Fighting Games Sucks?!

[JACK-2]

I found this video while browsing Shoryuken.com, and frankly I dunno what to say. So, I posted it here, what are your thoughts?

[Dja Majista]

started getting pissed off at fighting games because of SF4, a game which has not been released yet.

He tested the fighting genre out "having never played more than a few minutes before" with Tekken 5 and some others including a trial version of SF2 (He seems to be complaining about an aspect of the trial, but then concludes that the game sucks because of this).

He's complaining about having to learn combos. That's understandable sense he hasn't played many fighters before. Most people just have fun and experiment rather than try to look at the combo list and study them all at once.

He also complains about difficulty, never specifying what difficulty he is playing on so that could mean anything. Also he said the games were either too easy or too frustrating. Usually, many fighting games have a difficulty setting where you can actually button-mash your way to victory. This is probably what happened. And when he picked up SF2 he realized it did not have this feature and called it "frustrating."

I think his biggest mistake was trying to evaluate the genre as a beginner, when simply put, fighting games are SO much more fun once you get good at them, usually. That and I don't think his sample was representative of the population if you know what I mean.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

I know people like that, I generally find most that don't like fighters, simply don't have the finger skill to play. Which is why he likes Smash Brothers, which isn't a deep fighting game at all. I hardly consider it one, although it is fun. It's a game for the average person, and not a real fighter. Which is why the controls are dumbed down. I don't think it's good to criticize something simply because you suck at it. I like all genres myself anyways, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to.

[JACK-2]

I think your being hard on smash.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Lol, I mean I enjoy it, but it's nowhere as near deep as like SF3, Alpha, or any of that. Even Marvel vs. Capcom 2 has some strategy in character mastery that goes far. But like I said Smash is more for the everyday gamer, which doesn't remove the fun.

[Psyquis52]

This guy is such a pretentious ass!
Wow. I actually cussed. He ticked me off pretty bad I guessed.

Is he really just 16 years old?
I thought that kind of blowhard idiocy required years of practice?

Wow.
Well.
I'm bushed. #dighole#

[JACK-2]

Apr 18, 2008 22:26:02 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Lol, I mean I enjoy it, but it's nowhere as near deep as like SF3, Alpha, or any of that. Even Marvel vs. Capcom 2 has some strategy in character mastery that goes far. But like I said Smash is more for the everyday gamer, which doesn't remove the fun.

Well, all games have depth, since all games require that you do more than scratch the surface in order to truly understand them. It's just that some games have more than others. Smash is just a different type of fighter, than the games you listed. It has some really deep strats: Edge Guarding and an interesting combo system ABA, AFA, ANA, ADA.

The first smash was really good and felt solid. Melee is considered the best and brawl the worst since it's so gimmicky.

Smash is just different, but great.

[Dja Majista]

Brawl the worst? Seriously? I mean I do like melee; I think it feels more fluid. But IMO, Brawl was just as good if not better than melee. As for the first one, I have to say it was the bottom of the three. It had some balance issues, especially with Kirby. And of course, it didn't have quite the budget the others had. I'm not knocking ssb of course; it's a classic. But that doesn't make it better than brawl and melee.

[JACK-2]

I'm not real crazy about Melee, but it was more balanced than Smash 64 due to the fact that in the original smash Z-cancels ruled the game. But, the original is my favorite, I hated the fact that Melee was filled with clones [ A trend which Brawl follows]. I also detested the stages in Melee and Brawl. They were way too over the top and killed matches, which is why the original smash 64 stages are better for matches.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Apr 19, 2008 13:00:45 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

I'm not real crazy about Melee, but it was more balanced than Smash 64 due to the fact that in the original smash Z-cancels ruled the game. But, the original is my favorite, I hated the fact that Melee was filled with clones [ A trend which Brawl follows]. I also detested the stages in Melee and Brawl. They were way too over the top and killed matches, which is why the original smash 64 stages are better for matches.

Kirby wasn't that bad in the original, any hardcore fighter would tell you there are way more broken characters.

