Brawl is the best Smash game.

[Louis Tursi]

DISCLAIMER: This is a note to all smashers--competitive and casual.
Just a quick warning beforehand, this post states my opinion/thoughts and is a comparison between strictly Melee and Brawl, and why I believe, that Brawl is the superior game to Melee. So should you read this, if you intend on writing your own thoughts afterward, please keep the comparison between only these two games. I do apologize though if the title of this topic came off as misleading.
If you're still reading this, I think you get the idea, and look forward to hearing your feedback!

First of all, let me start by saying I am a competitive Melee player. I also really like Brawl, even though its gameplay and mechanics weren't like Melee's (or at least what the fans wished it was), because it's still a great game overall.

I believe Melee is better than Brawl in a few aspects, including gameplay. And yes, I'm aware that gameplay is a HUGE factor when it comes to rating a game, but some treat it so much so to the point where it's all that matters. But I think the overall, more polished, whole package that Brawl offers, such as more unlockables, challenges, game modes, characters, stages, better graphics, more options in the ruleset menu, etc. simply trumps Melee.

If Brawl was what it was back at its release but didn't have as flawed of a game engine (as it's described by the competitive community), Melee would be where Brawl stands today: not nearly as popular as Melee is in the Smash community. Sure, people would still come back to play it here and there, but let's be honest, you'd see Brawl get a lot more praise, probably as much as Melee today. Why? Because Brawl is a better game, especially for casual players too! It had literally everything Melee had (minus removing some stages and characters, mostly clones to be specific), and expanded on it immensely! With general graphical improvements, incredible new game modes such as the Subspace Emissary and new event matches, new methods to gather trophies, new items, stages, characters, a freaking stage builder, the ability to play online for free with your friends or anyone around the globe, and the list goes on and on...

Brawl is being turned down solely because of it's less competitive gameplay. It's the same thing as turning down Wind Waker because of its "cartoony" graphics -- you're missing out on a fantastic game that deserves much more praise, whether you're a hardcore gamer or not! Not trying to toot my horn, but I've made it pretty far into the competitive smash community for both Melee and Brawl, and can genuinely say yes, Melee is more fun to play because of its faster pace, but to casual gamers (which may I add 90% of the gaming community is made up of when compared to the competitive Melee community), it's clearly a far more superior game!

At the end of the day, in summary, when a game is a much more versatile, capable, less restrictive, overall gaming experience than its predecessor, I would call that the more superior game. Competitive Melee players just call Brawl a bad game because it's not fast like Melee. Just because it has different physics, doesn't mean it's terrible. This is just my opinion, but ironically despite me being a proud Melee competitor, I just wanted to give Brawl a little bit of a boost for it not getting the admiration it deserves from the fans.

What are your thoughts? Do you agree/disagree? Why? I'd love to hear what others think/have to say.

 

[TheCandyman]

You people are turning Brawl down solely because of it's gameplay. It's the same thing as turning down Wind Waker because of its graphics

This is just wrong. Gameplay and graphics are 2 completely different things, graphics are just an aesthetic and gameplay is how the game actual plays. Take your example of Wind Waker: Wind Waker had an odd art style at the time and was turned down. Brawl had slow gameplay and was then turned down.
How a game plays is a completely different thing than what it looks like. Super Mario Bros 3 for example looks awful nowadays (but nostalgia will say otherwise) but the game also had some of the tightest gameplay of a 2D platformer.

 

[Louis Tursi]

This is just wrong. Gameplay and graphics are 2 completely different things, graphics are just an aesthetic and gameplay is how the game actual plays. Take your example of Wind Waker: Wind Waker had an odd art style at the time and was turned down. Brawl had slow gameplay and was then turned down.
How a game plays is a completely different thing than what it looks like.

I am aware of this. However, the point being that Wind Waker's graphics to some people was a bad aspect of it, so bad that people turned it down. Same thing with Brawl: its bad aspect may have not been graphics (bc in this case it was gameplay), but the same thing happened to it.

 

[TheCandyman]

I am aware of this. However, the point being that Wind Waker's graphics to some people was a bad aspect of it, so bad that people turned it down. Same thing with Brawl: its bad aspect may have not been graphics (bc in this case it was gameplay), but the same thing happened to it.

But that's the problem with that specific argument. Gameplay is far more important than graphics and even if it's the prettiest game in the world, if the gameplay is **** then the game is **** which does not work both ways.

 

[Louis Tursi]

But that's the problem with that specific argument. Gameplay is far more important than graphics and even if it's the prettiest game in the world, if the gameplay is **** then the game is **** which does not work both ways.

But the point I'm making is that

to casual gamers (which may I add 90% of the gaming community is made up of), it's clearly a far more superior game

because they don't care about how fast-paced the game is when it comes to games like Smash. And as for competitive players (being one myself), as I've said, I personally like to look at the realistic side of things, and in this case, Brawl is a better game overall. Yes, I understand gameplay is what makes a game, but I'm basically just trying to cut Brawl some slack for giving the player more options, game modes, and general things to do for their amusement, which I would assume everyone was expecting considering it outsold Melee.

 

[TheCandyman]

Oh okay well that makes a lot more sense. Sorry if I came off a bit abrasive, but I do agree with to complete casuals brawl is better just like Sm4sh is better than that. JonTron explains what you're saying the best in his overrated games video. Smash games will only get better because of new modes, and new characters.

 

[LovinMitts]

So I don't know if you know about this, but there's a little key on your keyboard that says 'tab' and it breaks up your walls of text into handy paragraphs. Neat-o right?

 

[Blue Warrior]

(Also, please refrain from bringing up Smash 4; I know it exists, but that's not what I'm here to talk about. Thank you.)

Kinda hard to do that when your topic involves Smash 4 being worse than Brawl!!

Generally, there isn't exactly any "best" Smash Bros. game.

You've just contradicted your title. Either be absolute about it or don't.

However, if Brawl was what it was back at its release but had Melee's engine, Melee would be where Brawl stands today: not nearly as popular in the Smash community. Sure, people would still come back to play it here and there, but let's be honest, you'd be seeing Brawl in a lot more tournaments, probably as much as you'd see Melee today. Why? Because Brawl is a better game, especially for casual players too! It had literally everything Melee had (minus removing some stages and characters), and expanded on it immensely! With general graphical improvements, incredible new game modes such as the Subspace Emissary and new event matches, new methods to gather trophies, new items, stages, characters, a freaking stage builder, the ability to play online for free with your friends or anyone around the globe, and the list goes on and on...

Many of these features were botched. The stage builder was very clunky and needlessly limited in how you could place stuff or how much of it you could place, and the gimmick items available generally were impractical to making actually good stages. In 4, a lot of those gimmicks are gone, but what's there works a lot better.

Subspace Emissary likewise was bad execution of a good idea. Adventure Mode is consistently a pretty satisfying gameplay experience for me, because it's a short mode that provides varied gameplay between familiar stages as a character of your choosing. SSE, on the other hand, feels padded out and restrictive, forcing the player into one of two-to-four characters in two hours worth of fairly standard combat and platforming with nonmemorable stage theming. To add insult to injury, it forces you to play through basically the entire thing twice in order to beat the campaign. It would have been much better if it was handled a little like Adventure Mode, yet instead of you choosing one character to go through a predetermined stage list, what you choose determines the twenty minutes worth of stages and story bits you get to see. And, it should have had more themed environments and enemies from other games. Stripping the adventure mode of so many different kinds of videogame environments and enemies caused the mode to lose a lot of its personality.

I despise Brawl's sense of aesthetic. Sure, the graphical fidelity is at least twice the Gamecube's, but many of the environments are all one solid color, characters are unsaturated and blend in with the background... it's a chore to figure out what's going on in a free-for-all at times. In every other Smash game, the character models pop out, which makes it easy to figure out where you are at any given moment, even when chaos is happening onscreen.

Online was terrible and I played maybe thirty matches ever on it before avoiding it entirely. Smash 4 online, on the other hand, I have played MORE than I have offline, and with consistently pretty good results.

You people are turning Brawl down solely because of it's gameplay.

This boils down your entire argument. "The more features the sequel adds, the better." Obviously, I disagree with this, because new features are not worth much if they are shoddily implemented, and all it does is make the overall package feel less graceful. But not only does Brawl have a problem with poorly implemented feature creep, the core itself is messy. Characters are imbalanced, infinite exploits are galore, tripping is stupid....

And that's not to say that Brawl is a bad game overall, it's still better than lots of other AAA titles... but to say that it's the best? I don't know about you, but I judge a game by the quality of its content, not the quantity. Smash Bros. 64 is a great game; It doesn't have a hell of a lot, but what it does have works well. And I guess we are turning down Brawl because of its gameplay, but that's an extremely good reason to turn down any videogame. If you want to overlook bad gameplay... maybe watch a movie?

