# Melee - The old Brawl



## Alblaka (Aug 18, 2008)

Everyone is talking about SSB Brawl!
What's with SSB 2 "Melee"?

I won't buy a WII (too expensive) and so i have "only" Melee. Who else playes it still?
Maybe we could exchange some nice ideas (like Mega-Sudden-Death) or giving tips, whatever.

I will beginn with my Mega-Sudden-Death-Mode:
Choose in "Special Events" the "Sudden-Death-Mode". Then put the Damage Modification on x2.0. Next adjust the level choose on "Random" and declare "Final Destination" to the onliest Random Map. Last adjust the items on "Very High" and turn everything, excepting the Bomb-Ombs, off.
The result is a match, where it is luck to survive longer then 10 seconds. Now take around 50 Lives and let the desaster begin XD


----------



## TÃ¦farÃ³s (Aug 18, 2008)

^That mode is hella fun. I discovered it on accident way back when Brawl was only speculated on.

I haven't played Melee is a couple weeks because I now suck completely. Some people adjust to Melee and Brawl physics very comfortably, but I'm not one of them. Air dodge spam FTW.


----------



## Alblaka (Aug 18, 2008)

> Air dodge spam


What's that? I know air dodge, but why it FTW?


----------



## TÃ¦farÃ³s (Aug 18, 2008)

You know how in Melee if you air dodge, you can do it only once before falling helplessly? Well, in Brawl, you can do it as many times as you like with minimal lag.


----------



## X (Aug 18, 2008)

enemy: player 2(fox).
stage: final destination.
items: only pokeballs.
item: spawn setting: very high.
mode: slow motion.
my char: falco.
lives: 80.
time: unlimited.

you all know that pokeballs are also throwing items too, so wait for your friend to pick up one and throw it at you, then SHIELD! continue till they give up.


----------



## X (Aug 18, 2008)

fun as hell!


----------



## Kuekuatsheu (Aug 18, 2008)

yep, and there were trick called airswapping or something like that... with this trick you're gliding on tne stage very fast
well, I don't miss Melee at all... 

hey Ros, what's up with our match? :3


----------



## Alblaka (Aug 18, 2008)

half-witted fur said:


> enemy: player 2(fox).
> stage: final destination.
> items: only pokeballs.
> item: spawn setting: very high.
> ...



XD
Then the pokemons belong to you, don't they?
^^ Yep, the stupid AI... Always try to get all food/healing items and throwing the pokeballs at you ^^


----------



## SirRob (Aug 18, 2008)

I don't play Melee anymore, but that's due to the fact that my brother has it at his place. I prefer Brawl anyway, since I don't have to worry as much about advance techniques, and because no one will complain that I use Fox now. :|


----------



## diosoth (Aug 18, 2008)

A fighting game is a fighting game. Brawl, Melle, Street Fighter 2, I pretty much hate them all.


----------



## Alblaka (Aug 18, 2008)

diosoth said:


> A fighting game is a fighting game. Brawl, Melle, Street Fighter 2, I pretty much hate them all.



Why all in the world are such pacifists?
The guys are fighting for fun, never seen the background story...
It's like olympia sports... only with more explosions and that...


----------



## Hanazawa (Aug 18, 2008)

Characters: Pichu (4)
Stage: Any
Mode: Tiny Melee
Item switch: Poison Mushroom Only
Spawn: Very High

watch the tiny yellow dots move across the screen.


----------



## X (Aug 18, 2008)

another one is:_* projectile match*_

characters: only those with reflector shields or item reflects.
stage: any.
items: projectile, throwing only.
# of players: 2-4.
time: unlimited.
item spawn: medium.
lives: 50-90.
mode: lightning melee.

result: sore thumbs.


----------



## Skullmiser (Aug 18, 2008)

I only have the original super smash brothers...
There's nothing wrong with it.


----------



## AlexX (Aug 18, 2008)

diosoth said:


> A fighting game is a fighting game. Brawl, Melle, Street Fighter 2, I pretty much hate them all.


Funny you mention that when a ton of people fight tooth and nail to argue Smash isn't a fighting game...

Of course, these people are just being purist, but Smash is indeed rather different from your average fighter.


----------



## Urban Wolf (Aug 19, 2008)

I still love melee, memories of some great times :3

a game i liked to play requires 4 people. play final destination, have two people as samus (on same team) and give them max handicap, have 2 people fight in center (different teams), they have to not get too close to edge as the samus use the grab if they do :3 also is fun to fire the occasional rocket or beam into the fray :3


----------



## Kuekuatsheu (Aug 19, 2008)

I've got a "funny" mode too:

-Stamina-Melee
-4x Ice Climbers
-small Stage

=watch them dying one after the other


----------



## Alblaka (Aug 19, 2008)

Lol, i have to test some of that things...
That with the pichus sounds addicting.

Another nice mode is Bom-Ombs+Mushroms at max and then giant melee on Final Destination XD


----------



## TheGreatCrusader (Aug 19, 2008)

Suggestion: Buy a Wii and stop complaining.

PROBLEM SOLVED \o/


----------



## Foxstar (Aug 19, 2008)

TheGreatCrusader said:


> Suggestion: Buy a Wii and stop complaining.
> 
> PROBLEM SOLVED \o/



^

This. If 250 dollars is too costly, you need a better job.


----------



## pheonix (Aug 19, 2008)

I love melee and never been defeated so far, thats probably because everyone I know isn't to good at it. In my opinion it's better then brawl but should of had more characters.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Aug 19, 2008)

Yeah, I have a Wii, I have Brawl, but Melee is still much more fun. Up until like last week, when I was bored and tried Brawl again, I hadn't played it since the month it came out...it was a serious disappointment.


----------



## Kuekuatsheu (Aug 19, 2008)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Yeah, I have a Wii, I have Brawl, but Melee is still much more fun. Up until like last week, when I was bored and tried Brawl again, I hadn't played it since the month it came out...it was a serious disappointment.


errr, no

why you think so?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Aug 19, 2008)

Cheesewulf said:


> errr, no
> 
> why you think so?



Errr, yes:

The speed of the game has been slowed-down, most of the characters were relatively weakened (especially Samus), and yeah, Ike is way over-powered. I can stand Falco, Fox, and Wolf, but Ike is ridiculous for a newcomer. The Smashball concept was good on paper, but my friends and I kept it turned off all the time. Probably a few other things I could state if I went and played it again, but those were a few things that just popped up. I'd certainly rather keep playing Melee, being all I did on Brawl was the same thing I did on Melee, except Samus was now a notably weaker character.


----------



## SirRob (Aug 19, 2008)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Ike is way over-powered.


No, sorry.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Aug 19, 2008)

SirRob said:


> No, sorry.



Yes, my apologies.


----------



## AlexX (Aug 19, 2008)

Lastdirewolf said:


> The speed of the game has been slowed-down,


It's still relatively fast-paced. You get used to it rather quickly.



> most of the characters were relatively weakened (especially Samus),


While I agree a few characters were unfairly nerfed (lookin' at YOU, Peach), a few were buffed (see: Pika and Zelda).



> and yeah, Ike is way over-powered.


Wrong. Spotdodge the f-smash and punish, as Ike is very easy to punish. Ike is low tier, and this is from an Ike player.



> I can stand Falco, Fox, and Wolf, but Ike is ridiculous for a newcomer.


Why? Fire Emblem had 10 installments at the time and Ike is the only one other than Marth to have starred in two. If anything Wolf was the excessive one since Starfox only has 5 installments.



> The Smashball concept was good on paper, but my friends and I kept it turned off all the time.


Not unusual. Super moves can sometimes make or break characters, and it's nice to be able to remove them.



> Probably a few other things I could state if I went and played it again, but those were a few things that just popped up. I'd certainly rather keep playing Melee, being all I did on Brawl was the same thing I did on Melee, except Samus was now a notably weaker character.


And there we have the problem. I can understand if you prefer Melee, but it's important to understand that Brawl is not Melee 2.0, so playing it the same as Melee is only going to cause problems.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Aug 19, 2008)

AlexX said:


> It's still relatively fast-paced. You get used to it rather quickly.
> 
> While I agree a few characters were unfairly nerfed (lookin' at YOU, Peach), a few were buffed (see: Pika and Zelda).
> 
> ...



You bring up some fair points, I will say, but in no offense to you, I really don't want to get into it with anybody, because debating opinions usually never ends well.


----------



## AlexX (Aug 19, 2008)

Lastdirewolf said:


> You bring up some fair points, I will say, but in no offense to you, I really don't want to get into it with anybody, because debating opinions usually never ends well.


I wasn't trying to get into a debate of opinions. As I said, I can understand you preferring Melee over Brawl (heck, half my friends feel the same), but a number of your compaints either didn't seem to make sense (such as why it made more sense to add Wolf than Ike) or were simply incorrect (such as Ike being overpowered).


----------



## TÃ¦farÃ³s (Aug 19, 2008)

Cheesewulf said:


> yep, and there were trick called airswapping or something like that... with this trick you're gliding on tne stage very fast
> well, I don't miss Melee at all...
> 
> hey Ros, what's up with our match? :3


 
Oh, Wavedashing? I hadn't played Melee in months, let alone competetive Melee, so that last time I played was at my "crew's" Brawl tourney. Our leader proceeded to run back and forth extremely fast with Marth to the point where I was hoping his control stick would break. It didn't, so I lost. Not the same, but oh well.

What's up? Lag, that's what's up.



Lastdirewolf said:


> Ike is way over-powered.


 
Oh pray for the poor soul who can't avoid the wrath of the lightning-fast forward smash. :/

PK Fiyah.


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Aug 20, 2008)

Until the creators and Japan considers it a fighting game, I don't think I will. They know the genre... heck, they DEFINED the genre.

Anyway, Brawl is not better or worse... it's just "different". But at least it's better in the character department - less clones.


----------



## AlexX (Aug 20, 2008)

WolfoxOkamichan said:


> Until the creators and Japan considers it a fighting game, I don't think I will. They know the genre... heck, they DEFINED the genre.


Metroid Prime is classified as an adventure game, but that doesn't mean it's not technically an FPS. Likewise, Mario Kart is also identified as something else (forgot what), but that doesn't change the fact it's a racing game.


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Aug 20, 2008)

But Smash doesn't have anything that has a fighting game has (aside from hurting each other, which can be found on other games).

Besides, vs. Action pretty much confirms it as an action/platformer.


----------



## AlexX (Aug 20, 2008)

WolfoxOkamichan said:


> But Smash doesn't have anything that has a fighting game has (aside from hurting each other, which can be found on other games).


