Brawl will have backwards progression (which is a bad thing)

[AerionTOFAST4U]

This game will not stop being fun for years. Smash 64 is still fun. The game's lifespan will be as long as your wii's. There is no reason to doubt that.

Agreed.


10char

 

[Dais]

I read the whole post, I was commenting on one aspect of the post, I can do that right? Everyone else is comparing Brawl to Melee so I did too. How can the people Not look like they're doing something in a Brawl fight? Its two people trying to hit one another, same as Melee (think about it). I admitted Brawl has stuff wrong with it. Hell, I main Samus, you think I haven't noticed some things are different?
Your post is on a wavedash-crybaby level, how about that?
And stop assuming what I know or not, like your trying to hold some superiority over me, your not bad, okay.
And did you call me a "noob"? (what kinda goobernut does that?)
Well the topic is: will people play Brawl for years to come and have good, interesting fights. I think the answer is yes despite some new things in Brawl suck and its not as fast or complicated as the previous game.
Oh and your analogies are terrible, why don't you go to a pool party and play baseball instead of Brawl????

 

[Corigames]

Your post is on a wavedash-crybaby level, how about that? ...goobernut... go to a pool party and play baseball...

I really am out of material. In one post, I think I was called 2 of the most pre-school insults I have ever heard.

I'm going to hope that it's just sleep deprivation. I'm going to go to sleep, come back, and see if this post is still here like this.

Peace.

... MELEE >>>>>> BRAWL LOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[Dais]

He'll be alright people. Its a common reaction to having your biscuit burned that badly. He may even become a better human-being.
(noob isn't a pre-school insult .... hmm .... I wish I could get a book that explained )

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

If this hasn't been mentioned, I got well over 120 combo hits with Kirby vs. a heavy character. (Brawl of course.)

I think longer competitive games would be good; Getting people in inescapable conditions can be simplified to having a game with just 1 stamina, which isn't really a game at all to me.

 

[kazaken455]

Agreed.


10char

Double agreed! Brawl will only die if you let it die!

 

[Skler]

Very few of the people who say Brawl will live on are tournament goers. Brawl tournaments will stop being held in a year or two because they will be boring campfests (not that they aren't already).

 

[Impossibilities]

Wow so then it's official....Brawl is just a title I've waited for for about 3 years and everyone says it sucks even the trustworthy pros....wow I hope the community can prove you wrong. (I really doubt it though) sigh what was the point for me even getting a wii...

 

[Eternalfire]

I think Brawl is geared more to countering rather than comboing since powershielding is so important now.

 

[-sonny-]

Now that you've mentioned it, I did try Falco's neutral combo near a wall and he could get over a 20 combo before the opponent broke free.

CPU's. Don't. DI.

If this hasn't been mentioned, I got well over 120 combo hits with Kirby vs. a heavy character. (Brawl of course.)

I think longer competitive games would be good; Getting people in inescapable conditions can be simplified to having a game with just 1 stamina, which isn't really a game at all to me.

CPU's. Don't. DI!!!!!!!!!

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAa

(and if it was just an infinite neutral A combo on someone against a wall ... what's the fun in that?)

 

[Jack Kieser]

Umm... I'm probably going to get flak for this, but I have to ask. So, the game as Gimpy has tested it will stagnate, camping, blah blah, etc. The same thing we've heard all of the tournament players say. (Of course, as a competitive player, I disagree, but that's neither here nor there). But have you REALLY explored all of the avenues?

I keep hearing about Heavy Brawl. I don't condone it, because even though the people supporting it keep denying this is the reason they like it, every post I see supporting it says, 'The combos are just like Melee!' and I don't think we should try to make Brawl into Melee (we should find something that works for Brawl). But I have to give these people credit for at least trying to find something that works.

