Does a lack of "true combos" hurt Brawl?

[SmashChu]

Well yeah........I mean what if starcraft 3 turned into a first person shooter or something, the players who were familiar with the previous installments would rebuke this change, while people new to the franchise might enjoy it at first glance.

Brawl is obviously less drastic than this comparison, but it is this type of change essentially. The jump from smash64 to melee was pretty big, but the jump from melee to brawl was huge. It effectively made it terrible to all the hardcore melee players and it gave people who were new to the franchise a chance to get hooked.

Also starcraft not having combos makes sense because its an rts....not the best comparison to smash games.

It's not the same at all.

People were complaining about Starcraft 2 before it came out. There was no LAN (still a big issue mind you), it was less micro intensive, you could have more then 12 or so units to a command group. People were seeing Starcraft 2 as being dumb down. As being easy. Turns out it's taking off quite well. For the second GSL (big tounrment in Korea), most of the Starcraft 1 pros competed.

But I'll use another game: Street Fighter

Hey guys... it's 1999. There's this new game called Third Strike out and it's trash. It's not as fast as ST, and it seems really turtle oriented with all the parry's and such. Plus Fireballs are garbage in this game. There are only three really amazing characters-- Chun, Yun, and Ken, and everybody else is kind of eh. In fact, Chun and Yun win EVERY tournament! I think Yun is a bit too cheap. Let's ban him guys? No really. I mean, EVERY tournament, everybody just uses Yun and it's free! What's the point of even trying to use the ideas we learned from Street Fighter II, He's Yun, and he's like Jesus... so there's no point. This game is so defense oriented I hate it! Somebody can just wait for you to do something and just Parry! It's Stupid as ****! You know what? I have an idea.

Yeah. It's a new day and age. Why don't we just go and take The STREET FIGHTER III engine, and just tweak the mechanics so it's exactly like ST! GENIUS! Let's just do that. **** parry's! I don't want to learn this new ****. Who want's to take the trouble of adapting to a new game. It's so slow and you need to use Normals. WHO NEEDS NORMAL?! I don't like new things! I'm 18! I want to be the same for the next 4 years playing this game!

ALL EVERYBODY DOES IS TURTLE! I WANT TO GO BACK TO ST! WHERE I CAN COMPLAIN HOW I CAN'T GET PAST SRKs BECAUSE THEY TAKE AWAY A QUARTER OF MY LIFE, AND FIREBALLS **** MY POOR HONDA! JESUS CHRIST THIS IS BULL****!

(sorry for the language)

This post comes from Shoryuken and it goes to show that just because a game is different doesn't mean it's bad.

The point I'm illustrating here is that games change all the time. A sequel will change a lot of things. The real difference is that in both Starcraft and Street Fighter changed with the jump to a new game. but only Smash Brothers players whine and complain about the new game (Fun fact: These Starcraft pros make ~$200,000 for winning the GSL, a bi monthly tournament, and even the losers make some money for their troubles. Their careers were built around 500 actions per minute. Yet they embrace Starcraft 2).

The problem is not that Brawl is different. It's that players would not accept it, which gives everyone else a headache (because they'll make sure you know it sucks). The moral of the story is embrace the game you have. There is nothing wrong with Brawl. Just play and learn it as Brawl, not loath it because it's not Melee 2.

 

[MarioMariox2]

Brawl is 3S XD

 

[Big-Cat]

Hey, honey, nice to see you've returned to another discussion, and doing so without bringing up sales.

The problem is not that Brawl is different. It's that players would not accept it, which gives everyone else a headache (because they'll make sure you know it sucks). The moral of the story is embrace the game you have. There is nothing wrong with Brawl. Just play and learn it as Brawl, not loath it because it's not Melee 2.

I don't think you have to embrace the game. There are three options you really have:
1. Play Brawl because of more competition even though it may feel like a chore.
2. Play 64 or Melee for a better time but a smaller pool (Assuming you prefer these two to Brawl).
3. Play another game.

IMO, I don't think difficulty has anything to do with how good a game is. Sure, you shouldn't be able to win with just a few attacks, but it shouldn't be frightening to newcomers who want to check it out. I'm more concerned about the depth of the mechanics than I am of the difficulty of executing them (as execution difficulty is subjective).

As I already said, my beef with Brawl's system (aside from random tripping and floatier gameplay) is that the risk you have for going on the offensive is not worth the reward you get (which is just one attack typically).

 

[napZzz]

it only hurts it if you see it that way. There isn't really a standard for what should and shouldn't be in a fighting game, and people usually view this as a bad thing, but others dont because they dont care.