What are you talking about? The main premise is to fight your opponents, it has a strong focus on PvP action, it has combos and special moves (which I admit are simpler than most fighters, but hey, Chess is one of the simplest strategy games in terms of how it's set up, yet nobody argues it's not a strategy game). You could say the fact the arena you choose has a large impact on the arena, but the problem is that the arena is important in a lot of other fighting games as well (for example, Soul Calibur and the DBZ fighters have stages that favor certain characters based on terrain and obstacles).



> Besides, vs. Action pretty much confirms it as an action/platformer.


SSE is the only platformer-like part of the game. To call the main game a platformer makes no sense.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Aug 20, 2008)

Melee is still fun, and I'm still better at it.  There are certain things about Brawl I just haven't gotten used to yet, one of which is, in fact, the slower pace in movement.  In Melee, for example, if you hit down while in the air you pretty much plummeted back to the ground (or to your death, if you missed the ground), whereas in Brawl that trick no longer works.  That was, like, one of the best ways I used to use to fake people out.  Meteor smashes are also way the crap easier to pull off (here's looking at you, Falco), and people die more often than in Brawl (which actually is a good thing).  In Melee, I had the one character who I could honestly say was my best, because everyone dreaded when I'd pick him.  Still don't know who to call my best in Brawl.  There are 35 fucking characters, for God's sake.  It takes a long time to get used to them all.
But Brawl is great, and they did a much better job evening the characters out (though I'm agreeing that Ike is a mite too powerful to be completely fair: I hardly ever play him, but I haven't lost with him yet.  Lucas is overpowered too.  And Kirby is verging on overpowered, but that's okay, because he's Kirby).  Every character has his or her own style you have to get used to, and there are no weak-ass characters like Pichu anymore.  And some of the newcomers are just plain fun to play (Wario and Snake FTW).  And Brawl has R.O.B.  That gives it, like, a million cool points right off the bat.
So I play and enjoy both.  Haven't played the original in quite some time, though.  I'm sure it would still be fun.


----------



## AlexX (Aug 20, 2008)

M. Le Renard said:


> (though I'm agreeing that Ike is a mite too powerful to be completely fair: I hardly ever play him, but I haven't lost with him yet.


Ike is pretty easy to deal with once you find out just how much lag he has on his attacks. Likewise, people who know what they're doing shouldn't really have too much trouble against the hero of blue flames, which means he becomes considerably more difficult to use.



> Lucas is overpowered too.


I wish... Lucas suffers from not having too many safe options for building up damage due to the cooldown he suffers from for most of them. He's got some good kill moves, but because Stale Moves reduces the knockback of attacks if you use them repeatedly, you have to keep them fresh in order to reliably KO with them.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Aug 20, 2008)

> Ike is pretty easy to deal with once you find out just how much lag he has on his attacks. Likewise, people who know what they're doing shouldn't really have too much trouble against the hero of blue flames, which means he becomes considerably more difficult to use.


It sounds like you haven't yet discovered the power of using weak attacks to throw people off.  Ike has lag, yes, but only with his most powerful attacks.  If you just keep hitting A at opportune times, you'll wipe out everyone on the screen in no time flat.  I know this because I've consistently done it, even against experienced players.  Lucas is the same way; distract folks with his little piddly strikes (PK Thunder and Fire are great for this), then hit them with an upward smash when they're not looking, and you've won (or a downward... or come to think of it, just a regular ol' stick swing works too).  Lucas is the only character with which I beat Classic mode on Intense without losing a continue.  I lost one with Ike, and I think it's because he's not terribly useful against bosses with HP.


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Aug 20, 2008)

Too lazy to explain.



> Your main goal is to navigate the stage in such a manner that you don't fall off within the time limit set. In fact, this is your only real goal- don't fall off the platforms. The only way to lose is to fall off the platform in such a way that you can't recover from falling. This is not a ring-out, this is Mario/Megaman dropping into bottomless/spiked pits (except in Smash, falling into a spiked pit just bounces you up into the air!).
> The versus aspect of it is that you have (an) opponent(s) (up to 3) who all have the same goal. The competition then is to see who has the most lives left when time runs out, or to see who runs out of lives last. Even more telling- in case of a tie between parties as to who fell off the least, the winner is determined by their score... but having a higher score doesn't mean you win if you fell off and lost all your stocks.
> 
> Here's the kicker- your interaction with the stage itself bears more weight in who wins than your interaction with your opponent. If you damage your opponent the entire match without him touching you at all, that means nothing. You are not winning until he leaves the stage- in fact, he could do nothing to you at all and still win if you were to fall off the platform of your own accord (or by mistake).
> ...


----------



## AlexX (Aug 20, 2008)

M. Le Renard said:


> It sounds like you haven't yet discovered the power of using weak attacks to throw people off.  Ike has lag, yes, but only with his most powerful attacks.  If you just keep hitting A at opportune times, you'll wipe out everyone on the screen in no time flat.  I know this because I've consistently done it, even against experienced players.


Then your experienced players aren't very good, because while this works in theory, in practice it falls apart. I main Ike myself, and despite how fast Ike's jab is, the fact he uses it a lot makes him very predictable. It's not just Ike's smash attacks that are slow, and almost all of them have a painful amount of cooldown if he whiffs. Ike can most definitely punish well, but he's also one of the easiest to punish.



> Lucas is the same way; distract folks with his little piddly strikes (PK Thunder and Fire are great for this), then hit them with an upward smash when they're not looking, and you've won (or a downward... or come to think of it, just a regular ol' stick swing works too).


Once again, while this works in theory, in practice it proves to be considerably different. If Lucas misses with PK Thunder he's very vulnerable, and while PK Fire is decent for building damage, it's somewhat predictable and not easily abusable compared to say... Falco's short-hopped lazers or Olimar's pikmin. His upsmash is also fairly difficult to land on people who know how dangerous it is, although I'll admit he has some good kill options (though as I said, he has some trouble safely building up damage to the point where he can KO with them). He's also totally doomed against Marth, as the emblem prince has an indefinite chaingrab on him and Ness for some strange reason.

EDIT: DARN YOU, WO! Now I have to argue your post and Renard's in one post!


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Aug 20, 2008)

Lucas usmash is good but only noobs use it frequently. Use other killers like dsmash or his throws.


----------



## TÃ¦farÃ³s (Aug 20, 2008)

AlexX said:


> He's also totally doomed against Marth, as the emblem prince has an indefinite chaingrab on him and Ness for some strange reason.
> 
> EDIT: DARN YOU, WO! Now I have to argue your post and Renard's in one post!



Seriously? My boyfriend just does Marth's forward grab, then forward smash, and the tip hits almost every time. (Or is it down grab? Not too sure for that girly boi.)

Duel!


----------



## SirRob (Aug 20, 2008)

M. Le Renard said:


> (though I'm agreeing that Ike is a mite too powerful to be completely fair: I hardly ever play him, but I haven't lost with him yet.  Lucas is overpowered too.  And Kirby is verging on overpowered, but that's okay, because he's Kirby).


No, sorry. Try Metaknight or Snake.


----------



## TÃ¦farÃ³s (Aug 20, 2008)

SirRob said:


> No, sorry. Try Metaknight or Snake.



Does "overpowered" even come into play at all? Even against experienced players they're entirely beatable.


----------



## SirRob (Aug 20, 2008)

TÃ¦farÃ³s said:


> Does "overpowered" even come into play at all? Even against experienced players they're entirely beatable.


Don't quote me on this, but Snake has ridiculously overpowered tilts, and can pretty much manipulate his opponent to go where he wants him/her to go using mines and stuff. Metaknight has incredible recovery, and he has tons of fast and strong attacks which are hard to counter.


----------



## TÃ¦farÃ³s (Aug 20, 2008)

Very true about Snakey's tilts, but he's very vulnerable when planting a mine. But you got me thinking--all the Snakes I've played attempt to edgeguard with missles, but should they be doing that or planting mines all over the joint? Ah ha.

Meta Knight--fast, fast bastard, but light as hell. He can be Lucas'd.


----------



## AlexX (Aug 20, 2008)

Okay, here I go against that big thing:



> Your main goal is to navigate the stage in such a manner that you don't fall off within the time limit set.


Eh? I'm going to have to say this comment is incorrect, as it makes it sound like all the stages are huge. Only New Pork City is anywhere near large enough where you have to "navigate the stage" to reach your opponent. Even the Temple doesn't have too much of an issue keeping the focus on "beat up your opponent".



> In fact, this is your only real goal- don't fall off the platforms.


Wrong. Not falling off the edge, yourself is just incidental, as your main focus is defeating your opponent since you can't win if all you do is survive and don't bother fighting the opponent.



> The only way to lose is to fall off the platform in such a way that you can't recover from falling.


Not like there aren't ring-out victories in other fighting games...



> This is not a ring-out, this is Mario/Megaman dropping into bottomless/spiked pits (except in Smash, falling into a spiked pit just bounces you up into the air!).


Wrong. There's no difference between ringing out an enemy in Soul Calibur and ringing out someone in Smash except in Smash you can try to recover (sometimes... Most of the time you hit the opponent so that they don't get the chance to recover). Also, spikes didn't exist in Smash until Brawl.



> The versus aspect of it is that you have (an) opponent(s) (up to 3) who all have the same goal. The competition then is to see who has the most lives left when time runs out, or to see who runs out of lives last.


How is Stock mode all that different from normal fighters? Yeah, you have to play all 3 rounds seperately, but having 3 stocks for each character is no different from say... the characters in the DBZ games each having 3 life bars during a match. Yeah, some characters have more life bars in those games, but some characters are heavier than others in Smash.



> Even more telling- in case of a tie between parties as to who fell off the least, the winner is determined by their score... but having a higher score doesn't mean you win if you fell off and lost all your stocks.


Competative matches are always 1-on-1, so this is no issue (since I'll assume we're talking competative play here). If it makes things easier for you, 4-P mode can be considered party mode while 2-P mode could be considered traditional mode.



> Here's the kicker- your interaction with the stage itself bears more weight in who wins than your interaction with your opponent.


Wrong. Only a small handful of stages like Port Town and Big Blue have you fight the stage more than the opponent, and for that reason and more, those stages are banned in competative play.



> If you damage your opponent the entire match without him touching you at all, that means nothing. You are not winning until he leaves the stage- in fact, he could do nothing to you at all and still win if you were to fall off the platform of your own accord (or by mistake).


