StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Qwerty 42 wrote:So I made a fairly successful replica of the Hyrule Castle from SSB64 on the Stage Editor, it's fun. No tornadoes or backgrounds, but this will do.

I've made one, but the slope on the left side isn't quite right. Currently, nobody can seem to grab its edge. I've been meaning to adjust the slope to just be flat so it can be grabbed. And maybe adjust the stage size a bit.

Mad wrote:

Qwerty 42 wrote:So I made a fairly successful replica of the Hyrule Castle from SSB64 on the Stage Editor, it's fun. No tornadoes or backgrounds, but this will do.

I've made one, but the slope on the left side isn't quite right. Currently, nobody can seem to grab its edge. I've been meaning to adjust the slope to just be flat so it can be grabbed. And maybe adjust the stage size a bit.

In the create-a-stage, the sloped pieces cannot be grabbed. If you want them grabbable, you have to put a small horizontal segment on it. It kinda sucks, but I think they dropped the ball on create-a-stage overall anyway, sadly. I would have liked some grassy pieces or something, not just wierd looking ice and brick.

Yeah, I found the stagebuilder somewhat underwhelming as well. However, I've never been much of a map editor so it didn't bother me too much.

Also, am I right in thinking Pit can reflect attacks as well as projectiles with his Mirror Shield? I noticed that effect in Boss Battles, but does it work in normal battles too? I unfortunately left my Wii behind when I came back to school, so I can't confirm myself. Already going through mad withdrawals.

AFAIK, Pit's shield acts like Mario's cape. At least, the Primids seem to think so, considering they spin around when they hit the shield.

Has anyone done Boss Battles on Intense yet? I tried with Charizard, but when you take 60-120% damage from the first fight, that doesn't work so well.

Darth Yoshi wrote:AFAIK, Pit's shield acts like Mario's cape. At least, the Primids seem to think so, considering they spin around when they hit the shield.

Has anyone done Boss Battles on Intense yet? I tried with Charizard, but when you take 60-120% damage from the first fight, that doesn't work so well.

We had a two-Charizard team clear VH yesterday, we haven't even thought about intense yet. If you've got a friend, you DO get all of the same rewards if you do it co-op, though there are less hearts (2.5) per capita, but the damage is divided as well. We found it easier, if nothing else.

Covenant wrote:I'm going to make a case for competitive play, but remind people that competitive play does not mean you have to turn off all items, ban all the interesting stages, and only play with fox and marth. But there's reasons to limit some of the options and reduce the variables of gameplay, especially because those changes would actually foster an atmosphere where more players are viable and more interesting matchups are likely.

Certain stages benefit certain characters--that's a fact. Bridge of Eldin, for example, benefits Pit, Fox, Falco and Snake a lot more than it does Bowser, King Dedede and Donkey Kong. Denying that some characters have huge advantages based on stage choice is ridiculous, since it's an obvious fact. Try telling me that Bowser and Pit are both equally matched in New Pork City.

Frankly, NPC is a worse stage for tournaments than FD is.

But the idea is to expand the definition of what a "tournament stage" can be. NPC and FD are IMO both bad for tournaments, while I feel Pirate Ship, Mysterious Planet, or Pokemon Stadium(both) are perfectly fine.

If all stages are on, especially with items, I can't effectively compete on many of them as some characters, so those characters begin to fade away in terms of desirability. Bad!

Individual play styles already change a character's desirability. For example, I usually don't play Bowser because I suck at him, not because he's more vulnerable to items. But I have played, and even won with him from time to time. In a tournament, I wouldn't use him because he doesn't fit my play style. If I want a heavy, I'd pick someone like Ike, Samus, or Donkey Kong, because they fit my style better.

The existance of items benefits smaller, faster characters. Pikachu, Metaknight, and goddamn Sonic are all way more likely to reach a given item more quickly that a slower, heavier character.

Assuming, of course, the item in question appears equally-distant from the characters. But it the same item appears right next to Bowser while Sonic's on the other side of the stage (or airborne), that's a different story.

Slower are often Large characters and so also suffer from a larger hit profile from thrown items, which do extreme amounts of damage.

