Syde7
The Sultan of Smut
I enjoyed this read, because it rung home with why I enjoy(ed?) Brawl for as long as I have/did. (Speaking in both tenses as I'm at an awkward transitional phase between enjoying it and wanting to continually improve and... well... not.)
I explained it to a lot of people who touted Melee as a vastly superior game (not wanting to incite that discussion, mentioning it only for illustrative purposes) that I saw Brawl as more of a chess match as opposed to melees checkers:
"Brawl requires continuous and simultaneous assessment and execution, as in chess. Melee requires periods of assessment and execution, as in checkers. In checkers, there is lots of thought put into each move, but once the correct/best move is chosen, it leads to a slew of other moves the opponent can do nothing about. (see: jumping several pieces in one turn). In chess, there is lots of thought put into each move, but even when the best move is chosen there is still no absolute guarantee that an inordinate amount of pieces can be taken.
Melee, like checkers involves a slew of offense and defense. Dynamic, with clear shifts in momentum. Brawl, like chess is more of a "give and take", with momentum being much harder to obtain and conversely break. In checkers, the idea of "trading" pieces is virtually non-existent (see: trading hits, which in Melee is long combo strings- essentially impossible due to the nature of the game being "mindgame->combo->combo->combo->kill/reset positions w/ opponent at near kill percent). In chess, "trading pieces" is a staple (see: trading hits, which in Brawl is more or less self explanatory).
There is a limited concept of "material advantage" in checkers; you either have more pieces than your opponent, or you do not. You are either in the midst of an offensive onslaught, or on the receiving end. The idea of "material advantage" exists in Brawl in as close to as its "board-game counterpart" chess."
I mentioned that, because I think that is a similar point of view to the OP. Essentially, saying the same thing but with a bit of whimsical illustration.
I will agree that seeing it this way makes it incredibly fun (as I said, that's why I enjoy/ed it as much as I do/did.) If the illustration could stop there- I would have been content. But, once you begin to add other things that are present into this view- things (for me) get less fun. I could go on a long rant (and tbh, I actually did but decided to delete it) about these things, but I won't unless someone just really wants to know (doubtful)
To surmise: I view it the same way, and when you view it that way, in a vacuum it is incredibly fun. However, once you begin to mix the various elements of Brawl with this... it becomes far less fun.
Either way, really good read. I enjoyed it. Thanks for posting!
I explained it to a lot of people who touted Melee as a vastly superior game (not wanting to incite that discussion, mentioning it only for illustrative purposes) that I saw Brawl as more of a chess match as opposed to melees checkers:
"Brawl requires continuous and simultaneous assessment and execution, as in chess. Melee requires periods of assessment and execution, as in checkers. In checkers, there is lots of thought put into each move, but once the correct/best move is chosen, it leads to a slew of other moves the opponent can do nothing about. (see: jumping several pieces in one turn). In chess, there is lots of thought put into each move, but even when the best move is chosen there is still no absolute guarantee that an inordinate amount of pieces can be taken.
Melee, like checkers involves a slew of offense and defense. Dynamic, with clear shifts in momentum. Brawl, like chess is more of a "give and take", with momentum being much harder to obtain and conversely break. In checkers, the idea of "trading" pieces is virtually non-existent (see: trading hits, which in Melee is long combo strings- essentially impossible due to the nature of the game being "mindgame->combo->combo->combo->kill/reset positions w/ opponent at near kill percent). In chess, "trading pieces" is a staple (see: trading hits, which in Brawl is more or less self explanatory).
There is a limited concept of "material advantage" in checkers; you either have more pieces than your opponent, or you do not. You are either in the midst of an offensive onslaught, or on the receiving end. The idea of "material advantage" exists in Brawl in as close to as its "board-game counterpart" chess."
I mentioned that, because I think that is a similar point of view to the OP. Essentially, saying the same thing but with a bit of whimsical illustration.
I will agree that seeing it this way makes it incredibly fun (as I said, that's why I enjoy/ed it as much as I do/did.) If the illustration could stop there- I would have been content. But, once you begin to add other things that are present into this view- things (for me) get less fun. I could go on a long rant (and tbh, I actually did but decided to delete it) about these things, but I won't unless someone just really wants to know (doubtful)
To surmise: I view it the same way, and when you view it that way, in a vacuum it is incredibly fun. However, once you begin to mix the various elements of Brawl with this... it becomes far less fun.
Either way, really good read. I enjoyed it. Thanks for posting!
