Why is there less STUFF than Melee/Brawl?

#51Habefiet(Topic Creator)Posted 12/5/2012 3:24:11 PM
ShindoKokoro posted...
Because every Melee/Brawl match came down to Final Destination/No Items with everyone only using top-tier characters. Superbot learned that lesson well: Gamers don't like variety.


Just popped on and scrolled down, will try to respond to more eloquent arguments later, but just thought I'd clear up this particular misconception: this is blatantly false, and is a reference to an old meme that I believe was generated on this very website. Somewhere along the line people started thinking it was true.

At the biggest Melee event of 2012, the top 8 players mained seven different characters between them. A low tier was used in grand finals to counter a specific high tier who has a weirdly evenish matchup with said low tier. At the second biggest event this year there were two mid tiers in the top five. Etc. etc. And literally no major Melee tourney that I'm aware of (and I follow the scene pretty closely, and go to tourneys sometimes, etc.) has ever been run on less than at least six stages. I mean obviously most people that place well in tournament tend to use higher tier characters, but that's true of literally every fighting game ever as far as I know.

Final Destination isn't even the most "balanced" stage in that game, because the lack of platforms removes an element of play that is key on every other stage, and also it allows for certain characters to chaingrab other characters to obscene percents in ways that they can't on other stages. It's not a broken or unfair stage, but it probably changes the average matchup more than any other neutral stage.

Brawl has even more stages legal, though Brawl does have greater issues with one particular top tier character dominating the results.

LOL at "gamers don't like variety." Just. Lol. Is all.
#52rumbalumbaPosted 12/5/2012 3:30:19 PM
ThaCMaster posted...
rumbalumba posted...
ThaCMaster posted...
rumbalumba posted...
^lol grasping at straws. if there's any company who doesn't need to play reviewers, it's Nintendo.


You're the only person who is grasping at straws. Most companies want good reviews for their games so they sell. You're trying to use a reviewer score as a sign of game quality at a competitive level when your example doesn't work. I hope nobody is stupid enough to buy a game just based off a review of a certain company. Those reviewers are often wrong on many things.

Melee is considered a deeper game than Brawl despite Brawl selling better, so what does that mean?



pwahahahahahah. again, grasping at straws. Nintendo games score high because they're of good quality. deal with it. my example doesn't work? it's the meta score. that's 100+ reviewers that Nintendo "paid off", then? LOL.


Brawl selling better means there are twice as many Wiis as there were Gamecubes. Melee is deeper, doesn't mean Brawl is a crap game. it just means Melee is THAT good, being better than an awesome game which is Brawl.


you're going off in tangents here. the TC is specifically asking why there's less stuff in All-Stars than there is in Brawl. which means CONTENT.

Oh great another fanboy. Some Nintendo games are good, some are not. So what? This is nothing to do with Nintendo. You're making it about Nintendo because you're a fanboy, which is why you think that everything released by Nintendo is good, which definitely isn't true, hell their consoles aren't the best either. Game companies want to sell games. Reviewers need access to material to stay in business, aside from their own personal bias. Reviews from games are inherently biased anyways, and many are flawed and have nothing to do with gaming at a higher level to begin with. Who said Nintendo "paid all of them off". Companies like reviews to be good and they make sure their games sell. Is this news to you?

There were many more people buying Brawl because at that point the games had reached a more casual audience and had more buyers. You're talking about a large gap of time.

My comment was NEVER about Brawl being a bad game, it was based on the fact that sales and reviews do not equal a good game, especially competitively. You got offended and jumped on my post with your strawmans. There are MANY games that are good and don't sell or review well and many games that sell plenty and aren't GREAT (like the greatest COD clone). Doesn't mean anything. Your argument that high review scores and sales meaning a better game is just a flawed, flawed premise. I'd say games have declined in quality overall throughout time. Btw your review site gave Brawl a higher score than Melee.



metacritic is not a review site. ROFL. the metascore is an aggregate of a game's reviews.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/post.php?board=668999&topic=64834266&quote=726598573

can youread that? it says based on 81 Critics. it's the average of 81 reviews, which is 93.
#53LuminescentRulePosted 12/5/2012 3:36:11 PM
From: Ven100 | #003
@ TC, don't try to say the Coles are clones because they are not. If anything, you need to look no further than Link and Toon Link to see actual CLONES...