The game has depth, but it isn't as deep as the others, it doesn't take the dedication and finger skill games like SF have. I spent probably hundreds of hours on the original, but it just isn't what I think of when I think "fighter" more like party game. Not to mention that there are too many times where you didn't' know what you were even being hit by.

Brawl isn't that balanced, the super moves aren't balanced at all IMO. Game and Watches sucks, while Snakes is really good.

[Dja Majista]

I was simply saying Kirby is just a lot more unbalanced than the others. Nothing about how he ranks with Akuma or anything.

Could you define depth?
I understand you're saying there is a major skill requirement, but that holds true in almost any competitive game, save for those which are based mainly on luck. In ssb, measures of a good player are based on things like intuition, judgement, timing, and other tactical skills, not so much complicated thumb action.

On the other hand if your saying depth means balance fine. But you can't really expect much from a game with almost 40 characters. But keep in mind, if you want more balance in the game you can always turn off things like items and the smash ball of course.

How much have you played brawl anyway?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Apr 19, 2008 18:05:06 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

I was simply saying Kirby is just a lot more unbalanced than the others. Nothing about how he ranks with Akuma or anything.

He is somewhat more powerful, he doesn't ruin the game. For a simplistic gamer sure, otherwise he fits in fine.

Btw Akuma isn't a top tier character. And isn't allowed in tourneys (not Shin anyways) or any secret version.

Apr 19, 2008 18:05:06 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

Could you define depth?
I understand you're saying there is a major skill requirement, but that holds true in almost any competitive game, save for those which are based mainly on luck. In ssb, measures of a good player are based on things like intuition, judgement, timing, and other tactical skills, not so much complicated thumb action.

SSB is based a lot on luck and items though. But that's what makes it a fun game. Not to say you don't need to be skilled, but it isn't a highly skilled game in the ranks of others. Pokemon required timing and using tactics, but it's still a basic game and isn't in the league of something like Baldur's Gate. The difference is one is made for the day to day gamer and the other for a hardcore gamer. Most of the attacks in Smash Bros. (all of them really) are just a button and the directional pad, it doesn't take much skill to play. Sure you can get better at it, as most anything. But it's more aimed for everyone to pick up and play.

Apr 19, 2008 18:05:06 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

On the other hand if your saying depth means balance fine. But you can't really expect much from a game with almost 40 characters. But keep in mind, if you want more balance in the game you can always turn off things like items and the smash ball of course.

Many SF crossovers have many characters and more balance. But then you say the original which has about a dozen characters is heavily unbalanced.

Apr 19, 2008 18:05:06 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

How much have you played brawl anyway?

Enough, my cousin has the game and he brings it over. It doesn't take me long to master a game anyways. Something like Twisted Metal Black has more depth and takes years to master, and it rewards the character for being a lot more skilled. All aforementioned games are fun, but I'm simply saying Smash Bros is simplistic and for the general audience, which is true.

[Dja Majista]

Apr 19, 2008 22:16:34 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Apr 19, 2008 18:05:06 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

I was simply saying Kirby is just a lot more unbalanced than the others. Nothing about how he ranks with Akuma or anything.

He is somewhat more powerful, he doesn't ruin the game. For a simplistic gamer sure, otherwise he fits in fine.

True, but he's still particularly unbalanced. People who pick him up immediately notice the difference.

SSB is based a lot on luck and items though. But that's what makes it a fun game. Not to say you don't need to be skilled, but it isn't a highly skilled game in the ranks of others. Pokemon required timing and using tactics, but it's still a basic game and isn't in the league of something like Baldur's Gate. The difference is one is made for the day to day gamer and the other for a hardcore gamer. Most of the attacks in Smash Bros. (all of them really) are just a button and the directional pad, it doesn't take much skill to play. Sure you can get better at it, as most anything. But it's more aimed for everyone to pick up and play.