As a member of the 'ISP' project, though, I have to ask if Gimpy has even CONSIDERED experimenting with items. I know, I know... random spawns. Ooh, scary. But, I've never played a serious 1v1 item match (which is what we are experimenting for) that devolved into a camp fest (campers/spammers never prosper in an item match). I've even been able to keep a combo going thanks to chucking an item at someone or by using a property of said item (like a ray shot).

Until I see EVERY possible avenue explored, I'm not willing to call Brawl as a monumental failure just yet, and I haven't heard ANY tournament players other than the 'ISP' people (naturally) commenting on items at all, which leads me to believe that they haven't considered the possibility. Get on that, and then maybe we'll talk.

 

[WhiteDragon]

Umm... I'm probably going to get flak for this, but I have to ask. So, the game as Gimpy has tested it will stagnate, camping, blah blah, etc. The same thing we've heard all of the tournament players say. (Of course, as a competitive player, I disagree, but that's neither here nor there). But have you REALLY explored all of the avenues?

I keep hearing about Heavy Brawl. I don't condone it, because even though the people supporting it keep denying this is the reason they like it, every post I see supporting it says, 'The combos are just like Melee!' and I don't think we should try to make Brawl into Melee (we should find something that works for Brawl). But I have to give these people credit for at least trying to find something that works.

As a member of the 'ISP' project, though, I have to ask if Gimpy has even CONSIDERED experimenting with items. I know, I know... random spawns. Ooh, scary. But, I've never played a serious 1v1 item match (which is what we are experimenting for) that devolved into a camp fest (campers/spammers never prosper in an item match). I've even been able to keep a combo going thanks to chucking an item at someone or by using a property of said item (like a ray shot).

Until I see EVERY possible avenue explored, I'm not willing to call Brawl as a monumental failure just yet, and I haven't heard ANY tournament players other than the 'ISP' people (naturally) commenting on items at all, which leads me to believe that they haven't considered the possibility. Get on that, and then maybe we'll talk.

You know, this was pretty much going to be my post, so thank God SOMEONE agrees with me.

My friend has been sarcastically asking whether there have been any universal "game quickening" ATs discovered for Brawl yet, and until I give him "proof", he's considering the game a lost cause competitively and continuing with Melee. I don't understand this mentality. Yes, combos are more inescapable, complex, and deadly in Melee (so far). Is there a reason why a shift in mentality or the discovery of a way around defensive techniques can't be found? Debugging may be helpful in discovering game flaws (ala WD), but it can't find things that are strategies used against someone completely on the defensive.

I'm giving the game at least a year to see what develops. Even if a competitive scene doesn't develop, I'm happy, since I have more fun playing this game than I ever did with Melee. For those of you that think your purchase of a Wii was a terrible idea simply because you can't combo someone to death on a whim, I wish you luck in raising the Brawl metagame to the level that you're looking for.

 

[Wiseguy]

As a member of the 'ISP' project, though, I have to ask if Gimpy has even CONSIDERED experimenting with items. I know, I know... random spawns. Ooh, scary. But, I've never played a serious 1v1 item match (which is what we are experimenting for) that devolved into a camp fest (campers/spammers never prosper in an item match). I've even been able to keep a combo going thanks to chucking an item at someone or by using a property of said item (like a ray shot).

This makes sense to me. But can the existing community adapt to item play? They might hate non-comboability, but I think they hate randomness even more. Perhaps a new community will rise up, with people who approach the game differently?

 

[Lei]

The simple conclusion is: if you all quit the game right now, and I am the last remaining person who wants to be competitive at brawl, then there will still be a competitive scene. The only change will be that the best brawl player isn't as good as the previous best.

Yes, we made mistakes when we first played the game, and we are getting more defensive now and not making those. Comboing is very different in brawl, obviously. The game isn't going to turn into a stale, less elaborate gameplay. That's just going to happen when everyone gets a little better. After that, the good players will prevail and step up and show us some amazing things.

I know you've done some very intense testing and playing, Gimpy, but you still have only played [brawl] for a few months. How can you decide these things right now?