 

[MOI-ARI]

I just found my long lost Brawl disc the other day so played it for abit.

The game is not bad at all. I never cared for the dumb 'hate' it got. It makes me sad to see it kinda fading into nothing because of it. The game got me into competitive Smash. I can't say its my favorite one however for a few obvious reasons. But im starting a local scene and im trying to see if i can get enough people for Brawl. But seems unlikely as of now. But i hope soon people will ask for it :/

I like the game and i like the people who play it in general. I look back at this game very fondly i can assure you of that^^ People who criticize such an opinion that favors Brawl can suck on a lemon.

 

[Reila]

It is not the best for me, but I definitely put it above Melee. Better roster, more content (music, stages, etc), better visuals, less exploits, etc.

(64 is hors concours, no point in comparing it to others).

 

[Louis Tursi]

Kinda hard to do that when your topic involves Smash 4 being worse than Brawl!!

I'm saying, pretend the game doesn't exist for a second. It's still VERY new.

You've just contradicted your title. Either be absolute about it or don't.

If you read the entire post, you would know I am absolute about it. Did you disregard the fact that I said each game has it's own category of "best"? It's an opinion! And I am simply stating why Brawl is the best in mine.
No need to get miffed.

Many of these features were botched. The stage builder was very clunky and needlessly limited in how you could place stuff or how much of it you could place, and the gimmick items available generally were impractical to making actually good stages.

Personally, I don't see what's clunky about it whatsoever. Sure, maybe it's outdated now, but in 2008, not so much. And even today it's pretty cool; a stage builder in Smash Bros.? That's awesome! Show some respect instead of nothing but complaints; at least you have a stage builder. If you were complaining as much as you are now about it a couple years ago, you may not even have a stage builder in Smash 4.

In 4, a lot of those gimmicks are gone, but what's there works a lot better.

Like I said, refrain from bringing up Smash 4, because that's not what I want to talk about here. If you cannot do that or is hard to do, then don't say anything at all.
(Yes, I know I mentioned it in the last statement, but only so it could appeal to you since you clearly like that game for what it is.)

Subspace Emissary likewise was bad execution of a good idea. Adventure Mode is consistently a pretty satisfying gameplay experience for me, because it's a short mode that provides varied gameplay between familiar stages as a character of your choosing. SSE, on the other hand, feels padded out and restrictive, forcing the player into one of two-to-four characters in two hours worth of fairly standard combat and platforming with nonmemorable stage theming. To add insult to injury, it forces you to play through basically the entire thing twice in order to beat the campaign. It would have been much better if it was handled a little like Adventure Mode, yet instead of you choosing one character to go through a predetermined stage list, what you choose determines the twenty minutes worth of stages and story bits you get to see. And, it should have had more themed environments and enemies from other games. Stripping the adventure mode of so many different kinds of videogame environments and enemies caused the mode to lose a lot of its personality.

I despise Brawl's sense of aesthetic. Sure, the graphical fidelity is at least twice the Gamecube's, but many of the environments are all one solid color, characters are unsaturated and blend in with the background... it's a chore to figure out what's going on in a free-for-all at times. In every other Smash game, the character models pop out, which makes it easy to figure out where you are at any given moment, even when chaos is happening onscreen.

Online was terrible and I played maybe thirty matches ever on it before avoiding it entirely. Smash 4 online, on the other hand, I have played MORE than I have offline, and with consistently pretty good results.

You can have your opinion, I'm fine with that, but to me, it seems like your just finding any reason you can to hate Brawl...I don't know if it's just because it wasn't Melee 2.0, but honestly, look at it. This isn't the Philips CD-i, this is a game that outsold Melee with 870k units sold at launch, and nearly 13 million sold to this day. I don't think the game is as bad as you say it is...
I'm not saying that because it's not Melee 2.0 is the reason for this, because I don't know, but I can't think of any other reason.

I guess we are turning down Brawl because of its gameplay, but that's an extremely good reason to turn down any videogame.

When I say this, keep in mind that I am a competitve Melee player, gameplay being the reason I like Melee. However, fast-paced technical gameplay is not what Sakuri even intended the game to be, so in the eyes of the actual creator of this franchise, I think the gameplay was just fine, even compared to Melee.

If you want to overlook bad gameplay... maybe watch a movie?

Try telling that to yourself.

 

[Blue Warrior]

I'm saying, pretend the game doesn't exist for a second. It's still VERY new.

Not... really?? From a competitive standpoint, sure. But we already know how single player works, the stage builder, the general mechanics and so on -- I mean the game's been out for almost a year. Why is it so bad to refer to 4, but not Melee?

If you read the entire post, you would know I am absolute about it. Did you disregard the fact that I said each game has it's own category of "best"? It's an opinion! And I am simply stating why Brawl is the best in mine.
No need to get miffed.

I was 'miffed' because your title isn't structured like an opinion; you said right there that "Brawl is the best Smash game". It's practically clickbait :V

From the tone of your presentation you seem to have already acknowledged it isn't necessarily the "best", but rather that it's your favorite. There's nothing wrong with favoring certain Smash games over others. But if you want to say that something is objectively better than the others, that's a viewpoint you should be ready to defend.

Personally, I don't see what's clunky about it whatsoever. Sure, maybe it's outdated now, but in 2008, not so much. And even today it's pretty cool; a stage builder in Smash Bros.? That's awesome! Show some respect instead of nothing but complaints; at least you have a stage builder. If you were complaining as much as you are now about it a couple years ago, you may not even have a stage builder in Smash 4.

The reasons it's clunky are because

1) it has an arbitrary weight limit to stages, when hacked stages show that you can clearly set more without the game having problems.
2) the "scenery" items force a full block of space to the sides and tops of them, rendering them virtually useless.
3) Some gimmicks are useful situationally, but have kind of sloppy implementation. Ex. spikes having static knockback, leading to goofy "you can't sit in this spot, but technically you can because you won't get launched" gameplay, when scaled knockback would make much more sense
4) No wii remote support, even though that would have been intuitive (if not expected) and sped up the stage building process immensely

And I WAS complaining about the stage builder not long after it came out. Lots of level editors gave you more freedom than what Brawl offered, so making something that isn't half-assed shouldn't have been asking for much. What we have now in Smash 4 is a stage builder that's more flexible and has less broken gimmicks. Which isn't to say it's perfect either, but vector-based stage building is pretty novel, and the package as a whole feels less clumsy thanks to it having less restrictions and broken... stuff.

You can have your opinion, I'm fine with that, but to me, it seems like your just finding any reason you can to hate Brawl...I don't know it's just because it wasn't Melee 2.0, but honestly, look at it. This isn't the Philips CD-i, this is a game that outsold Melee with 870k units sold at launch, and nearly 13 million sold to this day. I don't think the game is as bad as you say it is...
I'm not saying that because it's not Melee 2.0 is the reason for this, because I don't know, but I can't think of any other reason.

Well, actually I do hate Brawl, but I acknowledge that it's a good game on its own merits. More to the point though, am I wrong? You haven't actually addressed anything I've said about SSE or online or even the aesthetic. Keep in mind that I don't have anything against how you prefer to spend your Saturday evenings, I'm just challenging your original assertion that Brawl is the best SSB game.

 

[Meek_]

ehh, your reasons for preferring brawl are pretty shallow, imo. even from a casual standpoint, melee was pretty great, especially the music.

i think you are definitely a casual type of player (but there's nothing wrong with that) so i dont think you respect competitive players reasons for disliking brawl to begin with

 

[Diabolical]

Tripping and hitstun canceling made Brawl just suck so much

 

[Louis Tursi]

ehh, your reasons for preferring brawl are pretty shallow, imo. even from a casual standpoint, melee was pretty great, especially the music.

i think you are definitely a casual type of player (but there's nothing wrong with that) so i dont think you respect competitive players reasons for disliking brawl to begin with

I guess I forgot to specify that I have gone to and won Melee tournaments here and there, so I don't think that deems me "casual" if you ask me. Trust me, I wouldn't say I am a professional/competitive player (meaning I know tech-skill, advanced techniques, and how to perform and use other exploits) without knowing.
Thanks for sharing your opinion though, I appreciate it!

 

[Diabolical]

I guess I forgot to specify that I have gone too and won Melee tournaments here and there, so I don't think that deems me "casual" if you ask me. Trust me, I wouldn't say I am a professional/competitive player (meaning I know tech-skill, advanced techniques, and how to perform and use other exploits) without knowing.
Thanks for sharing your opinion though, I appreciate it!

