh that's right, they're still counting the 2009 years, right?

 

[Blue Warrior]

No, if you want to be stubborn and write he's the best and here's clearly not anymore, so who is? Ice Climbers simple as that, if you were to ever write Ice Climbers aren't better, then by all means challenge a good Ice Climbers that know how to Chain Grab and somewhat play a strong offense game. Now compare that to MK were you"ll be playing a character that is fast with low damage attacks and a Nado that can be broken through by smart timing (first three frames) or strong attacks like for example Donkey Kong's Giant Punch.

I'd love to believe that Ice Climbers ARE the best character, because it would be the one time in history where Metaknight wasn't considered the best. As it stands, statistics speak louder than theory. When I see Ice Climbers overtake Metaknight on the official tier list, I will secede my point.

As for the rest of your post, I'm well aware that everyone knows Metaknight inside and out by now, but it does not make Metaknight any worse of a character. It just means that mains of him have to push him harder toward his skill ceiling. The metagame has always been about trying to outsmart the god tier, nothing has really changed IMO.

As for the rest of my comment, it reads fine but it's for the best since you will be stubborn towards those viewpoints as well. You're writing to a Brawl player that has stayed, studied, experimented asphyxiate-ly, and experienced every play-style you can throw at me, aggressive, defensive, campy, smart aggression, and the famous MK Shuttle Loop abuse/Nado/ Down smash.

Your posts are not easy to read. You ramble, you stumble over sentence structure, you don't use sentence breaks where they're necessary, and your earlier paragraphs were extremely dense when they could easily have been broken up more often.

And use that to your advantage and pull the "oh he just gave up" card if you need to, it doesn't bother me any. I mean, I read and respond to posts on here at my own leisure, and I stop doing so when I have nothing to add or it starts becoming a chore. Your arguments aren't a chore to me in this case, it's just your structure.

As for your "do you know who you're talking to" quip, I have little to no Smash competitive background. I enjoy Smash largely from the stands, and the best thing I could say about myself skill-wise is that I play a decent Fox in Sm4sh. If you want to battle with credentials, I guess you're the winner. I'm more interested in ideas and arguments. Call me stubborn, and perhaps you do know better than I do, but I still think your arguments are kinda weak (and hard to read lol)

Do you notice how every top melee and smash4 player uses multiple characters to win? They do that for the purpose of counterpicking. If a character has a near-unwinnable match up against DDD, the player can use a different character.

Sure; but how many of those weak matchups in Melee and Smash 4 are near unwinnable? A change in character selection can raise or lower the odds, but it should never guarantee a win or a loss unless the character itself is just bad. That just isn't good design for fighters.

Fair point on Metaknight, but it's one thing to understand what other characters are capable of, and another to actually use one of those characters' strengths to your advantage. Melee Fox and Falco still have some incentive to carry secondaries because of their sheer combo succeptibility, but how often do you see a competitive Metaknight switch out?

 

[N.T.A.O ChangeOfHeart 死の剣]

I'd love to believe that Ice Climbers ARE the best character,

Well it's true, MK's standings are NO WHERE near the same standings he was a few years ago. He's still a very strong character, but he's not the best anymore. Of course it's quite difficult to convince since the majority will believe I'm a "scrub" whatever that means since I wont admit he's not the best anymore.

I honestly do not care what people want to think or believe about me. Some think highly of myself and some don't, the moral of the story is I do not care what anyone thinks. That means every individual and I mean everyone. I decide what is me and who to follow which is nobody.

That's not a problem man, I actually knew you were either a Melee or Smash-4 player towards the way you wrote your sentences and the meanings of each sentence. That's great you learn from reading which is from another individual, but don't always read and follow exactly what they write, they never have all the answers that is why you figure out and improve the instruction and details by yourself, meh.

Yes, I'm aware I tend to rant unnecessary exploits that will no doubt confuse people. My apologies for that. Well my arguments aren't weak but mostly "cheesy" so what I write is mostly kind of like "isn't it obvious" and "what the heck is your point and where is this going head anyway". Thanks.