That's where those radical tactics such as "Dodging", "Blocking", and "Catching" come in.

Furthermore, Slow and Large characters are often Power characters too, and so gain the least from the addition of beam swords, fans, bombs and so on. If you leave all of them on, you favor more of these same kinds of characters over others, and diminish the advantages of some, making them less favorable and less likely to be chosen. Bad!

They may gain less, but they still gain, and still end up stronger than a smaller character using them.

Certain characters, like Snake, Ness, Lucas, etc... are all very good at chasing down Smashballs. Snake's nikita will kill a smashball in a single hit, as well as being a guided projectile.

Nikitas are also fairly slow compared to smash balls, and leave him vulnerable to attack. In fact, going after a Smash Ball in general tends to leave you vulnerable. I've won fights before because, while the opponent(s) was going after the Smash Ball, I was going after them.

This makes smashballs favor one character over another in general, and the effect is not even either. Metaknight is quick but has some trouble killing it. Once he finally does, his smash requires a foe within arm's reach to begin it. Compare that to Snake's, or Ness' or Lucas' final smash, which not only consume some screen space in snake's case (covering up the battle) but also giving them a massive killpower boost likely to clear the stage. Compare Kirby's (doing about 40 damage to whoever is in moderate range, as well as dropping some small food items) to Marth's (instant kill on any one person you successfully target--easy to do) to Pikachu's (massively fast flying deathball zipping around in a guided path). By leaving Smashballs on anything but low or off, you make it far easier for some characters to continually reverse the flow of battle with an extremely low cost-to-benefit ratio. This makes it disadvantageous to choose certain characters, especially the ones that can't kill the smashball easily or the ones that have a smash that's too weak to be viable. This makes them less choice in an environment were Smashballs are common, and further decreases the viable pool of characters. Bad!

IOW, Final Smashes, like the rest of the characters' moves, are better in some situations than others. What a nightmare!

You add these all up and often the characters who already felt mediocre overall (Bowser, Luigi, etc) recieve huge hits against them while some that were already quite powerful (Lucas, Snake, Pit, etc) become extremely dominating. Obviously, the game is fluid and what seems like a poor situation to be in can change rapidly, and player skill matters quite a bit,

And that's what Smash Bros. is. A fluid game where a situation, good or bad, can change rapidly. Trying to change that too much breaks the ideal.

but to say that the game is perfectly balanced as it is in all circumstances is incorrect, and so someone who is expecting a fair fight is entitled to feeling unfairly treated by the stage or the random number gods if they lose a fight based on bad luck.

That's the way it sometimes goes in real competitions, too.

However, if they repeatedly lose fights because they are plinked from long range, or can't get the items, or whatever the situation is, you're going to start removing the fun value for them, and if they complain about it, they've got a point. And suddenly natural selection has kicked in, and only the fittest survive.

Imagine that, in a tournament, no less!

Maybe they just suck, and they'll be playing you as Ike and complaining about how overpowered Mario is or something, and then they're just moronic. But if your buddy is playing DK, you're playing Falco, you've got items on and Rumble Falls pops up... you can bet that he's in a LOT worse shape than you, regardless of skill level.

I take offense to that example. Mostly, using Rumble Falls. There's not a lot of time to go chasing items and Smash Balls on that stage by default (Autoscrolling stages, particularly that one and Icicle Mountain, are as much survival challenges against the stage as they are fights between the participants), much less when it speeds up. Plus, Falco's moves aren't always conducive to that stage, while DK's only disadvantage is that he may not have the time to fully wind up a punch.

So I think that making the game more competitive-friendly also makes it more fairness-friendly. I honestly find it hard to believe, or justify, that someone could play a game without items and find it boring or unexciting or too orderly. If you are then someone isn't playing aggressively enough, that's all I can say--two characters slugging it out, juking around, dodging, throwing... there's a lot of very fast-paced action there. If both players are fighting hard, the game won't be boring or slow, and it will have plenty of options for chaotic frenzied action when it's 4-player.