You just said nothing but showed how naive you are. In simple words you basically said "I don't suck....but I really do suck" which beyond the stupidity of you not realising how pathetic you sound, also shows you not actually responding to fundamentally of what he said. He said your reasons are all shallow, which they are.
For example; there are many reasons why Melee is a much better game than Project M so even if Brawl was Melee 2.0, Melee might still be the most popular choice (as it is today) because of these small but fundamental differences. The reasons why people like Melee are not shallow, they are very deep and specific and you can't generalise such a complex subject

 

[Louis Tursi]

You just said nothing but showed how naive you are. In simple words you basically said "I don't suck....but I really do suck" which beyond the stupidity of you not realising how pathetic you sound, also shows you not actually responding to fundamentally of what he said. He said your reasons are all shallow, which they are.
For example; there are many reasons why Melee is a much better game than Project M so even if Brawl was Melee 2.0, Melee might still be the most popular choice (as it is today) because of these small but fundamental differences. The reasons why people like Melee are not shallow, they are very deep and specific and you can't generalise such a complex subject

No it's not and yes I can. In my opinion, it was better than Melee. I ain't taking that back. People like Melee because its the fastest, but only if you're a pro player. And guess what, not all of us are. Shame, isn't it?

 

[CreAtor135]

You just said nothing but showed how naive you are. In simple words you basically said "I don't suck....but I really do suck" which beyond the stupidity of you not realising how pathetic you sound, also shows you not actually responding to fundamentally of what he said. He said your reasons are all shallow, which they are.
For example; there are many reasons why Melee is a much better game than Project M so even if Brawl was Melee 2.0, Melee might still be the most popular choice (as it is today) because of these small but fundamental differences. The reasons why people like Melee are not shallow, they are very deep and specific and you can't generalise such a complex subject

Woah no need to be rude, guy. This is supposed to be a respected and general discussion. Don't call people out like that, that's just unethical.
And also, what he was trying to say is that he's a good smash player, but he's not amongst the best.
And one last thing, the Melee scene was dying. If not for Brawl's lack of competitiveness, the Melee scene would've dies off, then the Brawl scene would be on top and eventually fizzle out itself.
I do respect your opinion, however, and everyone is obligated to one.

 

[PK Illuminati]

no im sorry gameplay > aesthetic
please try to make this game competitive with how slow it was and how tripping

no please

it was bound to die anyway

 

[Diabolical]

Woah no need to be rude, guy. This is supposed to be a respected and general discussion. Don't call people out like that, that's just unethical.
And also, what he was trying to say is that he's a good smash player, but he's not amongst the best.
And one last thing, the Melee scene was dying. If not for Brawl's lack of competitiveness, the Melee scene would've dies off, then the Brawl scene would be on top and eventually fizzle out itself.
I do respect your opinion, however, and everyone is obligated to one.

Melee lasted this long because of itself despite Brawl taking it's spotlight. The same people that played 10 years ago are still playing

 

[Louis Tursi]

Not... really?? From a competitive standpoint, sure. But we already know how single player works, the stage builder, the general mechanics and so on -- I mean the game's been out for almost a year. Why is it so bad to refer to 4, but not Melee?

Because Melee & Brawl are the main focuses here. If you can't settle with that as simple as it is, then leave.

I was 'miffed' because your title isn't structured like an opinion; you said right there that "Brawl is the best Smash game". It's practically clickbait :V

From the tone of your presentation you seem to have already acknowledged it isn't necessarily the "best", but rather that it's your favorite. There's nothing wrong with favoring certain Smash games over others. But if you want to say that something is objectively better than the others, that's a viewpoint you should be ready to defend.

Yes, it is my favorite and the game I respect most out of the Smash series, therefore in my opinion, it is the best one. It doesn't take a genius to know that "better" & "best" are "opinion" words. And quite frankly, either way, I did take the viewpoint I mention. Tell me how I didn't.

The reasons it's clunky are because:

it has an arbitrary weight limit to stages, when hacked stages show that you can clearly set more without the game having problems.

Not eveyone's a hacker.

the "scenery" items force a full block of space to the sides and tops of them, rendering them virtually useless.

Here are some high-rated stages I found...take a quick gander if you will and tell me what you notice about them.
http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Hidden-Stage-Builder-Parts-super-smash-bros-brawl-762922_400_315.jpg
http://oyster.ignimgs.com/franchises/images/01/44/14456_al_080614_2210_normal.jpg

...They seemed to work out just fine.

No wii remote support, even though that would have been intuitive (if not expected) and sped up the stage building process immensely

(Assuming you are referring to the ability to be able to point at the screen with the remote,) this is a very trivial issue. And either way, there are still shortcuts you can take to speed up the process, such as pressing a button to automatically move the cursor over to a location. Examples can include pressing "Z" to get to the placeable items (floors, structures, & features) quicker, and the Start button to get to customization options at the bottom faster (such as the size of blocks, way they're facing, etc.), and with speedy fingers (which I'm sure you especially if anyone have), this in some cases can work faster than using a Wii remote, if you could.
In the long run though, who cares really? Because pushing buttons to navigate the menus and such was so hard?

I WAS complaining about the stage builder not long after it came out. Lots of level editors gave you more freedom than what Brawl offered, so making something that isn't half-***** shouldn't have been asking for much. What we have now in Smash 4 is a stage builder that's more flexible and has less broken gimmicks. Which isn't to say it's perfect either, but vector-based stage building is pretty novel, and the package as a whole feels less clumsy thanks to it having less restrictions and broken... stuff.

I am aware there are better stage builders out there than what Brawl had. But the fact that it was now a feature in a title from one of the best-selling game franchises was pretty damn cool if you ask me!

Well, actually I do hate Brawl, but I acknowledge that it's a good game on its own merits. More to the point though, am I wrong? You haven't actually addressed anything I've said about SSE or online or even the aesthetic.

SSE forces the player into one of two-to-four characters in two hours worth of fairly standard combat and platforming with nonmemorable stage theming.

Well, obviously you're oblivious to the fact that this game mode is an option to unlock all 39 characters in the game.
And Adventure Mode in Melee was pretty short & sweet, I can agree with what you had to say about that, but that didn't have too much memorable stage theming either... Just look at The Great Maze. That pretty much disproves your point on that one as well.

Sure, the graphical fidelity is at least twice the Gamecube's, but many of the environments are all one solid color, characters are unsaturated and blend in with the background...

Get with the times. Nobody should own a TV that isn't capable of adjusting the picture on it. Try bumping up the saturation. And I know what you're thinking... that we "shouldn't have to do that, therefore it's the game's fault". If you're that sensitive about it, then do something about it. Just a suggestion.

it's a chore to figure out what's going on in a free-for-all at times. In every other Smash game, the character models pop out, which makes it easy to figure out where you are at any given moment, even when chaos is happening onscreen.

Well, Nintendo did what they had to do to make the game look the most graphically advanced in the series as possible. I'm sure anyone can agree with that.
...Therefore you're saying that in real life you have a hard time finding/figuring out where your peers are because they're not saturated enough and blend in with the background? lulz.

Online was terrible and I played maybe thirty matches ever on it before avoiding it entirely. Smash 4 online, on the other hand, I have played MORE than I have offline, and with consistently pretty good results.

Sure, Brawl's online wasn't perfect, but it was their first shot at it; no need to be so harsh. And in the end, it was probably YOUR connection's fault that made it as bad as you're making it sound. I'd know, because my online matches have actually been pretty solid if I do say so myself, and if there were lag, it was on my opponent's end 90% of the time.

 

[PK Illuminati]

Because Melee & Brawl are the main focuses here. If you can't settle with that as simple as it is, then leave.


Yes, it is my favorite and the game I respect most out of the Smash series, therefore in my opinion, it is the best one. It doesn't take a genius to know that "better" & "best" are "opinion" words. And quite frankly, either way, I did take the viewpoint I mention. Tell me how I didn't.


Not eveyone's a hacker.


Here are some high-rated stages I found...take a quick gander if you will and tell me what you notice about them.
http://images.fanpop.com/images/ima...rts-super-smash-bros-brawl-762922_400_315.jpg
http://oyster.ignimgs.com/franchises/images/01/44/14456_al_080614_2210_normal.jpg

...They seemed to work out just fine.


