this is worse.
[media=youtube]s8ax-OopF8Y[/media]
Shit, I forgot about that.
I was just lazy and picked out the first SF4 Sagat mirror I could find.
factory9, I’m not a pad person in general. In the heyday of NES, Super NES, and Sega Genesis I used to use a joystick for everything. That is once one was available. To this day if the game can be played on stick, I use a fight stick to play it. I tolerate pads for modern games with the Xbox 360 (or Xbox 1 controller S) being my favorite (still has nothing on the godlike Sega Saturn pads).
It’s a personal preference, but to learn Smash means I’d have to get past that. Since I’m already playing games like SF4, I never needed Smash. Mad respects to it though.
The problem wasn’t Nintendo removing stuff like WDing and SHFFLing; regardless of the unjustified booing the move got from the so-called “hardcore” crowd, those are just steps to make the game more about strategy and less about awesome muscle memory (see also: Sirlin, and fuck the haters).
The problem is Sakurai not knowing what the fuck he’s doing coupled with a) people spending money on the game, lining Nintendo’s pockets and b) people heaping praise on a game that doesn’t deserve one iota of it.
A thoughtful developer would sit down and think about how to make a Smash Bros. game compelling and playable both at a “casual” and a more competitive level, and everywhere in between, perhaps with an eye for ways to train and improve beginners. He would look at the basics (hit guys so they fly farther and eventually can’t return to the playfield) and decide whether he could design around them or he should scrap them. If he chooses the former, he can design characters and mechanics that keep runaway from dominating (read: NOT tripping). Keep items or scrap them? If you keep the items, think of ways to make them part of the competitive matchup; maybe remove the randomness? Have a spawn timer appear on screen with a picture of the item that will drop in 10 seconds, and that way players can incorporate this new element to their matchup.
My ego is huge, but I mean it when I say Nintendo could hire me, give me the resources/final say, and I’d give them a superb, deep, thoughtful Smash game that would deserve its praise.
Also, as always: tripping is a garbage mechanic. It doesn’t stifle competition only: it damages every level of play, top to bottom. It’s worse than fucking parrying, and parrying destroys what makes Street Fighter Street Fighter. Tripping is worse than that, because at least the parry requires an input and intent.
This theme of this post is : “OMG I HATE BRAWL. Wait, what’s that? PEOPLE LIKE IT! ARRG, THEY LIKE IT MORE THAN MELEE. GGGRRRRRRRR. SAKURAI SUCKS. I CAN MAKE A BETTER GAME.”
Brawl has done just fine as the numbers prove it. The game has sold 10 million according to VGchartz (maybe be more around 9 as VGchartz likes to over track a lot) and is the second most played Wii game according to the Nintendo Channel. The game deserves praise because it’s good and people obviously like it.
Which creates a disparity. The game has shown that a lot of people bought it and a lot of people play it. Yet you say it is terrible. So who is right. Likely it is Sakurai, the man who has made bigger games than you and proven time and time again that he make make the bacon where you whine on a message board because you can not.
This post is almost overwhelmingly stupid and I haven’t yet decided whether it’s worth the tearing apart it truly deserves.
I’m thinking a “reluctant yes.” More in a minute.
All right, it’s go time.
Actually, wait, let me roll a d100 first. If I get a 1, I “trip” and can’t post… 52. Awesome.
Actually, you stupid fuck, the theme of the post was “Smash Bros. Brawl is a shitty game that doesn’t deserve its praise.” You can tell because I specifically mentioned that the game doesn’t deserve its praise, implying a) it’s a game and b) has received praise I don’t feel is deserved. The other theme was “It’s too fucking bad a better developer with at least a close-to-triple digit IQ didn’t get put on this project, because maybe, instead of just a commercially successful game, we may have had one that’s both commercially successful and mechanically sound.”
Any casual observer might ask why the fuck this Smashchu character is fashioning the most ludicrous Glenn Beck level strawman in the world to defend a shitty video game – one that did financially well and, by all rights, doesn’t need his defense – but that’s not even scratching the surface of how utterly ridiculous this post is. As mentioned, I’m almost overwhelmed by its Anti-Dr. B levels of jackassery; the empty left half of my scrotum, where I lost all feeling, has started sending signals to my brain to just give up on this. What I just described is medically impossible, yet here we are.
Congratulations! You’re an idiot!
Watch this. Watch:
- McDonalds is the best restaurant in the world. The numbers it pulls in proves it deserves all the good people say about it.
- World of Warcraft is the best game in the world. I know this because what the fuck else do people play approaching its subscriber base?