If you want people to play less defensively, take it off stock. Make it points--points encorage aggressiveness, which adds to fun and lets people get in hits without punishing the loser (or enabling team-ups). Remove the most aggrivating levels (Norfair, Spear Pillar) or the most unbalanced levels (Bridge of Eldin, New Pork City) depending on the way you guys play. You'll also make MORE characters available if you reduce the number of partially unfair stages, which will reduce the amount of Fox/Marth/Sheik action you encounter. Once people can actually hope to compete as Bowser, or R.O.B. or whoever, you're more likely to see those characters show up.

Personally, the ideal of fairness is all but impossible in Smash Bros, and as shown, the attempts to make it "fair" don't really help, and decrease the difference between playing Smash Bros, and say, Street Fighter.

And if I'm playing Smash Bros, I want the option of picking up a bat and knocking you into next week with it, whether I'm Bowser or Zelda.

In short:

http://comic.legendaryfrog.com/?comic=4

Imagine that, in a tournament, no less!

You're advocating a tournament in which only the players with the characters with the best advantages as far as collecting and using items win every time?

That would be the worst tournament ever. There would be no sense of competition, as it really boils down to who gets lucky enough to get which items and who has the faster, smaller character. Everyone would pick MetaKnight, Squirtle, Kirby, and Sonic.

Assuming, of course, the item in question appears equally-distant from the characters. But it the same item appears right next to Bowser while Sonic's on the other side of the stage (or airborne), that's a different story.

Precisely why the idea of items in a tournament is idiotic. A far inferior player can still win if they get all of the right items. I lost the GameStop tournament because of a randomly spawning item in front of me that killed me 3 seconds before the timer ran out.

That's not skill on the part of the other player- he was hiding from me on the other side of the stage.

Items are fun for casual matches but have no place in tournament play.

Personally, the ideal of fairness is all but impossible in Smash Bros, and as shown, the attempts to make it "fair" don't really help, and decrease the difference between playing Smash Bros, and say, Street Fighter.

I don't see how you've "shown" that fairness is impossible. Frankly, I think the entire competitive Smash community would have a field day laughing at you.

I actually enjoy fights like this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7lIcE_-tWv8

Praxis wrote:

Qwerty 42 wrote:
Dude, relax.

This is SD.net. That's not allowed

I'm not saying that people should stop playing how they want, I'm saying that I don't understand the mentality behind no items play. I even specifically said: "I'm not saying "YOU GUYZ CAN"T HAVE TORNAMENTS," but it's annoying when people come over to play and basically say "FD only, no items." To quote, ironically, Scrooge: "You keep Smash in your way, and I'll keep it in mine." "

The mentality is that we actually enjoy playing it as a science. The crazy randomness can be fun at times, but when the game has the depth to potentially rival street fighter, relying on perfect timing and thinking three steps ahead of your opponent, letting that go to waste is sad.

There's nothing like two skilled Smash Bros players going at each other. You try to predict every motion and the speed at which you have to react is staggering. It's a blast.

Which is certainly your perogative, as my post indicated. My post was more of a thesis on multiplayer gaming, since, as I've indicated to you, I would like to make my future in the industry, than any criticism of competitive Smash. Althoguh, as I also indicated in my post, it's frustrating when people come over to play and then insist on "their way or the highway."

Praxis wrote:

Imagine that, in a tournament, no less!

You're advocating a tournament in which only the players with the characters with the best advantages as far as collecting and using items win every time?

That would be the worst tournament ever. There would be no sense of competition, as it really boils down to who gets lucky enough to get which items and who has the faster, smaller character. Everyone would pick MetaKnight, Squirtle, Kirby, and Sonic.

Didn't tournament play in Melee always come down to the same two or three characters anyway?

Vendetta wrote:

Praxis wrote:

Imagine that, in a tournament, no less!

You're advocating a tournament in which only the players with the characters with the best advantages as far as collecting and using items win every time?

That would be the worst tournament ever. There would be no sense of competition, as it really boils down to who gets lucky enough to get which items and who has the faster, smaller character. Everyone would pick MetaKnight, Squirtle, Kirby, and Sonic.

Didn't tournament play in Melee always come down to the same two or three characters anyway?

Yes, I believe it was Falco, Pikachu, and Marth. I could be wrong.