(Assuming you are referring to the ability to be able to point at the screen with the remote,) this is a very trivial issue. And either way, there are still shortcuts you can take to speed up the process, such as pressing a button to automatically move the cursor over to a location. Examples can include pressing "Z" to get to the placeable items (floors, structures, & features) quicker, and the Start button to get to customization options at the bottom faster (such as the size of blocks, way they're facing, etc.), and with speedy fingers (which I'm sure you especially if anyone have), this in some cases can work faster than using a Wii remote, if you could.
In the long run though, who cares really? Because pushing buttons to navigate the menus and such was so hard?


I am aware there are better stage builders out there than what Brawl had. But the fact that it was now a feature in a title from one of the best-selling game franchises was pretty damn cool if you ask me!




Well, obviously you're oblivious to the fact that this game mode is an option to unlock all 39 characters in the game.
And Adventure Mode in Melee was pretty short & sweet, I can agree with what you had to say about that, but that didn't have too much memorable stage theming either... Just look at The Great Maze. That pretty much disproves your point on that one as well.


Get with the times. Nobody should own a TV that isn't capable of adjusting the picture on it. Try bumping up the saturation. And I know what you're thinking... that we "shouldn't have to do that, therefore it's the game's fault". If you're that sensitive about it, then do something about it. Just a suggestion.


Well, Nintendo did what they had to do to make the game look the most graphically advanced in the series as possible. I'm sure anyone can agree with that.
...Therefore you're saying that in real life you have a hard time finding/figuring out where your peers are because they're not saturated enough and blend in with the background? lulz.


Sure, Brawl's online wasn't perfect, but it was their first shot at it; no need to be so harsh. And in the end, it was probably YOUR connection's fault that made it as bad as you're making it sound. I'd know, because my online matches have actually been pretty solid if I do say so myself, and if there were lag, it was on my opponent's end 90% of the time.

this is the classic aesthetic vs gameplay arguement

you prefer aesthetic over gameplay,
the subspace emissary, stage design, and alot of actually cool stuff that brawl had

while on the other hand

there are no combos
slow as hell gameplay
pretty much turned off all melee players who wanted to play it by removing L Canceling, wavedashing, and dash dancing
online is the worst thing i have ever seen
meta knight and ice climbers
TRIPPING



but these are all my opinions, so you have the right to believe whatever you want
even though what you believe is ****ing stupid

 

[CSWooly]

The gameplay isn't that slow tbh.
Most matches I play in Brawl take less time than those I play in Melee.

 

[PK Illuminati]

The gameplay isn't that slow tbh.
Most matches I play in Brawl take less time than those I play in Melee.

Tournament consists of slow campy matches that are literally garbo.

 

[Blue Warrior]

Because Melee & Brawl are the main focuses here. If you can't settle with that as simple as it is, then leave.

Okay then. What you've basically done is open up a discussion topic stating your opinions on why Brawl is the best smash game, and you've banned dissenting opinions regarding Smash 4 being better than Brawl, but not Melee being better than Brawl. Forgive me for not complying to this bull**** logic string, but if you want to have a discussion on why Brawl is or isn't the best, I'm not going to forgo mentioning Smash 4 if it helps make my point.

Yes, it is my favorite and the game I respect most out of the Smash series, therefore in my opinion, it is the best one. It doesn't take a genius to know that "better" & "best" are "opinion" words. And quite frankly, either way, I did take the viewpoint I mention. Tell me how I didn't.

"Better" and "best" are only opinion words if you establish them as opinion words. If you leave them by themselves, they are objective by default. This is easier to overlook in casual discussion like in chatrooms (or real life with friends), but on a forum you have plenty of time to articulate your point, so you should take the time to do so.

Not eveyone's a hacker.

...Uh, exactly. Arbitrarily capping the stage size limits creative stage design possibilities for normal users.

Here are some high-rated stages I found...take a quick gander if you will and tell me what you notice about them.
http://images.fanpop.com/images/ima...rts-super-smash-bros-brawl-762922_400_315.jpg
http://oyster.ignimgs.com/franchises/images/01/44/14456_al_080614_2210_normal.jpg

...They seemed to work out just fine.

Just because there are stages that were able to take advantage of them, that doesn't negate the point that the stage design possibilities are limited by the stage blocks' placement restrictions. Also that second one looks like nonsense.

(Assuming you are referring to the ability to be able to point at the screen with the remote,) this is a very trivial issue. And either way, there are still shortcuts you can take to speed up the process, such as pressing a button to automatically move the cursor over to a location. Examples can include pressing "Z" to get to the placeable items (floors, structures, & features) quicker, and the Start button to get to customization options at the bottom faster (such as the size of blocks, way they're facing, etc.), and with speedy fingers (which I'm sure you especially if anyone have), this in some cases can work faster than using a Wii remote, if you could.
In the long run though, who cares really? Because pushing buttons to navigate the menus and such was so hard?

[...]

I am aware there are better stage builders out there than what Brawl had. But the fact that it was now a feature in a title from one of the best-selling game franchises was pretty damn cool if you ask me!

The fact that Brawl even has a stage builder is great, yes. The underlying point I'm trying to drill in here is the lack of polish that went into the feature. 4's trumps Brawl's stage builder simply on the grounds of its design being more practical.

Well, obviously you're oblivious to the fact that this game mode is an option to unlock all 39 characters in the game.

Okay? I have no incentive to play through SSE because it isn't fun; unlocking characters does not change this. In fact, in the past I had to go through a new Wii and unlock everything manually. I hated SSE and went out of my way to unlock every character through traditional means, but in the end, I had to do SSE anyway, because there were like two or three characters that could only be unlocked through that. The option to unlock all the characters that way is great, but being forced to is not.

And Adventure Mode in Melee was pretty short & sweet, I can agree with what you had to say about that, but that didn't have too much memorable stage theming either... Just look at The Great Maze. That pretty much disproves your point on that one as well.

The Great Maze is one of only a few themed levels in the game, and all it is is a compilation of the levels you just played. What is that competing with? Jumping on goombas in the Mushroom Kingdom. Racing the countdown on Brinstar. The F-Zero race. SSE has grass level, secret base level, cloud level -- the first platformer level is LITERALLY just clouds with generic enemies. The best thing that can be said about SSE's theming is that occasionally Mario enemies appear or you fight ROBs. Beyond that, the two games aren't even comparable.

Get with the times. Nobody should own a TV that isn't capable of adjusting the picture on it. Try bumping up the saturation. And I know what you're thinking... that we "shouldn't have to do that, therefore it's the game's fault". If you're that sensitive about it, then do something about it. Just a suggestion.

[...]

Well, Nintendo did what they had to do to make the game look the most graphically advanced in the series as possible. I'm sure anyone can agree with that.
...Therefore you're saying that in real life you have a hard time finding/figuring out where your peers are because they're not saturated enough and blend in with the background? lulz.

Okay, this might seem a little patronizing, but let me explain to you a little bit how game design works.

In videogames, the player has to be able to distinguish all focal gameplay elements at any given moment. In action games, usually they need to be able to do this almost immediately. For that reason, gameplay objects tend to have recognizable silhouettes and high contrast in colors so that they stand out. Dull or muted colors are typically reserved for nonessential gameplay elements, like scenery and backgrounds.

In any medium, it's easy to observe where your character is when everything is standing still. But if you're in an FFA with items on and multiple people just got blasted, it might take a second or two to figure out what each object that got launched is, especially if the characters stand out as much as the environments. Other Smash games don't have this problem as much as Brawl due to their aesthetic design choices.

Your "fix" to my problem is a nonsolution and a deflection of criticism. I could turn up the saturation, but that wouldn't necessarily fix the problem if the backgrounds become brighter as well. Moreover, the viewer shouldn't have to change the TV settings for a single game if it works well everywhere else. All you've done is dismiss my argument by trying to shift the responsibility onto the viewer. It is always the game's responsibility to make sure that the action is easily readable onscreen.

Sure, Brawl's online wasn't perfect, but it was their first shot at it; no need to be so harsh. And in the end, it was probably YOUR connection's fault that made it as bad as you're making it sound. I'd know, because my online matches have actually been pretty solid if I do say so myself, and if there were lag, it was on my opponent's end 90% of the time.

My online matches in Brawl were almost always laggy regardless of who I played, whereas in Mario Kart Wii I had virtually no issues whatsoever. I'd test Smash 4 in the same house for comparison, but I've since moved out.

 

[PK Illuminati]

Okay then. What you've basically done is open up a discussion topic stating your opinions on why Brawl is the best smash game, and you've banned dissenting opinions regarding Smash 4 being better than Brawl, but not Melee being better than Brawl. Forgive me for not complying to this bull**** logic string, but if you want to have a discussion on why Brawl is or isn't the best, I'm not going to forgo mentioning Smash 4 if it helps make my point.



