| stopstopp said:
Brawl isn't a terrible game. It's a fun game and I liked it. But it has some problems that make it mediocre compared to SSB64 or Melee. I too have clocked many hours in the time I have owned the game. 1. Tripping is the most useless, annoying feature ever. It makes it less fun. 2. The online component doesn't work well, I can't get a good connection on it. 3. Compared to the others, the game is very slow (imo). I feel the pace is too slow. 4. Character balance is the worst of the three (imo). Meta Knight by far is quite broken, having virtually no lag but having power and destructiveness. Snake to a lesser extent is broken. And the difference between the top and the bottom character is a large in playability/winnability (if that's a better term). |
You see, these are the arguments that are constantly brought up, and their impact on the game is often exaggerated to such a spectacular degree, and people seem to like ignoring the fact that many of these problems actually have existed since the first game, yet no one brings them up regarding the first two installments. These games are so similar that to say one of them is mediocre or bad while the other is simply amazing is just incorrect. Not one of these Smash titles are great without the rest of them being great because their core gameplay is so compelling. Now on to the excuses for Brawl being bad...
Tripping and it's impact is probably the most exaggerated negative of the game. Not to mention it is an extremely poor excuse to pan the game at that. It is such an obscure occurrence, one that will not happen most matches, and will most likely not have any significant impact on the match that I do not know how people are still calling on this. It does not have some adverse effect on you that ruins your fun, it will at most be two seconds of an ugh moment, and that's it.
Online play isn't great. It's too difficult to play properly online for sure, and it is a real shame because the game could have had such a strong online community. However, online isn't so important that the game is ruined or brought down because of it's weak online support, playing Smash with friends with you is still the most popular way to play. Melee and 64 got by without online just fine, that feature is not make-or-break for Smash, it never has been and it never will be because of the way this game plays. I do agree though, that it would be nice to have a good online structure for Smash.
The game's tempo may feel a bit slow for you. Fair enough. This isn't really a negative though, as the physics changes were brought to deal with a number of issues many people had with Melee and 64, and allow the integration of new mechanics that would not work well at all with Melee's physics. The tempo decrease is also exaggerated, Melee isn't even much faster, but a number of mechanics, including hitstun, gravity and the way the games physics are easily exploited during play (with advanced techniques such as Wavedashing and L-Cancelling) simply give the illusion that its a million times faster since everybody must play in such a way to be good. Brawl is faster paced than Smash 64 by the way, that is a fact.
Balance. Smash has never been known for it's character balance, but I must say even this is exaggerated. All three games suffer from lock-downs, chaingrabs, absolute re-grabs, and death combo's. To single out Brawl for these things is simply unfair, as Melee and 64 are absolutely no better in this department. I'm starting to sound like a broken record now, but the Meta Knight scenario is once again, exaggerated. Melee actually had to be re-balanced for the PAL release, with multiple versions going on out to retail in US markets before it was even released in PAL territories, to fix numerous glitches, errors and complaints. Even after this, the game was still far from perfect, there are still lock-downs, chaingrabs and the like. Don't even get me started on Smash 64, competitive play consisted almost entirely of true death combo's, with the only two characters without such abilities, Link and Samus, being considered un viable for competitive play.
I hear people constantly crying foul for Meta Knight and Snake, but just how badly do these characters impede your enjoyment from the game? I mean seriously. Do all the people you play with just use Meta Knight on you and nobody else? I find this hard to believe. If you don't even play the game at a competitive level then why does this bother you at all? A lot of ignorant haters like to tout these things because of what they've picked up online, but if you don't play the game on a serious competitive level it should not bother in the slightest.
All fighters have over-powered characters, so why is it only Brawl must be ragged on for something that has been plaguing fighting games since the dawn of time? And in case you were wondering, Meta Knight and Snake don't even dominate the tournament scene anywhere, especially the latter. Europe is infamous for having such a small number of Meta Knight and Snake players (the most common top tier characters here being Marth, Falco and Diddy Kong), while having an oddly large number of lower characters such as Peach, Ike and Yoshi. Japan players on the other hand have such a different and unique style of play that Meta Knight users rarely even win tournaments over there, they have players using characters like Sheik and Pit getting constant top placements. America is mostly notorious for having the large number of Meta Knight players, but not even their best MK has been taking away tournaments indefinitely.
If you ask me, these are all just reasons thought up to mask one thing and one thing alone: People don't like change. Especially in a fighting game, or any game played competitively for that matter. Never mind the reasons, if something is changed, it is automatically for the bad, and some people just have no intent to adapt, all they wan't is their old game back, just with more characters, because they think their game is perfect, when in reality, from years of playing they have subconsciously accepted all of the games flaws because they have played it so much. The same thing happened with Street Fighter in the transition to IV. Hell even Halo 3 got the same treatment, as do each iteration of Call of Duty. Even Mario Kart is treated this way. MARIO KART. The problems are very rarely the game, but the backward, closed-minded thinking of the people who play them, and their total inability to accept change.
How technical is your game?