Peach was one of the ones that was pretty high up on the tier list in Melee, iirc, rather than Pikachu.

As an aside, I don't know if there's ever been a comparison done where the same people enter an items-on tournament and an items-off tournament. I'm curious to see how different the results would be, since that would lay the issue to rest once and for all.

You can't blame people for picking the same few characters when the game designers made them the best characters. SSB is about items and agility, so making larger or slower characters useful was always going to be hard, and it doesn't sound like they did a good job.

I didn't mind the balance in SSB:M (since I don't know anyone dickless enough to demand items turned off or only play on softcock stages) but it still boiled down to 5-6 characters tops.

In the video you posted Praxis, is the intimation that if one of those two actually went all out and just chased the other, he'd get fucked? Because, as skillful as high-tier videos are, it always strikes me as very stand-offish. If those guys just went at each other, instead of all the dodging and anticipation, would it be so much worse for them? The nice thing about Brawl is, for me, that it maintains the dodging options of Melee but returns a lot of the rewards of just getting up after people and going for the KO's, reminiscent of the original. I dunno, maybe I'm just not as 1337 as those tourney folk.

I like this screen, I just wish I could think of a good description for it.

DPDarkPrimus wrote: I like this screen, I just wish I could think of a good description for it.

It's a nice shot! I can't think of a good caption, but you could mistake it for Wario taking off with a huge fart.

In the video you posted Praxis, is the intimation that if one of those two actually went all out and just chased the other, he'd get fucked? Because, as skillful as high-tier videos are, it always strikes me as very stand-offish. If those guys just went at each other, instead of all the dodging and anticipation, would it be so much worse for them? The nice thing about Brawl is, for me, that it maintains the dodging options of Melee but returns a lot of the rewards of just getting up after people and going for the KO's, reminiscent of the original. I dunno, maybe I'm just not as 1337 as those tourney folk.

Very much so. First time I played a high-end tournament player...I tried to be aggressive, and got utterly raped. Every *single* time I did a dashing attack he shielded in that instant, and then an instant after the hit was blocked he'd grab through the shield and toss me into the ground and catch me in a combo.

It also varies highly on character choice. For example, if you're fighting a Samus player, being aggressive is a good idea to prevent Samus from spamming you with missles (but the Samus player can play defensively by backing up dropping bombs constantly, and the downtilt attack is rather fast and powerful). But when you're fighting a Marth, Marth's sword attacks are fast and have a long reach- running straight at the Marth player and going all offense is essentially suicide against a highly skilled Marth player.

Now, the Sheik player in that video did a lot of probing, jumping and backing out to goad Marth into attacking so that he could dive in with an attack during the frames of lag as Marth pulls back his sword. He also used the darts a lot, and dodging and shielding.

You'll notice that they're very standoffish during the ground combat, but the moment the Marth player gets tossed into the air or off the stage the Sheik player bee-lines it straight for him and hits him with everything, because of Sheik's excellent horizontal recovery (verses' Marth's good vertical). It's very much based on the character you play.

Falco players, for example, are always extremely aggressive because Falco's attacks have very little lag (lag refers to the animations after an attack during which you cannot attack again). He can pull off attacks very quickly, enough that he can be blocked by an opponents shield but keep hitting and get away without ever giving the opponent an opportunity to grab him through the shield.

Brawl's an even more defensive game than Melee was thanks to the unlimited airdodging and overshield (the shield's bubble is always large, can't be rotated with analog controls like the Melee one)- Marth and Toon Link just tear apart overly aggressive players.

Yes, I believe it was Falco, Pikachu, and Marth. I could be wrong.

I think Falco, Marth, Fox, and Sheik were the most common tournament-played characters. Peach is also considered top-tier, but few actually play her for some reason (I'm a Peach main myself).

The thing is that the balancing wasn't THAT bad. In fact, the best local player is the only person who mains Link, and there's a guy called Ka Master who is widely considered the world's best Luigi (and his tournament partner Eggz is sometimes considered the best Mario- I've played against Eggz, and dang he's good). Luigi's hardly top tier but this guy ranks in national tournaments as Luigi. And Jigglypuff was capable of being ridiculously cheap with excellent aerials and that absolutely evil down-B.