Your right, luck is often a big part of ssb, more often than not. But saying it's based on luck doesn't really do it justice. The competitive aspect can get very skill-based to the point you see people pulling matrix-style maneuvers. Predicting other people's moves and tricking them is a huge part of competitive play. Strategy is also very important in the competitive field, which is something the average gamer will never even scratch the surface with. People usually just hit whoever's close; they never really try to manipulate the situation aside from "staying out of the action."
So yes, while you do have certain levels that introduce difficult situations, and items that can turn the tide of battle, these things are only a part of the game. They don't really remove from the depth since taking them away (setting items to none, and playing on a flat stage) unveils a deep battle system that has a place for hard-core gamers to dominate and compete with great quality gameplay.

Many SF crossovers have many characters and more balance. But then you say the original which has about a dozen characters is heavily unbalanced.

That's not a valid counterexample. All I was saying is that the more characters there are, the less likely it is that you'll have intricate balance like in SF3 or something. Budget has a lot to do with it to. And for the record, I'm not saying that ssbb is extremely unbalanced. Some characters can seem better than others just by the person who's playing with them. So we have to admit, balance is one of those things that's very hard to gauge, and shouldn't be analyzed so liberally.

Apr 19, 2008 18:05:06 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

How much have you played brawl anyway?

Enough, my cousin has the game and he brings it over. It doesn't take me long to master a game anyways. Something like Twisted Metal Black has more depth and takes years to master, and it rewards the character for being a lot more skilled. All aforementioned games are fun, but I'm simply saying Smash Bros is simplistic and for the general audience, which is true.[/quote]
oooh so you've mastered it eh? I take it you have the intuition of a demon. How many level 9's can you beat? Let me know when you find out. It's quite fun to try.
Unfortunately I don't know what "enough" means. Have you played it to the point of understanding all the balance issues? I'd actually have to disagree with you on Snake being the best. Granted, he really thrives in the 3 and 4 player setting (just because people tend to ignore him when he runs away really... and those mines... never see those mines ) but in a one-on-one, he's nothing special.

[Dja Majista]

Apr 19, 2008 13:00:45 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

I'm not real crazy about Melee, but it was more balanced than Smash 64 due to the fact that in the original smash Z-cancels ruled the game. But, the original is my favorite, I hated the fact that Melee was filled with clones [ A trend which Brawl follows]. I also detested the stages in Melee and Brawl. They were way too over the top and killed matches, which is why the original smash 64 stages are better for matches.

Ah, yeah I feel ya. I was a bit of an oddball with melee. I didn't pay much attention at all to the fact that there were so many clones, so it didn't bother me. That and the levels. I LOVED those over-the-top levels for some reason. I would just whoop out a fast character and try to do fancy stuff, and it felt so good, because usually everyone else would feel so awkward playing, and I felt like I was just rolling with the rhythm of the level. But yeah I understand where you're coming from. Playing those moving levels can be a real bitch sometimes.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

True, but he's still particularly unbalanced. People who pick him up immediately notice the difference.

He has lower priority and defense, but his speed and attacks are good. Nothing outrageously special from what I see, I mean it's there for a casual gamer, but anyone who plays more deep fighting games don't tend to complain. There are many tricks with any game.

Your right, luck is often a big part of ssb, more often than not. But saying it's based on luck doesn't really do it justice. The competitive aspect can get very skill-based to the point you see people pulling matrix-style maneuvers. Predicting other people's moves and tricking them is a huge part of competitive play. Strategy is also very important in the competitive field, which is something the average gamer will never even scratch the surface with. People usually just hit whoever's close; they never really try to manipulate the situation aside from "staying out of the action."
So yes, while you do have certain levels that introduce difficult situations, and items that can turn the tide of battle, these things are only a part of the game. They don't really remove from the depth since taking them away (setting items to none, and playing on a flat stage) unveils a deep battle system that has a place for hard-core gamers to dominate and compete with great quality gameplay.

