Is Brawl more balanced than melee? **Take 2**

[Ulevo]

I think this is a little biased.

Brawl has easily more than 3 viable characters.

Metaknight, Falco, D3, GaW, Snake, Marth, Wario, and ROB can pretty much all beat each other out, it all just depends on skill level. At the highest level of metagame, Marth can still beat metaknight, while in melee, at the highest, Bowser wont beat Fox. In brawl, even at the highest level, Bowser can beat marth and metaknight, and many other lower tier characters can still work well vs. many high tiers. Its just certain high tiers that make these chars unviable, like falco and D3 with their chaingrabs.

A little biased?

Last time I heard, Snakeee and NinjaLink both beat the best player in the world, who happens to use the "best" character on the Tier List, both using ZSS and Diddy Kong respectively. NinjaLink has done this twice now.

I'd say this is really biased.

 

[n88]

I agree with teekay.
All fighting games have a small top tier. Not all of them have a Meta Knight, but they all have a small group of characters that just kill almost everyone else.
I don't own either Brawl or Melee, so my desicion probably doesn't count for much, but from what I've played, I would say Brawl would be more balanced with the removal of Meta Knight. With Meta Knight, I think Melee is just a tad more balanced.

 

[hyperhopper]

i think that the op is right


to many charecters underrated

and Mk is overrated


think back to melee. imagine

mario vs fox

now imagine in brawl

mario vs meta knight

which situation would mario want to be in?

Spoiler

brawl!!!!!

 

[ShadowLink84]

Fox actually.

 

[E.G.G.M.A.N.]

Difficulty should be a factor if the thing in question is nearly impossible. Otherwise Melee Fox SHOULD be banned with Perfect Control and Adventure (SuperDoodleMan's videos) as evidence why.

That form of Waveshining was almost (if ever) NEVER seen in tournaments due to difficulty.

Kind of off topic, but I just wanted point out that SDM's videos would be impossible in real life because of the time it takes for the buttons to decompress. Even though the game is in x 1/60 speed, it is still being played in real time...including the buttons. So it's as though the buttons were decompressing 60 times faster than their normal speed. At x1 speed, even if you yourself were fast enough to accomplish such feats, you would be limited in your button pressing by the time it takes for each button to pop back up so you can press it again.

 

[Lord Viper]

Youko will flip when he sees a brawl vs melee topic like this.

I think he will, but I don't think theres anything he can do about it yet however. But the fact that this topic has been revived is an outrage. Most of the point's has been discussed, I understand that it's because people want current info right now, but why make another thread that made a lot of fire? =/

 

[Yuna]

I think he will, but I don't think theres anything he can do about it yet however. But the fact that this topic has been revived is an outrage. Most of the point's has been discussed, I understand that it's because people want current info right now, but why make another thread that made a lot of fire? =/

The Halloween Captain saw Sadahara Inui argue something completely unrelated to Brawl vs. Melee and thought it'd make an excellent argument for why Brawl is more balanced than Melee (or at least balanced) and therefore made this thread without stopping to think that the "argument" applies just as much, if not more, to Melee.

 

[The Real Inferno]

My 2cents: I don't think either game is really anywhere near what I would call "balanced" and the difference between their respective levels of inbalance are completely irrelevent.

 

[OverLade]

i think that the op is right


to many charecters underrated

and Mk is overrated


think back to melee. imagine

mario vs fox

now imagine in brawl

mario vs meta knight

which situation would mario want to be in?

Spoiler

brawl!!!!!

But consider this.

Bowser vs. Falco? Melee

Or Bowser vs. Meta? Brawl

Any smart/good bowser will choose brawl.

Brawl has more characters who arent viable alone, but can still beat high tiers in alone matches (hence M2K losing a match to Snakeee and him beating other good metas).

 

[viparagon]

i think that the op is right


to many charecters underrated

and Mk is overrated


think back to melee. imagine

mario vs fox

now imagine in brawl

mario vs meta knight

which situation would mario want to be in?

Spoiler

brawl!!!!!

yeah, if you look at the matchup mario actually does better against fox thanks to cape +combos

But consider this.

Bowser vs. Falco? Melee

Or Bowser vs. Meta? Brawl

Any smart/good bowser will choose brawl.

Brawl has more characters who arent viable alone, but can still beat high tiers in alone matches (hence M2K losing a match to Snakeee and him beating other good metas).

yeah, but bowser is good agaainst metaknight and a better character overall in brawl...

 

[Izaw]

Brawl is more balanced. Thank you.

Yeah I said it.