Heck, there's a guy named Gimpyfish who is widely considered the world's best Bowser player. Bowser may be one of the worst characters in the game, and he'll readily admit that Bowser sucks, but he plays him anyway.

Still, Brawl's a bit better. Though I can't understand why they gimped certain characters (Sheik for example) but improved already overpowered characters like Marth. Ah well.


Observe Ka Master in his glory as Luigi:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bnCuyaHgwzk&feature=related

Seriously, don't challenge the guy. Ever.

And GimpyFish:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=M7z_sGTTQgY

Actually, you can tilt the shield. The sensitivity of the Wii sticks means that you're more likely to roll instead, but you can shift the shield around. There's really no point though, since leaving the shield centered is enough for most purposes.

I agree that I'm a bit confused at some of the choices they made, but the designers really wanted them that way, so I just don't know. It's quite possible they really don't care much about the idea of tiers and so forth and just wanted to make the characters internally consistant with their own actions rather than balance them against others. I think people who try to win would agree that's a dumb idea, since you end up with people like Bowser who suck (and even Gimpy is stuck basically hoarding the edge the whole time, or Bowserciding now that his claw is a suplex and not a throw) and people like Marth who are dominatingly powerful.

Smash has always been a love/hate thing with me because I like hilarious characters and I enjoy playing aggressively. In Street Fighter I'd enjoy characters like Gen or Rolento, but one of my favorite guys to be was Dan. I still remember killing someone with the autograph toss as Dan. So good.

So when I play Smash, I'm stuck in the rut that a lot of aggressive players fall into--dashing or leaping or just trying to close the gap and being unable to successfully do any sort of damage. It's why I like playing as Metaknight now--he at least doesn't suffer from lag on his moves (the neutral A's long playtime as a notable exception) and does give you more attack options. Honestly, I think shielding is a horrible gameplay convention--you can do the same thing at range with the stationary dodge. I hate shields--they encourage the block-grab schenanigans that force things into these distance battles. I would love if Metaknight had the same range and power as a Marth or Toon Link or something, but a lot of people just don't benefit from the defensive playstyle the same way. However, I've found few instances where a defensive player is entirely overpowered, even if it always is a superior strategy to take--one that aggrivates me to no end. I like to attack, I like the way two attackers try to outdo each other, and so on. I don't like defensive probing maneuvers... I just don't have the patience for it.

Re SAMAS:

Bite me. What's this damn meme that's picked up a long time past about "Durr, you're turning smash brothers into street fighter!" What? First of all, I really like Street Fighter, so I don't see the huge problem with that. Second of all, that's a moronic comment. And nothing in your line-by-line reposting of what I said has anything to do with anything. Fun is subjective, so play how you like. If you have one person in your group who is a total tourney jackass then just tell him to chill out. My group plays on most stages and items on low, with the Dragoon and Smashball turned off and most of the other stuff on (the curry is off, it's kinda a dumb item) and we also play a bunch of the incredibly wacky custom stages that we've made.

So seriously, back off. If you can catch a tossed item, then I'm super excited for you. If you like playing the 'survival' stages then awesome, I hope all your buddies do as well. And if you don't mind randomizing things to benefit someone over another, let's start having Olympic athletes draw the events they're going to compete in out of a hat. You'll never know what the new challenge is! Fluidity and adaptation can be exciting! Yes it is, but it's not fair, and some people don't want to play when it's not fair. And that is the whole fucking point of my post, dumbass. Smash Brothers is essentially a party game, not a very serious game. It can be serious, but it takes a lot of work to get it there. So if you're discouraging players or making the game hard to comprehend by keeping items and insane stages on, you're going to diminish the variety of opponents you face. That's a lousy thing. Scaring people off because they're really bad at it can be avoided, but if people have no idea what's going on, sometimes they just stop trying to play it entirely. It is more prudent then to remove the most eggregious stages and items, to possibly be turned on later as they always can, and move on. Maybe your group is entirely noncompetitive and just enjoys goofing around and having--I would envy you then!--but a lot of people who enjoy fighting-type games at all to begin with enjoy winning, and I don't know anyone who really enjoys getting their ass handed to them four or five times in a row, despite their good humor.