 

[Sliq]

The problem is not that Brawl is different. It's that players would not accept it, which gives everyone else a headache (because they'll make sure you know it sucks). The moral of the story is embrace the game you have. There is nothing wrong with Brawl. Just play and learn it as Brawl, not loath it because it's not Melee 2.

You can't tell me what to like. I hate Brawl's campy, defensive gameplay. I acknowledge that it is defensive and campy, but I refuse to embrace it, because I don't like it.

There is a difference between tolerating something and liking something, and I will tolerate Brawl. However, I do still feel it is the inferior game.

Also, 3rd Strike is amazing.

 

[SmashChu]

You can't tell me what to like. I hate Brawl's campy, defensive gameplay. I acknowledge that it is defensive and campy, but I refuse to embrace it, because I don't like it.

There is a difference between tolerating something and liking something, and I will tolerate Brawl. However, I do still feel it is the inferior game.

Also, 3rd Strike is amazing.

And it's this mentality that is holding competitive Smash Bros. back.

People gave games like Starcraft 2 and 3rd Strike a change. They didn't whine and cry that it's not Melee. The mentality is that because it's defensive and campy, it's bad. In other words, it's not Melee.

Let me finish off that post from out Shoryuken friend.

On the real though? This is SRK. when it comes to fighting games. You either Adapt or you move on, simple as that. A lot of those complaints I listed were legitimate complaints for 3s when it first came out(even though it was 10x an improvement over 2I). I played Brawl, Played Melee, Played 3s, Played ST, and now I play IV, and my advice? If you like a game, play it... if you don't, then do yourself a favor and shut the **** up, because no one wants to hear your stupid opinion on how you hate so called "Game that came out over a year ago, and gives my community a bad name, but really it has nothing to do with that and the reason everybody hates my community is people like me come over and act like Nintendo is communist russia, and they hate their people, and they want them all to suffer and die in cold scruffy bear skin hats with a hammer and sickle. We piss and moan about how brawl destroyed our community and get angry at the game and beat it like a redheaded stepchild for some of it's sloppy mechanics, failing to realize Melee at first had many sloppy mechanics when it was introduced back in 2001, until many people looked past those mechanics and enjoyed the game for what it was. We also fail to realize that we are just scapegoating, because most of us ignore the main tenants of a fighting game-- the idea behind adapting and mindgaming, and instead blame our losses on a character whose abilities we don't attempt to circumvent, but instead attempt to complain about, and ban because we can't get past him. "

It pisses me off so much... because I really enjoy those two games and people just ****ing ruined them for me. I expected a lot more from the Smash community and I kept seeing posts like that one. If you don't like the game, just kindly shut the **** up and go about your business. We don't hate you because of it. We hate you because you come here every so often and post childish rants on how it's the game's fault for everything, when really, it's the way you're acting towards it.

EDIT: Oh... and the reason I said that we hate you for that-- is because much of the Smash community attempts to diffuse **** by scapegoating Brawl. But even more than that, most of them complain about **** that's really their flaw as players, and yet they blame it on the game.
......................
Oh, and Brawl +. That project is so ****ing ridiculous words can't even describe. Not once did the SF community, ever in anger of the game mechanics of any game go "Hey guys, lets go and change the mechanics back to ST mechanics and make it MORE competitive... feel me?" Alpha 3 was played as Alpha 3(including infinite's), 3s was played as 3s, and God **** it-- IV is played as IV. The immense amount of complaining from the Smash community is immature, and it doesn't make them look very intelligent when it's going on. In a few years, maybe they'll realize this in retrospect, but if not, then their community won't really take a step forward again. Just saying.

That's fine you don't like the game, but that's that. The problem is everyone tries to say how Brawl is such a horrible game. If you don't like Brawl, then go play Melee and leave it at that. No one whats to hear you complain about Brawl and how "Brawl should be Melee." And all of us on other message boards don't want to hear it either.

The other problem is the huge amount of group think that goes on in the Smash Bros community. Everyone hates on Brawl for the sake of hating on Brawl, most of the time without reason of why Brawl is a bad game.

 

[flyinfilipino]

That's fine you don't like the game, but that's that. The problem is everyone tries to say how Brawl is such a horrible game. If you don't like Brawl, then go play Melee and leave it at that. No one whats to hear you complain about Brawl and how "Brawl should be Melee." And all of us on other message boards don't want to hear it either.

The other problem is the huge amount of group think that goes on in the Smash Bros community. Everyone hates on Brawl for the sake of hating on Brawl, most of the time without reason of why Brawl is a bad game.