 

[OverLade]

Brawl is more balanced. Thank you.

Yeah I said it.

Izaw said it.

Thread over.

 

[Mocha19]

I think both games are pretty broken if you ask me. It's better to just stick with whatever game you really want to play. It's not a contest or anything. It's kinda pointless I think.

 

[Yuna]

But consider this.

Bowser vs. Falco? Melee

Or Bowser vs. Meta? Brawl

BS logic. You can be very far down on the tier list, yet enjoy an evenish matchup against certain Top Tiers. Brawl Bowser also happens to be much further up on the tier list in Brawl than in Melee. And he enjoys a better match-up against Meta than Melee Bowser vs. Melee Fox (I think).

But still, Melee Bowser is 4th worst. Brawl Bowser is 22th best/16th worst.

Any smart/good bowser will choose brawl.

That's because it's a different game that works differently, including match-ups. A more valid (but not entirely valid) comparison would be Melee Bowser vs. Melee Fox / Brawl Meta Knight vs. Brawl Jigglypuff or something.

Brawl has more characters who arent viable alone, but can still beat high tiers in alone matches (hence M2K losing a match to Snakeee and him beating other good metas).

O RLY? How do you know this? I'd like statistics and match-up numbers.

I agree with teekay.
All fighting games have a small top tier. Not all of them have a Meta Knight, but they all have a small group of characters that just kill almost everyone else.
I don't own either Brawl or Melee, so my desicion probably doesn't count for much, but from what I've played, I would say Brawl would be more balanced with the removal of Meta Knight. With Meta Knight, I think Melee is just a tad more balanced.

There are games where the Top Tiers only win by a small margin. Guilty Gear XX had several of its biggest Japanese tournaments won by the 3 bottoms of bottom tier, May, Anji and Chipp. Balance!

 

[Mocha19]

There are games where the Top Tiers only win by a small margin. Guilty Gear XX had several of its biggest Japanese tournaments won by the 3 bottoms of bottom tier, May, Anji and Chipp. Balance!

I thought May was High Tier.. Hmm.. I was fooled.. =P

 

[Yuna]

I thought May was High Tier.. Hmm.. I was fooled.. =P

May (does she even have a last name?), Chipp Zanuff and Anji Moto were all, at one time or another, the very bottom of bottom tier. All 3 stayed in bottom tier pretty much throughout GGXX#R's lifespan, but they switched places with each other.

There are many games in the GGXX-series, GGXX, GGXX#Reload (which was the game I was speaking of, I forgot it was Reload and not the original), GGXX Isuka (nobody likes it), GGXX Slash and GGXX#Accent Core. Each game has a different tier list.

I believe May is high-ish in GGXX#AC (the latest installment in the series). She was Bottom in GGXX#R, though.

 

[Mocha19]

I don't think she has a last name.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

BS logic. You can be very far down on the tier list, yet enjoy an evenish matchup against certain Top Tiers. Brawl Bowser also happens to be much further up on the tier list in Brawl than in Melee. And he enjoys a better match-up against Meta than Melee Bowser vs. Melee Fox (I think).

But still, Melee Bowser is 4th worst. Brawl Bowser is 22th best/16th worst.


That's because it's a different game that works differently, including match-ups. A more valid (but not entirely valid) comparison would be Melee Bowser vs. Melee Fox / Brawl Meta Knight vs. Brawl Jigglypuff or something.


O RLY? How do you know this? I'd like statistics and match-up numbers.


There are games where the Top Tiers only win by a small margin. Guilty Gear XX had several of its biggest Japanese tournaments won by the 3 bottoms of bottom tier, May, Anji and Chipp. Balance!

Stop heckling.

 

[Yuna]

Stop heckling.

I can heckle and provide valid counter-arguments at the same time. It is BS logic. It's also old BS logic we've seen a jillion times before and we're tired of it.

 

[Punishment Divine]

May (does she even have a last name?), Chipp Zanuff and Anji Moto were all, at one time or another, the very bottom of bottom tier. All 3 stayed in bottom tier pretty much throughout GGXX#R's lifespan, but they switched places with each other.

There are many games in the GGXX-series, GGXX, GGXX#Reload (which was the game I was speaking of, I forgot it was Reload and not the original), GGXX Isuka (nobody likes it), GGXX Slash and GGXX#Accent Core. Each game has a different tier list.

I believe May is high-ish in GGXX#AC (the latest installment in the series). She was Bottom in GGXX#R, though.

She doesn't have a last name, and she is A tier in AC

But the real reason I came in here is to ask why we're discussing this again. I thought topics like this would be closed automatically.