"Better" and "best" are only opinion words if you establish them as opinion words. If you leave them by themselves, they are objective by default. This is easier to overlook in casual discussion like in chatrooms (or real life with friends), but on a forum you have plenty of time to articulate your point, so you should take the time to do so.



...Uh, exactly. Arbitrarily capping the stage size limits creative stage design possibilities for normal users.




Just because there are stages that were able to take advantage of them, that doesn't negate the point that the stage design possibilities are limited by the stage blocks' placement restrictions. Also that second one looks like nonsense.




The fact that Brawl even has a stage builder is great, yes. The underlying point I'm trying to drill in here is the lack of polish that went into the feature. 4's trumps Brawl's stage builder simply on the grounds of its design being more practical.




Okay? I have no incentive to play through SSE because it isn't fun; unlocking characters does not change this. In fact, in the past I had to go through a new Wii and unlock everything manually. I hated SSE and went out of my way to unlock every character through traditional means, but in the end, I had to do SSE anyway, because there were like two or three characters that could only be unlocked through that. The option to unlock all the characters that way is great, but being forced to is not.





The Great Maze is one of only a few themed levels in the game, and all it is is a compilation of the levels you just played. What is that competing with? Jumping on goombas in the Mushroom Kingdom. Racing the countdown on Brinstar. The F-Zero race. SSE has grass level, secret base level, cloud level -- the first platformer level is LITERALLY just clouds with generic enemies. The best thing that can be said about SSE's theming is that occasionally Mario enemies appear or you fight ROBs. Beyond that, the two games aren't even comparable.



Okay, this might seem a little patronizing, but let me explain to you a little bit how game design works.

In videogames, the player has to be able to distinguish all focal gameplay elements at any given moment. In action games, usually they need to be able to do this almost immediately. For that reason, gameplay objects tend to have recognizable silhouettes and high contrast in colors so that they stand out. Dull or muted colors are typically reserved for nonessential gameplay elements, like scenery and backgrounds.

In any medium, it's easy to observe where your character is when everything is standing still. But if you're in an FFA with items on and multiple people just got blasted, it might take a second or two to figure out what each object that got launched is, especially if the characters stand out as much as the environments. Other Smash games don't have this problem as much as Brawl due to their aesthetic design choices.

Your "fix" to my problem is a nonsolution and a deflection of criticism. I could turn up the saturation, but that wouldn't necessarily fix the problem if the backgrounds become brighter as well. Moreover, the viewer shouldn't have to change the TV settings for a single game if it works well everywhere else. All you've done is dismiss my argument by trying to shift the responsibility onto the viewer. It is always the game's responsibility to make sure that the action is easily readable onscreen.


My online matches in Brawl were almost always laggy regardless of who I played, whereas in Mario Kart Wii I had virtually no issues whatsoever. I'd test Smash 4 in the same house for comparison, but I've since moved out.

''It's your fault not the games fault!'' - @ Louis Tursi 's logic

 

[CSWooly]

Tournament consists of slow campy matches that are literally garbo.

Not always.
This is the kind of attitude that screams "Melee is the best and I won't hear otherwise"

 

[PK Illuminati]

Not always.
This is the kind of attitude that screams "Melee is the best and I won't hear otherwise"

I also play 64 and PM.

 

[Louis Tursi]

@ Blue Warrior Okay. I think something needs to be established here, and I'm going to make this short and sweet. You do have valid points, involving the clunkiness of the stage builder here and there, the online not being perfect, etc. But it was their first shot at these things; try cutting them a little bit of slack. If you think the online was so bad, you make an online server then. If you think the stage builder didn't live up to your expectations, then you make a stage builder and see how close yours are to perfect. The ability to play Smash Bros. online does not suck, it is absolutely amazing. It provides entertainment for the player and for your opponent.

But I think all of this is just the way you see it. I do welcome your opinion, but that's the thing--if it's an opinion, so be it. I personally do not see the problems you do with SSE, game design, etc., nor do almost anyone else I know, which by the way kind of proves that these problems, if they even exist, are very trivial. In all honesty, I have never heard anyone else say they didn't like Brawl for the reasons you do. Whereas, let's face it, in reality, these problems are probably not there. (This is why I theorize you are just coming up with anything you can to put the game down.) That's not to say you're wrong, but not right either. In your opinion, you're right. In mine, you're wrong. In yours, I'm wrong, and in mine, I'm right.

I could refute your points on things like the SSE, where Smash 4 stands in all of this, etc., but that's the thing--it'd be pointless because of what I just said above.

 

[Dastardly Ridleylash]

Really, everyone hates Brawl because of a number of reasons that really extend to Sakurai shoving the whole "THIS GAME IS CASUAL DAMNIT" mentality everywhere he could. To list a number of reasons I've seen (and have myself) as to why Brawl is subjectively inferior to Melee;

• The game lacks combos or any sort of advanced mechanics, making matches less of a spectacle to watch then in Melee. Let's face it, it's just more exciting to see Bizzaro Flame pull off an amazing Ganondorf 0-death combo on a Spacie than anything in Brawl.
  
• The game is highly defensive, which means it's mostly two people spamming projectiles at each other and leaping around instead of, well, fighting. Project M fixes this, but vanilla Brawl is just way too camp-friendly.
• Tripping is a RNG element that was specifically made to punish dashing, and thus dashdancing (also tying into the "Brawl = too defensive" complaint). It also made you a sitting duck for the opponnent. Casual players may have laughed once or twice, but eventually everyone began hating this mechanic (which is why it's not back in the next game).
• The game is horribly balanced, with Meta Knights and Ice Climbers pretty much having dominated all other characters. It's not fun to see two characters constantly, either to watch or to play against, because it's boring and repetetive. At least with the Spacies in Melee, there was a number of cool things to spice up fights with them.
• The buffs and nerfs seemed slapdash, with highly-popular characters like Jigglypuff becoming nearly useless in high-level play, and Ice Climbers getting a buff that they absolutely didn't need (not helped by how effective chaingrabs were in Brawl).
• The fact that you essentially needed to play through the campaign twice, bosses and all, before you could beat it once, combined with the fact that some characters could only be unlocked after doing that and how absurdly difficult Tabuu was made a lot of people quite unhappy. Not helping was how utterly boring and bland SSE is, with it's "reeul" color pallete, mediocre level design and a number of annoying as hell enemies.

Those are just the ones I remember off the top of my head.

 

[PK Illuminati]

I could refute your points on things like the SSE, where Smash 4 stands in all of this, etc., but that's the thing--it'd be pointless because of what I just said above.I could refute your points on things like the SSE, where Smash 4 stands in all of this, etc., but that's the thing--it'd be pointless because of what I just said above.

(Also, please refrain from bringing up Smash 4; I know it exists, but that's not what I'm here to talk about. Thank you.)

 

[Blue Warrior]

@ Blue Warrior Okay. I think something needs to be established here, and I'm going to make this short and sweet. You do have valid points, involving the clunkiness of the stage builder here and there, the online not being perfect, etc. But it was their first shot at these things; try cutting them a little bit of slack.

You admire Brawl because it paved the way for new features that Smash Bros. hadn't seen before, and I can relate to that. If I'm being objective though, then between Brawl and 4, I know which editor and online functionality I prefer. It's like comparing Mega Man 1 to Mega Man 2 -- MM1 was a pretty good game that established the series' foundation, but nobody can deny that MM2 was the better title.

If you think the online was so bad, you make an online server then. If you think the stage builder didn't live up to your expectations, then you make a stage builder and see how close yours are to perfect.

More deflection of criticism. I don't need to be a chef to know whether someone's food tastes good or not.

The ability to play Smash Bros. online does not suck, it is absolutely amazing. It provides entertainment for the player and for your opponent.

It'd provide entertainment for me if it even worked, lol...

But I think all of this is just the way you see it. I do welcome your opinion, but that's the thing--if it's an opinion, so be it. I personally do not see the problems you do with SSE, game design, etc., nor do almost anyone else I know, which by the way kind of proves that these problems, if they even exist, are very trivial.

Personal incredulity fallacy.

In all honesty, I have never heard anyone else say they didn't like Brawl for the reasons you do. Whereas, let's face it, in reality, these problems are probably not there. (This is why I theorize you are just coming up with anything you can to put the game down.) That's not to say you're wrong, but not right either. In your opinion, you're right. In mine, you're wrong. In yours, I'm wrong, and in mine, I'm right.

I could refute your points on things like the SSE, where Smash 4 stands in all of this, etc., but that's the thing--it'd be pointless because of what I just said above.