Didn't someone just say why they think it's a bad game, because of the defensive, campy playstyle? People are entitled to their own opinions, but then when people like you ask for them, you just call it whining because they don't agree with you. Then the cycle repeats, etc., etc.

 

[Sliq]

And it's this mentality that is holding competitive Smash Bros. back.

People gave games like Starcraft 2 and 3rd Strike a change. They didn't whine and cry that it's not Melee. The mentality is that because it's defensive and campy, it's bad. In other words, it's not Melee.

Dear misinformed shithead:

I played competitive Melee from October 2005 to March 2008. Then I played competitive Brawl until December of 2009.

10/05 - 3/08 --> 2 years, 5 months

3/08 - 12/09 --> 1 year, 9 months

I think that is more than enough time to come to an educated conclusion.

Now, what I need you to do is realize that I HAVE EXTENSIVELY PLAYED BOTH ****ING GAMES.

Read the thread title. Notice how it's a question? Notice how I'm answering that question? If this thread was entitled ANYTHING ELSE and I flew in out of nowhere and started *****ing, then MAYBE you'd have a point. But you don't, and you suck.

No, I don't believe a lack of true combos hurts Brawl. What hurts Brawl is the lack of hit and shield stun, IN MY ****ING HUMBLE OPINION.

What you fail to realize is that I can, if I wanted to, ***** and moan about anything I wanted to. Anything at all, and there is not a **** thing you can do about it except ***** about *****ing. That's all a god**** internet forum is: people *****ing.

GGNORE

 

[MarioMariox2]

From what I'm seeing, the Melee players dislike Brawl. The Brawl players dislike Brawl+. The Brawl+ players... I dunno.

 

[Big-Cat]

You're wasting time with this guy, Sliq. I've argued with him on other stuff in the past and it always ends bad. Just be prepared for how "successful" Brawl is because it sold a lot while other fighters sold less and a bunch of other crap. Not only that, but he will NEVER admit he's wrong.

 

[th3kuzinator]

From what I'm seeing, the Melee players dislike Brawl. The Brawl players dislike Brawl+. The Brawl+ players... I dunno.

And the smash64 players are forgotten. We are always forgotten.

 

[A2ZOMG]

Brawl doesn't really need more combos as far as I'm concerned. Yes combos are ONE way of increasing the reward of offense, but that matters mostly in conventional fighters where dealing damage is the direct objective for winning. In Smash, the objective is ringout, and the system itself works well enough, especially since capitalizing on positional advantage (such as juggles, edgeguards, and edgetraps) is still very strong in Brawl.

The REAL problems with Brawl are as follows:
*Unbalanced zoning options between tiers (within tiers, most matchups are very balanced otherwise)
*Planking
*Character specific infinites and other unhealthy abuses that are easy to do

Fix all of the following, Brawl is decent competitively.

Also, it should be noted that Melee is in fact almost as, if not more defensive than Brawl at its core, in that defense is actually extremely strong in Melee.

 

[Chsal]

I'm originally a Melee player, who switched to Brawl when it came out.

I like both, though to be honest sometimes there are Brawl moments where I just want to shoot myself in the head. (TRIPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP)

But actually replying to the thread question, I don't think its quite the lack of true comboes that hurt Brawl, but really the risk/reward gains. It doesn't matter so much if the game doesn't have true comboes, but what really matters is how rewarding actually attacking is.

For example, SF4 and Blazblue. I've watched SF4 videos, and I'm alright at Blazblue.
To me, SF4 doesn't seem to have much more than 5 hit comboes, and it takes quite a few of them to actually kill your opponent, yet its still very rewarding to attack and pressure your opponent.
As for Blazblue, comboes go to maybe 20-30 or so, 3 or 4 good ones kill your opponent, and its still very rewarding to attack and pressure.

The main point is that both reward players for attacking. Brawl does not.

Oh, and I believe I saw SC2 somewhere back there. Didn't read every single post, skimmed through the thread. SC2 still follows this idea of rewarding attacks. Though you can "turtle", and there isn't such a thing as comboes, it is generally very rewarding to constantly harrass the opponent, pressure him and etc into making mistakes.

On the aspect of defense, defense doesn't need to be weak, attack just needs to be more rewarding.
Melee : Getting hit by an attack typically puts you in a REALLY bad position.
Brawl : Oh, I got hit. I'll just airdodge/jump and then go back to camping =P.

 

[A2ZOMG]

The main point is that both reward players for attacking. Brawl does not.

On the aspect of defense, defense doesn't need to be weak, attack just needs to be more rewarding.
Melee : Getting hit by an attack typically puts you in a REALLY bad position.
Brawl : Oh, I got hit. I'll just airdodge/jump and then go back to camping =P.