 

[Yuna]

She doesn't have a last name, and she is A tier in AC

A Tie = GG-equivalent of High Tier in Smash (Top being S). What tier is Millia, anyway? I think A as well?

But the real reason I came in here is to ask why we're discussing this again. I thought topics like this would be closed automatically.

Ask The Halloween Captain, who pulled out an argument Inui made about something else entirely and interpreted it as "valid new arguments" for how Brawl might be more balanced than Melee.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

A Tie = GG-equivalent of High Tier in Smash (Top being S). What tier is Millia, anyway? I think A as well?


Ask The Halloween Captain, who pulled out an argument Inui made about something else entirely and interpreted it as "valid new arguments" for how Brawl might be more balanced than Melee.

Stop bringing me into this. I don't have an opinion on this topic.

I figured it was about time to reopen this, because we now know the metagame better and are slightly less attached to melee.

 

[Punishment Divine]

A Tie = GG-equivalent of High Tier in Smash (Top being S). What tier is Millia, anyway? I think A as well?


Ask The Halloween Captain, who pulled out an argument Inui made about something else entirely and interpreted it as "valid new arguments" for how Brawl might be more balanced than Melee.

Millia is like B-C and just looking now some places show May as A-B. Like you said, though, the game is balanced so the middle tiers are hard to come up with...Eddie and Testament are obviously above everyone else, though. Just a little, thankfully.

And regardless of who started this, can someone, y'know, close this?

 

[Yuna]

Stop bringing me into this. I don't have an opinion on this topic.

Did I say you did?

I figured it was about time to reopen this, because we now know the metagame better and are slightly less attached to melee.

No you didn't. Your own OP specifically states that the reason why you created this thread was at least partially because of an argument, which Inui technically never made, you stumbled upon which you judged valid for this context (it's not).

Of course we know more now than when the last thread was open. Things are still the same, though. In fact, back then, Snake was actually closer to MK in performance, so things have gotten worse balance-wise.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Did I say you did?


No you didn't. Your own OP specifically states that the reason why you created this thread was at least partially because of an argument, which Inui technically never made, you stumbled upon which you judged valid for this context (it's not).

Of course we know more now than when the last thread was open. Things are still the same, though. In fact, back then, Snake was actually closer to MK in performance, so things have gotten worse balance-wise.

Whatever.

 

[Dekar173]

For the sake of this argument, let's bring a new point to mind:

Not everyone was competitive with Melee, either there wasn't that big of a scene where they lived, or Smash as a competitive game wasn't networked and advertised as well as it should have been, and many people who WOULD have played competitively (truly competitively, traveling around city/state in order to compete, one or two tourneys in Melee's prime days don't count, like with me attending next to no tournaments). Now here's Brawl, brand new after the sensation that was Melee. Many people pick up the game and love it.

What's the difference between them picking up Melee at Brawl's release date and loving it, and picking up Brawl on that same day?

Nobody was playing Brawl for 6 years (at Brawl's date of release, of course) before these people picked it up. The playing field was leveled once again (though in-game smarts carried over indefinitely for every Melee player, and they were still most certainly more skilled than the new smashers).

What is my point? Simply put, Brawl may not be more balanced in terms of characters (that's still up for debate, and will probably be for a couple more years until tier-whoring is in full swing,) but as a game in general, simply due to it's release date, it is more balanced for players.



Moral of the story? Melee fanboys, please realize that Melee and the money to be made from it are dying. Nobody wants to pick up a game that has been practiced, nitpicked, studied, and perfected by other people for seven years. Pick up Brawl, the better player WILL come out on top, and if that's you, well then awesome. You just earned yourself more money at a local scrub monthly than you would've won at a melee regional event.

I speak from experience my friends. CS 1.6 in America has died and been replaced by its inbred niece CS:S. Either go with the flow and pick up Brawl and make yourself some money (if you're good enough,) or move on with life and save yourself a lot of stress watching Melee deteriorate into a pitiful echo of its once glorious prime.

 

[FishkeeperTimmay!]

I think this is a little biased.

Brawl has easily more than 3 viable characters.

Metaknight, Falco, D3, GaW, Snake, Marth, Wario, and ROB can pretty much all beat each other out, it all just depends on skill level. At the highest level of metagame, Marth can still beat metaknight, while in melee, at the highest, Bowser wont beat Fox. In brawl, even at the highest level, Bowser can beat marth and metaknight, and many other lower tier characters can still work well vs. many high tiers. Its just certain high tiers that make these chars unviable, like falco and D3 with their chaingrabs.