Wrong. How well a character can build up damage is absolutely vital. KO-ing an opponent is only possible if they have a certain amount of damage on them, how much it requries depends on the character. Yes, KO moves are also important, but if a character lacks reliable ways of building up damage it doesn't matter. It's reasons like that that keep characters like Lucas and Ganondorf from seeing the light of the upper tiers. Also, if a character falls off the edge by mistake and dies at 0%, they deserve to lose a stock.



> This is not an argument about intent, or optimal/competitive play. It's simply a statement of fact- you can hit someone forever in Smash, never take a hit, and still lose in ANY setting; default, tournament rules, whatever.


Unless you are an utter moron, you should never lose under these circumstances because A. higher damage makes it easier to KO opponents, and B. time-out victories are determined by damage if stocks are even. If we take competative rules into consideration, it is even more impossible because they also took the liberty of banning all the stages where the stage gets more kills than the players.



> That's not the case in a real fighting game. If you are hitting your opponent and they never hit you back, you win in a real fighting game.


You'll eventually win in Smash if you keep hitting the opponent and they never hit you back. In Melee and 64 it's easier because you can do it with the same moves you used to build damage with since knockback is always the same (don't believe me? Abuse Fox's u-smash and Link's Spin Dash in 64 and Melee. The opponent will eventually die). In Brawl you can still do it as well, you just need to change which attack you perform for the final blow.



> "You can set lifebars to infinite" is not an argument against this point; never mind default settings or whatever, for whatever reason you seem to think depletion of stocks = depletion of lifebar.


Why set life bars to infinite to make them more similar? In Brawl, 100% is about enough to finish off most characters, so for all intents and purposes life bars still exist since at that point you merely need to land a single good KO move and the opponent will die since they do not get the chance to recover before they hit the blast zone.



> In a real fighting game, if you set lifebars to infinite and play a regular match, assuming no other means of victory is available (ex. ring outs, point/judgment system), the game ends in a draw. If you set one person's lifebar to infinite and the other person doesn't, then the person with infinite life is the only one who can win- at best the non-infinite life person can hope for a draw by never getting hit.


Smash judges who wins by stock. If stocks are the same when the timer goes out they go by damage. If the damage is the same they go by Sudden Death where special rules are in effect. There's more than one way to prove you're the most skilled in Smash too, you know.



> If you set stocks to infinite in Smash, the goal is still the same- don't fall off the platform as much as the other guy before the match ends.


Time and Coin matches are really more for casual play than competative. Also, I'm pretty sure that you beat most opponents by sending them flying, not by gimping their recoveries.



> If you set it so you can't take damage in Smash, the goal is still the same.


No, it would then be almost (if not completely) impossible to play since you can't knock your opponents far back enough to stop them from returning to the stage.



> If you set it so that nobody has any active hitboxes so you can't actually touch each other with attacks, the goal is still the same.


No, as the game becomes completely unplayable by that point because it is then impossible to knock your opponent off the stage.

In platformers the main enemy is the terrain. In fighting games the main enemy is the opponent. Play me on any tournament legal stage you wish and try to tell me that the stage caused you more trouble than I did.



> If only one person has those advantages, the other person can still win.


Not really...



> Or view it from this angle- if you knock your opponent out more times than they knocked you out in a fighting game (by the game's count), you win.


Exactly the same as in Smash bros.



> If you knock your opponent out more times than they knocked you out in Smash (by the game's count), you might still have lost.


Not in a competative match. Maybe in a party match, but last I checked, people don't care about the results of a party match since those are just friendly bouts.



> Long story short, Smash has more in common with Super Mario Bros. 2 than it does with Street Fighter 2.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II-_DanHx3I 



> By default, right out of the box, Smash's primary, if not singular method of victory, is through the removal of an opponent from an arena, not through depletion of stamina. There is at least one way to win without necessarily RO'ing someone and not altering any options (mainly through points)


But without damaging the opponent, winning is impossible. Characters may as well have a life bar because it's almost impossible to kill an opponent without dealing the proper amount of damage to do so.



> By default, right out of the box, Tekken/Soul Calibur/Virtua Fighter/Street Fighter/Mortal Kombat's primary, if not singular method of victory, is through the depletion of stamina, not the removal of an opponent from an arena. There is at least one way to win without necessarily depleting an opponent's stamina entirely (timeouts, in some games ringouts).


Smash also has time-out victories, and I already explained how they work.



> People arguing pro-"Smash fighter "brought up that the options exist within Smash to make it play like a regular fighter. Some then took this point to argue further that since the options were there, it was designed to be a fighting game.


I personally don't see a need for that point... It's different, but there's really no need to try and change it since it's still a fighting game at heart.



> The counterpoint of the anti-"Smash fighter" is that using options to legitimize Smash is a slippery slope because other games can be tinkered with in options to resemble fighting games as well, such as going melee only in many FPSs.


Oh, well then I guess it's good I didn't see a reason to try and argue that.



> Sakurai and co developed Smash in a very specific way, and then set the game to be played that way by default. Regardless of whoever thinks otherwise, the developers call the final shots as to what sort of game they made, even if it doesn't make sense to the enduser.


Items can be turned off and stages can be banned. The core mechanics left behind are still that of a fighting game.



> Throwing in a boxload of options helps with longevity and creativity, but I wouldn't label Smash and LittleBigPlanet as being in the same genre because they share stage-creation mechanics. It also doesn't put Ace Combat 4 and Virtua Fighter in the same genre because you can get screwed by leaving the set combat area.


Smash didn't have a stage creator until Brawl, and I've never played any of those other games mentioned, so I won't comment on them.

I won't bother with the TL;DR stuff since I decided to be long-winded in my reponse.


----------



## TÃ¦farÃ³s (Aug 20, 2008)

AlexX said:


> Okay, here I go against that big thing:
> 
> Eh? I'm going to have to say this comment is incorrect, as it makes it sound like all the stages are huge. Only New Pork City is anywhere near large enough where you have to "navigate the stage" to reach your opponent. Even the Temple doesn't have too much of an issue keeping the focus on "beat up your opponent".
> 
> ...



Megathrusters are go!


----------



## Alblaka (Aug 20, 2008)

I wanted a tread to get ideas which make Melee more fun, not a discussion about the chars of Brawl!  Or Brawl in general...  Or compares between the SSBs  Or comments like that


TheGreatCrusader said:


> Suggestion: Buy a Wii and stop complaining.
> 
> PROBLEM SOLVED \o/


----------



## TÃ¦farÃ³s (Aug 20, 2008)

Alright then. I got Melee two days after Christmas '01, unlocked everything in about a week, and my main was Yoshi. Oh was my main Yoshi.


----------



## Alblaka (Aug 20, 2008)

Yoshi?
I thought he is to weak, cuz you can pretty simple kick him from the stage?


----------



## TÃ¦farÃ³s (Aug 20, 2008)

Wrong, my man. Yoshi is very much a competent character, it's just that his recovery throws him off. He had some pretty sweet aerials.


----------



## Alblaka (Aug 20, 2008)

I could never play well with him, neither in SSB nor in Melee... I prefer Marth, Kirby and Mewtu...

Marth is stylish (exspecially in the white/red color) and has the most useful run-attk. Im the enemy had some damage, he is practically dead after that... He will never touch the ground again ^^

Kirby is cool... The best "kill the guy who try to attack you from underwards in the air"-attack and nearly unkickable... comes back always ^^
Only stupid that in Melee nearly no throw works... The enemys escape always...


----------



## Kuekuatsheu (Aug 20, 2008)

my main in Melee was, or is still, like in Brawl, Luigi 
and hell I loved Dr. Mario! I dunno why, I liked him much, much more than Mario :3 and I was pretty good with him

well the hardest thing in melee was to fight 3 lvl 9 Ganondorfs... in a team!


----------



## TÃ¦farÃ³s (Aug 20, 2008)

Cheesewulf said:


> my main in Melee was, or is still, like in Brawl, Luigi
> and hell I loved Dr. Mario! I dunno why, I liked him much, much more than Mario :3 and I was pretty good with him
> 
> well the hardest thing in melee was to fight 3 lvl 9 Ganondorfs... in a team!



Well, he was Mario with super doctor goodness so...

Really?


----------



## Kuekuatsheu (Aug 20, 2008)

TÃ¦farÃ³s said:


> Well, he was Mario with super doctor goodness so...
> 
> Really?


yeah kinda 


really wut?

you got something harder? :3


----------



## TÃ¦farÃ³s (Aug 20, 2008)

Three...Foxes?

I haven't played level 9s in Melee for...a lot, so I can't really say.


----------



## Alblaka (Aug 20, 2008)

I'm still a half-n00b i think...
3 Ganons on L9... They would kill me...
*thinking*
Hmmm, maybe not... Ganon is super-easy if you are Marth/Roy... You cann presee his attacks pretty often and counter them. AND i staffed event 51, that's more difficult then 3 Ganons, i guess ^^

Mario/Dr.Mario are annoying... I hate them as enemys -.-


----------



## Kuekuatsheu (Aug 20, 2008)

TÃ¦farÃ³s said:


> Three...Foxes?
> 
> I haven't played level 9s in Melee for...a lot, so I can't really say.


Fox?... mh, I don't remember that lvl 9 Foxes were hard to beat...



> Ganon is super-easy if you are Marth/Roy


I hated Marth and Roy ;_;


----------



## Alblaka (Aug 20, 2008)

Roy is stupid, Marth is only cool...
Only bad thing is, you can kick him easyly, cuz he can't rescue himself well...
But as long he's on the ground and the enemy hasn't much distance attacks...


----------



## Kuekuatsheu (Aug 20, 2008)

yep, Roy is stupid... I agree... well, he's only a Marth clone :\

well, that's a thing what I don't like in Melee, the clones... when you're fighting Young Link, you could fight Link instead, he's just heavier and harder to knock off


----------



## Alblaka (Aug 20, 2008)

Cheesewulf said:


> yep, Roy is stupid... I agree... well, he's only a Marth clone :\
> 
> well, that's a thing what I don't like in Melee, the clones... when you're fighting Young Link, you could fight Link instead, he's just heavier and harder to knock off



-.-
Yep... Lot of clones, only with some micro changes in the range or power of the attacks...
Mario > Dr.Mario
Falcon > Gannondorf
Marth > Roy
Fox > Falco
Had i forgot someone?


----------



## Kuekuatsheu (Aug 20, 2008)

Pikachu > Pichu
Link > Young Link
:3


----------



## Wait Wait (Aug 20, 2008)

is okamichan still arguing that smash bros isn't a fighting game



(psssst you are wrong)


----------



## Alblaka (Aug 20, 2008)

Cheesewulf said:


> Pikachu > Pichu
> Link > Young Link
> :3



>.< Oh, yes...

