Pessimism and Brawl

[Ace55]

It is these attributes, the notion of Melee: Training Wheels Edition, that I feel a majority of the pessimism comes from. It's like Sakurai saw us playing Melee and was like, "Awww, isn't that cute....BUT IT'S WRONG!", and then plopped Brawl down in front of us, patted our heads, and said, "Now pway nice you cutiepies."

Sakurai, pretending to be a cowboy.

I don't think anyone likes being talked down to, but I guess Nintendo seems to think we do.

Basically, they made the broken even more broken, but easier to do. So it's Melee minus the cool. I mean, for god sake, they made CAPTAIN FALCON LOW TIER. I rest my case (Jigglypuff pun).

Once again Sliq comes out on top.

And every time Yuna compares the smash series to another fighting game I cringe. Thank god it's different from traditional fighters, otherwise I would have never gotten into it. I'm sure Gekitou Ninja Taisen, Soul Calibur and Guilty Gear are great competetive games, much better than Brawl, but I'll take Brawl over any of those games anyday.

 

[Yuna]

And every time Yuna compares the smash series to another fighting game I cringe. Thank god it's different from traditional fighters, otherwise I would have never gotten into it. I'm sure Gekitou Ninja Taisen, Soul Calibur and Guilty Gear are great competetive games, much better than Brawl, but I'll take Brawl over any of those games anyday.

But are you a Competitive player?

 

[ShadowLink84]

But are you a Competitive player?

Different strokes for different folks Yuna.
I am sure there are competitive players who prefer melee over Guilty Gear despite knowing that Guilty Gear is a far more complex,deep and balanced.

 

[Yuna]

Different strokes for different folks Yuna.
I am sure there are competitive players who prefer melee over Guilty Gear despite knowing that Guilty Gear is a far more complex,deep and balanced.

No, no, the question is whether is one player in question is a Competitive player since this thread is about its Competitive potential.

 

[ShadowLink84]

Oh okay my mistake.

By the way are you going to Otakon 2009?

 

[Ace55]

But are you a Competitive player?

I only play Smashbros and to a lesser extent Pokemon (only on Shoddy Battle don't even own a DS/GBA) competitively. As soon as the Brawl scene starts beginning here (first real tourney 27 sep) I'll be attending. I could just never imagine playing a shooter or a traditional fighting game in a competitive fashion, no matter how great that game is in it's respective genre. Those games just don't do it for me, Smash is different and unique and even though I'm not happy with a lot of sh*t Sakurai/Nintendo pulled I'll continue to play this game with the same mindset I played Melee (play to win), and hope the next instalment does better.

No, no, the question is whether is one player in question is a Competitive player since this thread is about its Competitive potential.

Since when do we write competitive with a capital? I thought that was reserved for names and God.

Edit: no really when I look back at your posts you write any variation of competitive with a capital. You must be a very competitive person.

 

[ShadowLink84]

The best thing we can do to get a more...competitive version of smash is if we went and tried to speak to them directly or recommended them using competitive players as their beta testers.

This is unlikely though since we are all too small in number an unorganized.
Nor would Nintendo care either.

 

[Yuna]

Oh okay my mistake.

By the way are you going to Otakon 2009?

Most probably not.

Since when do we write competitive with a capital? I thought that was reserved for names and God.

Edit: no really when I look back at your posts you write any vatiation of competitive with a capital. You must be a very competitive person.

To make it stand out more, like highlighting. But I use bold for emphasis, so I can't bold it, so I capitalize it (and Casual and certain other keywords) to make them more visible.

 

[Ace55]

The best thing we can do to get a more...competitive version of smash is if we went and tried to speak to them directly or recommended them using competitive players as their beta testers.

This is unlikely though since we are all too small in number an unorganized.
Nor would Nintendo care either.

