in germany its normal for some events to check the co² footprint, that is not mandatory, but many people care for it and its not that hard in germany because traveling with the train isnt unnormal and the most hotels are relativly carbonneutral.

This doesn't surprise me in the least. The event was horribly managed from the outset by people who did not know how to properly manage and secure a major venue. That meant that the schedule was way off.

Then you have the game as the main attraction. I honestly don't know why they thought that Wii U would have been the main attraction. The game is destined to go down exactly the same way Brawl did; as a game that is largely irrelevant in esports. In the eyes of the larger smash community, it's just more shovelware to ignore. You can thank Nintendo for not learning from their mistakes.

This reminds me of when Counter-Strike: Source came out and the competitive community shunned it in favor of 1.6's mechanics. Eventually, Valve said: oh shit. We'd better make a game that caters to the competitive community while also not being ostracizing to the casual community. So they made CS:GO which has been an astounding success and has been one of the most important games for esports of all time.

Meanwhile, Nintendo makes Brawl, and the competitive community shuns it because it is a casual game, then Nintendo says: well shit. Let's try that again. Then they make the Wii U version which is even more casual than Brawl is, and surprise surprise; the competitive community hates it as well. Here's a pro-tip. This is going to continue to happen until you listen to the community and make a game that has a measure of skill for professional players. Pro players don't just jump to the newest iteration of a franchise because it's new. They jump to the newer one if it makes good changes to the formula.

Yes, it sucks that the guy's moment was being ruined, but he was playing the Metaknight of Wii U. It's kind of hard to feel sorry for someone who wins with a character that everyone considers op in a tournament for a game that isn't really worth celebrating that much for to begin with. This isn't EVO where the newest games are going to get picked up no matter what because they're being sponsored. It's Apex. They still offer SSB64, (which is more interesting to watch than Melee imo) ffs. It's going to be filled with veterans who are wanting to see other vets play the old games, not some new casual bs.

Well, you learn something new every day!

Re bolded: Excuse me if I sound ignorant, but how is the Wii U version more casual than Brawl? They've separated out the casual from the competitive with the 'For Fun' and 'For Glory' modes, made the game faster than Brawl, done away with tripping, introduced online banning, introduced a periperal that allows the Wii U to support Gamecube controllers specifically for that game and introduced special stages. More characters are appearing in the final stages of tournaments, as well.

Just want to understand the reasoning behind your statement.

More technical then Brawl as well, I don't really understand his statement, it can be argued that Smash 4 could be the most competitive as  the is a more diverse range of match ups that are becoming viable which over time is much better.

The casual nature of the game comes from the movesets of the characters which are even more faceroll than ever before. The game is more technical than Brawl, but it doesn't make much difference. They've increased hitstun, yet it doesn't matter because it isn't enough and players are still resorting to the same, tired, reliable combos. Tripping is gone, so dash dancing is viable, but it really doesn't matter that much because the movement is still slow, and you can't wavedash, so it's fairly easy to telegraph moves from the ground, unless you're fairly close to your opponent, in which case you shouldn't be dash dancing to begin with.

Then there's just stupid stuff like getting rid of edgehogging under the guise of "adding complexity to the edge-game" when all it does is make the person on the stage stand there like a fucking idiot waiting for the other player to come from underneath and get a free edge grab. Because of this, the vast majority of all KO's occur from doing enough damage to physically project the opponent to the sides, and rarely from them not being able to make it back to the stage. As a result, this effectively doubles the length of all matches because you have to keep knocking your opponent off the edge and waiting for them to come back which is just dead time.  I mean, goddamn. The matches with Sheik vs Sheik were two stock and they lasted 4 fucking minutes each. The fights with slower characters actually exhausted the 6 minute time limit.

The Melee matches were some of the most exciting smash sets I've ever seen. The Wii U matches were seriously some of the most boring matches I've ever seen before. Everyone just camps because they know that % is the only way they're going to lose unless they make some huge mistake, so they just turtle up and take pot shots every once in awhile. It's agonizingly slow and something you'd expect to see in an amateur Street Fighter IV tournament where everyone picks Ken.

You are the exact type of person that most people in this thread are referring too. I'll get to your post a little more in detail later.

Nothing you've said in this post backs your statement if anything it's just you using your own preference as fact, I follow multiple fighting games and tbh of all Smash games  Smash IV seems to be the most fighting game like. You say the's no wave dashing but ignore how much more significant Perfect Pivots are in the new game to the point that it will replace wave dashing in the game and is only just being explored, you're complaining about players using the same combos when that's what happens in games early on, in fact games like SFIV tend to have the same combos used over and over it's known as bread and butter, you use the mose viable and efficient combos. Smash 4 has diverse match ups and more strategic situations from what I've seen in tournaments.