I played their arcade mode recently. Yeps, they are clones.
---
http://www.yourgamercards.net/trophy/a/EmperorLawlight.png
#54ThaCMasterPosted 12/5/2012 3:38:07 PM(edited)
I know what it is. It's like rottentomatoes for movies. Brawl is a 93 and Melee is a 92.

Doesn't change my point that reviews or sales don't mean a game is inherently good or bad. A game *can* sell well and be good or mediocre, same with scores. The only reason I brought it up was because someone mentioned sales. I like to take a break from the mainstream sometimes and check out other games. You'd be surprised.

Based on that site Brawl is better than Melee though, imagine that. Didn't even have to dig up other examples of why reviews can be bad (as can numerous other ratings).

One problem is games rarely get lower than a 7/10 because of game inflation for the aforementioned reasons. That's another thing though.
---
PSN ID BigDaddyCMasta
www.thacmaster.proboards50.com
#55ThaCMasterPosted 12/5/2012 3:37:32 PM
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
#56rumbalumbaPosted 12/5/2012 3:40:49 PM
ThaCMaster posted...
I know what it is. It's like rottentomatoes for movies.

Doesn't change my point that reviews or sales don't mean a game is inherently good or bad. A game *can* sell well and be good or mediocre, same with scores. The only reason I brought it up was because someone mentioned sales. I like to take a break from the mainstream sometimes and check out other games. You'd be surprised.

Based on that site Brawl is better than Melee though, imagine that. Didn't even have to dig up other examples of why reviews can be bad (as can numerous other ratings).

One problem is games rarely get lower than a 7/10 because of game inflation for the aforementioned reasons. That's another thing though.


that doesnt make AllStars better than Brawl.

if you wanna whine about how Melee is better than Brawl, then whine somewhere else. you're going off on so many tangents. you say a game's sales doesn't equate quality yet you pick Melee and Brawl. bottomline: both sold well..
#57ThaCMasterPosted 12/5/2012 3:42:30 PM
rumbalumba posted...
ThaCMaster posted...
I know what it is. It's like rottentomatoes for movies.

Doesn't change my point that reviews or sales don't mean a game is inherently good or bad. A game *can* sell well and be good or mediocre, same with scores. The only reason I brought it up was because someone mentioned sales. I like to take a break from the mainstream sometimes and check out other games. You'd be surprised.

Based on that site Brawl is better than Melee though, imagine that. Didn't even have to dig up other examples of why reviews can be bad (as can numerous other ratings).

One problem is games rarely get lower than a 7/10 because of game inflation for the aforementioned reasons. That's another thing though.


that doesnt make AllStars better than Brawl.

if you wanna whine about how Melee is better than Brawl, then whine somewhere else. you're going off on so many tangents. you say a game's sales doesn't equate quality yet you pick Melee and Brawl. bottomline: both sold well..


Who said anything about AllStars being better than Brawl? Why are you making strawmans.

Whining about Melee? No I was proving a point. It's just not getting through to you.

I picked Melee and Brawl, the person I quoted was talking about Brawl! Hence I used it as an example. You really don't even know what you're arguing anymore do you?
---
PSN ID BigDaddyCMasta
www.thacmaster.proboards50.com
#58rumbalumbaPosted 12/5/2012 3:43:39 PM
^because we're talking about All-Stars AND Brawl/Melee, NOT Brawl and Melee.
#59ThaCMasterPosted 12/5/2012 3:45:41 PM
rumbalumba posted...
^because we're talking about All-Stars AND Brawl/Melee, NOT Brawl and Melee.


No. I used Brawl and Melee as an example in regards to sales and review scores being an indicator of quality. Both are similar and have been out long enough for people to have a more informed and tried opinion on them so it was easier to compare.

This game is different and relatively new. In regards to the topic this game is on its first iteration so it has less stuff, just like the first game of a new series or a new generation.
---
PSN ID BigDaddyCMasta
www.thacmaster.proboards50.com
#60iPutinWORKPosted 12/5/2012 3:49:55 PM
Look at Rumba and Lumi's posts in comparison to EVERYONE else's...

SMH
---
PSN Salesrobmy7 | I play: MvC2 and PSASBR || Add me!
Favorites SMB3 | FFT | FFX | MvC2 | Pokemon