They don't give a sh*t, they just want to make money. Best way to make money is making the game 'mainstream'. Nintendo has been doing this with all their main titles (zelda, mario come to mind, although still great games) and will proceed doing this. IMO Nintendo didn't really have to dumb down the big titles because they have plenty of user friendly party games. But they are clearly doing so (imagine a poster of melee with a mom promoting it).

But this is more general pessimism about Nintendo.

 

[HeroMystic]

More accessible to anyone =/= Good (it's doesn't mean it's bad, either. It means bupkis when it comes to Competitive viability)

I'm not saying since it's more accessible that Brawl is better. I'm saying since it's easier to learn, more people will play, thus making more chances for competitive players.

Strategy is a huge part of skill. You need mindgames (i.e. strategy) to win. I cannot recall how many people I've beaten in Melee who were obviously better than me tech-wise, yet lost to me when it came to mindgames.

I'll rephrase my point by saying Brawl is more defensive than offensive, since strategy doesn't seem to branch away well enough from techs (which I counted as skill-based).

It does not take a year or two to master one single character in Brawl. The game isn't deep enough to require that much practice... unless you only practice an hour a week.

I never said it takes a year to master a character. I said it could take a year to master a character against other characters, due to the fact that they require different strategies.

Or you would still hate Brawl for the suckfest that it is. Seriously, if I had never played Melee Competitively, I would never even consider picking up Brawl. If Brawl was my first Competitive Smash game, I'd declare the entire series bad and go back to Gekitou Ninja Taisen, Soul Calibur and Guilty Gear.

To each it's own, but I seriously doubt that since you can only truly feel one perspective, your own, and that opinion is based on your own experiences.

Anyone who has insight into Competitive gaming would be disappointed with Brawl's glaring flaws. Just because we played Melee Competitively doesn't mean we're somehow more prone to hating Brawl, it just means we're more educated than, say, Random Newbie who's never played a fighting game before and picks up Brawl.

Knowledge = Cynism

While I'm not trying to generalize, I think playing Melee competitively plays a big factor into hating Brawl, because you're already used to one way of playing Smash. Thus, when everything has changed, you don't like it, because of the time and devotion you've put in Melee was ruined. It's why people like to joke about Melee vets wanting a Melee 2.0.

 

[Yuna]

I'll rephrase my point by saying Brawl is more defensive than offensive, since strategy doesn't seem to branch away well enough from techs (which I counted as skill-based).

Which would actually make it a worse game. Because it's more camping-based.

I never said it takes a year to master a character. I said it could take a year to master a character against other characters, due to the fact that they require different strategies.

When I say "master a character", I mean it in the context of mastering their every matchup as well.

To each it's own, but I seriously doubt that since you can only truly feel one perspective, your own, and that opinion is based on your own experiences.

Yes, but you generalized about a perspective you do not even hold. You said "Well, people are like this" when speaking of groups of people of whom you're not even a member.

I merely said "Oh yeah? Listen to my story. And many others feel the same!".

While I'm not trying to generalize, I think playing Melee competitively plays a big factor into hating Brawl, because you're already used to one way of playing Smash. Thus, when everything has changed, you don't like it, because of the time and devotion you've put in Melee was ruined. It's why people like to joke about Melee vets wanting a Melee 2.0.

Too bad, you did. I'm smart and objective enough to be able to review games for what they really are, not through fanboy-coloured glasses. And many (smart) people can do it as well. I gave Brawl an honest chance with an open mind.

I dissect the games I play and then come to a conclusion, based on facts, of how good it is. Had I never played Melee, I would still think Brawl is ****.

Some of us aren't blind fanboys. We're, you know, intelligent.

 

[OrlanduEX]

They don't give a sh*t, they just want to make money. Best way to make money is making the game 'mainstream'. Nintendo has been doing this with all their main titles (zelda, mario come to mind, although still great games) and will proceed doing this. IMO Nintendo didn't really have to dumb down the big titles because they have plenty of user friendly party games. But they are clearly doing so (imagine a poster of melee with a mom promoting it).

