Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
As someone who started out on Brawl, I do not at all think the Smash Brothers was an "anti-Brawl crusade." They did not go into production thinking, "Okay guys, we're totally going to take down Brawl with this documentary." It was meant to give insight into how the Smash community came to be, and what it was like at the time, and the fact is that at that time a lot of the major Melee players resented Brawl because it wasn't the same as Melee.
Indeed, the way I see it Melee is fine at 4 stocks [PM isn't and should be at 3 stocks imo] and Brawl should be at 2. As far as Smash 4 is concerned, all announcements hint towards Smash being somewhere between Brawl and Melee in terms of pace, so I think Melee should stay at 4 stocks, PM and Smash 4 should be at 3 stocks [9 Minutes] and Brawl should be at 2 stocks 6 minutes.
It wasn't objective, you only had random biased uninformed statements about Brawl 2008 metagame and no mention about how the new game sparked a lot of interest for the SMASH BROTHERS tournament scene(isn't that what the documentary about). Melee players being salty about their game getting the back seat is just a detail that should have never been blown into proportion like this. If you want to continue playing Melee fine, but don't do it to the detriment of Brawl. It basically had no support at all during all of it's life, a lot of the old school players were busy writing essays at forums about how Brawl metagame will have a "backwards evolution" and whatnot(which isn't even true) but Brawl still managed to be successful despite that. Now it isn't as successful simply because Melee did something that got the general gaming media on it, not only the Smash community.
That's out of line, man. You can say whatever the heck you want about Brawl as a game, but insulting the people who play it is not cool on any level. That's a whole lot of people you're putting down, and you're not a better person just because you don't like their game.
Some characters recieve notable consistency that they lack in the normal ruleset for brawl. Lucario doesn't receive a stock-differential aura boost, Olimar doesn't have to respawn and pluck a new pikmin herd, Squirtle, Ivysaur, and Charizard are actual choices and don't suffer stamina now, Zero Suit Samus keeps her armor pieces for the duration of the match, and Wario gets a more consistent number of wafts.
The best thing that could happen to the Brawl community would be:
Eh. Sometimes I feel like being out of line. I'll acknowledge that it's rude to put down an entire group of people without knowing them even slightly, but they're clinging to a dying game and this format is just evidence of the death of brawl.
Setting aside your detachment from the game, you've been one of the unnecessarily biggest outspoken critics of Brawl lately and frequently recommend that the community just let the game die until smash 4. Maybe you stopped doing that, but Im not sure if this is an olive branch or another knock based on how this was written.
No...the documentary made absolutely no distinction between melee players and smashers. When I talk to new peeps who've seen it theyre surprised competitive Brawl even exists. Wont say it was intentional but it was poorly done.
That's because Melee players don't see us as part of their community. They see us traitors, LOL
Doesn't matter. The point should be entirely up to the TO's discretion [and the community he represents] and nobody else's. A universal, "statutory" MK ban is a ******** idea, has been a ******** idea and will always be a ******** idea.
More like, they consider us lower life-forms.
This article was meant to be entirely neutral and not to push any agenda except for the concept of #oneunit.
Obviously, to them Brawl isn't inferior. Just because it is to you or whatever statistics you tout does not mean it is for everyone, everywhere. People have different priorities for gameplay, and it is quite apparent that theirs are a world or two away from yours. That doesn't mean they are wrong or you are wrong, it just means you have different opinions. These kinds of things are a matter of perspective, just like basically everything else in the world.
Concerning that smashers at large also express qualms for Brawl as a competitive game, no, it isn't biased. It's an accurate representation of how Melee and the smash scene at large felt when Brawl was released. It is saying what happened: People left the scene, the community was split, and many players did not enjoy Brawl's gameplay. These are all factual things that occurred.
Well thats fine. I admit I read this with a tint based on previous things
Wrong. Stop trying to justify it rofl, even people in the documentary who made comments said it wasnt right after.
That's not a legit defense. If Cassio's accusation is that Omni is traditionally biased against Brawl then it's not enough to point fingers at others with the assumption that they'd be just as biased. I do not doubt that Doom or TO Joe would be naturally prone to write a biased article on the whole subject but that doesn't defend Omni in any way. He did defend himself quite solidly by pointing out his contributions for the community though.
Yeah you have a point.That's not a legit defense. If Cassio's accusation is that Omni is traditionally biased against Brawl then it's not enough to point fingers at others with the assumption that they'd be just as biased. I do not doubt that Doom or TO Joe would be naturally prone to write a biased article on the whole subject but that doesn't defend Omni in any way. He did defend himself quite solidly by pointing out his contributions for the community though.
If the concern is that the novelty of 1-stock matches will wear thin of its appeal from the spectator's standpoint, at the very least it should be acknowledged that the format leads to faster sets that end around consistent times in a tournament setting. It may very well fall back to the same situation with the same metagame with no core change to the game itself, which is fine. In that scenario there are strictly advantages to the format over the old ways.
This part, however, is a little odd. Just because more people like something or that it has broad appeal should not influence how you feel about the setup. "I don't like the 1-stock format because it causes a change in how Zero Suit Samus's metagame exists" is an arguable position and acceptable opinion. "I don't like the 1-stock format because it isn't popular or liked by the community" is not.
This thread smells like brawl kids.
