crispy4001

I have the game. The moves are 'samey' only on a superficial level - each character actually has a longer learning curve than the Smash Bros characters I'd say. Or at the least, there's more of a learning curve to them in the beginning. I really feel like I have to resort to the practice mode; something I never did in the Smash games. Because of that, I don't feel like the smaller roster is such a negative.

I think it's a great game. The online especially is more polished than Brawl, the lag is MUCH better. But you can't be expecting a Smash Bros clone out of it - it's more like Smash Bros with an equal mix of traditional fighters, Soul Calibur especially. The way you'll build combos in particular has little in common with the Smash games - you build most of them from the ground instead of juggling opponents in the air. The controls have changed as well, they've revamped the whole tilt system (for sake of brevity I won't describe the changes here).

As an aside, the single player modes are a little lacking. It's about what Melee was in that regard. However, you'll probably be getting much more out of the game online than with Brawl. Especially if you stick with it, and join in on some of the online tournaments (a lot of people at turtledojo.com have game, and are already starting to organize them).

Once you've come to terms with Metaknight's kill moves, he's beastly. Enough so that in the right hands, 70% of the roster has a huge disadvantage. (at least in no-items matches)

Granted, Melee wasn't perfect either. But Brawl's good characters seem to be that much in respect to most others, and it's worst are even harder to manage with (Ganondorf in particular).

Suppose it's a matter of different expectations then. The characters are what drew me into playing Smash in the first place on the 64, but it's not what I stayed for in the next two installments.

If you say that the enjoyment of a fighting game is so closely tied to the characters and not the gameplay, what's that supposed to imply about fighting games like Blaze Blue with completely new rosters?


Since they are using a license I think it's Ubisoft's best interest to throw in tons of TMNT fanservice. The license by itself just isn't enough for me personally. Even if I was a huge-TMNT fan (I was 15 years ago), I'd ultimately spend more time with the game if there's a solid game underneath worth spending lots of time with.

For me, it's not a matter of being bored of Brawl so much as it is wanting something a little tighter and polished.

I played tons of Melee, and sunk in some good time into Brawl too, but the latter just hasn't been able to hold my attention as well as the former. If Melee was online, I'd never go back to Brawl.

That said, I'm open to change. I don't expect or even want Melee from Smash Up. Just want a good 2d arena fighter that'll bring something unique to the table, and hopefully that remedies some of Brawl's faults (tripping, poorly balanced, bad netcode, no matchmaking options, shallow compared to Melee, etc).

I disagree - what'll make or break this game is if it's fun or not.


The bigger question I think is if it'll correct some of Brawl's shortcomings (the online for starters), and if the new twists (health bars, less projectiles, more combo oriented, etc) were good choices to make.

Not only that, but I've heard the exact opposite about the number of moves. Someone on Smashboards who played it at E3 commented that there's B-Smashes and B-tilts now. And there's also grab reversals, wall attacks, combo variants, etc.


Maybe they would have discovered that if they weren't playing on Wiimotes... Or maybe not.