False assumption. Brawl actually does have ways of being very rewarding on hit. Most characters in this game do in fact have options to punish jump and airdodge, and edgeguarding someone to death who gets hit out of their second jump is in some situations easier to do in this game than it is to do in Melee sometimes.

Having control of the stage, and putting someone on the edge is also extremely strong in Brawl. In fact, edgetrapping in Brawl generally is better than edgetrapping in Melee, when you discount unbeatable ledgecamping (which Melee DOES actually have btw).

If we go on the assumption that reward on hit is what matters in Brawl, Ganon would be top tier, since he has a lot of TRUE combos, and a ton of moves that **** on hit. And for that matter, he juggles and edgeguards quite well.

But the real problem of Brawl really isn't reward on hit. It's imbalanced zoning options, and abuses.

 

[Sliq]

Also, it should be noted that Melee is in fact almost as, if not more defensive than Brawl at its core, in that defense is actually extremely strong in Melee.

That's what is great about Melee: you can camp just as hard as in Brawl. However, you can also be extremely offensive. Fox is amazing at both play styles.

 

[MarioMariox2]

And the smash64 players are forgotten. We are always forgotten.

Smash64 players are indifferent to melee but disliking Brawl. Smash 64 is legit though :D

 

[SmashChu]

Dear misinformed shithead:

I played competitive Melee from October 2005 to March 2008. Then I played competitive Brawl until December of 2009.

10/05 - 3/08 --> 2 years, 5 months

3/08 - 12/09 --> 1 year, 9 months

I think that is more than enough time to come to an educated conclusion.

Now, what I need you to do is realize that I HAVE EXTENSIVELY PLAYED BOTH ****ING GAMES.

Read the thread title. Notice how it's a question? Notice how I'm answering that question? If this thread was entitled ANYTHING ELSE and I flew in out of nowhere and started *****ing, then MAYBE you'd have a point. But you don't, and you suck.

No, I don't believe a lack of true combos hurts Brawl. What hurts Brawl is the lack of hit and shield stun, IN MY ****ING HUMBLE OPINION.

What you fail to realize is that I can, if I wanted to, ***** and moan about anything I wanted to. Anything at all, and there is not a **** thing you can do about it except ***** about *****ing. That's all a god**** internet forum is: people *****ing.

GGNORE

Whoa, hold on here. No need to be upset.

The truth of the matter is that in any other competitive community, you'd be rightfully scorned for that post. In Smash Bros. land, you're a normal poster.

What I got from the post is the same thing: Brawl is not Melee. Not once did you mention Brawl but how it lacks stuff that Melee had. Which is the problem. You're not looking at it as "Brawl is Brawl," but "Brawl should be Melee."

In the Street Fighter community, they'd tell you to stop crying and go somewhere else. In Starcraft, they'll call you a raging fanboy and tell you to go somewhere else. Here, you are following the group think to a tee. You claim that you played Brawl "extensively," but I would disagree with that. You post implies a bias to Brawl from the get go (again, stemming from "It's not Melee," mentality). In years of playing games, people still find new stuff. Games evolve up until the very end (heck, Jigglypuff is a top tier character, something she wasn't when Brawl came out). So how can you say you've played it "extensively," when you only played it for a three fourths and still have a large bias towards Melee (evident by the specific mention of sheildstun).

So yes, you can say what you want, but that also means I can say what I want and can call you out on your actions (like the fact that nothing you said relates to my post and you "U MAD?). Like I said, this behavior only flies in Smash Bros, which is a problem with the community.

 

[flyinfilipino]

I hate Brawl's campy, defensive gameplay. I acknowledge that it is defensive and campy, but I refuse to embrace it, because I don't like it.

Everyone hates on Brawl for the sake of hating on Brawl, most of the time without reason of why Brawl is a bad game.

No, I don't believe a lack of true combos hurts Brawl. What hurts Brawl is the lack of hit and shield stun

What I got from the post is the same thing: Brawl is not Melee. Not once did you mention Brawl but how it lacks stuff that Melee had. Which is the problem. You're not looking at it as "Brawl is Brawl," but "Brawl should be Melee."

I'd say Sliq has made clear the reason he dislikes Brawl, SmashChu, but you're choosing to ignore it in order to generalize the opinions of all competitive Smash players, which you're in no position to do. There are legitimate reasons for disliking Brawl that don't simply boil down to it simply being different from Melee, which you will refuse to acknowledge anyway because you don't like it when people don't agree with you. You are the one trying to tell people what to like here, and what their words mean, and what is right or wrong, when that's just not plausible.