 

[Blue Warrior]

Well it's true, MK's standings are NO WHERE near the same standings he was a few years ago. He's still a very strong character, but he's not the best anymore. Of course it's quite difficult to convince since the majority will believe I'm a "scrub" whatever that means since I wont admit he's not the best anymore.

Well, that's exactly the problem, isn't it? The best way you could prove your point is to look through all of recent tourney results and show that Metaknight is going to move down a tier. Currently I don't see it, but if you could back it up, you could change someone's mind.

 

[N.T.A.O ChangeOfHeart 死の剣]

Well, that's exactly the problem, isn't it? The best way you could prove your point is to look through all of recent tourney results and show that Metaknight is going to move down a tier. Currently I don't see it, but if you could back it up, you could change someone's mind.

See, you need to understand and try to fathom this gibberish I'm going to write; the tier list doesn't truly define who's who. It can always change no matter what.

Here's my theory as to why they wont change the list towards MK.

It's a cliche as of now "MK is best" "MK is broken cheap" so that just sits in those person's minds to never change the list of himself. Not only that, but the old years, yes those 2008, 2009 years where no one even knew how to stop even MK's spam-full Down Smash (easy two years for MK). Now it isn't, a simple good MK with 2009 tactics would never and I repeat never destroy or even beat a strong for example 2010 or 2011 Marth.

MKs need to adapt as well, and he honestly cannot, there was nothing new for MK mains only like Shuttle Loop cancels, Nado control (pressing the special button at the right moment to not get out of which is false), and new juggles that can easily become avoided through wave bounces, and proper DI, and SDI oh and air dodging btw oh wait this is Melee's air dodge duh sigh.

He's still a force to be reckoned with; however, he's not the best anymore or frightening, the results speak for themselves, MKs hasn't won a tourney in a while now, at the moment the only characters that have are: Ice Climbers, Snake, DK, Marth, ZSS, Ike, Olimar, and Falco. Yes Ike won a tourney he's really been improved, as long as people can tech the stages or a platform, then all characters would be improved easily even Ganondorf.

"So what you don't believe in the Tier list?" I bet you're believing that as of now and to answer your prepossessing question, I support the Tier list.

It is certain there will always be someone better than the other, that is true yes; however, the ranks can change always. The people that invented the Tier list are just keeping him there due to people will not believe it since he has dominated the scene for years, but as of now, he hasn't.

If Smash-4 never came out which would've been amazing, then you would be able to view the results more clearly and cautiously. MK was beginning to fade out, people just weren't frightened anymore by himself.

And I uh despise to explain to you the news but, but the majority are non-competitive players or fans who MK is the "bess" and some competitive players. The minority is only the competitive fans or players do not believe this theory anymore. The results prove it.

Once more, he's great but not that great anymore. BlueXenon explained it already to yourself and he's an MK main so that goes a long way, and at the same time he wont admit since well he's an MK main and I'm crazy is what he views about my ideology it seems. Thanks.

 

[ProjectilePuff]

I really wish more people would experiment with Brawl instead of perishing it. This is what i partially hate about a portion of the Melee and possibly the Smash 4 or even SMASH 64 communities, they're ignorant of Brawl's competitive potential. Change shouldn't be seen negatively, just because a game doesn't turn out how you expect doesn't mean you instantly bash it.

 

[John Onefifteen]

Played brawl for the first time after a long melee and PM only hiatus and I literally thought I was playing it in slow mo. I don't shun it because "its not melee". I love sm4sh and play it frequently. I just don't see the competitive aspect of brawl. Its a slow game that rewards defensive play, I understand what sakurai was trying to do but it just didn't translate well. I understand it has its upsides but if you look at it brawl just does not compare to any of the other games.

Brawl will forever be the black sheep of the series.

 

[N.T.A.O ChangeOfHeart 死の剣]

So exactly how does Smash-4 reward with offense play? And you write Brawl is "slow" yet I see Smash-4 as slow and Brawl faster. So here's what I just right now, I just compared the campest matches which is no doubt Snake and Wario, Sonic was a runner up but Wario is worse even Toonlink.