- Marvel vs. Capcom 3 Ryu is better than Super Street Fighter 4 Ryu by virtue of MvC3 Ryu having 999,000 more hit points.
Maybe in whatever fantasy-ass reality you live in, popularity and financial success translates directly into mechanical merit, but here on planet Earth, in the Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, meta-universe 69DRB1MSXY, merit and money are not the same thing. Yes, it’s true: a homemade sandwich with fresh ingredients is cheaper and way better for you than a Big Mac, despite you desperately trying to shine-cancel reason.
Michael Bay has a lot of money and a lot of fans. Therefore Michael Bay is a great – actually, fuck it, I’m listening to my phantom testicle on this one. Eat shit.
Oh my, you are a very frustrated individual. Maybe you should calm down. No use getting mad about a videogame.
I’ll try to keep this just to the actual arguments.
And I said your wrong in that it sold a lot and people still play it (meaning those sales were not just hype and fizzle out). In fact, it deserves a lot of praise. Very few games in this day and age can sell more than 3 or even 5 million and people are still playing it. Here is the thing though: commercial success mean successful games. It is simple as a lot of people enjoyed it and thus spent money on it. That’s what you and anyone else does when they like something. By getting a lot of money, they made a lot of people like it. It shows as play data tells us it is of very high quality and not a parlor trick to make money.
But the argument comes up “Just because it sells doesn’t mean it’s good.” This is only brought up because that person doesn’t like X and wants to try and cheapen the victory. Sales are a perfect measure of quality as they are unbiased and are based on something real. They are based on people spending their hard cash on something. You know very well you wont just throw away money, and you’d rather spend it wisely.
I don;t think you understand business, and it’s a shame too. It controls ever facite of your life. Why do people go to McDonalds? It’s because it gives them something they want. They want food that is cheap and fast and McDonalds provides that.
Now let’s think about videogames. What do they provide? Entertainment of course. We can go deeper, but they provide entertainment. Smash Brothers provides a great multiplayer experience and it does it well. So it fits it’s role. When this happens, you make a lot of money, assuming you can pull it off. The WoW example is the same thing. It provides people a huge world and lots to do (and a game that will never get boring). Blizzard did this well and they kept a lot of players. If people have been playing for that long, it must be a damn good game. Why wouldn’t it? Why would all those people keep playing.
You mentioned that Smash doesn’t deserve it’s praise. Now, I say it does. Why? Because it made a lot of money (which means Nintendo gets more Smash games. There is a reason SF went dark for a while). People also played it for a long time and more than any other Wii game. That must mean they like it a lot. All of this points it to being of high quality. Not low.
I can see the counter argument. “Oh, those people are wrong. They don’t like quality.” This would make no sense. This means I can say you don’t like quality. Who is more likely to be correct? A lot of different people or one guy on the internet who can only write in angry post. Who would make a better game? Sakurai, who worse games still make 1-2million and a lot of huge hits as well Kirby, a big series, or one guy who doesn’t like Brawl? I’d vote for Sakurai as you haven’t convinced me otherwise. You just got mad I didn’t agree.
But you seem to angry. Take a look at this. You might lighten up 
I rather strongly doubt you’ll do that. More likely you’ll stick hard and fast to your failed “sales” reasoning.
WHAT A SHOCK.
I never questioned Brawl’s commercial success, I questioned its merit as a game. You very deliberately ignored that – or are too stupid to realize that’s what I said, despite concise English – and started on this straw-graspy “but it sold a lot, please don’t make fun of my favorite game” bullshit.
lol @ you telling anyone about what they do or don’t understand, when you can’t even fathom – or refuse to admit – someone pointing out that, holy shit, this well-received, praised game is actually, when scrutinized, extraordinarily shitty.
Channeling your inner Sensei Rouzu doesn’t change the fact that you haven’t acknowledged, refuted, or even considered anything I said. You saw criticism and immediately pulled the “it sells so it must be good” card, which easily loses to anyone who points out that the majority of people on this planet believe in ghosts, yet ghosts don’t exist.
You’re an idiot, plain and simple. That’s not opinion, that’s not ego, that’s not anger, it’s fact.
EDIT - I also wanted to point out that it’s rather funny you’re desperately trying to convince yourself that I’M the one who’s salty when you’re the one so quick to defend criticism of Brawl’s mechanics by covering your ears and going LALALA. Angry indeed.
I bet you’re all terrible at your respective “fighting games”.