By the way, is there any way to get GigaBowser for Melee Mode?


----------



## Kuekuatsheu (Aug 20, 2008)

Wait Wait said:


> is okamichan still arguing that smash bros isn't a fighting game
> 
> 
> 
> (psssst you are wrong)


what? you didn't know? Smash Bros is a MMORPG! roflnewbkthxbai

jk


> >.< Oh, yes...
> 
> By the way, is there any way to get GigaBowser for Melee Mode?


uhm no

but you can get him in Brawl


----------



## Alblaka (Aug 20, 2008)

Yes with Browser+Brawl Ball, i know...

I hoped you could activate him somehow in Melee. Would be nice to fight him (without ganon and mewtu -.-)...


----------



## Kuekuatsheu (Aug 20, 2008)

Alblaka said:


> I hoped you could activate him somehow in Melee. Would be nice to fight him (without ganon and mewtu -.-)...


nope, you can't
there were some idiots who told that around, just like that shit with Ganonlink... a fusion between Link and Ganondorf


----------



## Alblaka (Aug 20, 2008)

Cheesewulf said:


> nope, you can't
> there were some idiots who told that around, just like that shit with Ganonlink... a fusion between Link and Ganondorf



*wheezing*
No, i was non of that guys, that tried really to get ganonlink
*wheezing*

Ok, i did... -.- I'm to naive i guess...


----------



## M. LeRenard (Aug 20, 2008)

AlexX said:
			
		

> Stuff


Well, for me, in practice it works, oddly enough.  I mean, it's not like you just run around pressing A all over the place: you have to float around and be an opportunist, but really all it takes is getting folks up to around 50% (not that hard) and then they're bait for instant KO.  After that point, you land one hit and you win (unless you're in New Pork City or some giant stage).  It's cheap, I tell you!
But maybe it's just the way I play.  I once killed someone with Meta Knight by chasing them off the stage with his air attacks.  They died at 22% and never had a chance to hit me.  It was amusing.

That's something you can't really pull off in Melee, is chasing people to their deaths.  Of course, most of the time it's not necessary.


----------



## AlexX (Aug 21, 2008)

M. Le Renard said:


> Well, for me, in practice it works, oddly enough.  I mean, it's not like you just run around pressing A all over the place: you have to float around and be an opportunist, but really all it takes is getting folks up to around 50% (not that hard) and then they're bait for instant KO.  After that point, you land one hit and you win (unless you're in New Pork City or some giant stage).  It's cheap, I tell you!


Ask the people in the Brawl topic that's still active how often they fall to such tactics. Ike is indeed a character who requires patience to play well, but if any of his attacks are shielded or whiffed he's easily one of the most punishable characters. Yeah, that f-smash can KO at ~50%, but nobody is going to be getting hit by it, so you need to be knocking them to around 80%+ to hit them with an Eruption or f-tilt since those are actually reliable KO moves.



> But maybe it's just the way I play.  I once killed someone with Meta Knight by chasing them off the stage with his air attacks.  They died at 22% and never had a chance to hit me.  It was amusing.


Yeah, Meta-Knight can be broken like that. I'm pretty sure he and Sonic are the only ones who can do that, though.



> That's something you can't really pull off in Melee, is chasing people to their deaths.  Of course, most of the time it's not necessary.


No, but gimping recoveries was considerably more common.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Aug 21, 2008)

> I'm pretty sure he and Sonic are the only ones who can do that, though.


Oh no.  I've done it with Kirby, Fox, Falco, Pit, Zelda (granted, it was with fireballs and not air attacks), and maybe a couple of others.  I'm sure you could pull it off with just about anyone, but lots wouldn't make it back to land after the kill, is the problem.  People who float are the best for it, of course.


----------



## AlexX (Aug 21, 2008)

M. Le Renard said:


> Oh no.  I've done it with Kirby, Fox, Falco, Pit, Zelda (granted, it was with fireballs and not air attacks), and maybe a couple of others.  I'm sure you could pull it off with just about anyone, but lots wouldn't make it back to land after the kill, is the problem.  People who float are the best for it, of course.


That's the problem... Yeah, anyone can chase the enemy to death like you could in Melee, but only ones with the best recoveries have the ability to reliably make it back to the stage afterwards.


----------



## JOtter86 (Aug 21, 2008)

Melee is actually fun to but i also prefer well original on n64 to. Just the only thing that got my issues is with the change of characters because in ssb on gc kirby flew back lighter. Now kirby seems like he has well more weight...


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Aug 21, 2008)

It looks like I forgot to tell you that I simply copy-paste it from a very good poster.



> Eh? I'm going to have to say this comment is incorrect, as it makes it sound like all the stages are huge. Only New Pork City is anywhere near large enough where you have to "navigate the stage" to reach your opponent. Even the Temple doesn't have too much of an issue keeping the focus on "beat up your opponent".



Err no, it doesn't have to be big because that's not the point of that statement. What it means is that part of the game is that you must learn how to work around the stage to your advantage in Smash.



> Wrong. Not falling off the edge, yourself is just incidental, as your main focus is defeating your opponent since you can't win if all you do is survive and don't bother fighting the opponent.



I understand what you mean (I too found faults in the "essay"), that you still need to fight, but still, you are more geared in survivng. You can actually you can win without doing much. Hence pacifist bonuses. Besides, you're more focused on keeping yourself on the platform than actually hitting the foe (you're pretty much just want NOT to make him remain on the platform than OUTRIGHT damaging him *coughthrowchainfinish*).



> Not like there aren't ring-out victories in other fighting games...



Except the fact that the ringouts AREN'T the PRIMARY way of finishing the foe. In Smash, it is - in fighitng games, it's just some flavoring.



> Wrong. There's no difference between ringing out an enemy in Soul Calibur and ringing out someone in Smash except in Smash you can try to recover (sometimes... Most of the time you hit the opponent so that they don't get the chance to recover). Also, spikes didn't exist in Smash until Brawl.



Yes there is - in Smash, right out of the box, ring outs is the only way to defeat the foe. In fighting games, its just an alternative (and you actually see the life guage deplete to nil).



> How is Stock mode all that different from normal fighters? Yeah, you have to play all 3 rounds seperately, but having 3 stocks for each character is no different from say... the characters in the DBZ games each having 3 life bars during a match. Yeah, some characters have more life bars in those games, but some characters are heavier than others in Smash.



Yeah, never understood that part. Pocket Fighter and Darkstalkers 3 used "stock" as well.



> Competative matches are always 1-on-1, so this is no issue (since I'll assume we're talking competative play here). If it makes things easier for you, 4-P mode can be considered party mode while 2-P mode could be considered traditional mode.



Eh, never got this argument as well.



> Wrong. Only a small handful of stages like Port Town and Big Blue have you fight the stage more than the opponent, and for that reason and more, those stages are banned in competative play.



Actually no. It's more than just stage hazards. It also involves character advantages and other things. For instance, FD is a lot more advantageous to projectile users. Heck, having different levels of platforms itself mean that you should be more wary of the character's location in the stage.



> Wrong. How well a character can build up damage is absolutely vital. KO-ing an opponent is only possible if they have a certain amount of damage on them, how much it requries depends on the character. Yes, KO moves are also important, but if a character lacks reliable ways of building up damage it doesn't matter. It's reasons like that that keep characters like Lucas and Ganondorf from seeing the light of the upper tiers. Also, if a character falls off the edge by mistake and dies at 0%, they deserve to lose a stock.



I think you're missing the point here - he is saying that you can still survive at 400+ percent whereas in a fighting game, you only have a set number of "health". And no - Battle Arena Toshiden has a life bar, albeit an invisible one.



> Unless you are an utter moron, you should never lose under these circumstances because A. higher damage makes it easier to KO opponents, and B. time-out victories are determined by damage if stocks are even. If we take competative rules into consideration, it is even more impossible because they also took the liberty of banning all the stages where the stage gets more kills than the players.



He is more or less implying it in a technical manner - it's not about how you win, it is more on the technical side in how you win. In a fighting game, you technically cannot survive a continuous hitting attack because you have limited vitals. Same cannot be said in Smash where you technically can die without receiving any damage.



> You'll eventually win in Smash if you keep hitting the opponent and they never hit you back. In Melee and 64 it's easier because you can do it with the same moves you used to build damage with since knockback is always the same (don't believe me? Abuse Fox's u-smash and Link's Spin Dash in 64 and Melee. The opponent will eventually die). In Brawl you can still do it as well, you just need to change which attack you perform for the final blow.



Again - he is referring to it in a technical point of view. It's not about how the game is played, but how the game is BUILD upon. In a fighting game, it is BUILD upon that you lose when you lose 100% of your life because all attacks that hit you reduce your life.



> Why set life bars to infinite to make them more similar? In Brawl, 100% is about enough to finish off most characters, so for all intents and purposes life bars still exist since at that point you merely need to land a single good KO move and the opponent will die since they do not get the chance to recover before they hit the blast zone.



I still think his stock argument is iffy so I won't bother with it.



> Smash judges who wins by stock. If stocks are the same when the timer goes out they go by damage. If the damage is the same they go by Sudden Death where special rules are in effect. There's more than one way to prove you're the most skilled in Smash too, you know.



Same again - dunno about his stock argument.



> Time and Coin matches are really more for casual play than competative. Also, I'm pretty sure that you beat most opponents by sending them flying, not by gimping their recoveries.



No - not really. I've seen more "hey let's steal his edge" than "HEY! DIE!".



> No, it would then be almost (if not completely) impossible to play since you can't knock your opponents far back enough to stop them from returning to the stage.



Again. Build of the game, not how you play, technicals, etc.



> No, as the game becomes completely unplayable by that point because it is then impossible to knock your opponent off the stage.
> 
> In platformers the main enemy is the terrain. In fighting games the main enemy is the opponent. Play me on any tournament legal stage you wish and try to tell me that the stage caused you more trouble than I did.



You even said it yourself. The main enemy in Smash is terrain, not the OPPONENT.



> Not really...



I don't get this one.



> Exactly the same as in Smash bros.



In technicality, you win in Smash because you can fall without having damage.



> Not in a competative match. Maybe in a party match, but last I checked, people don't care about the results of a party match since those are just friendly bouts.



Dunno about this.



> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=II-_DanHx3I



Eh.



> But without damaging the opponent, winning is impossible. Characters may as well have a life bar because it's almost impossible to kill an opponent without dealing the proper amount of damage to do so.