 

[blooagga]

Have faith everyone there just may be a chance that we will find ways to make it more competitive.

 

[Tyrael64]

I can still combo.

But then again, I'm Lucario.

2c.

 

[Gilgamesh]

1% of a game's targeted players giving up on it doesn't destroy it. Understand that this thread aims only at the competitive scene.

Heck, I still play melee regularly and i've never been to a tournament, and I ditched most ATs after actually doing the effort of mastering them ,because i didn't really need it in my smash circle. I plan to buy a Wii only to play Brawl (kinda like the most expensive game evAr) and i plan to play it for years, just like melee.

My point is that we un-competitives shouldn't be discussing here in the first place, since we've got nothing to add. However it seems as if some people get offended by some of the competitive community reps' opinions.

Still Gimpy, being a respected smasher and a mod, you should still have posted this in one of the already existent discussion topics on this matter, for example SCAR's or even the official complaint (yes, since this is basically a Brawl complaint) thread, geez.

 

[Garuda]

You know what? Disregard this message. Not like this will change any of your minds.

 

[Yojimbo]

Very few of the people who say Brawl will live on are tournament goers. Brawl tournaments will stop being held in a year or two because they will be boring campfests (not that they aren't already).

Agreed.

My friends pick characters such as Pit or someone else with a good projectile and sit on the edge and camp. The game is based on a system of turtling and hoping someone will get brave enough to attack and see who gets punished for that one attack. Notice I said one since it's incredible difficult to follow up. Rinse and repeat and you have a standard Brawl match. It's just really, really boring.

It won't kill the Brawl competitive scene because there will always be people who want to believe that since it's the latest installment, it is the better option. I'm going to continue to play Brawl competitively but those who didn't bother with Melee's technical scene or competitive scene don't understand where we are coming from.

So to answer, Brawl's popularity will not waver because of the minority (us, the competitive players) because casuals and new players will continue to play it even if we don't. The way it seems is that the competitive scene will be forced to conform because of the lack of numbers. But that's something the future holds and I can't say for certain.

 

[MookieRah]

It seems as if the majority of the community, especially those outside of the competitive scene, will back up their beliefs that brawl is a good game merely by faith alone. It's crazy how there are so many parallels between this and a religious debate.

People need to be able to distinguish between factual information and feeling based arguments. Most of you who are arguing against it are just stubbornly supporting the game cause you like it. We aren't saying that Brawl isn't a fun game for a lot of people. We are merely saying that it seems like it's not going to be a very good game from a competitive standpoint. If you don't have experience with Brawl in a competitive manner, then you really ought not to argue it. I'm not saying this to sound elitist, I'm saying this because if you are not knowledgeable in the matter then how the heck can you debate it?

One thing that people don't seem to understand is that we, as competitive smashers, DON'T want this game to be bad. We all wanted this to be good. We are still hoping we could somehow find a way to make it better. We don't want to go back to melee. We wanted a new game as well. Having this game work for both casual players and competitive players (like Melee did) absolutely would not hinder it's sales. There is no inherent benefit of forcing this game to be casual friendly and anti-competitive.

The fact of the matter is that the only people that like this are people that are just angry with the competitive scene. If you weren't angry at us, and were just a casual player, then why would you care that we play the game differently? For whatever reason... it's kinda dumb to hate us just cause we play the game competitively. Seriously, it's not like we invade your group of friends and force you to play the way we do. Why do you hate us so much? Why do you post here of all places if you do? Do you want to just clash with people of differing opinions?

Meh, it's sad. Brawl could have been way, way better than this. Sakurai is a fool, cause he had the ability to make this game much better, but instead his politically correct "everyone is a winner" mentality made Brawl into a randomized party game that is hard to take seriously.

 

[Riolu]

I'm going to have disagree. I've been getting more combos, and progressing well with the game. Almost all of the friends I play with have been progressing amazingly too.