What you need to do is learn to keep an open mind and cool it with the accusations and generalizations. This is a public forum, let people say what the heck they want.

 

[JPOBS]

The majority of people in this thread have clearly never played competitively melee and have no f***ing idea what they are talking about at all.

I already conceded that Melee was the better competitive game, but you can't deny that Brawl has greatly overtaken Melee popularity-wise, even quickly taking its spot in the MLG circuit when Halo 2 and 3 managed to co-exist on the circuit for some time after Halo 3 was released. Perhaps the "newness" of the game had something to do with it, but that couldn't have been the whole reason. Also, fun is subjective, so your version of fun is slightly different than my version

As far as cst's are concerned, Melee certainly did have them, but if I remember correctly (and I might not, so correct me if I'm wrong), they tended to be more common among the low-mid tier characters, with the more popular characters only having 1 or 2 at most:

-Space Animals didn't really have any, unless you count SHDL's and such, but that's more similar to SHFFL'd aerials than cst's.

-Shiek had nifty edgehog shenanigans with up-b and needle canceling

-Marth was just all about incredible disjointed range and perfect spacing

-I'm not sure about Jigglypuff since I stopped following the Melee metagame before she became really popular.

-Captain Falcon had moonwalking (which he shared with some other characters, but his was most useful) and thats about it.

-Peach did have tons, due to both turnips and floating

-Ice Climbers had super chaingrabs and at least 2 banned techniques but they're probably the weirdest character in the game and deserve all of that tech.

you actually have no idea about anything at all. Like, almost every single line in this post was wrong in some way.

Quit posting please.

 

[Chsal]

Ok maybe I didn't phrase my answer quite right.

Brawl does reward being offensive, but majority of the time being defensive is more rewarding.

Also, most characters do not have a reliable way to punish jump/airdodge because typically the other person can get away from you faster than you can reach them after your attack. (Which is really also why there are nearly no true comboes, but mostly pseudo-comboes, frame traps and the like). However, I suppose this is a pretty broad generalisation. I don't mean small things like jabs with barely any knockback, I mean something decent. Like most character's Fairs, tilts, etc.

On the other hand, not actually approaching your opponent and instead punishing him for approaching gives better rewards. Though this is a strange one too I guess. Higher tiers are generally less punishable when approaching. Depends on whether you consider the "majority of times" to be with higher tiers, or with the rest of the cast.

And of course being aggressive in times like edgeguarding is rewarding. But usually you'll be onstage.

 

[A2ZOMG]

That's what is great about Melee: you can camp just as hard as in Brawl. However, you can also be extremely offensive. Fox is amazing at both play styles.

Characters like Fox and Falco are only the exception, and in matchups that actually matter, offense isn't even their best option.

By looking at what is usually the best option for the vast majority, no rather every character of Melee, it's probably a more fundamentally defensive game than Brawl due to the nature of light shielding, crouch canceling, dashdancing, wavedashing, and extremely strong universal ledge options. Sure breaking defenses is more rewarding, but the actual defenses themselves, as in options to repel offenses are in many ways stronger in Melee than they are in Brawl. The main reason to approach at all in Melee is the implied reward of breaking defenses (especially with grab combos, or edgeguards). Given that the reward of breaking defenses in Melee is usually very large, Melee is saved from being terrible and ends up being one of the better competitive games in existence, but that doesn't stop players like HungryBox from causing other players to potentially rage over this game.

Also Sliq, Brawl- has proven without doubt that more shieldstun to Brawl is not the solution at all. That actually makes the game MORE defensive, by weakening a fundamental approach option. Honestly Melee was extremely close to being a horrible game due to its shieldstun and shield drop time, except competitive players realized you could jump out of shield (the casual players who don't know that you can jump out of shield, now you know why rolling is a common bad habit). If there was ONE thing I would change to MELEE in specific, I would make shield drop time 10 frames as opposed to how it's currently around 14-15. It's unacceptable in my book that you can't simply tilt out of shield against punishable Smashes. That just makes the game unnecessarily hard to learn for newer players.

On the other hand, not actually approaching your opponent and instead punishing him for approaching gives better rewards. Though this is a strange one too I guess. Higher tiers are generally less punishable when approaching. Depends on whether you consider the "majority of times" to be with higher tiers, or with the rest of the cast.

Most characters actually approach pretty easily in Brawl when we discount the fact that zoning options are extremely unbalanced between tiers (which I stress is the real problem with Brawl). Between approach being fundamentally easy to do in Brawl and lower reward than compared to Melee, it's a fair system if you ask me. Generally speaking camping with projectiles (unless you're Falco) is overrated in Brawl and easy for every character to bypass. And thankfully in Brawl there is no character nearly as outrageous as Melee Jiggs or Sheik (their Brawl counterparts are currently underrated characters, but that's a different story), although your associated top tiers are still overall pretty lame in this game.