Flat and simple stages are the best. Yes you can get better at it but that wasn't what I was saying. Strategy and skill play part in any game. Depth is in any game. I was simply saying that this one didn't have as much as most fighters. I don't even consider Marvel vs. Capcom 2 and MK (yuck)deep and they probably have more options and attacks than this game. Well they do. You have to block high, and low, you can't just float around and avoid the action. You have more moves, alot more attributes and hit boxes tend to matter more. I'm telling you this because I'm not a rookie in fighting games. You tend to play more casually than I do. Like I said, that isn't to say that it doesn't have depth and it's not a good game. It is. It's just not as deep as other fighters. That's my premise and it's clear you and others agree as you aren't arguing that point.

That's not a valid counterexample.

Logic class has made you more bold eh ? (I've taken that same class). It is a counterexample. You simply said that a game with many characters tend to be unbalanced, and I've pointed out some highly blanaced ones. Maybe SSB just isn't an experienced (fighter) and they will get more balanced later, but it is really neither here nor there.

All I was saying is that the more characters there are, the less likely it is that you'll have intricate balance like in SF3 or something. Budget has a lot to do with it to. And for the record, I'm not saying that ssbb is extremely unbalanced. Some characters can seem better than others just by the person who's playing with them. So we have to admit, balance is one of those things that's very hard to gauge, and shouldn't be analyzed so liberally.

Nintendo has the money and time to playtest so budget isn't a large issue like it is with some games.

And that was my point, some characters seem a lot better than others, and you shouldn't go around saying everything is broken. Note that I didn't bring up unbalance in this discussion, like Kirby, for example. It should just be fun.

oooh so you've mastered it eh? I take it you have the intuition of a demon. How many level 9's can you beat? Let me know when you find out. It's quite fun to try.

Lol when has it ever taken me long to master something, especially a game. *Remembers Halo 2 at Christmas Eve* I really don't like competitive play in most things like games and card games and whatnot because people have a bad attitude when losing, so I'd rather play by myself.

I thought Meta and Kirby was cool, I also play on different settings than you guys do. (Or most) I like no mercy 200% damage matches, where it is fast and unforgiving. Most don't like that gameplay, and water it down some. Which is fine I guess.

Unfortunately I don't know what "enough" means. Have you played it to the point of understanding all the balance issues? I'd actually have to disagree with you on Snake being the best. Granted, he really thrives in the 3 and 4 player setting (just because people tend to ignore him when he runs away really... and those mines... never see those mines ) but in a one-on-one, he's nothing special.

Nobody knows all the balance issues especially in a relatively new game, you'd have to understand hit boxes and collision detection. There isn't even a good tier system for this game yet. I remember Jigglypuff was a higher tier in Melee, but this one isn't that old yet.

I was saying Snake has a good super attack while some (Like Kirby's and Game and Watch's) aren't that great.

[jackred]

The video piss me off I love fighting games what in the hell is that guy's problem stuff like Mortal Kombat, Soul, Tekken, Street Fighter, Killer Instinct, Dead or Alive, Virtua Fighter, Super Smash Bros., Jump Stars etc the list goes on has fans around the world who do care about them and do hate this video alot I do very.

[Dja Majista]

Apr 20, 2008 6:40:29 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

True, but he's still particularly unbalanced. People who pick him up immediately notice the difference.

He has lower priority and defense, but his speed and attacks are good. Nothing outrageously special from what I see, I mean it's there for a casual gamer, but anyone who plays more deep fighting games don't tend to complain. There are many tricks with any game.

This part is really kind of irrelevant, and I think it's impossible to convince each other either way so I'm just gonna DROP IT!!

Flat and simple stages are the best. Yes you can get better at it but that wasn't what I was saying. Strategy and skill play part in any game. Depth is in any game. I was simply saying that this one didn't have as much as most fighters. I don't even consider Marvel vs. Capcom 2 and MK (yuck)deep and they probably have more options and attacks than this game. Well they do. You have to block high, and low, you can't just float around and avoid the action. You have more moves, alot more attributes and hit boxes tend to matter more. I'm telling you this because I'm not a rookie in fighting games. You tend to play more casually than I do. Like I said, that isn't to say that it doesn't have depth and it's not a good game. It is. It's just not as deep as other fighters. That's my premise and it's clear you and others agree as you aren't arguing that point.