I've been to a few Melee, and Brawl tournaments, and they haven't been boring campfests. They've been insanely fun, but I guess that's just me.

 

[C.Y.]

It seems as if the majority of the community, especially those outside of the competitive scene, will back up their beliefs that brawl is a good game merely by faith alone. It's crazy how there are so many parallels between this and a religious debate.

People need to be able to distinguish between factual information and feeling based arguments. Most of you who are arguing against it are just stubbornly supporting the game cause you like it. We aren't saying that Brawl isn't a fun game for a lot of people. We are merely saying that it seems like it's not going to be a very good game from a competitive standpoint. If you don't have experience with Brawl in a competitive manner, then you really ought not to argue it. I'm not saying this to sound elitist, I'm saying this because if you are not knowledgeable in the matter then how the heck can you debate it?

One thing that people don't seem to understand is that we, as competitive smashers, DON'T want this game to be bad. We all wanted this to be good. We are still hoping we could somehow find a way to make it better. We don't want to go back to melee. We wanted a new game as well. Having this game work for both casual players and competitive players (like Melee did) absolutely would not hinder it's sales. There is no inherent benefit of forcing this game to be casual friendly and anti-competitive.

The fact of the matter is that the only people that like this are people that are just angry with the competitive scene. If you weren't angry at us, and were just a casual player, then why would you care that we play the game differently? For whatever reason... it's kinda dumb to hate us just cause we play the game competitively. Seriously, it's not like we invade your group of friends and force you to play the way we do. Why do you hate us so much? Why do you post here of all places if you do? Do you want to just clash with people of differing opinions?

Meh, it's sad. Brawl could have been way, way better than this. Sakurai is a fool, cause he had the ability to make this game much better, but instead his politically correct "everyone is a winner" mentality made Brawl into a randomized party game that is hard to take seriously.

then don't play it. ggQQmoar

 

[MookieRah]

then don't play it. ggQQmoar

Good job at not reading my post, not making any sense, not actually arguing any of the points I made, and not being the least bit respectful.

I am glad that you reposted that though, cause it sucks to be the last post on a page and get skipped over.

 

[Yojimbo]

then don't play it. ggQQmoar

The prime example of a basic member of Smashboards. The lack of the ability to comprehend rational thought. Great Job!

So you basically ignored everything MookieRah said and just gave the general response. Some points as to why you think he should go back to Melee would be nice.

 

[Fletch]

Gimpy, I applaud your post, and I would really like to address all the idiots thus far that have responded, but I'm beginning to realize it is near pointless.

It seems as if the majority of the community, especially those outside of the competitive scene, will back up their beliefs that brawl is a good game merely by faith alone. It's crazy how there are so many parallels between this and a religious debate.

People need to be able to distinguish between factual information and feeling based arguments. Most of you who are arguing against it are just stubbornly supporting the game cause you like it. We aren't saying that Brawl isn't a fun game for a lot of people. We are merely saying that it seems like it's not going to be a very good game from a competitive standpoint. If you don't have experience with Brawl in a competitive manner, then you really ought not to argue it. I'm not saying this to sound elitist, I'm saying this because if you are not knowledgeable in the matter then how the heck can you debate it?

One thing that people don't seem to understand is that we, as competitive smashers, DON'T want this game to be bad. We all wanted this to be good. We are still hoping we could somehow find a way to make it better. We don't want to go back to melee. We wanted a new game as well. Having this game work for both casual players and competitive players (like Melee did) absolutely would not hinder it's sales. There is no inherent benefit of forcing this game to be casual friendly and anti-competitive.

The fact of the matter is that the only people that like this are people that are just angry with the competitive scene. If you weren't angry at us, and were just a casual player, then why would you care that we play the game differently? For whatever reason... it's kinda dumb to hate us just cause we play the game competitively. Seriously, it's not like we invade your group of friends and force you to play the way we do. Why do you hate us so much? Why do you post here of all places if you do? Do you want to just clash with people of differing opinions?