 

[Sliq]

What I got from the post is the same thing: Brawl is not Melee. Not once did you mention Brawl but how it lacks stuff that Melee had. Which is the problem. You're not looking at it as "Brawl is Brawl," but "Brawl should be Melee."

Comparing and contrasting is a legitimate way of reviewing similar things. You are dumb.

So yes, you can say what you want, but that also means I can say what I want and can call you out on your actions (like the fact that nothing you said relates to my post and you "U MAD?). Like I said, this behavior only flies in Smash Bros, which is a problem with the community.

Then I can call you a ****** nobody with a ******** name and no talent. Ta dah!

The problem with the smash community is that we care what other communities think (i.e. you).

 

[SmashChu]

Comparing and contrasting is a legitimate way of reviewing similar things. You are dumb.

Yeah, but it's not the only way. Why use only one tool when you have plenty of them. What's wrong with Brawl as Brawl?

Then I can call you a ****** nobody with a ******** name and no talent. Ta dah!

Yeah, U MAD.

The problem with the smash community is that we care what other communities think (i.e. you).

You mean "we don't care?"

Funny enough, I claim the only reason that you dislike Brawl is that it's not Melee and you fly off the handle. What's the big deal? You have an opinion and I disagree with it, so that is that. Yet you go ballistic and throw out profanities. Why are you defensive about it? The reason I point it out is because the community is so childish that they can't accept a new game and play the old one while continuously complain about the new one's existence. (NOTE: Almost every game community has had a transition. While there was whining, it never got in the way of playing and learning a new game. Only Smash Bros is one which just considers the new game garbage in every way and you better believe they'll let you know).

It would be OK to let the community sit there and mind it's own business, but the Smash Brothers community takes every chance it gets to try and drive home that it IS a competitive game, items are for n00bs (as is not picking a top tier character) and that Brawl is the worst thing ever every where it can, be it 4chan, Shoryuken and so on. If Smash Brothers players feel the need to spread their mantra everywhere, then feel free to take a few hits.

you actually have no idea about anything at all. Like, almost every single line in this post was wrong in some way.

Quit posting please.

Yet you never say how it is wrong. For all we know, you know jack about competitive Smash.

 

[Black Mantis]

Characters like Fox and Falco are only the exception, and in matchups that actually matter, offense isn't even their best option.

By looking at what is usually the best option for the vast majority, no rather every character of Melee, it's probably a more fundamentally defensive game than Brawl due to the nature of light shielding, crouch canceling, dashdancing, wavedashing, and extremely strong universal ledge options. Sure breaking defenses is more rewarding, but the actual defenses themselves, as in options to repel offenses are in many ways stronger in Melee than they are in Brawl. The main reason to approach at all in Melee is the implied reward of breaking defenses (especially with grab combos, or edgeguards). Given that the reward of breaking defenses in Melee is usually very large, Melee is saved from being terrible and ends up being one of the better competitive games in existence, but that doesn't stop players like HungryBox from causing other players to potentially rage over this game.

Also Sliq, Brawl- has proven without doubt that more shieldstun to Brawl is not the solution at all. That actually makes the game MORE defensive, by weakening a fundamental approach option. Honestly Melee was extremely close to being a horrible game due to its shieldstun and shield drop time, except competitive players realized you could jump out of shield (the casual players who don't know that you can jump out of shield, now you know why rolling is a common bad habit). If there was ONE thing I would change to MELEE in specific, I would make shield drop time 10 frames as opposed to how it's currently around 14-15. It's unacceptable in my book that you can't simply tilt out of shield against punishable Smashes. That just makes the game unnecessarily hard to learn for newer players.

Most characters actually approach pretty easily in Brawl when we discount the fact that zoning options are extremely unbalanced between tiers (which I stress is the real problem with Brawl). Between approach being fundamentally easy to do in Brawl and lower reward than compared to Melee, it's a fair system if you ask me. Generally speaking camping with projectiles (unless you're Falco) is overrated in Brawl and easy for every character to bypass. And thankfully in Brawl there is no character nearly as outrageous as Melee Jiggs or Sheik (their Brawl counterparts are currently underrated characters, but that's a different story), although your associated top tiers are still overall pretty lame in this game.

pretty much what he said.