I find this funny, because not once in my entire post did I say that Brawl had three VIABLE characters. I said it had three DOMINANT characters. MK, Snake and DDD. I compared this to Marth, the Spacies and Sheik in Melee.

I actually said that Brawl had MORE viable characters than Melee. This was referring to the number of characters who are making it out of pools. Brawl WINS here. I said it myself, in the very post you are criticizing.

I will admit I added bias into my last arguement in terms of tier width. But frankly, there isn't enough emperical data to work with to draw strong conlusions with when it comes tier width.

And you counter argument makes almost no parallels at all. First off, Marth being able to keep up with Metaknight in Brawl is NOT on the same grounds as Bowser versus Fox in Melee. Marth is much closer to Metaknight on the tier list AND in tournament placings in Brawl. BOWSER is also much closer to Metaknight, he's not even concidered bottom tier!

If your going to try and draw parrallels between the games, try to at least make them accurate!



RTFP.

 

[The_Blue_Bomber]

Is Brawl more balanced than melee?

/thread
jk

Seriously though, anything I say here wont mean much, as I never played Melee competitively, but from what I've seen in videos/read, Melee seemed to have less variety in terms of character winnings. All I really saw winning major tourneys in Melee were Fox, Falco, Marth, Shiek, IC, Dr. Mario and Samus. While Brawl has MK, Snake, GaW, DDD, Falco, Olimar, Marth, ROB, etc. But that's just what I've seen...

 

[KoRoBeNiKi]

brawl is flawed, at least even the bottom characters in melee have better matchups against the top than in brawl
I would say brawl would be evenly balanced without the D3 infinite

With it, 5 characters are unusable

If there was no meta, brawl would be more balanced

but 64 balance > brawl balance

 

[Deathcarter]

brawl is flawed, at least even the bottom characters in melee have better matchups against the top than in brawl
I would say brawl would be evenly balanced without the D3 infinite

With it, 5 characters are unusable

If there was no meta, brawl would be more balanced

but 64 balance > brawl balance

How is a **** matchup in Melee any better than a **** matchup in Brawl? Yes the low tier had more options in Melee than in Brawl, but the top tier had about 5 times as many options as the low tiers in Melee. Frankly, the low tiers having more options in Melee only matters because the low tier players know when to use said options. From a perspective of theorycraft, the Melee top tiers can counter everything the Melee low tiers throw at them just like in Brawl. A **** matchup in Melee in an analytical sense (aka not in actual practice) is just the same as a **** matchup in Brawl.

 

[KoRoBeNiKi]

How is a **** matchup in Melee any better than a **** matchup in Brawl? Yes the low tier had more options in Melee than in Brawl, but the top tier had about 5 times as many options as the low tiers in Melee. Frankly, the low tiers having more options in Melee only matters because the low tier players know when to use said options. From a perspective of theorycraft, the Melee top tiers can counter everything the Melee low tiers throw at them just like in Brawl. A **** matchup in Melee in an analytical sense (aka not in actual practice) is just the same as a **** matchup in Brawl.

I was talking about tiers, not **** matches

Mewtwo who was bottom tier did fine vs fox and falco, both Top Tier, and also does well vs Falcon and heavy characters
Luigi a low tier comboed fox, falco, falcon, peach, and Ice Climbers well and he was a low tier
Falcon in brawl has bad matchups vs everyone and against most matchups, link does also in brawl

At least the top tiers can be comboed well in melee or had a fallacy in their recovery
The only character in melee that moderately defied this was Marth

In Brawl, Meta has good matchups vs everyone but just certain characters on certain stages
King D3 has an infinite vs multiple characters
Falco can chair grab and destroy low tiers
Snake has broken tilts

Please explain any character that is less broken overall than metaknight.
There is one other thing I have to ask: Was a character in melee ever so good that there was a major discussion for them to be banned?

 

[Boofy!]

Was a character in melee ever so good that there was a major discussion for them to be banned?

In the early competitive days of Melee, I think Sheik was staring the ban hammer down at one point

 

[Johnny Pteran]

Well, since a character like Bowser or Pichu didn't even stand a chance in Melee, whereas Captain Falcon, Link, or Ganondorf can potentially own,...

Even though Brawl has more cheap, broken s**t, the top tier characters in Melee were just outrageous. Sure, MetaKnight is broken, but... Meh.

 

[Luigi player]

I think Brawl is more balanced if D3s infinite is banned.

 

[Dastrn]

Without metaknight, brawl is incredibly well balanced.

With metaknight, not so much.