Yes, you're right, I find it difficult to just attack that premise itself, because you haven't really defined what it means to be a deep game. I've argued that there are plenty of forms of this supposed depth in ssb not found in the arcade style fighters, but I need you to define depth.

Logic class has made you more bold eh ? (I've taken that same class). It is a counterexample. You simply said that a game with many characters tend to be unbalanced, and I've pointed out some highly blanaced ones. Maybe SSB just isn't an experienced (fighter) and they will get more balanced later, but it is really neither here nor there.

lol this is gonna be fun. A) yes it's a counterexample, I'm saying it's not a valid counterexample, B) Why does the counterexample not work you say? Because counterexamples are only good for refuting arguments with a full scope or commitment. It would be valid if I had said "All games" or "games always." But I didn't say that. I said that games with many characters tend to be unbalanced. Translated, that means: more often than not games with lots of characters will be less balanced than games that use only a few.
Either way though, this point isn't particularly helpful to either you or me. I mean, either way, I'm still admitting that ssbb is gonna be a bit less balanced than your average hardcore fighter.

Nintendo has the money and time to playtest so budget isn't a large issue like it is with some games.

They probably did. And I don't know about you but I think they did a fine job with balance, obviously excluding joke characters like game and watch. But seriously, I've played the game quite a bit as well, and I haven't really noticed any particularly unbalanced characters.

And that was my point, some characters seem a lot better than others, and you shouldn't go around saying everything is broken. Note that I didn't bring up unbalance in this discussion, like Kirby, for example. It should just be fun.

Oh ok. Are you saying balance is not a factor in depth? Because that would make this discussion a whole lot easier.

Lol when has it ever taken me long to master something, especially a game. *Remembers Halo 2 at Christmas Eve* I really don't like competitive play in most things like games and card games and whatnot because people have a bad attitude when losing, so I'd rather play by myself.

If you consider mastery to be the point where you can beat everyone around you, I don't think I need to say much. Me, Joe, and Zach aren't exactly pros. Though it would be pretty funny if he came in and said "speak for yourself."

I thought Meta and Kirby was cool, I also play on different settings than you guys do. (Or most) I like no mercy 200% damage matches, where it is fast and unforgiving. Most don't like that gameplay, and water it down some. Which is fine I guess.

See, 200% damage allows certain characters (mainly big hitters) to exploit the game mechanic. Other characters are really meant to beat on them for a bit before delivering the finishing blow, like Sonic. With 200%, characters like Ike will obviously thrive.

Unfortunately I don't know what "enough" means. Have you played it to the point of understanding all the balance issues? I'd actually have to disagree with you on Snake being the best. Granted, he really thrives in the 3 and 4 player setting (just because people tend to ignore him when he runs away really... and those mines... never see those mines ) but in a one-on-one, he's nothing special.

Nobody knows all the balance issues especially in a relatively new game, you'd have to understand hit boxes and collision detection. There isn't even a good tier system for this game yet. I remember Jigglypuff was a higher tier in Melee, but this one isn't that old yet.

I was saying Snake has a good super attack while some (Like Kirby's and Game and Watch's) aren't that great.[/quote]
Dude, don't use supers to say the game is unbalanced. If you do then we could really set up the tiers right now. Most supers are clearly better than others. Like the fox's land master vs meta's cape. It's terribly in favor of the former. If people want a balanced game, they simply turn off the smash ball, play with no items, and play on a flat stage. It's that simple. I happen to like that they have that smash ball though cause it really gives the beginner an occasional opportunity to have fun with the big dogs (granted it still doesn't make him win usually). I always feel bad when we play "loser switch off" because I'm always in and the lesser player doesn't get nearly as much game time.

[JACK-2]

Apr 19, 2008 22:16:34 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

SSB is based a lot on luck and items though. But that's what makes it a fun game.