 

[TP]

SmashChu, you are probably one of the worst debaters I have ever seen. Calling out ****ING SLIQ for not playing Brawl extensively? At one point he was the best in the country at TWO ****ING CHARACTERS. You can't just say people are mad and whine whenever they disagree with you. You have to actually know what you're talking about, an area where you fall sadly short. EVERYONE agrees that Brawl would be better if it had more hitstun, like Melee, with the exception of people who don't appreciate competitive fighting games. I'm saying that, and I've been playing Brawl competitively since it came out and never played Melee competitively. It's just how it is.

 

[Deleted member]

Removed by Moderator

 

[satowolf]

Melee>Brawl!!! DUH
jk

People should just play whatever fits their style.
Fast aggressive combos - Melee
Slow defensive game play - Brawl

They're both different games with different styles.
Melee is more technical while Brawl is slightly more tactical.

In other words, It's been almost a decade since Melee came out and it's great to see people still jerking off to it, but brawl is only like..3 years old. Give the game some time.

 

[Frogles]

Let's look at the biggest competitive game that has ever existed: Starcraft. Starcraft is a national sport in Korea. It's huge. Watching a Starcraft game is like watching a rock concert. They take it very seriously.

Now, does Starcraft have combos. No. You just move Marines and Zerglings across the map. Does it make it a bad E-sports game. Of course not, as everyone in Korea knows about professional Starcraft and those pros make very good money. The big problem here is scapegoating Brawl. Just because Brawl doesn't have combos, doesn't mean it's a bad game. It means you have to play it differently. The Tourney Smash community wants this game to be Melee so bad (to the point of modding it) rather than just accept Brawl for what it is.

The problem with tournament Smash is not combos. It's something big that is holding it back. But that is a story for another day

1. starcraft isnt a fighting game
2. the project m team consists of like 30 people or something (hardly representative of the tourney community)
3. brawl is a bad fighter. get over it.

nobody take this guy seriously. i remember getting into an argument with him in another thread and when everybody jumped on his *** for saying stupid **** he left calling us all bad debaters and insisted he was right about whatever stupid crap he was going on about. im 100% sure hes just a troll.

 

[flyinfilipino]

Yeah, but it's not the only way. Why use only one tool when you have plenty of them. What's wrong with Brawl as Brawl?

Yet you never say how it is wrong. For all we know, you know jack about competitive Smash.

You know, it's not like you're offering your own opinion on either game yourself. All you're doing is trolling people that don't agree with you and trying to put words in people's mouths, in addition to ignoring statements that are relevant to the current argument.

 

[Big-Cat]

His main argument why Brawl is the better game is probably because it sold more. To him, sales is THE indicator for quality.

 

[Wenbobular]

And the smash64 players are forgotten. We are always forgotten.

It's cuz we basically don't exist
I ditched 64 a long time ago for Melee anyways. Melee for life

 

[Deleted member]

I think Brawl's lack of combos hurts its crowd appeal quite a bit. Before you even address the mechanics, the implications of being a member of the community, or picking up a controller, you ask yourself quietly, "Does this game look fun to play?" I think some newcomers to the franchise would say yes, but since this game is a sequel to the last two, the majority of players familiar with smash give a no. But that's okay, looks aren't everything, and neither are combos. Brawl is a substantially different from the other 2 smash games and can be treated as such.

I feel that what really hurts Brawl is what are very clearly bastardized controls and mechanics. Brawl has a series of mechanics obviously designed to hinder competitive gameplay.

1. C down aerial auto executes an unnecessary a fastfall.
2. L canceling was specifically targeted and removed.
3. A fast jump followed by C forward aerial instead causes a forward jump.
4. While holding down, C stick attacks becomes tilts.
5. Substantially restricted dash mechanics to the point it hinders mobility.
6. Tripping
7. The most stun in the game comes from an attack that does no damage (toadstool hopping).
8. Clearly untested characters or hitboxes, both good and bad.
9. Substantially higher defensive capabilities, or drastically gimped offensive capabilities.

Unlike some of the prior posts, I don't want Brawl to be more like Melee. Let's be honest, when Brawl was coming out, people were getting tired of Melee. No one wanted Melee 2.0. Problem is that no one wanted Melee 0.5 untested Beta version either. It's immediately obvious that no one ever tested Brawl Link.

edit:

And the smash64 players are forgotten. We are always forgotten.

 

[th3kuzinator]

Smash64 = POWs

:O wenobular say it aint so. Your fox guide is the thing that got me started with smash64 all those years ago. That and the fact that I am way to lazy to find someone else near by with melee and melee online is trash.

Obviously not brawl, because it goes against everything smash stands for.

Problem is that no one wanted Melee 0.5 untested Beta version either.

Lol.

