Forum:Brawl+ Discussion

This. Discuss please.

Also, it is NOT Melee 2.0. NO. NO NO NO. There are hacks out there that can be used to turn Brawl into a Melee 2.0-ish game, but Brawl+ is not the same thing.  NO . Shade 487  z  13:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm.. Actually, I've read the article and... many (just about 99% ^^) of the listed changes are taken from Melee. Who should I trust : Me or You disclaimers ? I think I should stay on the fact that Brawl+ is Melee 2.0 ;) Metalink187 (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's think about that for a second, shall we? I could understand if the Wavedashing and L-Cancel codes were still implemented, but a lot of stuff added to Brawl+ could also be found in SSB64. Hitstun, more gravity, faster speed...Melee may have these features, but Melee's also the more competitive game. So if they're trying to make Brawl+ more competitive, then it only makes sense that those features would obviously be present. If they were trying to make a Melee 2.0, I can imagine many other changes that would be present...
 * Obviously, the Wavedashing and L-Canceling would still be back in
 * You couldn't grab the ledge while facing away
 * They'd try to change Falco back to his Melee self
 * They'd de-gay Final Destination's ledges
 * They would try to change the characters to match Melee's tier list. Captain Falcon may finally be good like he was in Melee, but that's more of an attempt to make him actually tourney-viable than it is to make him a Melee-esque character. In Brawl+, the roster is becoming BALANCED.
 * Let's not forget something else that made top-level competition so skill-oriented in Melee: Shine Cancel. Surely anyone trying to emulate Melee would put that in there.
 * Not only that, but that article's far from perfect. I should know, I wrote it. :/ Shade  487  z  18:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Brawl+ may not be Melee 2.0, but the fact that a bunch of the edits re-implement things that were in Melee is enough to convince anyone who doesn't like the idea.

As for my opinion on it...I don't really care. If people want to mess with their own stuff, that's fine with me. All I can hope for is that Nintendo doesn't follow their lead and make the next Smash Bros. more competitive - they may be the most vocal fans, but they are in the minority. Toomai Glittershine eXemplary Logic  The Stats Guy  The Table Designer  15:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Multiplayer games are meant to be competitive. That's one of the very definitions of the word. Shade  487  z  18:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's okay for a game to have a level of competitiveness. But once people start playing it for fame and money, then it gets a lot more important for a game to be "fair" and "balanced". And for good reason; you don't want freak accidents to determine who gets more prestige and cash. The thing is, to people who don't participate in tournaments and just play for fun (which is the majority), decreasing the craziness factor of a game is considered "less fun". Toomai Glittershine eXemplary Logic  The Stats Guy  The Table Designer  19:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ^w00t I'm in the majority! L33t  Silvie  I see wat u did thar... |undefined 19:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They're called Items and crazy stages. Shade  487  z  20:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All items. Pichu only. Brinstar Depths. Fun is more important than tournament stuff.  I'd rather have fun than win.  So to people who care only about winning these games -- you're missing the point. (P.S. I don't care if others hack, but I frown on its usage when I'm playing.)  Miles ( talk)   22:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * @Shade: If the Brawl+ article is correct, the aforementioned "crazy stages" are frozen, essentially destroying craziness and anything that sets it apart from any other tournament-legal stage, gameplay-wise.
 * @Miles: THANK YOU! Someone who understands! L33t   Silvie  I see wat u did thar... |undefined 00:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)