But this is more general pessimism about Nintendo.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. The general trend in game design these days, especially from Nintendo is to "play it safe" and give us more of the same. Don't f*** with the formula.
That's why we got The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 2 Twilight Princess.

Brawl is the same way. Nothing new or innovative gameplay wise. Just a bunch of stickers, crappy online play, gimmicky assist trophies and final smashes, and boring single player cut scenes.

 

[HeroMystic]

Which would actually make it a worse game. Because it's more camping-based.

Like I said before, I never said Brawl was better.

When I say "master a character", I mean it in the context of mastering their every matchup as well.

We'll just have to agree to disagree there.

Yes, but you generalized about a perspective you do not even hold. You said "Well, people are like this" when speaking of groups of people of whom you're not even a member.

I merely said "Oh yeah? Listen to my story. And many others feel the same!".

After re-reading my first post I noticed my mistake, but it's too late to take it back now. But I'm seriously not trying to generalize as I know some melee vets that like Brawl.

Too bad, you did. I'm smart and objective enough to be able to review games for what they really are, not through fanboy-coloured glasses. And many (smart) people can do it as well. I gave Brawl an honest chance with an open mind.

I dissect the games I play and then come to a conclusion, based on facts, of how good it is. Had I never played Melee, I would still think Brawl is ****.

Some of us aren't blind fanboys. We're, you know, intelligent.

It's odd because, I do the same as well. I guess we're just different ends of the spectrum. I don't think Brawl is better than Melee, but it certainly doesn't suck.

And I certainly hope you're not implying I'm a dumb blind fanboy.

 

[OrlanduEX]

It's odd because, I do the same as well. I guess we're just different ends of the spectrum. I don't think Brawl is better than Melee, but it certainly doesn't suck.

It doesn't suck as a casual party game, but as a competitive fighting game, it is rather shallow.

 

[Yuna]

It's odd because, I do the same as well. I guess we're just different ends of the spectrum. I don't think Brawl is better than Melee, but it certainly doesn't suck.

And I certainly hope you're not implying I'm a dumb blind fanboy.

Do you play videogames Competitively? I'm speaking from a Competitive standpoint (as I should as this thread is about Brawl's Competitive viability).

 

[ShadowLink84]

It doesn't suck as a casual party game, but as a competitive fighting game, it is rather shallow.

Guilty Gear is the Olympic sized pool.
Melee was half that size.
Brawl is...1/4th


>_>

That's being generous.

Spoiler

terrible analogy BTW

 

[HeroMystic]

I agree that Brawl doesn't have a lot going for it in terms of competitive fighting, but the competitiveness is still there. For it to not be competitive at all, you'd have to take away the options of 1v1, turning off items, etc..

 

[Yuna]

Guilty Gear is the Olympic sized pool.
Melee was half that size.
Brawl is...1/4th


>_>

That's being generous.

Spoiler

terrible analogy BTW

Guilty Gear XX #Reload was an olympic-sized swimming pool. Super Smash Bros. Melee is around the size of a college swimming pool.

Super Smash Bros. Brawl is the size of the average bathtub.

I agree that Brawl doesn't have a lot going for it in terms of competitive fighting, but the competitiveness is still there. For it to not be competitive at all, you'd have to take away the options of 1v1, turning off items, etc..

Of course it can be Competitive. The question is to what extent.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

If you just want a game with massive competitive depth, why are you playing fighting games at all? Go is deeper than every fighting game ever made, and Go is 100% non-random so a better player could be expected to win 100% of the time (if he doesn't, it is only his fault!).

The point of that is to suggest that maybe it's reasonable to play competitive games that aren't the most deep. Brawl vs other fighters isn't even obviously less deep (it depends on your methods of analysis), but even if it were, there's still no reason you shouldn't play it. It's obviously deep enough (and non-random enough) such that a small number of players are able to win consistently which is all that is required for a competitive game to be worth playing.

