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.

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.

Wyrdness said:

 Again you've said nothing that really backs your stance, only you don't like this and that

Except my entire post which explains my rationale for why the game is designed and caters to casuals.

Exactly. It's YOUR rationale, YOUR opinions, but still there is nothing posted to back them up.

"Do you even know why people come up with bread and butter combos?"

Apparently you didn't bother reading my reply, because my issue isn't that bread and butter exists, but that Smash 4 is drowning in them. This is the antithesis of a competitive game.

Here's a chance to back up your statement. Give some examples.

"Has said nothing to counter any point"

What "point" am I supposed to be countering? What does this even mean? The edgeguarding issue draws fights out and promotes defensive playing. These are not competitive traits. That's my point.

Again, that's only your opinion. Where's the evidence?

"Not only that, pixelperfect has posted..."

Irrelevant. What matters is  that the tourney players don't engage people off the stage.

Wrong. What pixelperfect posted is so far the ONLY bit of evidence posted anywhere in this thread that backs up a point about gameplay. 

It is also a prime example of tourney players doing exactly what you said they dont - engaging people off the stage. Are you suggesting, then, that anybody who plays tourneys for anything other than Melee is by definition NOT a bona fide tourney player?

"now players need to up their game off stage rather just grabbing a ledge"

Translation: "reward players who make mistakes and get hit by making it harder for the other player. "

No, it means opening up a new aspect of play, because it is a different game.

"Like it or not defensive play is part of the game and opens up new match ups"

Yes. Incredibly boring ones that never seem to end. If you think people will watch a title with heavily defensive play, you are sorely mistaken.

Again, that is your opinion, and we'll only know for sure in a few years.

"Your Apex comment is hilariously flawed, the so called community has spoken yet only 200 more entrants then a game that only came out 3 months a go and is being figured out"

Uh, yeah... That's not the conclusion you should come to from that fact. The conclusion you should come to is that a game that's 15 years old is still more relevant than a brand new game. By this point, Melee should be long irrelevant, yet it isn't. It's actually more popular than it has ever been. Think about that. A game that is older than several of the people playing it is more popular in the competitive scene than it ever has been. I also love how you try and play off having 200 more entrants in a pool of just over 1000. That's 20% more.

Melee has lasted the past 15 years as a tournament game and many people enjoy playing it, yet the Wii U version of Smash 4 is barely 3 months old. How can you possibly compare the competetive viability between the two, especially when the possibilities and mechanics of Smash 4 are still yet to be fully explored?

"You're the classic example of what people are talking about in this thread, the typical Melee fan who doesn't want any change and is quick to jump the gun."

This coming from someone who is clearly white-knighting Smash 4, and getting whiny and indignant because someone else has the gall to criticize your beloved game. 

The Apex 2015 fiasco and your views in this thread compile some pretty convincing evidence suggesting that any new iteration of Smash is seen by Melee fans as a threat to their tournaments and their game, so much so that they are quick to deride any deviations from Melee as being substandard before it even has a chance to establish itself and find its own fanbase. Is this true?

"and you think Smash 4 won't be the same because it takes a new approach."

No, the problem with Smash 4 is that it was designed as a casual game for casuals and not for tourney play. More time won't magically change this fact.

Smash 4 was designed to cater for all, and extra effort was put in to cater for more serious players. See the list of points I made earlier in the thread. Melee was not designed for tourney play in mind, it just happened.

"You harp on about the tier list not being figured out..."

Hey look. Another case of how you didn't read my comment because my point was the exact same one you're making. Then, for some reason you repeat the fact that luigi beat diddy, as if that means anything after the point that the tiers aren't figured out yet.

Smash 4 is barely 3 months old. Wait a few years and see.

"look at your fellow Melee fans screaming at the top of their lungs about Diddy in Smash 4"

I don't really care because they aren't "my fans." Melee isn't even my favorite smash game. SSB64 is. The problem is that you're unable to objectively assess the situation. You think "good" and "a good candidate for competitive play" are the same things. They aren't. I like SSB64 more than Melee, but I realize like everyone else does, that Melee is the best game for professional competitions by a light year. Smash 4 will go down precisely as Brawl did; a casual party game that people will play for about a year or so, get bored, and move on to some other game, or if they are competitive, go back to Melee.

Again, I suggest you wait a few years and see what happens.

I'm done. Gotta love people who can't handle dissenting opinion; as if I'm making fun of your pet or something.