(sigh) typical forum community. Anywayz, while there are books that I could right both attacking and defending this game the fact of the matter is that it’s a successful failed game. It made the money that it set out to make at the same time it offended/let down the fans from the previous predecessor. The mechanics that made melee as fun and exciting as it was were removed or modified and replaced with other ones that were not recepted in the same light as the past ones. Mechanics and strategies that worked in previous titles no longer were applicable and newer and debatebly less effective ones had to be developed. The pace was also reduced to help newcomers be able to react and adapt quicker then before. The emphasis of the game shifted from high-speed competitive play to a slower yet more easy to pickup play in order to increase revenue and establish more fans. Whether this game was a success or not depends on what it was that you as the consumer was looking to get out of this game. If it was an experience similar to melee style than you would be one of the many disappointed. If you were looking for a completely new game with new mechanics, characters, and style, then you were one of the few delighted. Overall in terms of revenue this game was a success. While both sides have valid arguments let’s just buckle down and hope that the next iteration to come within the next few years encompasses the best of both worlds from melee and brawl where that perfect smash game just might exist.
I’ve never seen such a gross oversimplification be so large and text-wall-y.
Brawl is the best! :):D;):rock::razzy::woot::china:
It’s very simple guys: All 3 Smash Bros. games are fighters and while the first 2 I could see at a tournament or whatever, the 3rd one fails so hard technically (I’ll explain after this point) that it’s more akin to one of those Naruto/DBZ fighters when it comes to being taken seriously.
Brawl fails on a technical level (technical level meaning for the competitive crowd) is as follows:
- Character balance - Let’s ignore MetaKnight for a moment, anyone ever play as Snake? Ever notice how he’s faster, stronger, has the most retarded hitboxes ever and has more options then well… 85% of the cast? Yeah, this is AFTER Meta Knight can kick his sorry ass just imagine a Jigglypuff/Sonic or (this one always makes me laugh) a Link vs one of these beasts? It’s practically un-winnable. Not “OMG SENTINEL” or “OMG YUN”! cheap. I’m talking Hercule vs GoGeta in a DBZ game bad.
2.No hitstun -There is pretty much 0 hitstun in SSBB meaning if Player 1 hits Player 2 with an attack he/she/it/potato will only reel back momentarily.
This is a flaw for two reasons:
1. No combos - There are no combos. PERIOD. (no the 3 hit jab strings don’t count). You get a hit and that’s it, no following it up, no reason to ever practice playing the game, not something a hardcore fan of a series would be happy about.
2. Getting hit after scoring a hit - This happens all the time and the truth is it’s bullshit, if you’re still lost as to what I mean allow me to explain:
Imagine you were playing SF2SSAAE (Street Fighter 2: Super Special Awesome Arcade Edition) and after all the intense mind games and blocks you score a hit, now naturally you would attempt to follow it up to score more damage but even before your attack animation finished your opponent HIT YOU BACK. So you keep playing and this time you’re smarter, as soon as you land the attack you block but once again before you can even move onto the next action you get hit. This happens CONSTANTLY in SSBB, try playing Sonic vs Zelda or Lucario vs Anyone it’s not something that only competitively focused players should care about that is FLAWED gameplay.
3. Shielding and dodging- This is very simple. The shields last too long and being able to dodge multiple times in the air destroys any kind of offense (don't forget we already can't combo).Brawls a good game but in no way is it designed to be played competitively at the tourney levels such as SF. That one thing the smash community doesn’t and will never understand. Which is why they don’t bother to use items, regardless of there so called “randomness”.
I find that excuse as a reason to avoid learning to adapt to items. As the items aren’t completely random they do spawn at certain intervals for each spawn setting : High-10-13 medium-15-18 low 20-24 seconds. Only thing that so far can’t be judged ahead of them spawning is what item will appear. If the community of brawl or smash in general (although melee doesn’t really need items as it can handle a competitive scene without them) learned to adapt rules towards using items and blending them into the current meta-game I’m sure it would be a lot better.
I think you’re wrong on this one. I’ve played with people on a competitive level and it doesn’t seem to matter what characters are picked despite how balanced or unbalanced they are, people overcome weaknesses in characters. I’ve been able to beat Metaknight using Link online and offline. Jigglypuff and Sonic are two of my favorite characters (even though Rest isn’t the same). So it really doesn’t matter how some characters play; in most cases it’s how the player uses the character.
Go learn about metagame buddy
agree to disgree?
Read between the lines!
Capcom admits Brawl is a fighting game…
[INDENT=1]…at gunpoint.[/INDENT]
Congratulations on completely failing to understand the post you’re replying to. PROTIP: check your own knowledge before telling someone to check theirs.
Alright well I’m sure you’re going to type out 4 or 5 paragraphs about where I went wrong and how bad this game is etc. etc.