I know I'm probably in the minority here, but I just can't stand any of the three Super Smash Bros. games. Is there anyone else out there who shares these views? All the things that make these games unique are the things that I dislike the most:

-more than two people can play at once
-there are items
-you don't die when you reach 100% damage
-you can fall off the stages
-simplification of attacks

I love the idea of fighting as characters from Nintendo games, but I just wish that these games could have had more traditional gameplay. To give you an idea of what I mean, Super Street Fighter II: The New Challengers (SNES) is my favorite fighter.

The fact that 4 players can play at once is one of the best features of the game in my opinion...

When you get a group of friends together, mix in some alcohol and some Smash Bros and you are guaranteed a fun night. Btw, the items can be turned off

EDIT: Actually, the attacks appear simple at first glance, but they are actually quite deep and take some time to master.

I'm not saying that this is a bad game. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. Let this be a forum for discussion on the pros/cons of Smash Bros. gameplay vs. traditional fighter gameplay.

I've always enjoyed the SSB games. Yes, they are a little overrated, but they're simple to get into and even people whom suck at fighting games can have a chance. I know, must people point to that and say its proof that the game is broken and unbalanced, and thats partially true. The game is unbalanced, but still quite a bit of fun with some friends pounding away on each other. Not every fighting game needs to be deep and require hours of practice.

The utter randomness of the gameplay.

It's perfectly possibly to consistently win by button mashing without ever EVER developing some kind of technique.

Your first 3 objections can be changed. The amount of players is up to you, you can change the life type so it goes down to zero (death), and you can turn the items off.

I can understand why someone wouldn't like the series though. Personally I love it.

If you want a fighting game that requires skill I'd reccommend Fighter's Destiny on the N64. Hopefully it'll arrive on VC.

I got Smash Bros. Brawl at launch and played it for a week or so, and it wasn't bad, but I'm a Virtua Fighter man at heart so I find it very difficult learning another fighter. Street Fighter IV was much easier to pick up because I had Alpha 3 on the Sega Saturn, but as I'd never really played a Smash Bros. before I struggled to get into Brawl.

Looking back on it now, the only thing I'd say I actually liked about the game was Sonic.

Your objections are actually features. Personally, I believe they are the reason why I enjoy SSBB more than most fighters. In any event, as CowLaunch pointed out, you can adjust most of them to your preferences.

IMO - Never played SSB 64 (but would down load it when/if comes to VC) honnestly not very keen on SSBM - I found it far to basic and boring or more to the point did not have enough varity or content or flair to it for a game of that generation but.... LOVED SSBB, tons of characters that feel varied,
great, fantasic looking, varied fighting stages,
tons modes,
content to unlocked,
nintendo poured on the content to make this game game great.
Also its not Street Fighter its smash bros and they got it spot on with brawl.

Quoted for truth. You don't have to play 4-players, and you can turn off items. If you play in Stamina Mode (under Special Melee / Brawl), you play with 100 HP like a more traditional fighter. While I usually play the normal mode, I do enjoy playing Stamina, too.

I think the problem is people expect a normal fighter, but it is almost more of a competitive platformer with combat since it is so focused on jumping and not falling off, elements not involved in other fighters much if at all.

That's only true to a point. A button masher can not win consistently against a skilled opponent. A button masher can win consistently against other "beginners" and even some/many "intermediate" level players.

Competitive platformer with combat about sums it up I reckon. Soul Calibur with ring out KO's is the only aspect of another fighting game that is even vaguely similar that I can think of.

Who In The Heck would say that Smash is bad?

Go watch the tutorial videos on the Nintendo channel. Short, and do a great job of explaining how to play it without just button mashing and hoping you learn something.

If you still don't like it, that's personal taste, not a problem with Smash.

The Super Smash Bros. series is possibly some of the greatest games ever made. How can you say that it's bad?

Most of those things you mentioned aren't problems with the game but are the whole game play of the game, because SSBB is not like other fighters, that's what makes it unique.

Several people have pointed out that the first three things I listed are optional. Fair argument, though I think these things are the default settings. But that still leaves "you can fall off the stages" and "simplification of attacks". What do you think about these? Annoying? Would the game be better if you couldn't fall or if you had more complex move combos?

Well, you are comparing SSBB to other fighting games, (HP bars, button combos etc) like i said the SSB are a different form of fighting games, being unable to fall of the stage, and complex move combos would make it be like another fighting, which it is not.

This thread in general is ridiculous, because it's the same as saying 'I don't like Animal Crossing, but love Harvest Moon. I think Animal Crossing should basically be Harvest Moon. Let's discuss this in detail'. Or 'I don't like Dragon Quest, but love Final Fantasy' What's to discuss? The people who are fans of the series obviously like it for being different, meaning they must have different wants in a game.

It's obviously not your kind of game, but no one needs to like everything. So why are you looking for vindication on an internet forum and pretending there's anything deep to discuss?