Brawl: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGiabvoox2c

Smash-4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H1AveMj6xE

So here you go, you be the judge on which on is slower than the other. I chose these two matches for a reason, you'll find out what I mean after you watched them both. I could choose to show the superiority of Brawl with some amazing matches, but I chose the campiest matches of both games for a reason. Thanks.

Honestly, I believe you don't do any advanced techniques but play Snake and camp which is your choice. Do not write back that "that's the only way to play" I'll gladly Brawl you and be nothing but aggressive and you'll see the difference. Brawl is fine, it's the player not the game. Unless you just despise Brawl for the obvious of the flaws of Brawl which is tripping and MK which is what I truly believe you despise to admit. And for one Brawl isn't nerf-ed like Smash-4. Why in the world do you tolerate Smash-4 and not Brawl? I seriously ran back to Brawl after playing Smash-4 for a whole week.

@ ProjectilePuff

I don't believe I've read or seen Smash-64 bash Brawl, however for Melee I have and the wannabee Melee (Smash-4) I have. What actually forces myself to chuckle and that's rare to view is Smash-4 has no techniques to begin with, nerf-ed like a PG show, and Brawl designed but slower and worse (no shield stun, no edge guarding, weak damage ratio, Online play still laggy and so on) so how can other people tolerate the game when it's beyond simple as I wrote down should become "perished" and laughed at by Melee to be the first. The Smash world makes no sense, everyone is high on Cough Syrup. Thanks.

 

[Blue Warrior]

I chose these two matches for a reason, you'll find out what I mean after you watched them both. I could choose to show the superiority of Brawl with some amazing matches, but I chose the campiest matches of both games for a reason. Thanks.

What reason?? Why not choose the fastest? Why not choose the most common matchup, like Brawl's Metaknight-IC and 4's Luigi-DK Customs, or Shiek-Sonic? And that isn't even the campiest Brawl match I've seen. What about this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TE4FJVRx4H0

or this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZuW9jsaczg

I'm looking for the one where ZeRo's MK tries to time out an IC, that one's even worse. Even still, there's moments in the second video where the two players just sit there and do nothing. The 4 match you linked to was long, but the match was tense and reasonably paced because of things actually happening throughout.

Also, 4 rewards both offensive and defensive play depending on the matchup. There are long matches like Megaman vs Pacman, but most of 4's top tier is actually pretty aggressive and brawl oriented. The fact that 4 has balanced ways to speed up or slow down matches is what makes 4 competitively stronger over Brawl, not weaker.

 

[N.T.A.O ChangeOfHeart 死の剣]

See that's what you need to understand, it's the player not the game; however, for Smash-4 you must realize the game doesn't show the same tradition the other games showed. And yes you know now it was "reasonably paced" you might think I'm insane, but the link that I linked to you about Brawl was slow to myself. I feel you haven't experienced what true "fast paced" Brawl is. As for the play of the Ice Climbers, it was okay, please go watch 9B now. Anyways, you understood somewhat that Brawl isn't what it is seen in the people's eye towards "Brawl sucks" "Brawl is slow" and so forth. Thanks man.

 

[Blue Warrior]

See that's what you need to understand, it's the player not the game

No, it's both, and there's good reason why they do it. It is unfavorable for Metaknight to approach Iceclimbers, yet he has to eventually, and just getting a % lead permits him to fly away the rest of the match. When the game mechanics promote stalling, this translates into top level play.

And please tell me how M2K and Vinnie pussyfooting for half of Loser Finals was "okay", because that has to be one of the most boring things I've ever seen in competitive Smash.

 

[N.T.A.O ChangeOfHeart 死の剣]

No, it's both, and there's good reason why they do it. It is unfavorable for Metaknight to approach Iceclimbers, yet he has to eventually, and just getting a % lead permits him to fly away the rest of the match. When the game mechanics promote stalling, this translates into top level play.

And please tell me how M2K and Vinnie *****footing for half of Loser Finals was "okay", because that has to be one of the most boring things I've ever seen in competitive Smash.

Once more, that was HIS choosing or in this case THEIR case. Not other players would play the same. You keep missing the point that it's there choice to play that way oh and more proof that Ice Climbers are the best character. MK was frightened to even approach in general towards mechanics and so forth.