Meh, it's sad. Brawl could have been way, way better than this. Sakurai is a fool, cause he had the ability to make this game much better, but instead his politically correct "everyone is a winner" mentality made Brawl into a randomized party game that is hard to take seriously.

You are one of my favorite posters. Everyone needs to read this.

 

[VicSkimmr]

First post!

Ok, so I've been a casual player since SSB64, and I'm still trying to comprehend the mindset that competitive players have, so please, help me understand this.

Your issues with Brawl are as follows:

1) You can't effectively combo because of a lack of hitstuns. And my interpretation of your definition of a combo is a string of movesets that completely disables the other player from reacting until that player has been killed. Correct?

2) Slower gameplay = less skill involved with being good

3) Random tripping (if it is actually random, testing shows that it is not)


Does that about cover it? From where I'm standing it looks like you guys are basically pissed that you'll actually have to adapt your gameplay more than just learning to combo someone to death and because now that players can break out of your combos you feel its not fair. I've watched a lot of melee combo videos and they certainly are impressive, but wouldn't it require more skill to have to face an opponent that could break your combo at any second?

I think my issue is that I cannot comprehend how lack of combos and slower (read: more tactical) gameplay equals less skill involved and I can't for the life of me figure out why that would lead to the death of competitive play. What am I missing?

 

[C.Y.]

The prime example of a basic member of Smashboards. The lack of the ability to comprehend rational thought. Great Job!

So you basically ignored everything MookieRah said and just gave the general response. Some points as to why you think he should go back to Melee would be nice.

it wasn't a joke at all, no.

 

[Fletch]

First post!

Ok, so I've been a casual player since SSB64, and I'm still trying to comprehend the mindset that competitive players have, so please, help me understand this.

Your issues with Brawl are as follows:

1) You can't effectively combo because of a lack of hitstuns. And my interpretation of your definition of a combo is a string of movesets that completely disables the other player from reacting until that player has been killed. Correct?

2) Slower gameplay = less skill involved with being good

3) Random tripping (if it is actually random, testing shows that it is not)


Does that about cover it? From where I'm standing it looks like you guys are basically pissed that you'll actually have to adapt your gameplay more than just learning to combo someone to death and because now that players can break out of your combos you feel its not fair. I've watched a lot of melee combo videos and they certainly are impressive, but wouldn't it require more skill to have to face an opponent that could break your combo at any second?

I think my issue is that I cannot comprehend how lack of combos and slower (read: more tactical) gameplay equals less skill involved and I can't for the life of me figure out why that would lead to the death of competitive play. What am I missing?

The only adapting to a competitive player's gameplay is that it is now limited. All the techniques from Melee that have been renamed haven't been replaced by anything substantial, and thus just give less options, making the game more repetitive/borin. The reason slower gameplay equals less skill is because it just turns thing into a guessing game rather then allowing for proper punishment by the better player, and also turns the game into a campfest with all the new defensive options.

 

[wodan46]

Advanced Techniques and Unbreakable combo's drain the life of a game, and replace strategy with rote memorization and practice. I'm glad they're both gone.

For example, take Mariokart DS. All semblance of strategy that might have existed in the game has been replaced by snaking, which makes proper item use more or less pointless. Mariokart DS would have been a lot better without it.

Brawl drops the combos and replaces them with advantaegous positioning and mindgames. Its about knowing where and when to use a move, and furthermore, when to use a different move just to trip up a smart opponent. That is a lot more fun than drab combos and ATs.

 

[C.Y.]

The only adapting to a competitive player's gameplay is that it is now limited. All the techniques from Melee that have been renamed haven't been replaced by anything substantial, and thus just give less options, making the game more repetitive/borin. The reason slower gameplay equals less skill is because it just turns thing into a guessing game rather then allowing for proper punishment by the better player, and also turns the game into a campfest with all the new defensive options.

gud wut is rong wit campin?

i myself enjoyin campin

 

[Yojimbo]

First post!

