Super Smash Bros.

I, too, have a prefrence for Brawl because of Sonic.

Also that there are 3rd and 4th gen Poke trophies n stuff.

edited 8th Dec '10 7:42:04 AM by TommyX

^^The hitboxes wouldn't change, like w/ Pikachu's & Jigglypuff's hats.

I have a preference for Brawl cause of Olimar and Final Smashes.

edited 26th Jan '13 2:24:11 AM by TechPowah

Should we exchange Wii codes?

Kirby was easily the best character in Super Smash Bros 64 which to me makes it awesome, plus the other two games got rid of Saffron City and the old Hyrule Castle with the tornadoes which sucks.

It's all about Pikachu. Those aerial attacks are so good.

Kirby used to be my favorite character to use, but now I realize how crappy he is.

In Melee, though, right?

I like all installments of Super Smash Bros, the first is kind of the weakest but I got a nostalgia filter. It was also the only one I played anywhere near competitive level because the glitches weren't nearly as game breaking, I didn't need to take advantage of them. Brawl I could probably play competitively too but I have no desire to put the effort in. "Stop having fun guys" killed off any interest in hardcore competitive play I might have had during the Melee era. Annoying as the constant sequel wars are, I'm glad most of them stayed behind on Melee because Brawl is the one I like to play most.

Mostly because I think everything that was lost from Melee was made up for in Brawl, making them feel enough like two separate gaming experiences but Brawl has more characters I like; Diddy Kong, Ivysaur, Snake and less characters I dislike; no Pichu, no Dr. Mario. It feels a little more like the Nintendo 64 version too.

Personally, I think all three SSB titles are pretty awesome in their own way.

This and this. Though I admit I never got that competitive in these games.

And wasn't the whole uproar at Brawl not being as competitive as Melee purposely done by the developer? I recall reading on the Smash Bros website before the game was released that he wanted to make the game less competitive, since he thought it detracted from the fun. I could be wrong though (it's been a few years after all).

Yeah. He got a lot better in Brawl, almost as powerful as his original incarnation.

Yeah, I heard about that, too. It's an incredibly dumb idea, but it's most likely one they had.

He probably had in mind that if you really wanted to play a competitive fighter, you could go play a game where the developers actually give a damn about the competitive scene. Namely Capcom.

Count me among those that love all three, although I'm gonna have to say that Brawl's my favorite by a slight margin (Yay, Wario! And Sonic! And Dedede!).

Although I really miss Mario's forward air attack from Smash 64.

I like Brawl a little more because the characters have more...how shall I put this...spirit. Like in Melee they seemed like soulless automatons but in Brawl they felt like you were actually using the character.

That said, I love the Great Bay stage.

Love all three, but Brawl is my favourite. Melee is the bottom because Kirby got nerfed so hard it wasn't even funny. -.-

... I am bemused by my seeming inability to talk about this series without this terrible urge to start ranting.

Primarily about how the designer(s) seem(s) to have no concept of how to even approach such a thing as competitive balance I mean perfect balance is one thing but making completely and utterly moronic decisions that would be glaringly obvious if you just took notes or some shit it

uh

... Hi.

You know, I hear a lot of ranting about Brawl is less "competitive" than Melee, but I've only heard a handful of legitimate reasonings that don't make me think that that the main reason it's considered non-competitive is because Smash fans consider Melee on a pedestal as the paragon of competitiveness and, thus, automatically consider any difference to Melee's mechanics as less competitive by extension, regardless of whether or not the change actually effects how effectively the game can be played competitively.

I do note, however, that whatever changes were made in Brawl, the character balance is much better than Melee's (one of the reasons I prefer it), though still not perfect.

Funnily enough, even though I'm a Kirby player and have been since Melee, I didn't really know he was terrible in Melee until I went online and was told so when Brawl was on it's way. I laughed. A lot. But, then again, I do think of fighting games in general sort of the same way I look at chess - trying to game my opponent into giving me openings (unorthodoxly, admittedly, rather than the traditional mindgames of Smash) rather than powering in, and I had to use Indy Ploys a lot more in Melee than I have to do in Brawl...

Now that I go back and play Kirby sometimes I can tell where he was lacking, and I don't generally use him in Melee anymore because I'm so used to him in Brawl (I do miss Dr. Mario, I own with him).

edited 9th Dec '10 1:14:14 PM by KnownUnknown

I do note, however, that whatever changes were made in Brawl, the character balance is much better than Melee's (one of the reasons I prefer it), though still not perfect.

Okay, that's not fair. The question I should be asking is "why, why do I keep visiting threads like these?"

Faw, have you played any other fighting games? Particularly the well-regarded competitive fighters such as Street Fighter II and Virtua Fighter?

Not really, no.

There's your problem; clinging onto Smash Bros for competitive gaming which isn't designed for such when other, much better options exist with competitive gaming as their main purpose.

edited 9th Dec '10 1:58:18 PM by Cliche

Super Smash Bros. is really more of a chaotic party game rather than something competitive.

I don't really care much about competitive Smash Bros. Well, not anymore. In fact, I stopped following that community entirely for a long time now.

What really sets me off is the way people often talk about the competitive side of things, but that didn't really happen in this thread.

What did happen is that I still can't think about this series without thinking about how incredibly little regard it has for character balance, and I'm not talking about the kind of competitive balance that exploits, well, exploits or anything, I'm talking about a kind of really obvious and grating imbalance that strongly affects my still entirely novice-level gameplay experience.

I do note, however, that whatever changes were made in Brawl, the character balance is much better than Melee's (one of the reasons I prefer it), though still not perfect.

Really? Glancing at tournament results, it seems the two games are comparable with perhaps a slight edge to Brawl. Eight or so characters are strongly viable, with a few more at the periphery.

That's only if Meta Knight is soft banned, right?

Just for reference, here are the results of ROM3, a recent national Melee tournament, and the characters used as best I know:

1. Dr. Peepee (Falco)
2. Mew2King (Marth, Sheik)
3. Kirbykaze (Sheik)
4. Jman (Fox)
5-6. Hungrybox (Jigglypuff), Lucky (Fox)
7-8. Darc (Jigglypuff), VanZ (Peach)
9-12. Eggm (Fox), Hugs (Samus), MacD (Peach), Mango (Falcon)
13-16. G$ (Marth), Hax (Falcon), Lambchops (Falco), Rockcrock (Ganondorf)

Which gives us (counting both of M2K's mains):

3 times: Fox
2 times: Falco, Falcon, Jigglypuff, Marth, Peach, Sheik
1 time: Ganondorf, Samus

which is typical. I'm looking at Smashboards for a similarly-sized Brawl tournament but I don't really know what's national-level and what's not (maybe can we find something with the biggest names like M2K and Ally?), so somebody else will need to step in if they want to compare.