Smash-4 is different, everything is nerf-ed which means no shield stun, rolls are safe and so forth. So it's a big difference. Thanks.

 

[Blue Warrior]

Once more, that was HIS choosing or in this case THEIR case. Not other players would play the same. You keep missing the point that it's there choice to play that way

M2K and Vinnie chose to play the way they did because in their minds, that was the winning strategy. Considering they're some of the absolute best players, I would not doubt their judgment.

Here's what I think you don't understand: the speed of the game doesn't depend on TECHNICALLY how fast or slow it's able to become. It's based on what's a realistic game plan that has a good chance of success, against other players that are playing to win.

I could be playing with a robot and we could be doing one of those TASs that you linked to in the first post. Or we could just be sitting around doing nothing. We could be fighting using nothing but jabs and footstools. Just because the game can be played that way doesn't mean that this is what you will actually see. And I'm sure you wouldn't disagree, because trying to win with just jabs and footstools would be a garbage strategy. Optimal strategies are the strongest influence to competitive game flow.

This is pretty much where I have to reiterate my opening comments on the thread, and say that Brawl is slow, and linking to a TAS doesn't change anything.

 

[ThePuffDaddy]

My least favorite thing is when someone is praising Smash 4 and then starts trashing Brawl for being slow and having no hitstun. WTF? Smash 4 isnt that much faster than Brawl and hell the hitstun might even be worse in Smash 4. Too many people like to trash on Brawl soley on the fact on what other people say, but then say Smash 4 is a much more competitve game. Keep in mind i love both of these games, however. It's just a weird thing i see.

 

[N.T.A.O ChangeOfHeart 死の剣]

M2K and Vinnie chose to play the way they did because in their minds, that was the winning strategy. Considering they're some of the absolute best players, I would not doubt their judgment.

Here's what I think you don't understand: the speed of the game doesn't depend on TECHNICALLY how fast or slow it's able to become. It's based on what's a realistic game plan that has a good chance of success, against other players that are playing to win.

I could be playing with a robot and we could be doing one of those TASs that you linked to in the first post. Or we could just be sitting around doing nothing. We could be fighting using nothing but jabs and footstools. Just because the game can be played that way doesn't mean that this is what you will actually see. And I'm sure you wouldn't disagree, because trying to win with just jabs and footstools would be a garbage strategy. Optimal strategies are the strongest influence to competitive game flow.

This is pretty much where I have to reiterate my opening comments on the thread, and say that Brawl is slow, and linking to a TAS doesn't change anything.

Well, I hope you realize that's how to play a Smash game to begin with "strategy" heck that's all games including Melee which could be played like that or ANY GAME. But some Luke Europe do not feel like camping which is their choice, they can choose to slow play or fast play Brawl or any game which you must fathom.

You can design anything to be designed to preform that task;however, mankind are the masters to object what those certain entities are designed to be. You understand? No? The creator of Smash may have made Brawl the way it is "seemed" to become, but people like myself object and change the interface of how Brawl is seemed to become. Now go watch 9B man so you can understand the difference of one's personal preference. Thanks.

@ ThePuffDaddy

You are absolutely and ultimately correct, you can play Smash-4 but don't compare it better or "Melee" material. Like I wrote before man, Smash-4 is a wannabe Melee that will never be like Melee. And Smash-4 trash talk is pathetic to view they can't back it up. But for Melee it's true, that's why, I agree Melee is the fastest and most technical game in the Smash series. But some Melee players need to hush about Brawl "bad" or "slow" it's fine, Melee is just super fast (over the top).

 

[Blue Warrior]

Well, I hope you realize that's how to play a Smash game to begin with "strategy" heck that's all games including Melee which could be played like that or ANY GAME. But some Luke Europe do not feel like camping which is their choice, they can choose to slow play or fast play Brawl or any game which you must fathom.

Never. Ever. Ever, should you be in a situation where your thought process is "Hm, I think I'm going to not do anything for the next six minutes unless the other guy approaches me". I haven't seen one game in Melee or 4 where both players found it optimal to not attack each other at the start of the match for two minutes straight, just because they didn't want to lose a % lead when the game eventually times out.... Whereas either player deciding to go "fast" could have gotten themselves killed in Brawl.