 

[Yuna]

If you just want a game with massive competitive depth, why are you playing fighting games at all? Go is deeper than every fighting game ever made, and Go is 100% non-random so a better player could be expected to win 100% of the time (if he doesn't, it is only his fault!).

BS. No one's said we only want a game with infinite depth.

The point of that is to suggest that maybe it's reasonable to play competitive games that aren't the most deep.

And who's claimed otherwise?

Brawl vs other fighters isn't even obviously less deep (it depends on your methods of analysis), but even if it were, there's still no reason you shouldn't play it. It's obviously deep enough (and non-random enough) such that a small number of players are able to win consistently which is all that is required for a competitive game to be worth playing.

Irrelevant. That just means it's not completely rock-paper-scissors. The question is whether it's deep enough. Not if it has any depth whatsoever.

 

[Fletch]

Guilty Gear is the Olympic sized pool.
Melee was half that size.
Brawl is...1/4th


>_>

That's being generous.

You're being way too mean to Melee and way too generous to Brawl.

Guilty Gear XX #Reload was an olympic-sized swimming pool. Super Smash Bros. Melee is around the size of a college swimming pool.

Super Smash Bros. Brawl is the size of the average bathtub.

Much better, except I'd at least say the bathtub is leaking or something to be fair.

 

[AgentJGV]

I think that Brawl is deep enough we just have to stop comparing it to melee. I know that Brawl came after melee and that its almost impossible to not compare them, but the thing is if we keep dwelling on what could've and should've been, we'll never get to what it will be.

Brawl is Brawl. Melee was/is Melee. Comparing melee to Brawl is like comparing Chess to starcraft. Yes they have the same basic concept but deep down one (melee/starcraft) is more oriented towards handspeed and tactical skill, while the other (Brawl/Chess) is based soley on strategy.

 

[GofG]

I think that Brawl is deep enough we just have to stop comparing it to melee. I know that Brawl came after melee and that its almost impossible to not compare them, but the thing is if we keep dwelling on what could've and should've been, we'll never get to what it will be.

Brawl is Brawl. Melee was/is Melee. Comparing melee to Brawl is like comparing Chess to starcraft. Yes they have the same basic concept but deep down one (melee/starcraft) is more oriented towards handspeed and tactical skill, while the other (Brawl/Chess) is based soley on strategy.

Melee had the same amount of strategy as brawl does, in addition to the tech skill required. Brawl's removal of tech skill means that any scrub can jump right into competitive play without knowing what the **** they're doing. It doesn't make the game more about "strategy", it just means that strategy becomes important at every level of the game instead of only the higher levels.

 

[AgentJGV]

Brawl's removal of tech skill means that any scrub can jump right into competitive play without knowing what the **** they're doing.

Well isnt that a good thing that new players can be introduced into the world of Smash?

 

[Yuna]

Much better, except I'd at least say the bathtub is leaking or something to be fair.

Leaky blow-up kiddy pool?

Well isnt that a good thing that new players can be introduced into the world of Smash?

Not at the cost of gameplay.

 

[AgentJGV]

Not at the cost of gameplay.

But the gameplay isn't diminished. I've found myself having more fun in Brawl than I ever had in melee.

 

[Yuna]

But the gameplay isn't diminished. I've found myself having more fun in Brawl than I ever had in melee.

Umm... "more fun" =/= More Competitive

The gameplay has diminished. We've lost a whole slew of options. A lot of the new options are inferior, the game is overly camping-based and defensive and there's just so much broken stuff in the game.

 

[AgentJGV]

Umm... "more fun" =/= More Competitive

The gameplay has diminished. We've lost a whole slew of options. A lot of the new options are inferior, the game is overly camping-based and defensive and there's just so much broken stuff in the game.