 

[IShotLazer]

Sheik being banned was never considered, well at least as a majority idea.
Sheik is good, and has always been good but even back then they had characters that had positive matchups against sheik and people were well aware of her weakness.
Also Captain falcon vs even a mid tier is terribly unfair. Actually play the game and TRY to play and win. Once you realize captain falcon's faults and actually stop to think about what might be going in the game, captain falcon is a terrible character in Brawl.
In Melee at least low tiers could compete with Mid-high tiers decently well. I'd rather play Pika-Fox in Melee than I'd like to do Lucas Metaknight in Brawl.

Character approaches in Melee were still viable as you could at least pressure someone with L-canceling.
Hell you can pressure someone with pichu and force your opponent to do something stupid. That is NOT an option with Captain Falcon in Brawl. You TRY to approach with him against a higher tier with someone at equal skill and it just won't work.

Metaknight dominates over 50% of all tournaments. Melee NEVER had a character in that range. EVER.

Without metaknight, brawl is incredibly well balanced.

With metaknight, not so much.

AND Dedede, snake, marth, Falco, Game and watch...
Dedede ***** everyone he can chaingrab, *****. Game and watch is practically as broken as Metaknight, Falco can chain grab half the cast, and Snake and Marth have very few weaknesses in any aspect when compared to the rest of the cast. The tier divisions are MUCH more noticable in Brawl than they are in Melee. At least in Melee you can make a guess as to whether or not luigi was a usable character. You play a character in the same division in Brawl and you can FEEL the division TERRBILY.

Also why not take the information made in the other thread about this and post it as the first post so people don't repeat the same ideas over and over again.

 

[E.G.G.M.A.N.]

For the sake of this argument, let's bring a new point to mind:

Not everyone was competitive with Melee, either there wasn't that big of a scene where they lived, or Smash as a competitive game wasn't networked and advertised as well as it should have been, and many people who WOULD have played competitively (truly competitively, traveling around city/state in order to compete, one or two tourneys in Melee's prime days don't count, like with me attending next to no tournaments). Now here's Brawl, brand new after the sensation that was Melee. Many people pick up the game and love it.

What's the difference between them picking up Melee at Brawl's release date and loving it, and picking up Brawl on that same day?

Nobody was playing Brawl for 6 years (at Brawl's date of release, of course) before these people picked it up. The playing field was leveled once again (though in-game smarts carried over indefinitely for every Melee player, and they were still most certainly more skilled than the new smashers).

What is my point? Simply put, Brawl may not be more balanced in terms of characters (that's still up for debate, and will probably be for a couple more years until tier-whoring is in full swing,) but as a game in general, simply due to it's release date, it is more balanced for players.



Moral of the story? Melee fanboys, please realize that Melee and the money to be made from it are dying. Nobody wants to pick up a game that has been practiced, nitpicked, studied, and perfected by other people for seven years. Pick up Brawl, the better player WILL come out on top, and if that's you, well then awesome. You just earned yourself more money at a local scrub monthly than you would've won at a melee regional event.

I speak from experience my friends. CS 1.6 in America has died and been replaced by its inbred niece CS:S. Either go with the flow and pick up Brawl and make yourself some money (if you're good enough,) or move on with life and save yourself a lot of stress watching Melee deteriorate into a pitiful echo of its once glorious prime.

More balanced for players? What? Whether or not people have been playing the game for 6 years doesn't make the game "more balanced". It means that the old guys won't have a much of a lead as before, but that's only because they spent more time playing, it's not an inherent property of the game itself. So you can't just say: "More people are good at brawl so it's more balanced". Also the main gripes about the game from the melee players isn't about the money, it's about whether or not the game is as enjoyable to play as melee was. I mean, how many people here are in it just for the money? I can think of quicker ways to earn money, believe me.

 

[Dekar173]

"but as a game in general, simply due to it's release date, it is more balanced for players."

That is in no way shape or form saying "more people are good at brawl" if anything that statement leads to the conclusion that more people are better at melee.



The game may be better in your eyes and irreplaceable, but the fact of the matter is that Brawl is here to stay, and Melee is falling further and further away from having a true competitive scene.

I don't know about you, but playing against the same exact people over and over again isn't nearly as fun as meeting new people and playing against them (and being able to win money at the same time).

Melee is dying, Brawl is picking up. Play Brawl, or end up playing the same people over and over again (this is assuming you continue gaming in general, surely there are other games out there that you would enjoy?)

 

[metaXzero]

^Did SF2 scene die when SF3 came out? huh?

 

[Omit]

^Did SF2 scene die when SF3 came out? huh?

did it ?