Ok, so I've been a casual player since SSB64, and I'm still trying to comprehend the mindset that competitive players have, so please, help me understand this.

Your issues with Brawl are as follows:

1) You can't effectively combo because of a lack of hitstuns. And my interpretation of your definition of a combo is a string of movesets that completely disables the other player from reacting until that player has been killed. Correct?

Not so much until killed, but you've got the gist of it.

2) Slower gameplay = less skill involved with being good

Slower gameplay (more floatiness) adds less approaches and creates a much more defense game.

3) Random tripping (if it is actually random, testing shows that it is not)

What testing shows it isn't? Because I've seen videos to show that it is... look up dphanna on youtube and search for the trip testing video. Don't have an exact link.

Does that about cover it? From where I'm standing it looks like you guys are basically pissed that you'll actually have to adapt your gameplay more than just learning to combo someone to death and because now that players can break out of your combos you feel its not fair. I've watched a lot of melee combo videos and they certainly are impressive, but wouldn't it require more skill to have to face an opponent that could break your combo at any second?

I think my issue is that I cannot comprehend how lack of combos and slower (read: more tactical) gameplay equals less skill involved and I can't for the life of me figure out why that would lead to the death of competitive play. What am I missing?

I answered your points in your own post quoted above.

And it isn't so much slower, I'd use the word floatier. It isn't us whining about having to learn a new game. Competitive players wanted a new game to learn. The fact is there's nothing to learn. With a simplified physics engine that doesn't allow for multiple approaches to your opponent and absolutely encourages camping, defense play, and turtling, it isn't the fighting game we wanted it to be.

Most casuals interpret competitive players being pissed because it closes the gap. We're frustrated because we thirsted for a new game with depth to understand. It took Melee and broke it down into something simple that anyone can pick up and play. What is there to learn? Basic techniques are about as good as it gets right now.

 

[Spellman]

People who like Brawl are set in their ways just as people who don't like Brawl are set. The competitive nature of Smash Bros. is such a huge aspect (whether Sakurai likes it or not) that when you say it's bad, you're saying the people who play it are playing a non-competitive game.

These threads are making Smash World Forums fans that want to talk about Brawl and not fight over Brawl go away. Congraturlations. Mission accomplorshed.

 

[C.Y.]

People who like Brawl are set in their ways just as people who don't like Brawl are set. The competitive nature of Smash Bros. is such a huge aspect (whether Sakurai likes it or not) that when you say it's bad, you're saying the people who play it are playing a non-competitive game.

These threads are making Smash World Forums fans that want to talk about Brawl and not fight over Brawl go away. Congraturlations. Mission accomplorshed.

hay spellman, u spelled congraturlations and accomplorshed rong. its congratulations and acomplished. for having spell in ur name, u sure cant spell lol

 

[Fletch]

Advanced Techniques and Unbreakable combo's drain the life of a game, and replace strategy with rote memorization and practice. I'm glad they're both gone.

For example, take Mariokart DS. All semblance of strategy that might have existed in the game has been replaced by snaking, which makes proper item use more or less pointless. Mariokart DS would have been a lot better without it.

Brawl drops the combos and replaces them with advantaegous positioning and mindgames. Its about knowing where and when to use a move, and furthermore, when to use a different move just to trip up a smart opponent. That is a lot more fun than drab combos and ATs.

Wait a second, you're saying that item use (which is essentially random) should be more important than learning a difficult technique and really working to master the game? That is a horrible analogy, snaking made Mario Kart way more fun and gave it a chance to be competitive instead of allowing which items you pick up to choose the winner. You do not have a competitive mindset, and you will not understand why Brawl is backwards progression.

gud wut is rong wit campin?

i myself enjoyin campin

You may, but most people don't enjoy this playstyle and it's really easy to pick up and learn rather quickly, which means anyone can pick up this game and become "good" fast.