Why can't something that is fun be competitive? I had fun in Melee and look where it went. Now I just have more fun in Brawl

In Regards to it being camping-based and defensive, i agree with you. While everybody hates a camper, I think that the defensive route was a good idea. It gives it an extremely different feel.

 

[i.E.]

I wholeheartedly agree with this. The general trend in game design these days, especially from Nintendo is to "play it safe" and give us more of the same. Don't f*** with the formula.
That's why we got The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 2 Twilight Princess.

Why would you change the formula of something that's so perfect? (zelda)

lol seriously though, I wouldn't say a company that completely changed it's strategy, from both it's business model to it's marketing strategy, to completely turn itself around can be accused of "not f****** with the formula".

Yea, they rehash some of their ideas into each Zelda, Metroid, and mario game...but only because 1: Those series don't have glaring flaws as it is, what is there to change much of? And 2: It's what their "hardcore" audience wants. Which...it's starting to seem like they care more about my sister/aunt/grandparents now more than they care about "us".

But hey, that's where the money is.

Back on topic with this though, someone mentioned If I'd never played melee. Not ever. Would I still not like brawl as much? And I think the answer is yes. Whether or not I base some of my judgement on brawl from my prior melee experience or not makes no difference in whether or not brawl is a "great" competitive game (It isn't imo). There are other games I play competitively....I just play brawl because I love smash bros, it's a fun game, and every now and then I do the occasional money match; that's it. Otherwise, I'll just play other games on the competitive scene until the next smash game...which is inevitable at some point.

 

[Dumah]

What I want to know is how many people here still really believe Brawl should exist as a competitive game, and even more importantly, would there have ever been a large competitive scene for Brawl if Melee didn't exist.

I do not feel it should be a competitive game. It's far to unbalanced to warrant any kind of tourney with money involved. It my eyes it should remain a fun party game, with competitive elements. Meaning you or I both want to win, not just jump around and taunt. But trying to claim it should have a spot in competitive gaming next to street fighter, Tekken, or even DOA is kind of insulting. It's got so many things wrong with it, and it's a shame that it does because this was a game I was thoroughly anticipating for years. If it wasn't for the online element, I'd be disappointed. And now that more people are picking up the game and just chain grabbing, infiniting, and spamming their way to victory is very disheatening. This game in particular can easily turn to crap in the next few years, because of those extremely overpowered moves.

There isn't another fighting game out there that allows for you to repeat the same move over and over again without being severely punished for it. That's because your opponent will catch on and always be able to do something about it. Tornado spam, shuttle loop spam, blaster spam, chain grabbing, etc. are all broken moves that are very, very hard to stop. And that's only if your character is capable of doing so. If they can't, sorry you lose.

That's my two cents and I fit right into the category that the OP made. I'm a fan of Brawl, but I bash it all the time for being a shoddy game lol.

 

[GreenKirby]

Yuna, if you don't like the game I don't understand why you still hang around here.

After all, it's human nature to AVOID things you don't like.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Because he also likes to argue. There must not be a lot to do in Sweden. Seriously, though, I thought the mods said that this Melee/Brawl crap was going to result in infractions. I want to see the banhammer drop, like pronto. No more Melee/Brawl crap.

 

[SmashBrother2008]

I think it's mainly a communal thing. Someone started saying Brawl sucked competitively, and sooner or later it became "accepted" that Brawl sucked competitively. Brawl's undoubtedly less competitive than its predecessor or other "hardcore" fighters, but it's certainly not completely non-viable as a competitive game as many make it out to be; if it was, we wouldn't be seeing the higher-level players coming out on top consistently.

Yeah, now it's the norm to hate brawl. You're absolutely right.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Ha, today's xkcd totally relates to that situation, too... only in the case of furries.

 

[Yuna]

Why can't something that is fun be competitive? I had fun in Melee and look where it went. Now I just have more fun in Brawl

No one said a game can't be both. But having more fun with a game does automatically not make it more Competitive.