You're unable to defend your stance, but you refuse to secede your viewpoint. So, instead you weasel your way out of refuting my arguments with the endpoint of "you have a right to your opinion, but you're probably wrong". And also "you're probably just making this up". Very classy.

My group of friends and I have hated tripping, the game's balance, online, and SSE for years, and one thing I've really come to dislike over that time frame is just how unpolished Brawl is. Flawed elements in the stage builder, muddy character aesthetic, long loading times, complete lack of game balance, and so on. Brawl suffers from feature creep; there's a lot to do ingame, but it really suffers from having all of these things and not enough development time to fine-tune them. For that reason alone, I cannot consider it the best Smash game.

 

[PK Illuminati]

@ Blue Warrior

um, everybody hated online, tripping and how broken meta knight and IC's were,
we're not hating on the game just because its cool it hate on it, there are legitimately BAD things about it[/USER]

 

[Purin a.k.a. José]

It maybe could be the best if its engine was more like Melee's, but we have to count what it actually is!

 

[Louis Tursi]

It maybe could be the best if its engine was more like Melee's, but we have to count what it actually is!

True. However, in that sense, that is what I meant when I said that Brawl is usually turned down solely because of it's gameplay, because if it did have the same engine as Melee, it'd clearly be the superior title, but since it's not, it appeals to a more casual community of gamers, which like I also said, a majority of the gaming community is made up of. (In other words, competitive smashers are their own small community, that many actually don't even take seriously.)
This doesn't mean that Brawl is bad though, sure, it's slower than Melee, but only so it could appeal to everybody. That's why its predecessor was so broken with exploits and glitches; it was where competitive smash started, if not actually became something. As a result, Brawl was made to make people play the way Smash as a whole was meant to be played, but it had to be a little stiff and clunky too as an assurance that it wouldn't be a Melee 2.0 (the way Sakuri sees it, at least).
I've come to notice that it's only the competitive smash community that really doesn't like Brawl when compared to other Smash games, but that's because to them, it's all about speed and hype. All-around gamers on the other hand don't mind because they don't notice a difference between Melee and Brawl since they don't play like apes nor go to major/official tournaments.
All of this isn't to say I'm not a competitive smasher, but I thought it would be interresting to say that as one, I respectively think Brawl is better. And sure, as a competitive smasher, of course I like Melee's game engine/gameplay over Brawl's because since I am devoted to playing Smash (it being something I find enjoyment out of), I play the one that requires more skill to become a higher and higher ranked player overall. What I find different in myself however...(not to toot my own horn here either), is that unlike what seems like the rest of the competitive smash community, I actually recognize that just because the gameplay of something was changed by someone for reasons you couldn't blame them for, doesn't mean it's inferior.
Super Smash Bros. was supposed to be a fun party game to play with your friends, but the fans turned it into something it wasn't supposed to be, thus Brawl's engine was born. Though, when you think about it, Brawl was bound to happen at some point eventually...for example, if Melee came out but the fans didn't turn it into what it is today, Brawl probably would have actually played like Melee because nothing needed to be fixed! But if people would put all the complications of that aside and just have fun with it, it wouldn't matter. So the next time you decide to diss Brawl because you think it's slow or didn't feel right, just remember that it was probably your fault...because the person who made this franchise wanted it to be the way he wanted and did what he had to do to make it that. If the fans didn't recognize how broken Melee was turning it into this hardcore, exploit-abused fighter and fulfilled his wish, he wouldn't have had to. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, but it was, so it had to be.

Ironically though, in the end none of this really matters because it's just a game; not a life or death situation...not that I can tell you how to play your video games or just how you spend your time in general, but Melee and Brawl both already happened so it doesn't really matter what you do now, but whatever it is you may do, whether it involve being a hardcore competitor or just an all-around player who may not look at it the same way, just have fun.

 

[PK Illuminati]

True. However, in that sense, that is what I meant when I said that Brawl is usually turned down solely because of it's gameplay, because if it did have the same engine as Melee, it'd clearly be the superior title, but since it's not, it appeals to a more casual community of gamers, which like I also said, a majority of the gaming community is made up of. (In other words, competitive smashers are their own small community, that many actually don't even take seriously.)
This doesn't mean that Brawl is bad though, sure, it's slower than Melee, but only so it could appeal to everybody. That's why its predecessor was so broken with exploits and glitches; it was where competitive smash started, if not actually became something. As a result, Brawl was made to make people play the way Smash as a whole was meant to be played, but it had to be a little stiff and clunky too as an assurance that it'd wouldn't be a Melee 2.0 (the way Sakuri sees it, at least).
I've come to notice that it's only the competitive smash community that really doesn't like Brawl when compared to other Smash games, but that's because to them, it's all about speed and hype. All-around gamers on the other hand don't mind because they don't notice a difference between Melee and Brawl since they don't play like apes nor go to major/official tournaments.
All of this isn't to say I'm not a competitive smasher, but I thought it would be interresting to say that as one, I respectively think Brawl is better. And sure, as a competitive smasher, of course I like Melee's game engine/gameplay over Brawl's because since I am devoted to playing Smash (it being something I find enjoyment out of), I play the one that requires more skill to become a higher and higher ranked player overall. What I find different in myself however...(not to toot my own horn here either), is that unlike what seems like the rest of the competitive smash community, I actually recognize that just because the gameplay of something was changed by someone for reasons you couldn't blame them for, doesn't mean it's inferior.
Super Smash Bros. was supposed to be a fun party game to play with your friends, but the fans turned it into something it wasn't supposed to be, thus Brawl's engine was born. Though, when you think about it, Brawl was bound to happen at some point eventually...for example, if Melee came out but the fans didn't turn it into what it is today, Brawl probably would have actually played like Melee because nothing needed to be fixed! But if people would put all the complications of that aside and just have fun with it, it wouldn't matter. So the next time you decide to diss Brawl because you think it's slow or didn't feel right, just remember that it was probably your fault...because the person who made this franchise wanted it to be the way he wanted and did what he had to do to make it that. If the fans didn't recognize how broken Melee was turning it into this hardcore, exploit-abused fighter and fulfilled his wish, he wouldn't have had to. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, but it was, so it had to be.

Ironically though, in the end none of this really matters because it's just a game; not a life or death situation...not that I can tell you how to play your video games or just how you spend your time in general, but Melee and Brawl both already happened so it doesn't really matter what you do now, but whatever it is you may do, whether it involve being a hardcore competitor or just an all-around player who may not look at it the same way, just have fun.

''That's why its predecessor was so broken with exploits and glitches''

LOL



''So the next time you decide to diss Brawl because you think it's slow or didn't feel right, just remember that it was probably your fault...''

Totally! Because Sakurai TOTALLY didn't implement WaveDashing and L-Canceling, nah we just made those and put those in. Not that Sakurai intended it to be in the game! Our fault, my b. [sarcasm]




''I actually recognize that just because the gameplay of something was changed by someone for reasons you couldn't blame them for, doesn't mean it's inferior.''

If somebody breaks a ****ing piece of wood by accident, they still broke the piece of wood. Nothing is changed. I don't remember people complaining about Melee tech as much as I saw people complaining about Brawls slow defensive campy gameplay and slowness. Also ****ing META KNIGHT ICE CLIMBERS AND TRIPPING.







''Ironically though, in the end none of this really matters because it's just a game; not a life or death situation...not that I can tell you how to play your video games or just how you spend your time in general, but Melee and Brawl both already happened so it doesn't really matter what you do now, but whatever it is you may do, whether it involve being a hardcore competitor or just an all-around player who may not look at it the same way, just have fun.''

Look at the ****ing article you posted moron.

 

[Louis Tursi]

You're unable to defend your stance, but you refuse to secede your viewpoint. So, instead you weasel your way out of refuting my arguments with the endpoint of "you have a right to your opinion, but you're probably wrong". And also "you're probably just making this up". Very classy.

Alright, fair enough.

You admire Brawl because it paved the way for new features that Smash Bros. hadn't seen before, and I can relate to that. If I'm being objective though, then between Brawl and 4, I know which editor and online functionality I prefer. It's like comparing Mega Man 1 to Mega Man 2 -- MM1 was a pretty good game that established the series' foundation, but nobody can deny that MM2 was the better title.

What you've basically done is open up a discussion topic stating your opinions on why Brawl is the best smash game, and you've banned dissenting opinions regarding Smash 4 being better than Brawl, but not Melee being better than Brawl. Forgive me for not complying to this bull**** logic string, but if you want to have a discussion on why Brawl is or isn't the best, I'm not going to forgo mentioning Smash 4 if it helps make my point.

The fact that Brawl even has a stage builder is great, yes. The underlying point I'm trying to drill in here is the lack of polish that went into the feature. 4's trumps Brawl's stage builder simply on the grounds of its design being more practical.