You see, the problem is this - the juddgment is how the game is BUILT.



> I personally don't see a need for that point... It's different, but there's really no need to try and change it since it's still a fighting game at heart.



You see - that's it. It's DIFFERENT. If the question "It's a fighting game?" rises, that should be a notion that "hey, maybe it's not!".



> Items can be turned off and stages can be banned. The core mechanics left behind are still that of a fighting game.



Except the fact that it isn't.



> Smash didn't have a stage creator until Brawl, and I've never played any of those other games mentioned, so I won't comment on them.



He was referring to a different argument there. He is simply referring to the fact that just because two things have something similar, that doesn't mean they belong to the same group.

Anyway, just because you aren't a fighting game doesn't mean you aren't competitive!


----------



## AlexX (Aug 22, 2008)

WolfoxOkamichan said:


> Err no, it doesn't have to be big because that's not the point of that statement. What it means is that part of the game is that you must learn how to work around the stage to your advantage in Smash.


The point of the statement was that you had to navigate the stage in order to reach your opponent before fighting them. This is only remotely close to being true on overly large stages, because if the stage is not large, then there's nothing to get in the way of your fight with the opponent. This is even more true if we go by competative rules, as any stage that significantly interferes with your fight with your opponent is banned.



> I understand what you mean (I too found faults in the "essay"), that you still need to fight, but still, you are more geared in survivng. You can actually you can win without doing much. Hence pacifist bonuses.


Bonuses mean absolutely nothing in competative Smash. The only time they matter is 1-P mode, and although they are tallied in multiplayer in Melee (and ONLY Melee), that's just for fun as your ending score means nothing in the end. NOZZING. It's whether or not you dealt the most KOs/damage.



> Besides, you're more focused on keeping yourself on the platform than actually hitting the foe (you're pretty much just want NOT to make him remain on the platform than OUTRIGHT damaging him *coughthrowchainfinish*).


Wrong. If all you do is focus on surviving, you're not going to win. Also, what chainthrow finish? The only major chainthrows in Melee were from Shiek and Marth, and the only major ones in Brawl are from Dedede and Falco, and all of them use their chainthrows as a way of building up damage. They generally rely on their other moves for finishing opponents.



> Except the fact that the ringouts AREN'T the PRIMARY way of finishing the foe. In Smash, it is - in fighitng games, it's just some flavoring.


True, but that doesn't mean that Smash's ring-outs are different from a normal fighting game's ring outs. A ring-out in any fighting game is a victory for the one who knocked the opponent out, and Smash is no different. The only difference is that you use them a lot more in Smash, but that's hardly a reason to claim it's not a fighting game, it's just not a traditional fighter.



> Yes there is - in Smash, right out of the box, ring outs is the only way to defeat the foe. In fighting games, its just an alternative (and you actually see the life guage deplete to nil).


Again, this just means Smash isn't a traditional fighter, it doesn't mean it's not a fighting game. Also, I reiterate that when a character is around 100%, they're more or less dead once you perform a single KO move (a finishing move, if you will).



> Actually no. It's more than just stage hazards. It also involves character advantages and other things. For instance, FD is a lot more advantageous to projectile users. Heck, having different levels of platforms itself mean that you should be more wary of the character's location in the stage.


Other fighting games do this, as well. For example, stages with walls in Soul Calibur give advantages to some characters compared to ones with none, and the DBZ fighting games have tons of different levels of terrain. There aren't any platforms, but some parts of the terrain are significantly higher than others and could easily affect certain attacks. Heck, there's even some structures that block attacks until you destroy them.



> I think you're missing the point here - he is saying that you can still survive at 400+ percent whereas in a fighting game, you only have a set number of "health". And no - Battle Arena Toshiden has a life bar, albeit an invisible one.


No, no, no. Competative matches in Smash should *NEVER* have anyone reaching such an obscenely high percent. Even Sonic can KO at around 1/4 of that. The only time this could occur is if you're really, really good at teching at the Temple, but that's impossible because Hyrule Temple is banned.

...Also, what the heck is "Battle Arena Toshiden" and why did you bring it up? I never mentioned that, and I don't see how it's relevant.



> He is more or less implying it in a technical manner - it's not about how you win, it is more on the technical side in how you win. In a fighting game, you technically cannot survive a continuous hitting attack because you have limited vitals. Same cannot be said in Smash where you technically can die without receiving any damage.


Technicalities don't work in a hypothetical sitaution when they won't happen in practice. Also, you can't survive combos any more easily in Smash since they tend to easily end in KO moves.



> Again - he is referring to it in a technical point of view. It's not about how the game is played, but how the game is BUILD upon. In a fighting game, it is BUILD upon that you lose when you lose 100% of your life because all attacks that hit you reduce your life.


...What? I'm not understanding this... "build" upon? You mean built upon? And how do you build upon the fact you lose when your HP hits 0? There's nothing to build upon at that point since the match is over.



> No - not really. I've seen more "hey let's steal his edge" than "HEY! DIE!".


Happens all the time from what I've seen. In Melee it's because the top-tiers are, for the most part, all very light, and in Brawl it's because everyone's recovery is so good that edgeguarding is practically pointless.



> Again. Build of the game, not how you play, technicals, etc.


What does build have to do with anything? With the way the game works, making the game that way would render it impossible for anyone to win, and thus, unplayable.



> You even said it yourself. The main enemy in Smash is terrain, not the OPPONENT.


What!? Where did I say that? I specifically said in that statement that the OPPONENT is what you're fighting in Smash, not the stage. Again, fight me on any tournament legal stage in any of the Smash games and try to tell me the stage gave you more problems than I did.



> I don't get this one.


I don't fully get it, either. I think they're trying to say if you applied any of the aforementioned changes in a normal fighting game it would be impossible for the disadvantaged person to win while it's still possible for them to win in Smash, which isn't true.



> In technicality, you win in Smash because you can fall without having damage.


But again, that technicality is useless because it's not going to happen in practice. Maybe I'll consider it if you can find Azen or M2K falling off the stage and dying at 0% during the middle of a tournament, but that won't happen because it's so easy to avoid.



> You see, the problem is this - the juddgment is how the game is BUILT.


And the game is BUILT like a fighting game, they just changed the primary way of winning from reducing an opponent's HP to 0 to ringing them out. The main focus is still to beat up on your opponent more than they beat up on you.



> You see - that's it. It's DIFFERENT. If the question "It's a fighting game?" rises, that should be a notion that "hey, maybe it's not!".


Then I guess Mario Kart isn't a racing game (not comparable in the least to say.... Burnout), Tales of Symphonia isn't an RPG (absolutely nothing like FF games), Super Mario Galaxy isn't a platformer (barely plays anything like Super Mario Bros.), Nintendo Wars isn't a strategy game (plays nothing like chess at all), and Super Robot Wars/Taisen is not a SRPG (way too complex and different from the original Elthlead or Fire Emblem).

The definition of a game genre isn't intricate and complex. It can be different and still fall under the same genre.



> Except the fact that it isn't.


See above.



> He was referring to a different argument there. He is simply referring to the fact that just because two things have something similar, that doesn't mean they belong to the same group.


But the opposite also holds true: just because they have a few differences doesn't mean they cannot possibly belong to the same group.



> Anyway, just because you aren't a fighting game doesn't mean you aren't competitive!


Other fighting game fandoms tend to treat competative smashers with heck of a lot less respect, though. Heck, I'd go as far as to say they look down on us...


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Aug 22, 2008)

I'd continue the argument, but we might end up repeating what we said to each other. My basic point is that, unlike fighitng games which are classified in Japan as Vs. Fighting, whose build is quite the same, Smash has a different build (Vs. Action), and that unlike fighting games, where the stage isn't really much important and that the competitve level, while strict and look different, still plays the same in the casual level, Smash has a rather different competitive and casual play styles. *As you can see, the competitive level of Smash has been altered enough to RESEMBLE a fighting game*, but on the casual level, it's just not. The core difference is already given - they have different attributes that make them different in the genre.

Beisdes, Tales (not just Symphonia, even way back on SNES's Phantasia) and Seiken Densetsu are labeled as RPGs in Japan not because of the battle system, and even Mario Kart is is Vs. Racing in Japan (the difference is not the core - it's still racingwith your vehicles, as opposed to say Twisted Metal). Metroid is Action.  Heck, Nintendo Wars is really a Turn-Based Strategy (Might and Magic, Age of Wonders, etc.)

And I don't really blame you why people look down on you. It's usually because of the "other side" of the fandom causing the trouble... Heck, I consider Smash community the worst fandom objectively because it is the "alliance" of various fanboys.


----------



## AlexX (Aug 22, 2008)

WolfoxOkamichan said:


> I'd continue the argument, but we might end up repeating what we said to each other.


Most likely, though forgive me for feeling the need to counter your final points.



> My basic point is that, unlike fighitng games which are classified in Japan as Vs. Fighting, whose build is quite the same, Smash has a different build (Vs. Action),


This is an old purist feeling that, frankly, is what I have a problem with. Fighting game purists (and I don't mean you specifically, I'm talking in general here) want every fighting game to play the exact same way with the only variable being the button combinations for special moves. This is why they don't like Smash... it breaks the usual mold by being some bizarre combination of Street Fighter and volleyball, and they can't stand that. Yeah, Japan classifies it as action, but as I said, game genres aren't as intricate and complex as people think they are, and that ignores the fact SSE might have been a strong contributing factor to that label despite just being intended as a break from the usual battles.



> and that unlike fighting games, where the stage isn't really much important


Play me as Piccolo at Old Namek or the City in DBZ Tenkaichi 2 and then tell me stage means nothing there (you'll experience trouble because Piccolo relies mostly on ranged energy attacks, and old Namek is to his disadvantage due to there being some hills and valleys resulting in uneven terrain that makes aiming difficult, while in the city there's buildings everywhere to block his energy attacks... sure, Special Beam Cannon and Hellzone Gernade are awesomely powerful, but they make him too vulnerable to attempt at close-range. A close-range fighter like Tapion would have a clear advantage over him at those stages compared to say... the Plains or the Cell Games arena where he can easily keep his distance).



> and that the competitve level, while strict and look different, still plays the same in the casual level, Smash has a rather different competitive and casual play styles. As you can see, the competitive level of Smash has been altered enough to RESEMBLE a fighting game, but on the casual level, it's just not.


How the heck does having a different competative style from the casual style affect whether or not it's a fighting game? If Street Fighter 4 were to have items, nobody would claim it's no longer a fighting game, they'd just not play with them. Likewise, if it allowed 4 people could fight at once, nobody would argue it's not a fighting game, they'd just consider it to be a sort of party mode and leave it at that.