This thread is about the aggressive attitude that Melee fans showed towards the SSB4 tournament and its winner. Sure, there were other factors at play, such as the sudden change of venue that exacerbated their behaviour, but the fact remains, they were out of order, giving no respect to those competitors who were playing a different game from the one they love. Your comments in this thread demonstrate that attitude quite clearly.

Rugby Union and Rugby League are two versions of the same game, yet both are played at a world-class, top professional level. Rugby League originally split off from Rugby Union and over time evolved its rules with the intention of providing a faster, more entertaining game to watch for spectators. Each has its fans and followers, and there's a rivalry of course, but they still co-exist. The varying versions of Smash should be no different in that respect, but it is attitudes like that which you have displayed here that spoil the enjoyment of it for others.

...

I think basically what he is trying to say is that he believes that Melee is a much better spectator sport than SSB4 will be.  The hype and speed of Melee is what has kept it alive and growing for the past 15 years.  Melee had it's biggest year ever in 2014 and is slated for an even bigger year in 2015 (there was already a day where Melee had 6 100 player tournaments in one day, whereas about 5 years ago there were maybe 6 100 player tournaments per year).  This is because Melee is, in the eyes of most people (not necessarily my opinion), way more fun to watch.  I followed the tournament pretty closely as I love competitive smash and about 60000 people were watching melee and 20000 people were watching SSB4 throughout the day.  For the grand finals, SSB4 had about 70000-80000 viewers and Melee had 110000-120000 viewers.  The defensive mechanics in SSB4 (strong shield, ledge play, fewer movement options, lower hitstun, etc) lead it to being much slower paced.  The top 8 of SSB4 took approximately as long as the top 8 for Melee despite Melee having double the amount of stocks per game and 11 more games being played in Melee top 8.  If you enjoy the mechanics in SSB4, great that's your choice, but theres no denying that the mechanics lead to much slower games and in most people's opinions (again not necessarily mine or yours, but just in general) this makes the game more boring to watch.

Of course, this could always change as the metagame for SSB4 develops, and as players get better the game will inevitably change.  One of the reasons Brawl was only successful for about 5 years was because as players got better the game actually got slower because they dropped the Melee mentality of fast, aggressive gameplay.  This lead to matches becoming slower and less appealing to spectators as time went on, whereas Melee has gotten faster and faster.  Although the comments earlier that Brawl was a complete failure competitively are horribly misled.  Brawl absolutely dominated the competitive scene in 2007 and 2008 and it appeared at the time that Melee was going to die off.  Melee recently became popular due in part to the release of the smash bros documentary (definitely would recommend watching it, although it doesn't do Brawl justice).

As to earlier comments about wavedashing and Melee mechanics, from personal experiences and what top players have said, dash-dancing is actually a much more important movement option that has been taken out in SSB4.  Someone earlier incorrectly said that dash-dancing is in SSB4 when it isn't, SSB4 has foxtrotting which is also in Melee, but not nearly as useful as dash-dancing so no one uses it.

Also in response to OP, I can see where the Melee crowd was coming from as Melee was the main event and was delayed 3 or 4 hours, but it was still terribly disrespectful and I hate that this negative trash is what people will see first when looking at the smash community

Makes a lot more sense and is more open then what he was saying, I'll counter by saying Third Strike had hype and speed over SFIV in it's early days but the latter has still become a strong spectator sport due to it's diverse match ups while the former has become a relic of the past, still good and many still prefer it but it's not as prevelant as before and the notion in general is the clash between Melee fans and other Smash fans is that the rowdy group with in Melee fear this may become the case so they're against any approach that is different from Melee's approach and are loud about it. One thing about Smash 4 is it's diversity in its meta, some matches are fast while some are slow, many characters seem more viable which in the long run can is much better then a fast paced clash of the same match ups, some characters like Lucina for example are not fully figured out, when Brolylegs' Lucina fought with that same Olimar player weeks ago it was like a Melee match. Melee when it was still being figured out would have looked just as boring, Smash 4 it seems will have a meta that will develop based on each individual player's style.

The mechanic people are playing around with in Smash 4 is perfect pivot as it has a wave dash effect, remember this is a different set of mechanics and approach to Melee so the effect on the meta game could be significantly greater then what dash dancing had on Melee. I've seen the documentary and tbh it's good but it highlights an elitist attitude with in the Melee scene that people have touched upon in this thread.