Your complaint against the removal of edge hogging reminds me of  Third Strike players crying when Parrys were removed, it makes the edge game more complex because you have to put more effort in defending it and preventing your opponent to get back on stage were before the player trying to get back on stage had to put more effort in the situation now it's equal. The fights only become long if a player decides to play defensive, I've seen many fights in tournaments which ended pretty quickly the game being slower then Melee has little to do with this, it's simply because the meta is more diverse then previous games and more styles of play can be used.

Your last paragraph is purely preference, I find Melee to be like MVC3 were it can be exciting but you see more of the same in the majority of the matches which in itself can become boring. Smash 4 I found had a diverse array of match ups and differing styles of play, the was an ultra aggressive Olimar at Apex, just because it's not to your liking it doesn't make it bad, A Luigi player won a big tournament just a few weeks back I'd be surprised if that happens in a big Melee tournament.

Deary me Kotaku, I so rarely look at their rubbish news but the last paragraph of this article breaks down actual reasons why people may well have been chanting for melee, considering the Smash4 tournament was running hours later than it should and being played close to the point where the melee tournament should have been finishing up.

Guess it wouldn't be a Kotaku argument without quoting a handful of people on Twitter and attempting to spin this into a conflict that exists in a small minority. ("one person was yelling "no, no, no" as the screen returned for more brawl... " maybe the guy had work in the morning or was afraid he would miss his flight home? since it was running hours late.)

Of course it is personal preference; just like everything you said in defense of Smash 4 is your personal preference. The fact that you use conditional phrases like "seems to be", "reminds me", or "I find" just means that you're giving your perspective of what you think about the game, just like I was.

No one is questioning that the combos are bread and butter. But the entirety of their combo-list is bread and butter combos. It's stagnant and results in boring, predictable matches. The only diversity that Smash 4 has over previous games is a larger roster.

Honestly, the edge-hogging issue is so problematic that I'm surprised you're even attempting to debate it. All you have to do is watch the Apex top 8 on youtube and you can see how not being able to edge-hog draws the fights out and makes them some of the most mind-boggingly boring matches imaginable. Saying "the fights only last longer if they decide to play defensive" doesn't really mean anything. It's like the invisible hand of the free market; if the system incentivizes people to act greedy, then they will act greedy because it's the most efficient way to their goal of making money. The same thing here. If the system rewards defensive play and turtling, which it does, then they will play defensive and turtle. A pro player isn't suddenly going to risk thousands of dollars because they want to have fun with the game during a tournament. They're going to do what nets them the greatest advantage against their opponent. It's a risk assessment. The lack of edge guarding is the major culprit here, in addition to the usual air-dodge mechanics.

Also, your reasoning for the edge game makes no sense for two reasons. Firstly, it's just a fact that it's not an even situation. Not to overly-analyze the game's physics and compare it with real life, but why should it be an even situation when someone is on the stage and someone is off the stage? If I'm knocked off a cliff by someone and trying to climb back up, it's not an even situation. My opponent clearly has the advantage because he's standing on solid ground and can more easily prevent me from getting back up. Secondly, it's rewards bad playing. The person who is off the stage made a mistake. They should be punished, not helped. This is what I was talking about by comparing it to Street Fighter IV; it rewards people who make mistakes when it should be the other way around. This is what you see in casual games where the game's mechanics help even the playing field when it's clear that one person is better than the other.

As far as Melee is concerned, you are in the minority. APEX 2015 was the largest Melee tournament of all time, and it beat out Smash 4 entrants by 200 people. The crowd was more excited than I've seen them in five years. It is quite clear that the competitive community has spoken and chosen to stick with a 14 year old game, as opposed to one that isn't even six months old. Popular games don't become competitive games. Games with high skillsets and high chances for clutch upsets become competitive games. This is why Brawl was largely ignored and why Smash 4 will also never be a major player in the competitive scene.

Once again, you seem to be under some assumption that because I am critical of Smash 4, that somehow it makes it objectively bad. It doesn't. It's just my subjective opinion. It is, however, not a game that pro players will embrace and you can expect it to lose interest in the coming years as the fanfare dies down.

Also, I find it rather odd that you'd question my criticism of the game's tendency to use stale, safe combos repeatedly as just something you'd expect to see in a new game, yet you don't extend that same reasoning to your example of winning a tournament with Luigi, which is obviously because the tiers have not settled and the community has not found the fox, marth, or sheik of Smash 4. When they do, you can expect the same usual suspects to pop up at first place and second place.

That said, reasonable people can disagree, and it's obvious we do. C'est la vie.