The comment about competative smash? No, it HASN'T been altered to make it resemble a fighting game. It's been altered to *STOP THINGS FROM BREAKING THE GAME*. Akuma in Street Fighter 2 is banned in competative play, is he not? Smash is no different. Items are banned because it adds too much luck when competative play is supposed to be about skill. If you don't believe me, check the finals of the last Evo tournament. Ken was winning significantly until the items showed up and his opponent (some ROB player) abused low-risk/high-reward items. Ken lost the tournament because he was unlucky, not because his opponent was better.

Stages are the same thing. If a stage in Street Fighter had a hazard that could randomly kill a player (or at least deal a significant amount of damage), that stage would be banned from competative play, would it not? If it had a stage where you could run away from your opponent once you had the upper hand and wait for a Time-Out victory, that one would be banned as well, would it not? Smash is no different, as banning things is always a _last_ resort reserved only for things that either break the game or add too strong of an element of luck. They don't ban things just to make it similar to Street Fighter, otherwise they'd only allow stages like Final Destnation in tournaments.



> The core difference is already given - they have different attributes that make them different in the genre.


Whenever someone wants to argue a game doesn't belong in a certain genre, they always argue "the core game" is what makes it too different. Rather than continue giving this apparently all-defeating argument, why don't you tell me exactly what a fighting game is? Obviously I don't know since I always thought it was "a game where the overall main focus is beating up the opponent (yes, even more important than the story)".



> Beisdes, Tales (not just Symphonia, even way back on SNES's Phantasia) and Seiken Densetsu are labeled as RPGs in Japan not because of the battle system,


It's not just the battle system. They don't really have anything in common with traditional RPGs like Final Fantasy, so as you'd say, the "core" is too different.



> and even Mario Kart is is Vs. Racing in Japan (the difference is not the core - it's still racingwith your vehicles, as opposed to say Twisted Metal).


A lot of racing purists try to argue the "core" of the game is too different from normal racers because the focus of the game is "hit the opponent with items" rather than "win the race".



> Metroid is Action.


Of course Metroid is action. Metroid Prime is too, but it's also an FPS because it is in a first-person view where the main form of combat is long-range weapons, although most FPS purists love to claim that the "core" of the game isn't that of an FPS as a way to try and argue that it doesn't count.



> Heck, Nintendo Wars is really a Turn-Based Strategy (Might and Magic, Age of Wonders, etc.)


Congradulations on missing my point. I compared it to the oldest strategy game I could think of (chess) to show that the "core" of the game is completely different. After all, Nintendo Wars allows you to create units and because of that you can lose them without much worry, while in chess your amount of units are fixed and therefore you have to be careful about what you sacrifice.



> And I don't really blame you why people look down on you. It's usually because of the "other side" of the fandom causing the trouble... Heck, I consider Smash community the worst fandom objectively because it is the "alliance" of various fanboys.


You do realize you are attempting to claim the Smash comminuty is the most annoying fandom on a forum of furries, correct? Just thought I'd point out the irony...


----------



## TÃ¦farÃ³s (Aug 22, 2008)

> and the only major ones in Brawl are from Dedede and Falco



Ice Climbers Ice Climbers Ice Climbers Ice Climbers.

Okay, I'm good.


----------



## AlexX (Aug 23, 2008)

TÃ¦farÃ³s said:


> Ice Climbers Ice Climbers Ice Climbers Ice Climbers.


Ice Climbers don't have a chaingrab, they have an infinite-to-spike, but considering how easy it is to prevent (i.e. kill Nana), it's really just a cheap move. You know, kinda like Chun-Li's poking.


----------



## TÃ¦farÃ³s (Aug 23, 2008)

AlexX said:


> Ice Climbers don't have a chaingrab, they have an infinite-to-spike, but considering how easy it is to prevent (i.e. kill Nana), it's really just a cheap move. You know, kinda like Chun-Li's poking.



That's not considered a chaingrab? Well, I just learned. Boo for 18% of damage every time.

Hehe, Chun-Li.


----------



## AlexX (Aug 23, 2008)

TÃ¦farÃ³s said:


> That's not considered a chaingrab? Well, I just learned. Boo for 18% of damage every time.


Well, I don't think anyone will penalize you for calling it a chaingrab. It's not all that important since it's just a technicality.


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Aug 23, 2008)

Actually DBZ is listed as Vs. Action too.

Anyway, yeah, I'd rather not argue. It's late here and we'll end up going around.

And Brawl also has Snake, MK, Falco, and DeDeDe. THe other high tiers are workable (e.g. as someone said, Pit is gimpable, Ice Climbers is easy to handle, ROB? lol ROB).

I kinda makes you think that Melee is more balanced. At least back then more characters have a chance on tourneys. Remember Jiggs winning?


----------



## TÃ¦farÃ³s (Aug 23, 2008)

AlexX said:


> Well, I don't think anyone will penalize you for calling it a chaingrab. It's not all that important since it's just a technicality.



If anyone penalizes me for misnaming Smash moves and technicalities, then talking to them isn't really a neccessity. OK, scratch that for all the fools referring to "PK Pulse".


----------



## AlexX (Aug 23, 2008)

WolfoxOkamichan said:


> And Brawl also has Snake, MK, Falco, and DeDeDe.


And Melee has Fox, Falco, Shiek, and Marth.

The games are roughly as balanced as each other in terms of their ratio of tourney viable characters to not tourney viable characters (Melee having roughly 20 out of 25 viable and Brawl having roughly 27 of the 35 viable). Granted, none of the Smash games are the most balanced games in the world, but at least they all allow for a decent amount of variety in tournaments.


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Aug 23, 2008)

Yeah, but when you compare Brawl to Melee, at least Melee has the middle tiers capable of beating the supposed top tiers... as opposed to Brawl...


----------



## AlexX (Aug 23, 2008)

WolfoxOkamichan said:


> Yeah, but when you compare Brawl to Melee, at least Melee has the middle tiers capable of beating the supposed top tiers... as opposed to Brawl...


Um... There have been SONICS winning tournaments, and Sonic is estimated to be low tier. It's still perfectly possible to compete with mid-tiers if a character with such low range, power, and priority like Sonic is capable of doing well. If you want another example, Lucario is mid tier and he has also been doing surprisingly well in tournaments. Yeah, I'll admit bottoms like Captain Falcon are not viable, but hey, bottom ones in Melee like Mewtwo weren't viable, either.


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Aug 23, 2008)

Yeah, but generally speaking, Melee has a lot more variety in tourneys despite having those four being on top. I mean, only n00bs think of the LOLFINALDESTINATION thing, when in fact that's the opposite way around.


----------



## scarei_crow (Aug 23, 2008)

lives=10 or more
damage=x2
items=shells, and bombs. spawn up full.
level=final destination
time=1 minute

try to actually kill the other player before the time limit, its best played at 20 lives.
play as cpt falcon or any other char that has a heavy non-charge attack.


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 23, 2008)

*eating popcorn reading back and forth between *WolfoxOkamichan* http://forums.furaffinity.net/member.php?u=703 and *AlexX**
I have nothing to say but I'm a Peach and Kirby user and time to time win using them Peach cause even without items I can Turnip whore with her.


----------



## SirRob (Aug 23, 2008)

Desume Crysis Kaiser said:


> *eating popcorn reading back and forth between *WolfoxOkamichan* and *AlexX**


*Joins you.*


----------



## BloodYoshi (Aug 23, 2008)

In Melee, the tiers were extremely defined, everyone knew just who was bad and just how bad they were. In Brawl, they're very general and scrunched up. Skill in Brawl depends a lot more about knowing your character matchups and playing intelligently, whereas skill in Melee depended a LOT upon pure speed and technical skill. I believe it's a lot easier to be good with a scrubby character in Brawl than it was in Melee, based on personal experience.


----------



## TÃ¦farÃ³s (Aug 23, 2008)

AlexX said:


> Um... There have been SONICS winning tournaments, and Sonic is estimated to be low tier. It's still perfectly possible to compete with mid-tiers if a character with such low range, power, and priority like Sonic is capable of doing well. If you want another example, Lucario is mid tier and he has also been doing surprisingly well in tournaments. Yeah, I'll admit bottoms like Captain Falcon are not viable, but hey, bottom ones in Melee like Mewtwo weren't viable, either.



About the tiers...Sonic has great recovery and combo potential, so why's he estimated to be low tier? I've never liked those lists anyway; Yoshi is perfectly capable of beating Snake in the hands of a good player. *flameshield*


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Aug 23, 2008)

^It's because aside from speed and recovery, he really has nothing. Tiers is not about "said character can beat other character in the hands of a skilled player". It's about the innate advantages and disadvantages.


----------



## Wait Wait (Aug 23, 2008)

WolfoxOkamichan said:


> Yeah, but when you compare Brawl to Melee, at least Melee has the middle tiers capable of beating the supposed top tiers... as opposed to Brawl...



boy, are you retarded

the tiers in brawl are _much_ less defined, and "bad" characters are on more even ground.


----------



## BloodYoshi (Aug 24, 2008)

What I can't believe is that Meta Knight is supposedly top tier right now. I swore I thought he was going to suck before.


----------



## Wait Wait (Aug 24, 2008)

man before brawl was out
everyone was like "meta knight will be a marth with 5 jumps"

and now he is ballin as hell


----------



## BloodYoshi (Aug 24, 2008)

Everyone I knew was like "It's frickin Kirby with a sword. How good can he be?"


----------



## AlexInsane (Aug 24, 2008)

Kirby sucks balls because he can't glide for shit. 

Meta Knight, though, he's fucking win.


----------



## BloodYoshi (Aug 24, 2008)

Thing about MK though is that you have to be in a state of extreme focus like every match. "In the zone," if you will, that means hit and don't get hit, cause you can only afford so much.

That's how every top tier has been though, from Pikachu in SSB64, to Fox in SSBM to Meta Knight now.


----------



## Wait Wait (Aug 24, 2008)

ChillCoyotl said:


> Thing about MK though is that you have to be in a state of extreme focus like every match. "In the zone," if you will, that means hit and don't get hit, cause you can only afford so much.
> 
> That's how every top tier has been though, from Pikachu in SSB64, to Fox in SSBM to Meta Knight now.



yeah, top tier characters are always those that require large amounts of timing and focus, but have much higher skill caps than other characters.