Let me just remind you, once again, that the main focus here is supposed to be comparing Melee & Brawl. Smash 4 is not involved in this; if I were to talk about why Brawl is superior over Smash 4, that's for a whole new debate topic. I am aware I had the title set for one to believe that I meant the best Smash game overall throughout the whole series, but what I actually meant was mainly between Melee & Brawl, because for one thing, it's kind of common knowledge that Brawl is better than SSB64 (if anyone is willing to defend it though, I don't have a problem with that) as well as Smash 4, but the reason I don't welcome Smash 4 is because it's a tighter comparison and isn't exactly difficult to come up with reasons it could be better. if someone could logically defend Smash 64 over Brawl, especially with the gap between generations each of them were released in, I would be very impressed. Hearing defense over Smash 4 though disinterests me because since it's new (yet still worse than Brawl in my opinion), any fan of Nintendo, which I'd assume you clearly are, is obviously going to like it. In other words, if Nintendo literally made a log of s***, you would buy it. Not me though. If you are reading/read this and are preparing your argument as to why I am wrong, save it, because I don't need to mention again that on this particular thread, Smash 4 is not necessary to get a point across (yours especially) when comparing MELEE & BRAWL. If you want to defend Smash 4 over Brawl, make your own topic.

More deflection of criticism. I don't need to be a chef to know whether someone's food tastes good or not.

Same situation: in that case, you be the chef, and see if people think your food is any better.

Personal incredulity fallacy.

I understand this simple concept: in your world these things exist. In mine, they don't. I don't see what you see, and just because I don't see something the way you do does not mean I do not understand it.

The fallacy fallacy.

"Better" and "best" are only opinion words if you establish them as opinion words. If you leave them by themselves, they are objective by default. This is easier to overlook in casual discussion like in chatrooms (or real life with friends), but on a forum you have plenty of time to articulate your point, so you should take the time to do so.

Take note of the date of the genisis of this conversation. I've been articulating my point for the past 2 months.
Additionally, you are too analytical on how I choose my words. Save that argument for a forum that discusses semantics.
...Since when did gaming become so highbrow?

Just because there are stages that were able to take advantage of them, that doesn't negate the point that the stage design possibilities are limited by the stage blocks' placement restrictions. Also that second one looks like nonsense.

This directly supports my reasoning when I say it's just your opinion. I mentioned that those stages were high-rated by people who downloaded them, so while it may look like nonsense to you, it sure must have been fun to play on according to many others.

The Great Maze is one of only a few themed levels in the game, and all it is is a compilation of the levels you just played. What is that competing with? Jumping on goombas in the Mushroom Kingdom. Racing the countdown on Brinstar. The F-Zero race. SSE has grass level, secret base level, cloud level -- the first platformer level is LITERALLY just clouds with generic enemies. The best thing that can be said about SSE's theming is that occasionally Mario enemies appear or you fight ROBs. Beyond that, the two games aren't even comparable.

The Great Maze is a well-structured, thought out level in the game that may actually require you to use your head in order to complete it. Anybody could come up with racing against a timer, heck, tons of games on things like the App Store, Google Play, or just your phone in general do things involving "racing against a timer".

If I wanted to do an F-Zero race, wouldn't I just play F-Zero?

And just because it may not have good theming to you, doesn't mean effort wasn't put into it. I'm sure if you thought about it, you'd agree that Melee's adventure mode is pretty basic. That's not to say I shouldn't do the same with SSE, I did, and neither am I saying that Adventure mode is bad on its own, but when compared to the Subspace Emissary, the adventure that involves a lot more thinking, an actualy story, cutscenes to show off the capabilities of this game and what it's capable of, what can you say?
And just a side note, Smash 4 doesn't even have an adventure mode, so take that for what it's worth.

Okay, this might seem a little patronizing, but let me explain to you a little bit how game design works.

In videogames, the player has to be able to distinguish all focal gameplay elements at any given moment. In action games, usually they need to be able to do this almost immediately. For that reason, gameplay objects tend to have recognizable silhouettes and high contrast in colors so that they stand out. Dull or muted colors are typically reserved for nonessential gameplay elements, like scenery and backgrounds.

In any medium, it's easy to observe where your character is when everything is standing still. But if you're in an FFA with items on and multiple people just got blasted, it might take a second or two to figure out what each object that got launched is, especially if the characters stand out as much as the environments. Other Smash games don't have this problem as much as Brawl due to their aesthetic design choices.

I don't really feel patronized, just more educated on game design, so...thanks for that.

Your "fix" to my problem is a nonsolution and a deflection of criticism. I could turn up the saturation, but that wouldn't necessarily fix the problem if the backgrounds become brighter as well. Moreover, the viewer shouldn't have to change the TV settings for a single game if it works well everywhere else. All you've done is dismiss my argument by trying to shift the responsibility onto the viewer. It is always the game's responsibility to make sure that the action is easily readable onscreen.

If you ask me, it's easier to tell what's going on in Brawl as opposed to Melee, because you can actually keep up with what's going on. To many (and I don't disagree with this tbh), competitive Melee just looks like such a glitchy mess that if anything isn't easy to read onscreen, it's Melee. And the competitive Melee community is microscopic amongst the entire gaming community, who normal plays all-around games, and if they do play competitively, Smash Bros. is it's own category.

My online matches in Brawl were almost always laggy regardless of who I played, whereas in Mario Kart Wii I had virtually no issues whatsoever. I'd test Smash 4 in the same house for comparison, but I've since moved out.

They were laggy regardless of who you played because it was your connection's fault, not theirs. And if any of your friends whom you've played with have also told you that they're horrendously laggy, that still doesn't mean it isn't your fault, because if one person has a crappy connection, everyone in the match is going to have crappy connection. (Another reason Smash 4 isn't any better, btw.) Just think about playing "with anyone". You're playing with people around the globe...you mean to tell me you think there's no chance somebody you're playing against is going to have a bad connection? And yes, I know this applies to Smash 4 as well, but like I previously mentioned, this was their first shot at online. They haven't quite perfected it yet. And as far as general knowledge goes, Mario Kart Wii probably worked out a lot better because it just may not have been as popular as Smash Bros. was overall, thereby giving Brawl more online players, making the servers a little bit laggy. Who knows? Maybe in the future Smash 4's online server strength will drop as well once more people have bought the Wii U (if they even do, that is).

My group of friends and I have hated tripping, the game's balance, online, and SSE for years, and one thing I've really come to dislike over that time frame is just how unpolished Brawl is. Flawed elements in the stage builder, muddy character aesthetic, long loading times, complete lack of game balance, and so on. Brawl suffers from feature creep; there's a lot to do ingame, but it really suffers from having all of these things and not enough development time to fine-tune them. For that reason alone, I cannot consider it the best Smash game.

Things like tripping and being unpolished are all there for a reason, not because the game is bad. If Sakuri wanted to fulfill his dream of making a fighting game that would appeal to all players and make an even matchup between each player no matter who you were playing against, he did what had to be done. Just think about it. If the community didn't turn Melee into what they did today, Brawl would have been just like it. Why? Because nothing needed to be changed.
I said this already...

It's your fault, not the game's fault.

Before you get the wrong impression by that, evaluate all of that and then tell me if you still think my logic in this case is unreasonable.

 

[Purin a.k.a. José]

True. However, in that sense, that is what I meant when I said that Brawl is usually turned down solely because of it's gameplay, because if it did have the same engine as Melee, it'd clearly be the superior title, but since it's not, it appeals to a more casual community of gamers, which like I also said, a majority of the gaming community is made up of. (In other words, competitive smashers are their own small community, that many actually don't even take seriously.)
This doesn't mean that Brawl is bad though, sure, it's slower than Melee, but only so it could appeal to everybody. That's why its predecessor was so broken with exploits and glitches; it was where competitive smash started, if not actually became something. As a result, Brawl was made to make people play the way Smash as a whole was meant to be played, but it had to be a little stiff and clunky too as an assurance that it'd wouldn't be a Melee 2.0 (the way Sakuri sees it, at least).
I've come to notice that it's only the competitive smash community that really doesn't like Brawl when compared to other Smash games, but that's because to them, it's all about speed and hype. All-around gamers on the other hand don't mind because they don't notice a difference between Melee and Brawl since they don't play like apes nor go to major/official tournaments.
All of this isn't to say I'm not a competitive smasher, but I thought it would be interresting to say that as one, I respectively think Brawl is better. And sure, as a competitive smasher, of course I like Melee's game engine/gameplay over Brawl's because since I am devoted to playing Smash (it being something I find enjoyment out of), I play the one that requires more skill to become a higher and higher ranked player overall. What I find different in myself however...(not to toot my own horn here either), is that unlike what seems like the rest of the competitive smash community, I actually recognize that just because the gameplay of something was changed by someone for reasons you couldn't blame them for, doesn't mean it's inferior.
Super Smash Bros. was supposed to be a fun party game to play with your friends, but the fans turned it into something it wasn't supposed to be, thus Brawl's engine was born. Though, when you think about it, Brawl was bound to happen at some point eventually...for example, if Melee came out but the fans didn't turn it into what it is today, Brawl probably would have actually played like Melee because nothing needed to be fixed! But if people would put all the complications of that aside and just have fun with it, it wouldn't matter. So the next time you decide to diss Brawl because you think it's slow or didn't feel right, just remember that it was probably your fault...because the person who made this franchise wanted it to be the way he wanted and did what he had to do to make it that. If the fans didn't recognize how broken Melee was turning it into this hardcore, exploit-abused fighter and fulfilled his wish, he wouldn't have had to. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, but it was, so it had to be.