[/B][/Quote]


I feel you, but you can always turn the items off.

Apr 19, 2008 22:16:34 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

The difference is one is made for the day to day gamer and the other for a hardcore gamer. Most of the attacks in Smash Bros. (all of them really) are just a button and the directional pad, it doesn't take much skill to play. Sure you can get better at it, as most anything. But it's more aimed for everyone to pick up and play.

[/B][/Quote]

I don't think button execution or difficult button execution adds depth to a game. What decides if your a good player. Honestly, it's how you use the tools of your character that counts. Not if your able to execute a pretzel twist command during battle. Honestly, I love the button execution in SSB. A game like say Hyper Fighting is ruled by Zoning, Positioning, and Space Control games. Execution and Button input is important, but not as important which is why it doesn't matter. Most Traditional Fighters are like that.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

I'm not sure when I said that Brawl was a very unbalanced game, I was talking about depth mainly. I think we interloped the posters.

But Jackred I agree with you. Killer Instinct is fun, does anyone else play?

[Dja Majista]

Honestly, it's how you use the tools of your character that counts.

I think that pretty much nails it.

I'm not sure when I said that Brawl was a very unbalanced game, I was talking about depth mainly. I think we interloped the posters.

Actually, I think I may have said something to that effect earlier on. But I didn't mean it in the sense that it was extremely unbalanced, just reasonably unbalanced.
Yes, we interloped them and I didn't notice. Damn you C-Master and your big smart-people words! I had to look that one up!

[warmunger]

Apr 18, 2008 19:10:54 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

I found this video while browsing Shoryuken.com, and frankly I dunno what to say. So, I posted it here, what are your thoughts?

When I saw the title, I said to my self, Wow...just wow.

Btw, I have no sound...so is he talking, cuz just by watching the vid, fighting games looks damn awesome to me. And checking out the comments on the vid on Youtube, not many seem to happy with him and his thoughts.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Apr 21, 2008 12:46:36 GMT -5 @warmunger said:

Apr 18, 2008 19:10:54 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

I found this video while browsing Shoryuken.com, and frankly I dunno what to say. So, I posted it here, what are your thoughts?

When I saw the title, I said to my self, Wow...just wow.

Btw, I have no sound...so is he talking, cuz just by watching the vid, fighting games looks damn awesome to me. And checking out the comments on the vid on Youtube, not many seem to happy with him and his thoughts.

He's definitely talking lol, saying games like SF are outdated and useless, stuff like that.

[warmunger]

Apr 21, 2008 22:00:20 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

He's definitely talking lol, saying games like SF are outdated and useless, stuff like that.

One of the good things about SF2 is that even though it's nearly 20 yrs old it's still pretty playable and with good competition it can still be pretty damn fun.

SF1 is another story, IMO. The special moves are SLIGHTLY less harder to do than DBZ Ultimate Battle 22 and that game takes the cake in that for it's unplayableness. There almost neck and neck.

[JACK-2]

Street Fighter II is possibly the deepest 2-D fighting game ever made. Because it was released at a time where "Less is More" was a model for many fighters.

[Psyquis52]

Okay! Here I go.

I've played and do play Killer Instinct 1, 2 and Gold for the N64.
It's a great fighting series and a lot of fun with very hard fatality type things.

On the subject of balance:
Link in the original - his forward smash that covered him from back to front was so powerful that it was almost all you had to do to beat the game. That's lopsided. They gave him too potent a move.
Charge attacks - were almost always one-hit deaths in the first not to mention Jigglypuff's sleep attack
Snake - His attacks are obviously more potent IMO. His regular attacks nearly launch a person
Meta Knight - not so much unbalanced in launching power but in his ability to connect with attacks. He's almost impossible to fight without getting hit by him.
Final Smashes - nice idea but pretty rancid in practice. Many of the fighters have next to useless smashes when other characters have moves that will easily clear a screen! They make for fantastic trophies though.