 

[MarioMariox2]

Don't worry, SSB4 will fix Brawl's "mistake" and we'll just look at Sakurai, laugh, and say, "HE IS ENTERTAINER!"

j/k j/k maybe

 

[th3kuzinator]

Take away kirby's utilt and import the Japanese link into our smash and ssb64 = perfect

Spoiler

oh and maybe make it so ness' recovery dosent suck soooooooooooooo much

 

[Wenbobular]

Haha, while I'm glad my guide actually helped someone I just think Melee is a much better game. There's more options on defense without making it so that camping is the best strategy and you have to work for your combos which makes it much more rewarding when you pull them off.

Also if you live in NY you can't be that far from someone who plays Melee xD

 

[Olikus]

It's cuz we basically don't exist
I ditched 64 a long time ago for Melee anyways. Melee for life

Extreme pain. Either a heart attack or the reaction of reading this. I dont care if we are the smallest smash community. 64 is and will ALWAYS EXIST!

 

[Wenbobular]

Extreme pain. Either a heart attack or the reaction of reading this. I dont care if we are the smallest smash community. 64 is and will ALWAYS EXIST!

Not denying it seeing as I still frequent the forums after like ... 6 years now or something
Half my posts are in the forum o_O

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

RAWR

There is no need to post like this. :/

You're wasting time with this guy, Sliq. I've argued with him on other stuff in the past and it always ends bad. Just be prepared for how "successful" Brawl is because it sold a lot while other fighters sold less and a bunch of other crap. Not only that, but he will NEVER admit he's wrong.

If he really needs an example of something bad that is popular, point him to the Twilight series.

I think Brawl's lack of combos hurts its crowd appeal quite a bit. Before you even address the mechanics, the implications of being a member of the community, or picking up a controller, you ask yourself quietly, "Does this game look fun to play?" I think some newcomers to the franchise would say yes, but since this game is a sequel to the last two, the majority of players familiar with smash give a no. But that's okay, looks aren't everything, and neither are combos. Brawl is a substantially different from the other 2 smash games and can be treated as such.

I feel that what really hurts Brawl is what are very clearly bastardized controls and mechanics. Brawl has a series of mechanics obviously designed to hinder competitive gameplay.

1. C down aerial auto executes an unnecessary a fastfall.
2. L canceling was specifically targeted and removed.
3. A fast jump followed by C forward aerial instead causes a forward jump.
4. While holding down, C stick attacks becomes tilts.
5. Substantially restricted dash mechanics to the point it hinders mobility.
6. Tripping
7. The most stun in the game comes from an attack that does no damage (toadstool hopping).
8. Clearly untested characters or hitboxes, both good and bad.
9. Substantially higher defensive capabilities, or drastically gimped offensive capabilities.

Melee looks fun, but tbh, I don't find it that enjoyable compared to Brawl. How it feels to the player matters more, imo.

I don't see what 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 have anything to do with whats wrong with Brawl. 5 I guess you could mean no ability to dash dance, but it's doesn't stop movement from being important or made terrible.

L-canceling is better off gone, I don't see a logical reason to why it should be added to a game. It's nothing but a useless skill test that doesn't actually add depth when you get down to the nit and gritty. I'm not talking about how it makes combos possible, I'm taking about there isn't a single reason why you would never L-cancel an aerial. At least with wavedashing there are reason why you want to wave dashing while doing something forwards and backwards, there is no reason why you don't want to L-cancel an aerial. Unless adding lag to an aerial is good.

Tripping I agree is stupid and anti-competitive.

As for hitboxes...have you seen the ones in Melee, some of those are pretty downright unfair similarly to how Brawl has hitbox issues. Testing in both games has been bad in some areas. Sheik's Dthrow CG, DDD's Dthrow, Ice Climbers in either games. This isn't anything new to smash or even to many games in retrospect.

Unlike some of the prior posts, I don't want Brawl to be more like Melee. Let's be honest, when Brawl was coming out, people were getting tired of Melee. No one wanted Melee 2.0. Problem is that no one wanted Melee 0.5 untested Beta version either. It's immediately obvious that no one ever tested Brawl Link.

Link was rebalanced, not untested, also Sakurai hate him and wants him to stay low tier in every smash game.

The game isn't an untested beta either, neither was, they have issues, but not untested betas.

 

[Jonas]

As for hitboxes...have you seen the ones in Melee, some of those are pretty downright unfair similarly to how Brawl has hitbox issues. Testing in both games has been bad in some areas. Sheik's Dthrow CG, DDD's Dthrow, Ice Climbers in either games. This isn't anything new to smash or even to many games in retrospect.

Do you know what a hitbox is?