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Aug 24, 2008)

Wait Wait said:


> boy, are you retarded
> 
> the tiers in brawl are _much_ less defined, and "bad" characters are on more even ground.



Boy are you retarded. The tiers in Melee have been established because the game has been around for more than four years, and even still, the way how the game works, at least even middle tiers could defeat the upper/high ones.

The tiers in Brawl are not yet concrete because the game still new - and even so we are already seeing Meta Knight and Snake beasting and DeDeDe destroying (Sentinel).

Insulting people is fun!


----------



## BloodYoshi (Aug 24, 2008)

WolfoxOkamichan said:


> Boy are you retarded. The tiers in Melee have been established because the game has been around for more than four years, and even still, the way how the game works, at least even middle tiers could defeat the upper/high ones.
> 
> The tiers in Brawl are not yet concrete because the game still new - and even so we are already seeing Meta Knight and Snake beasting and DeDeDe destroying (Sentinel).
> 
> Insulting people is fun!



As it's been said a million times, it all depends on the skill of the player. My belief is just that a lot of people are playing high tier characters because they happen to be all the really cool ones. MK, Ike, Marth, Falco, Wolf, and Snake are all high tier characters and are all really popular and badass so a lot of people play them because they want to be cool. Tell me, how often do you run into someone who uses Game and Watch, Peach, or Yoshi, even? The truth is that you're actually just wrong, but you don't see it because middle/low tier characters are so rarely used anyway. Except for Sonic... *sighs*

Just wait until you get some kooks tearing it up with Crapton Falcon and Yoshi.


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Aug 24, 2008)

^That's not what tier means though.


----------



## AlexX (Aug 24, 2008)

I really don't see why people think tiers are supposed to be be-all-end-all... Even the most competative Smash player will say that a tier list is merely supposed to be a list of what characters have the most advantages and the least advantages, not "who will always win".

As much as I'd like to have the "Tiers R 4 Queers" mentality, it really can't be denied that some characters are simply better than others. It doesn't mean they're unbeatable, it just means you have to work harder if you want to win with a weaker character, and this is true of ALL fighting games.


----------



## Kano (Aug 24, 2008)

I love melee, I have a Gamecube but no Wii so I just have melee. It's fine though, I don't really NEED brawl, though it is fun. In melee my best characters are Roy and Falco. In brawl they're Ike and Toon Link.


----------



## Yukiro-the-Kyuubi (Aug 24, 2008)

Ah, Melee... One of the best things that you can do on there is the Black Hole glitch... It's especially awesome when you use a crap load of PK Fires on it. XD


----------



## Wait Wait (Aug 24, 2008)

WolfoxOkamichan said:


> Boy are you retarded. The tiers in Melee have been established because the game has been around for more than four years, and even still, the way how the game works, at least even middle tiers could defeat the upper/high ones.
> 
> The tiers in Brawl are not yet concrete because the game still new - and even so we are already seeing Meta Knight and Snake beasting and DeDeDe destroying (Sentinel).
> 
> Insulting people is fun!



maybe you've never actually played brawl
it's much more balanced than before

(on the other hand, yes, meta knight and snake are top tier.  still beatable though!)


----------



## SirRob (Aug 24, 2008)

Well uh... WolfoxOkamichan has a point. Brawl is fairly new, so there might still be some undiscovered advanced techniques that could throw that balance off, like in Melee.


----------



## BloodYoshi (Aug 24, 2008)

AlexX said:


> I really don't see why people think tiers are supposed to be be-all-end-all... Even the most competative Smash player will say that a tier list is merely supposed to be a list of what characters have the most advantages and the least advantages, not "who will always win".
> 
> As much as I'd like to have the "Tiers R 4 Queers" mentality, it really can't be denied that some characters are simply better than others. It doesn't mean they're unbeatable, it just means you have to work harder if you want to win with a weaker character, and this is true of ALL fighting games.



^Above statement settles all.

Everyone can shut the fuck up now.

Oh, and Rob, that's what I say all the time, but the fact of that matter is that Nintendo really buckled down and tried to seal up every gap in that respect, as for glitches and stuff. Hence the disappearance of Wavedashing and L-Cancelling, and things of the like. I'm sure there will be more to discover, but how much more is the question?


----------



## AlexX (Aug 24, 2008)

ChillCoyotl said:


> Oh, and Rob, that's what I say all the time, but the fact of that matter is that Nintendo really buckled down and tried to seal up every gap in that respect, as for glitches and stuff. Hence the disappearance of Wavedashing and L-Cancelling, and things of the like.


While wavedashing was indeed a glitch, L-cancelling was not. I believe the official strategy guide even mentioned it, referring to it as "landing with style".


----------



## Xaerun (Aug 24, 2008)

I'm considering buying a Wii just for Brawl. I'd play Fox, second preference Ike.

Is this a good idea?


----------



## BloodYoshi (Aug 24, 2008)

It's a good idea if you have friends that you know of that would play it with you, as it's not got much kick solo.

Well, regardless of whether L-Cancelling was a glitch or not, I'm sure they did away with it for the same reason they did with wavedashing; too many people exploiting it to death. (which was my point)


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Aug 25, 2008)

Wait Wait said:


> maybe you've never actually played brawl
> it's much more balanced than before
> 
> (on the other hand, yes, meta knight and snake are top tier.  still beatable though!)



You don't visit Smashboards do you? I suggest you do to see the fact on how in Melee, Jiggs can kill Falco, and how you can't in Brawl (for instance, the removal of L-cancel punishes characters like Ganondorf who originally has a fighting chance in Melee because of that).

Anyway, yeah, tiers shouldn't be an end-all thing. It's really just a REFERENCE for competitive players, and again, JUST A REFERENCE. However, that doesn't mean characters are equal.

I do not like TR4Q mentality - it just shows how the people don't know about how tiers work. Funnily though that this phenomenon only occurs in the Smash community.


----------



## BloodYoshi (Aug 25, 2008)

So anyone want to stop arguing, exchange friend codes and actually play, or...?


----------



## AlexInsane (Aug 25, 2008)

ShadowKnuckles said:


> I'm considering buying a Wii just for Brawl. I'd play Fox, second preference Ike.
> 
> Is this a good idea?



Fox isn't bad in Brawl. His attacks are all still the same, but his jumping ability has been made better.


----------



## SirRob (Aug 25, 2008)

ChillCoyotl said:


> So anyone want to stop arguing, exchange friend codes and actually play, or...?


Ooh, I wanna play! 1762-2356-0115!


----------



## Kuekuatsheu (Aug 25, 2008)

the only thing in melee that I hated were the computers and their reflective shield... they're reflecting with their normal shield (even thought they don't have a reflector like Fox/Falco etc), and I didn't know how to make it...


----------



## SirRob (Aug 25, 2008)

Cheesewulf said:


> the only thing in melee that I hated were the computers and their reflective shield... they're reflecting with their normal shield (even thought they don't have a reflector like Fox/Falco etc), and I didn't know how to make it...


Yeah, I'm not sure, but I think that if you pull your shield up when the timing is right, you'll deflect the projectile. I think I've seen it happen in Brawl, too.


----------



## AlexX (Aug 25, 2008)

WolfoxOkamichan said:


> You don't visit Smashboards do you? I suggest you do to see the fact on how in Melee, Jiggs can kill Falco, and how you can't in Brawl (for instance, the removal of L-cancel punishes characters like Ganondorf who originally has a fighting chance in Melee because of that).


Correction: combos were what made low tiers better in Melee, but reduced hitstun in Brawl is what makes you have to find other ways to fight with them.

That said, your example stinks because Jiggly is mid-tier in Melee but bottom-tier in Brawl, so of course she'd do better against Falco (top tier in both games) in Melee. Low and mid tiers stand as much of a fighting chance in Brawl as they did in Melee, it's just that Brawl has more characters, which throws off perspective a tad.



SirRob said:


> Yeah, I'm not sure, but I think that if you pull your shield up when the timing is right, you'll deflect the projectile. I think I've seen it happen in Brawl, too.


Powershielding is what does it. Hit the shield button as the projectile hits you to deflect it. This works in both Melee and Brawl.

EDIT: Also, do it with physical attacks to not be knocked back by the opponent's attack, making it easier to counterattack. Once again, can be done in Melee and Brawl.


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Aug 26, 2008)

^It also exists in 64.

And I was referring more to the fact that wavedashing and l-canceling were actually helpful  to everyone back then, whereas reduced hitstun is good, but stuff like random tripping and the annoying Ness glitch makes it annoying.

Also, don't you agree that Melee had better character "presentation" than Brawl? In Brawl, they pretty much revealed the new characters, and only Wolf and Tink are the new hidden characters.


----------



## BloodYoshi (Aug 26, 2008)

AlexInsane said:


> Fox isn't bad in Brawl. His attacks are all still the same, but his jumping ability has been made better.



He's not -bad- per se, but visit any Smash Bros. Forum and you can see all the old Fox players talking about how badly he's been nerfed... Hell, I was a Fox player, even.


----------



## AlexX (Aug 26, 2008)

Sadly, Fox has indeed been hit by the nerf bat pretty hard. He's only really average, now... though his still-spammable blaster does help him deal with stale moves better than the rest of the cast (which is a lot more harsh in Brawl than it was in Melee).


----------



## BloodYoshi (Aug 26, 2008)

Ugh, stale moves piss me off so much in Brawl. In Melee they weren't even an issue, but in Brawl it's like cripplingly bad.

As for Fox, he can still be decently played since the tiers are a lot more scrunched up in Brawl, which I'm actually a lot thankful for. Y'know, since it's not like 5 characters dominating the top anymore.


----------



## AlexX (Aug 26, 2008)

Brawl's top tiers are dominating just as well as the tops in Melee did. People keep acting like there's a big difference, but really, despite all gameplay changes the end result is that the good players are still winning and the top tiers are still good.


----------



## BloodYoshi (Aug 26, 2008)

I don't think it's only because the top tiers are good, I actually think it's because all the good players are PLAYING top tier characters


----------



## AlexX (Aug 26, 2008)

ChillCoyotl said:


> I don't think it's only because the top tiers are good, I actually think it's because all the good players are PLAYING top tier characters


Not really. Azen is a really good player, and he mains Lucario. Likewise, Mr. 3000 is a great player as well, and he uses Sonic. Reed is another great player, and he uses Ike.

EDIT: WHAT THE HECK HAPPENED TO MY USER TITLE!?

EDIT2: Oh, it's back now...


----------



## BloodYoshi (Aug 26, 2008)

Maybe it's just me, then. *falco/meta knight whore*

Edit: lawl


----------



## AlexX (Aug 26, 2008)

There are tier-whores in all fighting games. Smash really isn't special in that aspect.


