Topic: So what about Sakurai...?

No but that doesn't mean I want Melee again. I am hoping for something between Melee and Brawl

I know opinions differ on kid ic, but I really think we'll look back at it 10 years from now and say it was one of the best games of this generation. The content, additional ways to play, storyline, and music were all brilliant. I'd personally put uprising in my top 10 games ever just because it was so quirky .

With meteos, kirby, kid icarus, and smash bros under his belt, it's clear that sakurai has the capabilities to make many good games across many genres, and if I didn't think he was so good for smash bros, I'd want him to do quirky one-of-a-kind games like uprising.

Melee was way ahead of its time. I remember when I first saw that intro, it is my favorite piece of cinema of all-time as far as video game animations go. The game wasn't really balanced perfectly, and of course the obvious clones of pichu, young link, and dr. mario, but everything else was perfect. The concept of trophies, the personality of the characters (aside from the 3 dull clones), and the graphics at the time were amazing. Heck, they are still pretty good today.

I always loved Meele's intro and trophies both things were special and unique.

I was disappointed when I found out Brawl's intro was just a mashup of subspace emissary videos and the thropies were for the most part just repurposed models from the main game.

And the pokemon stickers, oh my god they just took images to the models they made for the game and ignored four generations of concept and official art.

And my mains... Peach and Jiggs, they basically made them useless (and I loved the original Daisy costume too).

Besides that, I mostly preffer Brawl for the characters and stages.

I like how the implication of this is that Brawl had the best characters and stages but Melee was better for reasons that don't matter.

I do prefer Melee since I'm more used to it, and as I've said, before release I had completely impossible and ridiculous expectations for Brawl that did nothing but work against it. The fact that Brawl was a bit too slow and had tripping was almost a secondary problem.

Personally, I prefer Brawl for one--and only one--reason: content.

I borrowed Melee from a friend. I unlocked all the content. I immediately got bored and returned it. I got Brawl and two years later am still trying to get all the music. (Not very hard, mind you, but I love the music.)

In all honesty, I view both as different games, entirely, and there's just more to Brawl. Not to mention I main Wolf and don't have a Melee main, since I can't play Melee Fox to save my life and Link still felt pretty weak.

100% this.

Most people think its the best one so far.
Melee>Original>Brawl.

I know right you think people who have played more than one Smash game would be aware of this.

Brawl sold much better. There is a very vocal subset of players who likes Melee significantly more, but a lot of people prefer Brawl.

Even among forumites it is not a clear cut picture. I think a poll of a site like this might put Brawl on top, while obviously Smash Boards would present a different picture. I do hope Smash 4 delivers on its promise to compromise between the two game styles. It's not so much that I care what others prefer (I think Project M is a wonderful thing for those wanted Melee 2), but I really liked the direction of Brawl if not the balance and would like to see that style of play on the competitive scene again, as those matches are so much more entertaining for me to watch than Melee's.

I can tell you that I prefer Brawl's stages and characters for the same vain reasons I prefer Meele's extras.

I'm not much of a good fighter so I can't comment on the gameplay aspect of these games. Brawl is easier to keep up with, so I guess that gives it extra points for me.

I've played all three of them hundreds of times each and I agree with this. The original has it's charms, but it's very obvious that it was made on the cheap and the controls feel very dated and stiff, even for an N64 game.

I can see why people prefer Melee over Brawl though, even if I rank them about equal.

A true poll of all Smash players would reveal:

Brawl ~ Melee > 64

Truth be told, the vocal minority of Melee isn't the only that realizes it's more balanced, but Brawl just has so much more to it. It wouldn't break even, but the reasons for voting Brawl and Melee would differ greatly. They become almost incomparable to each other. That said, it's obvious that Melee's gameplay is objectively better and Brawl's content blows Melee's out of the water.

The only problem I see now is that people want a Melee 2 and a Brawl 2. "A good compromise leaves everyone unsatisfied." Because of the nature of this dispute, there's no reason it can't have Brawl's content levels with Melee's balanced gameplay, but I can't help but worry that Smash 4 will compromise all the wrong things and just piss most of us off.

The game play is not objectively better. We have no metric unit for comparing game play. I prefer Brawl's system, myself. If you scaled it back down to the same roster as Melee, I would still like it better. I don't expect many in this thread to agree with that, but it's subjective.

Ok, yes, my use of the word "objective" is wrong. I agree. That said, Melee is certainly more competitively balanced and the speed, fighting game elements, and such were all proof of this.

Actually, you could say Meele's speed and quick reaction-controls make it less balanced. Some characters where also clearly more powerful than others, you need to play with people of your skill level to have a chance.

Brawl is more or less the same, but they slowed down the action and added "balancing" luck-based features to it to make it more "fair" for the inexperienced.... You have always a chance of winning unless you play against one of those "no items, final destination and forget about having fun, this is serious biz." persons.

Then again, it's all pretty subjective. To me, balancing means that every player has a chance, even if it comes by pure dumb luck.

Actually, the funny thing about that is that items and stage hazards were a part of Brawl's overall balance, as was stale move negation. The latter is little known, but the former is almost unheard of. Certain characters (like Link) are better with items than others. Because the competitive players don't use items, however, this seriously gimps some characters. The competitive players don't seem to realize it, but by removing "luck" from the equation, they severely unbalance the game.

I don't see how game speed is a balancing factor. All characters are affected by the same slowdown. Worse balance and slower speed are both factors people dislike but don't seem to be related. You could balance a fast game as easily as a slow game.

And it seems there are two definitions of balance here. Typically for a fighter we mean it is balanced if equally skilled players can have a close game playing almost every character match up. This is an ideal state few games achieve. Melee doesn't even come close. Fox, Falco, Sheik, Marth and Jigglypuff dominate the majority of the roster at high level play. Brawl is less balanced, but when neither is balanced well to begin with, I don't see it as a worthwhile point, personally.

If luck makes it so anyone can win, that would be considered unbalanced. But I get what you guys mean and am not trying to split hairs.

Also, just curious, what makes Link especially good with items but not without? I never use items and hadn't heard of this theory.