The reason why Brawl is hated is exactly because of matches like this, where players are pressured to not approach for several minutes straight until the game actively forces them to. Show me just one Melee or 4 match that is just as bad or worse than that.

You can design anything to be designed to preform that task;however, mankind are the masters to object what those certain entities are designed to be. You understand? No? The creator of Smash may have made Brawl the way it is "seemed" to become, but people like myself object and change the interface of how Brawl is seemed to become. Now go watch 9B man so you can understand the difference of one's personal preference. Thanks.

I didn't understand much of this paragraph (is English your first language?), but if you want me to watch 9B, link to the footage you're thinking of instead of asking me to fish around for it. Thanks.

You are absolutely and ultimately correct, you can play Smash-4 but don't compare it better or "Melee" material. Like I wrote before man, Smash-4 is a wannabe Melee that will never be like Melee. And Smash-4 trash talk is pathetic to view they can't back it up. But for Melee it's true, that's why, I agree Melee is the fastest and most technical game in the Smash series. But some Melee players need to hush about Brawl "bad" or "slow" it's fine, Melee is just super fast (over the top).

Smash 4 and Melee are two completely different games lol. 4 is not twitch-skill heavy, but that was never the point. What makes Smash 4 competitively respectable is its attention to balance, strategy, and gameplay diversity. Even the slowest of 4 matches are always going somewhere, unlike MK vs IC.

 

[PK Illuminati]

So it's like this, "Brawl is slow" why? "Because it's slow". Or let's write that "Brawl's better" "you trip in that game". So basically people have bs excuses and know Brawl is better or different?. So here's where I get confused, so if Brawl is slow and "bad" then why do SO many people put their time and energy into that game in the past, heck, I'll even write the tutorials are more than Smash-4 Melee combined. The admiration was there, people found out SO MUCH useful techniques and diversity that honestly not even Melee had. Now hold on "fan-boys" I didn't imply it was "better" I simply implied that it had more "diversity" as in? Brought people to the competitive world, changing the tier list more than Melee, and 64 ever has. Okay you get the point there and you're bored move on. Okay. "Slow" the game is "slow" how? An example of this "slow" theory many give sanctuary in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMuCAl_Mkvs

Yes it's a "TAS" I had to use this since the other video I wanted to show has been deleted for a reason I don't know of. In general by looking at the game it doesn't seem that slow huh? You can view nothing but technicalities and interesting Di and techs, huh? Well that's Brawl and yes, even the Snake vs MK mu has the same technicalities but decreased which is the key word "all" need to admire not "slow" but in some cases "low paced AT TIMES".

So what Brawl has is this:

DI

SDI

TDI

Special designed technical character specifics

Online play

Competitiveness

Diversity

Hacking

So on.

So Brawl honestly is nothing but an amazing game, the interface may look simple, but the game is honestly quite technical and is the closet game to Melee to be designed with technical play and technicality (not including mods but the game in general).

What I feel impacted me about Brawl was the diversity as in "nothing stays the same" the way people thought of ZSS was changed by a certain individual, by the way people thought of DK was changed by a certain individual, by the way people thought Peach was changed by as well by a certain individual, and people thought MK was near "invisible" only to find out that people broke through the barrier and showed MK wasn't that invisible and he can be beaten and badly, nothing stays the same. The evolution of Brawl changes and it will continue to change, the game was made to exceed over the limit. Yes yes "Wave dash" I'm aware of that certain glitch that was found by a person not the game just like Snake's Motor Slide and was used just like Wave dashing. "Tripping" yes that's a problem, but I don't view how that will make a game "bad" that honestly just throws a chance card in there not a troublesome entity but pure luck. This problem can be disinterested with a code hack just to let you know. Hey Nintendo changes Smash-4, why not Brawl, fix the few problems about the game without changing the game completely like PM which I have nothing against.