----------



## BloodYoshi (Aug 26, 2008)

Well, doing away with all the technical talk, I really wish the online didn't suck as much. I really had my hopes up and all we ended up getting was a latency-fest.


----------



## AlexX (Aug 26, 2008)

Really? I once played a friend from 2 full timezones away and experienced no lag... Also, this topic has turned from being able Melee to being about Brawl... CRAP! >.<

EDIT: Hey, don't laugh! It's not my fault my user title shortly went from "Post Crusader" to "HOT, HOT, HOT" some strange reason!


----------



## BloodYoshi (Aug 26, 2008)

Seriously? You don't even get that slight bit of annoying button delay where whatever button you press happens a split second later but it's enough to throw off your game?

(editresponse) What the fuck? I've never even seen that before XD


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Aug 26, 2008)

Tier whores tend to be n00bs or people who want to look like an expert because they're using high tiers anyway.

The thing is - while in Melee, Fox, Falco, Marth, and Shiek did dominate, the techs are applicable to everyone, and there weren't any "special techs" that is solely for the top tiers. Everyone has the techs.

The same could not be said for Brawl. Dominating projectiles and hidden hit-boxes for Snake, "let's make MetaKnight capable of recovery", Sentinel DeDeDe, etc. While some low tiers still win, they're not as broad as in Melee (go to SB for tourney referrals - too lazy to look right now). I mean, even attack priorities are stupidly handled (e.g. Capt. Falcon is this game's Dan... except Dan is better).

I mean, in Tatsunoko vs. Capcom, everyone was given air-dashes and double jumps (there are still some stuff like Chun-Li being able to do triangle jumps and Gatchaman being able to do 8-way air dash) but still, with that given, Ryu is now a viable (if not a good) character in the loketests.

But then again, Brawl is still only months old. It's really hard to tell to a game that's only that old.


----------



## BloodYoshi (Aug 26, 2008)

WolfoxOkamichan said:


> Tier whores tend to be n00bs or people who want to look like an expert because they're using high tiers anyway.



Yeah, and people who can talk on and on about Brawl techniques without getting bored are really redundant and nerdy. :\ Look, I like talking about tiers as much as the next guy but how 'bout we all shut up and fight each other?


----------



## AlexX (Aug 26, 2008)

WolfoxOkamichan said:


> The thing is - while in Melee, Fox, Falco, Marth, and Shiek did dominate, the techs are applicable to everyone, and there weren't any "special techs" that is solely for the top tiers. Everyone has the techs.


But they aren't always useful. Yeah, L-cancelling was helpful to end lag, but not everyone has a large amount of landing lag. Melee is indeed a much more technical game than Brawl (which still has some admittanly minor techs of its own), but some techs were more useful than others when playing certain characters.



> The same could not be said for Brawl. Dominating projectiles and hidden hit-boxes for Snake,


Snake only has 2 moves with invisible hitboxes (both of which go stale fast) and his projectiles are far from the best. Olimar, Falco, and possibly even the two Links are examples of characters that have better ones.



> "let's make MetaKnight capable of recovery",


While he indeed has the best recovery, everyone in the game has improved recovery to the point where the main methoud of KO is sending someone flying so that they don't get the chance to even try to make it back before hitting the blast zone.



> Sentinel DeDeDe, etc.


Dedede is mostly in the upper-tiers because his best match-ups are against the most popular characters. Characters in the mid tier and a few in high can take him on just fine.



> While some low tiers still win, they're not as broad as in Melee (go to SB for tourney referrals - too lazy to look right now).


Meta-Knight's dominance exists for a number of reasons, but being simply better against the entire rest of the cast is not one of them. If he were really the Akuma of Brawl, he would be banned. If you disagree, I will point out that Diddy _*counters*_ him.



> I mean, even attack priorities are stupidly handled (e.g. Capt. Falcon is this game's Dan... except Dan is better).


Don't use the worst character in the game as an example for something like that. Mewtwo wasn't any better with his terrible priority and low weight despite being a large target, but that doesn't change that roughly 20 of the 25 were viable in Melee. Yeah, the good Captain is probably the worst this time around, but it doesn't change that about 27 of the 35 characters are viable in Brawl.



> I mean, in Tatsunoko vs. Capcom, everyone was given air-dashes and double jumps[...]


What's the point of bringing this up? This is no different from the fact everyone can double-jump and shieldgrab in Smash.

EDIT:... I'm staring to think it might be better to make another topic than continue hijacking this one... ._.


----------



## Alblaka (Aug 26, 2008)

Yeah, pls let us get back to topic.
Talking about ways to make MELEE more fun, remind you?  Not ENDLESS discussions about Brawl compared with Melee...


----------



## BloodYoshi (Aug 26, 2008)

Alblaka said:


> Not ENDLESS discussions about Brawl compared with Melee...



Couldn't fucking agree more.


----------



## AlexX (Aug 26, 2008)

Since I contributed to the off-topic-ness, I guess I should bring it back to a Melee discussion.

In Melee I main Link. I'm not particularly impressive, but I'm trying to make better use of those bombs of his since he has so many different projectiles he can whip out based on when he needs them. I haven't really found too big a use for wavedashing with Link, but I do find L-cancelling absolutely invaluable since landing lag on a couple of his moves can be really painful without it.

EDIT: Oh, and my favorite stage is Mute City~


----------



## SirRob (Aug 26, 2008)

My favorite character in Melee is Fox, and my favorite stage is Corneria. >_>


----------



## AlexX (Aug 26, 2008)

SirRob said:


> My favorite character in Melee is Fox, and my favorite stage is Corneria. >_>


Corneria annoys me. Sometimes a good Fox or Falco player will wallshine me against the fin... >.<


----------



## SirRob (Aug 26, 2008)

AlexX said:


> Corneria annoys me. Sometimes a good Fox or Falco player will wallshine me against the fin... >.<


A good Fox or Falco player doesn't need to rely on cheap tactics. And it's my favorite because you can use the StarFox characters' secret taunt. :3


----------



## Kuekuatsheu (Aug 26, 2008)

SirRob said:


> A good Fox or Falco player doesn't need to rely on cheap tactics. And it's my favorite because you can use the StarFox characters' secret taunt. :3


in Melee? D:

I don't play Melee anymore, coz my disc has an error... when I'm picking Peach, the game crashes :< my second main was Peach....
and I used often Falco, coz my neighbour had the idea to form a StarFox Team, and he always played with Fox, so I picked Falco... and so we made 2v2 against computers...


----------



## AlexX (Aug 26, 2008)

SirRob said:


> A good Fox or Falco player doesn't need to rely on cheap tactics.


Oh, nobody ever has to RELY on something like that. Marth doesn't have to rely on his jab combo either, nor do the IC's have to rely on wobbling. However, when you're in a tournament setting people tend to do whatever it takes to win since, while cheap, they work... =/


----------



## Verin Asper (Aug 26, 2008)

Been using Peach since she was added, again love turnip whoring though I use them these days in defense. Stun em with the turnip, rush behind it, smack them sensless, retreat, repeat. Greatly dislike fighting head on or having to be on the offensive, I rather counter their attack. With a partner I'm the one that sets up my buddy to finish them since I still havent been able to be a good finisher yet, 1 on 1 matches I tend to make mistakes when I try to finish them off.


----------



## SirRob (Aug 26, 2008)

AlexX said:


> Oh, nobody ever has to RELY on something like that. Marth doesn't have to rely on his jab combo either, nor do the IC's have to rely on wobbling. However, when you're in a tournament setting people tend to do whatever it takes to win since, while cheap, they work... =/


That is true. I'm not gonna say anything else on the subject 'cause everyone's been trying so hard to get back on topic. :3


----------



## Imperial Impact (Aug 26, 2008)

Cheesewulf said:


> in Melee? D:


He's just playing around, There's no secret taunt. He's just want to make a joke about Fox and Falco being gay.


----------



## Volray (Aug 26, 2008)

I like Melee but I haven't played it since the day before Brawl came out. I'd probably be really bad if I tried to play it now.

I'm not really sure who my best character was, I just used whoever I felt like using. My favorite stage though was PokÃ©mon Stadium.


----------



## SirRob (Aug 26, 2008)

Perverted Impact said:


> He's just playing around, There's no secret taunt. He's just want to make a joke about Fox and Falco being gay.


Wow.


----------



## AlexX (Aug 26, 2008)

Perverted Impact said:


> He's just playing around, There's no secret taunt. He's just want to make a joke about Fox and Falco being gay.


Actually, I think he was referring to the conversations his teammates make if you tap the taunt button repeatedly.


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Aug 26, 2008)

I like Fox's Melee design. It looks less crap than Brawl's HEYLETSMAKEHISSHITTYCOMMANDLOOKINTHREEDEE!


----------



## SirRob (Aug 26, 2008)

WolfoxOkamichan said:


> I like Fox's Melee design. It looks less crap than Brawl's HEYLETSMAKEHISSHITTYCOMMANDLOOKINTHREEDEE!


Yes, that's one thing I like about Melee better than Brawl.
...Well I suppose it's for the best. 'Cause if they designed Fox to make him look like he did in Assault, well, I wouldn't be able to focus on the battle at all.


----------



## AlexX (Aug 26, 2008)

WolfoxOkamichan said:


> I like Fox's Melee design. It looks less crap than Brawl's HEYLETSMAKEHISSHITTYCOMMANDLOOKINTHREEDEE!


Contrary to what you were probably thinking, the intent was to make him look cartoony, not sexy. =P


----------



## Imperial Impact (Aug 26, 2008)

AlexX said:


> Actually, I think he was referring to the conversations his teammates make if you tap the taunt button repeatedly.


I know, I was being sarcastic


----------



## AlexX (Aug 26, 2008)

Perverted Impact said:


> I know, I was being sarcastic


Blast ye, internets and your inability to show off tone!


----------



## TÃ¦farÃ³s (Aug 27, 2008)

Holy crap, wha'd I miss?


----------



## Imperial Impact (Aug 27, 2008)

TÃ¦farÃ³s said:


> Holy crap, wha'd I miss?


Nothing much.


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Aug 27, 2008)

AlexX said:


> Contrary to what you were probably thinking, the intent was to make him look cartoony, not sexy. =P



I don't really care about Fox though. You know who I prefer. :3

Which is weird, because the "cartoony" look was only really based on the low-res polygonal look of 64. The "cartoony" look back in SF SNES has a more real look.


----------