 

[shadydentist]

Why does slower gameplay equal more tactical gameplay? Is this some kind of linear relation? Would playing this game at half speed make it twice as tactical?

My point is, you can't just make assertions that slower gameplay is more tactical. You have to support it with something.

Let me also make the argument that combos are good for gameplay. Why? Because the ability to combo glives the player more options. Contrary to what some of you believe, combos are NOT about memorizing button combinations to rack up free damage. In Melee, combos were mostly about predicting your opponent's reaction. If you predict well, you can severely punish your opponent for being predictable.

Brawl suffers from not having this option. Even if you do correctly predict your opponent's reaction, often there is simply nothing you can do to punish it because he recovers so quickly. This drastically changes the nature of the game. Where in Melee you were looking for an opening, now in Brawl you're simply aiming for chip damage until your opponent is high enough to KO.

This is why camping will continue to be a dominant strategy. Combos require you to get close to your opponent. Chip damage works equally well from all the way across the stage, and theres no real reason to approach your opponent.

 

[MookieRah]

Does that about cover it?

No, you left out the fact that shield stun is so low that virtually everything can be shield grabbed.

You left out that camping is the most effective strategy in the game by far, and requires little to no skill.

You left out that the window of opportunity to punish a mistake is smaller in brawl than melee coupled with the fact that the game is slower means that even when your opponent does make a mistake (one that SHOULD be punished) they get away with it unscathed.

You also need to be aware, as well as everyone else, that when we talk about these problems we are doing so in a generalized manner. We could go into detail with this stuff, but the likelihood that people would read it and or fully understand it is very low.

From where I'm standing it looks like you guys are basically pissed that you'll actually have to adapt your gameplay more than just learning to combo someone to death and because now that players can break out of your combos you feel its not fair.

It is a common assumption that is entirely untrue. Competitive players, as a whole, are better at adapting than casual players. On top of that, the seasoned competitive players are WAY better at adapting. The fact that the seasoned vets of melee were able to discover a form of l-canceling, a chain throw with Dedede, a new way to edgehog, and countless other things from playing a DEMO of Brawl for just a small period of time should be evidence to prove to you that this isn't a problem of adaptation. It's a problem with the game itself.

I'm sorry if it sounds like I am coming down on you. That's not my intention. It's just that the "you gotta adapt" argument is not a very good one. Keep in mind the only people that say that are people that aren't experience with the game on the competitive level.

 

[Zek]

IF you guys are right and Brawl's 1v1 no-items metagame moves further towards boring and campy tactics, then the first response isn't "Oh well, back to Melee." Have you all forgotten the fact that you're still playing with settings that were agreed upon for Melee? Personally I'm totally opposed to Heavy Brawl unless by some miracle it ends up not completely destroying character balance, but there are a lot of other options to explore. Items? 2v2 teams? Coin matches? Whatever, the point is that since as we all know, Brawl is not Melee 2.0, it stands to reason that we should go back to the drawing board on game settings as well.

 

[Calixto]

It took Melee and broke it down into something simple that anyone can pick up and play. What is there to learn? Basic techniques are about as good as it gets right now.

I don't understand this dilemma. Chess, for example, is a rather simple game, and experienced players can still crush new players, and the games can still get competitive.

 

[hippochinfat!!]

GIANT IVYSAUR.

a

 

[Lei]

I don't like the idea that you can do a combo that just completely and utterly beats an opponent. Such as: shinedashing someone right off the stage and using an offstage shine to spike them to their death. No matter how well your DI was, you died.

Sure, it takes skill to learn timing to be able to do that, but once it's been done, don't you think that's boring? I'm enjoying the more adaptive playstyle of brawl than straight forward do 6 moves and you killed someone.

And about camping, if you play 3 stock you can camp to your heart's desire. But having 3 stock and a 10 minute time limit means you can't camp forever. So what is the problem with camping?