Yuna, if you don't like the game I don't understand why you still hang around here.

After all, it's human nature to AVOID things you don't like.

Because since the I play Brawl begrudgingly.

 

[Falconv1.0]

That's my two cents and I fit right into the category that the OP made. I'm a fan of Brawl, but I bash it all the time for being a shoddy game lol.

I myself think it's competitive, but at the same time the huge punishing things in it aren't as cool as combos in Melee. There is massive punishment in Brawl with **** like CG'ing and Sheik's F Tilt, but it's all match up dependent for the most part.


Also, Brawl has about as many top characters as Melee did, people ***** about how MK *****, but Sheik in Melee owned everything twice as hard as he ever will. Think about that, we've created a new community that *****es about characters with mainly 6-4 or 5-5 match ups and call for him to be banned when it was even worse in the previous game. So this whole unbalanced **** can either get some better representation or GET THE **** OUT OF MY TOPIC.

 

[Ryan-K]

um mk is definately way more dominating than sheik noone even holds a candle to him not even snake.

sheik goes even/gets beat by space animals and she can get edgeguarded and punished VERY efficiently

name a character that beats or goes even with mk. just because he doesnt cg everyone it doesnt matter because the bottom like 3/4ths of the game cant get through his speed/priority/range/retardedly good power/edgeguarding/recovery/ other various bs

plus it's easier to avoid getting grabbed in melee because of shield stun, game speed and other things.

 

[Demp]

Most of the things that made Melee so technical and skill-based were just exploits and glitches, or at least things that were never intended. I have never seen a game developer ever intentionally leave exploits and glitches in a game just because it makes the game "cool". They are most likely trying to keep their integrity by having people play the game they have intended and fix the problems (or blessings in Melee's case) they have made. After all, it is their game.

I am not saying this is should be a good thing. I also think it is total crap to take out an aspect of the game that required skill and dedication to master. But hey... that's where our new generation of games is going. The easier/less complexed, the more appealing it is to casual gamers. That's where most consumers come from now for nearly every game: the casual community.

 

[Tenki]

Most of the things that made Melee so technical and skill-based were just exploits and glitches, or at least things that were never intended. I have never seen a game developer ever intentionally leave exploits and glitches in a game just because it makes the game "cool".

Before a vet rips you apart since this implies wavedashing and l-cancelling:

L-cancelling was in SSB64. It got rid of all landing lag. Programmers changed it so it reduced only half the lag in Melee. Either way, that feature was intentional in its entirety.

I've seen it said that they admitted noticing that you can slide when you airdodge into the ground in Melee, but didn't really see it as anything significant, so they left it in. Heck, even casuals knew you could slide if you airdodged. It only became a big deal when people started using it in feints and movements, which, consequently, wasn't necessarily in the way the programmers intended it to be.

Programmers aren't perfect. See Snake's tilt range, MK's IDC, Dedede's chaingrab, infinite release grabs on Wario.

 

[Ryan-K]

Most of the things that made Melee so technical and skill-based were just exploits and glitches, or at least things that were never intended. I have never seen a game developer ever intentionally leave exploits and glitches in a game just because it makes the game "cool". They are most likely trying to keep their integrity by having people play the game they have intended and fix the problems (or blessings in Melee's case) they have made. After all, it is their game.

I am not saying this is should be a good thing. I also think it is total crap to take out an aspect of the game that required skill and dedication to master. But hey... that's where our new generation of games is going. The easier/less complexed, the more appealing it is to casual gamers. That's where most consumers come from now for nearly every game: the casual community.

the difference is that while melee was never intended to be competitive (as in, it wasn't given a thought), brawl was made solely to oppose competitive play and kill it. The E4 thing is an example not to mention sakurai's philosophies when it comes to brawl.

Sakurai going out of his way to destroy how some people play the game while at the same time claiming one of the best parts of the game is how you can play it however you want is not only stupid and pointless but contradictory