On the subject of clones:
Melee - had blatant clones with Roy, Dr. Mario, Ganondorf, Falco and Pichu. The only difference sometimes was their launching abilities
Brawl - Clones are still there but Brawl distinguishes them better. Falco's normal fighting moves are completely different from Fox's
Ganondorf's attacks are a bit more complicated to get used to and use effectively than Falcon's. And more than ever speed is a major factor in this Smash bro's. I think Brawl does enough to distinguish the clones from their original counter parts in this one. It gives them enough character to justify a preferrence for one or the other whereas in past ones saying you liked Falco more than Fox was just because of style or something.

Strategy in Smash Bros and older 2D fighters:
The problem - Yes, there is a sense of strategy to these where you had to assume or trap your opponents to move a certain way but that's almost Rock Paper Scissors strategy you're using.
BUT - That can also be a good thing.

Level Designs:
N64 - Most of the levels were very simple and a lot of fun. I prefer Link's original level to that of nearly any other level since. Same with Mario's, but...there are some levels I'm glad to be rid of (Donkey Kong's)
Melee - The inclusion of scrolling levels was a nice idea but not exceptionally well-suited for the game. A few characters couldn't use the majority of their attacks due to the nature of their power in contrast to the level design. In the end I usually preferred to fight on Battlefield with Items turned off.
Brawl - Electroplankton is a useless level that I was really excited about.
Pikmin's level has too many colors making it easy to lose sight of your characters. In fact that's a problem I've been having with a few levels. The backgrounds often distract from the battle making you lose sight of your character at times. However, the Warioware level is brilliant.
I'm also quite fond of the Stage Creator...cool stuff though very generic
Finally YES, I do play Smash Bros Brawl a lot!
I own it and am nearly done unlocking all the challenges.
Thank you.

[JACK-2]

Apr 23, 2008 4:41:09 GMT -5 Psyquis52 said:

Brawl - Clones are still there but Brawl distinguishes them better. Falco's normal fighting moves are completely different from Fox's
Ganondorf's attacks are a bit more complicated to get used to and use effectively than Falcon's. And more than ever speed is a major factor in this Smash bro's. I think Brawl does enough to distinguish the clones from their original counter parts in this one. It gives them enough character to justify a preferrence for one or the other whereas in past ones saying you liked Falco more than Fox was just because of style or something.

They added more clones in brawl like Toon Link and clones always had different priority's as opposed to the original. There still too many clones.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Apr 23, 2008 8:23:29 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Apr 23, 2008 4:41:09 GMT -5 Psyquis52 said:

Brawl - Clones are still there but Brawl distinguishes them better. Falco's normal fighting moves are completely different from Fox's
Ganondorf's attacks are a bit more complicated to get used to and use effectively than Falcon's. And more than ever speed is a major factor in this Smash bro's. I think Brawl does enough to distinguish the clones from their original counter parts in this one. It gives them enough character to justify a preferrence for one or the other whereas in past ones saying you liked Falco more than Fox was just because of style or something.

They added more clones in brawl like Toon Link and clones always had different priority's as opposed to the original. There still too many clones.

Yea, it reminds me of MKTrilogy, so many ninja characters. 1/4 the cast were ninjas.

[JACK-2]

Apr 23, 2008 22:51:43 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Yea, it reminds me of MKTrilogy, so many ninja characters. 1/4 the cast were ninjas.

Saibot and Ermac were great, though.

[Psyquis52]

I guess I just don't mind the clones but I will say that if it comes down to a clone character or a new character with an original control scheme then I'd rather have a new character.

On the subject of MK Trilogy -
I don't think that's a good comparison to Brawl. The ninjas were a bunch of clones of two core characters from the first game. I don't think we have that problem with Smash Bros anymore. Not since they got rid of Dr. Mario, Pichu, Roy and suck characters like that.

[Dja Majista]

Hey... Roy was... cool. Actually, Marth is way better, but for some reason I think there both pretty good. It's almost as if they have all the same exact moves or something.

I don't think clones really hurt anything though. They were fun to have as long as you didn't consider them as fake substitutes for real original characters.