To summarize, the game isn't "bad" nor "slow" the game is quite fast paced and has SO MUCH technicalities, diversity that this game could never get out of date neither is Melee so hush about that, any game that stays true to itself for years and years like Marvel vs Capcom 2 deserves to live on immorality. And finally the game was and is the closet entity towards technicality and diversity Melee wise. So do you agree or do you all have your own plot twists? Sigh of course Smash-4 players will mention their game yet that isn't the topic. Once more the topic is "Why do people keep thinking Brawl is slow and bad, is this true or not?" Give your claims as to why you feel this way. Thanks.

are u seriously saying brawl is fast becuse of platform canceled aerials and edge cancels? pls

 

[FrankTheStud]

So we're comparing a modded version of Brawl that has two mostly melee/aggressive characters/players (Wario and Snake) to a Sm4sh match where there are two naturally defensive characters/players and seeing which one is faster? I'll only look at the first round, as I don't have an hour to watch all of both at the moment.
The aggressive Brawl game took around the same amount of time as the defensive Sm4sh game. (4 mins 15 sec. vs 4 mins 40 sec.) Granted Brawl had one extra stock, K.O. percentages also differ (Megaman at 150%, Snake at 115% upon final stocks, Megaman still could have pushed longer if he didn't whiff his double jump. Wario ended the game at 150%, and he's considered heavy, while Megaman in Sm4sh isn't.) So, from observing both games on their first round, an aggressive Brawl game takes up just as much time as a defensive Sm4sh game when played with "tournament rules" (3 stock Brawl, 2 stock Sm4sh--As we already accomplished earlier, it's harder to die in Sm4sh). While I personally think there is no such thing as a bad Smash game, and that all have different ways of playing and different things to master, saying that Brawl is faster than Sm4sh by comparing an aggressive game to a defensive game isn't quite fair, and it actually works against you for your Brawl argument. Brawl's engine is naturally slower paced, and while that doesn't mean it still can't be exciting on a match-by-match basis, when an aggressive match is just as slow as another games defensive match, there's an issue. I say this because defensive matches are usually not fun to watch in Sm4sh, as they take a long time to finish--Because of that, it could be said that Brawl's offensive matches boring to watch as well, because they take around the same amount of time as Sm4sh's defensive matches.

 

[Sucumbio]

I'd suggest actually playing smash 4 for a few days before assuming it's slower. Just watching videos won't tell you anything useful. Frame data from both games proves that smash4 allows for more options per second than brawl overall. Smash 4s roster includes a wide variety of rush down chrs, defensive chrs, combo happy chrs, etc. But in the end the only way to understand is to literally play them both. Try smash4 for a week, then on the 7tn day, play for an hour straight of smash4 then play vanilla brawl. You'll think your controller is broken.

 

[Purin a.k.a. José]

The game as a whole it's not bad, I would even say it's better than Melee in many things. But, the gameplay is just not the "core"; it's much slower-paced. The slow speed could be less than a problem if tripping wasn't random and Meta Knight wasn't what we knew...

I loved Brawl. But, I don't know if I can ever come back to play it, even at Special Brawl.

 

[NGUY (guitarstage)]

brawl is still played because of PM and emulators

 

[CSWooly]

I think that Melee isn't exactly much better. Melee has 100-0 matchups with some characters, a much more easily abusable infinite, and an incredibly overcentralising character in Fox. When the best mains for a character (like Armada or Hax) drop that character in order to play Fox just so they have a chance of winning, you have a balance problem.

 

[PK Illuminati]

I think that Melee isn't exactly much better. Melee has 100-0 matchups with some characters, a much more easily abusable infinite, and an incredibly overcentralising character in Fox. When the best mains for a character (like Armada or Hax) drop that character in order to play Fox just so they have a chance of winning, you have a balance problem.

Meta Knight in Brawl is more broken than Fox in Melee
I'd say if you don't play top 6, you probably arent going to see you're full capabilities in that game. But atleas't it doesn't have tripping lmaooooo.

 

[Blue Warrior]

Melee's balance isn't perfect, but the primary difference between Fox and Metaknight is the technical skill required to play each character. Fox's top tier placement is easier to justify due to his skill curve, and it's less centralizing due to the fact that characters like Falco and Shiek have been known to trail very close behind him for several years straight.