Ironically though, in the end none of this really matters because it's just a game; not a life or death situation...not that I can tell you how to play your video games or just how you spend your time in general, but Melee and Brawl both already happened so it doesn't really matter what you do now, but whatever it is you may do, whether it involve being a hardcore competitor or just an all-around player who may not look at it the same way, just have fun.

That was honestly, a nice text. I hope my reply doesn't sounds I don't like Brawl, because that's more, much more than wrong. I would never be the fan I am of the Smash series if it wasn't for Brawl, and I honestly prefered Brawl gameplay instead of Melee. It was more... newcomer friendly. I still think Brawl as a whole is a masterpiece in many things. There are many improvements to Melee, and many new things... No clones at all, beautiful songs, some of the greatest graphics on the Wii, a bigger Nintendo encyclopedia, online and a epic Story mode. Everything you said. It may be taken as a insult when I say it's slow, but that doesn't means I am really thinking the game is bad because of that. I can pass through it, I can pass through MK's OPness, I can pass through tripping, I can pass through its floatiness. What I am saying is not that I want a Super-Ultra-Turbo-Explosive-Mega-Hard game; what I am really saying is that Brawl could really be the best game on the series if it did not have those problems. I agree with you when you say that Sakurai made the game "easier" so that more people could enjoy it, and I really like this change.
But, it just went too far. The game was already good enough for casuals, and the game is the GC Best Seller for a reason.
Melee wasn't broken, Sakurai himself says:

Melee is the sharpest game in the series. It's pretty speedy all around and asks a lot of your coordination skills. Fans of the first Smash Bros. got into it quickly, and it just felt really good to play.

If Melee was really that broken, I don't think its creator would call it a "sharp" game. Brawl is also great, but it had potential to be the greatest. That's what I am trying to say. Melee is a great game, and Brawl improved many things that Melee had. It could be the greatest in every way, but it's "just" great because along the improvements, it has some downgrades. That is my opinion. I don't care if you think I'm dissing Brawl, because I am not. I have my reasons to don't like some things on it.

 

[Louis Tursi]

Totally! Because Sakurai TOTALLY didn't implement WaveDashing and L-Canceling, nah we just made those and put those in. Not that Sakurai intended it to be in the game! Our fault, my b. [sarcasm]

If you actually knew what you were talking about, you'd know that even though it was intentionally implemented into the game, doesn't mean Sakurai wanted it abused. Plus, the competitive smash community considers it an advanced technique anyway, which Sakurai ended up not liking because it didn't appeal to gamers who weren't competitive/professionals/on a "high-level" rank of playstyle.

"Of course, we noticed that you could wavedash during the development period. With Super Smash Bros. Brawl, it wasn't a matter of, 'OK, do we leave it in or do we take it out?'
We really just wanted this game, again, to appeal to and be played by gamers of all different levels. We felt that there was a growing gap between beginners and advanced players, and taking that out helps to level the playing field. It wasn't a big priority or anything, but when we were building the game around the idea of making it fair for everybody, it just made sense to take it out. And it also goes back to wanting to make something different from Melee and giving players the opportunity to find new things to enjoy."

If somebody breaks a ****ing piece of wood by accident, they still broke the piece of wood. Nothing is changed.

Ok, first of all, calm down. You are clearly showing that this isn't something you do for fun and are taking this way too seriously.
Secondly, Brawl was technically Melee's fix. But if you insist nothing changed, you musn't think there's a difference, which, since it was fixed, in this case, there is.
I'm not sure if you even play competitively at all... that's fine, but don't put someone who you know is superior to you down.

Look at the ****ing article you posted moron.

What did I post that defies anything I just said, exactly?

Melee is the sharpest game in the series," he wrote. "It's pretty speedy all around and asks a lot of your coordination skills. Fans of the first Smash Bros. got into it quickly, and it just felt really good to play.

This doesn't mean he doesn't have regrets, though. Take the game's accessibility level for example. Sure, he was proud of how Melee turned out, but he wanted to aim for more entry-level players with Brawl, kind of like how you said that's something Brawl is certainly good for. He wanted it accessible, simple, and playable by anyone, which is was, and throughout the gaming community, it was a success. Maybe not the competitive smash community, but in a sense, that doesn't even matter because of just how small that community is. Not to say I don't support them, there are people in it who do enjoy Brawl, and I do enjoy me some competitive Melee play anyway. I hope people watching this forum aren't actually getting the wrong impression about me when I say Brawl is superior to Melee; I do like Melee and have specified that quite enough, but people seem to be disregarding that.

 

[Louis Tursi]

Really, everyone hates Brawl because of a number of reasons that really extend to Sakurai shoving the whole "THIS GAME IS CASUAL DAMNIT" mentality everywhere he could.

I see what your saying, but really, how could you blame him? Just look at what the fans turned a fun party game to play with your friends (what Sakuri wanted) into!

The game lacks combos or any sort of advanced mechanics, making matches less of a spectacle to watch then in Melee. Let's face it, it's just more exciting to see Bizzaro Flame pull off an amazing Ganondorf 0-death combo on a Spacie than anything in Brawl.

I wouldn't say it lacks combos of any sort, but rather simply more difficult to pull off. With practice though, they can still be pulled off. And yes, it is indeed very exciting to watch top-ranked players play speedy high-level matches, but I look at it more in a way where Melee is what you watch for the sake of getting hyped to see what kind of pwnage each player pulls off on each other, where Brawl is more of a "OMG, the suspense is killing me!" kind of feeling when watching it. If you don't believe me, just watch this battle between M2K and Salem at Apex 2013 when you have the time...it's lengthy, but when you get the chance, check out the whole thing and you'll see exactly what I'm taking about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBGffJfBkd0
Check out some of the comments too. *cough*

The game is highly defensive, which means it's mostly two people spamming projectiles at each other and leaping around instead of, well, fighting. Project M fixes this, but vanilla Brawl is just way too camp-friendly.

Well, really, Melee in PM are no exceptions...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T98uKLWpl9E

Tripping is a RNG element that was specifically made to punish dashing, and thus dashdancing (also tying into the "Brawl = too defensive" complaint). It also made you a sitting duck for the opponnent. Casual players may have laughed once or twice, but eventually everyone began hating this mechanic.

It's honestly not that bad, I don't know what everyone is acting so sensitive about over it. I've dashdanced in Brawl thousands of times and never once tripped. It's pretty rare overall, and even when it does happen it doesn't last a second, so I say, instead of whining over things that are easy to brush off like it's nothing, stfu about it and continue the match. Simple.

The game is horribly balanced, with Meta Knights and Ice Climbers pretty much having dominated all other characters. It's not fun to see two characters constantly, either to watch or to play against, because it's boring and repetetive. At least with the Spacies in Melee, there was a number of cool things to spice up fights with them.

Yes but as long as Brawl is horribly balanced, as long as Melee isn't either, then that doesn't make Melee any better.
And you thinking that the way the spacies were played spiced things up is just your opinion, whereas others may disagree, so tha's all I have to say about that.

The fact that you essentially needed to play through the campaign twice, bosses and all, before you could beat it once, combined with the fact that some characters could only be unlocked after doing that and how absurdly difficult Tabuu was made a lot of people quite unhappy. Not helping was how utterly boring and bland SSE is, with it's "reeul" color pallete, mediocre level design and a number of annoying as hell enemies.

If you have the patience to play through the campaign + bosses and such twice simply shows you are dedicated to the game. And not everyone may agree that the SSE was as bland as you say, but again, it's just an opinion. If you don't like it, don't play it.