I'm not trying to tell anyone how to play their own copy of smash on their own wii in their own house. I don't go to tournaments and I don't want to. Wavedashing the 'elite' strategy of the previous game, was a stupid bug and I'm so glad they took it out. I like that they added tripping--now you have a chance of falling on your ass, and that's good. I like the stages that change shape--like Pokemon Stadium 2, or the ones that break apart. In the custom stage-maker I build stages to specifically favor certain playstyles just to make things more interesting, and I always choose the random stage picker. I have final destination turned off.

If you don't care that the game's not balanced, then fine, I don't give a rat's ass what you play as. What I'm saying, and what I said, is that if you want to play with a large amount of people and see more than the 'optimal' characters being played the majority of the time (which was what I was responding to) then you need to either tell people "Fox is lame, you can't play as Fox anymore" and be a fucking toolbag, find some new friends who don't mind getting batted around like a volleyball, are amazingly good with some of these characters, or you can open it up to the widest variety of players (good ones, sucky ones, and everyone else) by reducing some of the elements that give people those "This is dumb, I don't want to play anymore" moments.

You might think it's all fair, or that it's the essential nature of the game, the ideal state of playing is a chaotic flailing deathball similar to Mario Party Fighting, where fortunes are reversed in a matter of seconds, victory snatched away by fate and chance, and everyone ends up happy just because they got to play and not care who won or who lost (since that really wasn't the point of the game anyway). And if you thought this, we'd be in agreement. But if my other friends get sick of constantly getting banged in the head by bombs, or dying off the wall in Mushroomy Kingdom, or having a really well-played game by them turned into a loss because I snagged another Smashball (and their final smash doesn't even do anything anyway) and I just tell them "Oh gee, it's not fair, maybe like real life? Grow up!" then you're going to contribute to the stupid FoxMarthFalcoSheik Final Destination No Items bullfuckery that will creep up everywhere else. I want people to feel like they've got a chance to do well, no matter where we play or who they choose. I want to let a newb hop in and have a shot. I don't think items help that, and I don't think some of the stages help that either. We might disagree there, but don't even start to say that people who feel the game is unfair should just suck it up.

The comic was a real mockery of what I was saying, and you better damn know that. Does he want to play as Mewtwo? Awesome! Good for him. If he still wants to play Mewtwo on a random stage after she plays as Fox for ten rounds and bashes the hell out of him with items, then he deserves a gold medal and I'd love to have the guy over. I played as Mewtwo quite a bit, because it's fun. It's not about winning tournaments, it's about having fun. Complaining about the way a Tournament circut does their business is fine too, but what I said was true. A fairer system with a wide variety of stages (note, not just goddamn final destination) and a decreased frequency of specific items (such as smashballs and the dragoon) leads to an environment where more players can play with a wider variety of characters--ones they think are fun but bad, ones they think are awesome but can't use yet, etc--and feel better about their performance, see improvements, and not feel like they're losing because of elements outside of their control. This leads to more players enjoying themselves. You can always take a show of hands to add in more baseball bats or beam swords or, hell, smashballs. If that's the way your group rolls with it, awesome.

And I do encourage people to adapt. But adaptation takes time and a bit of experience, and unless you want to scare off new people or browbeat them into playing it the way it comes out of the box, looking towards fairness (and there is a form of fairness) is not a bad idea. So seriously, I don't know what the hell your issue is. Maybe you're just sick of people saying "This map isn't fair, it has a slight slope in it." Well that guy is a douchebag. But if you're just tired of people trying to make it more fair so that they aren't being hammered by thrown items, so they can have some time to learn how to play, or have a character who they love to play as, or something similar, then you're the douchebag for essentially saying "cry moar newb" in a different but similar way to the tourney guys.

DID YOU GUYS SEE THE VIDEO TODAY?

Ike and Yoshi sent the sandbag 7000 feet

I tried.

My friend has a Wii and I like smash bros. Recently rented it.

Ho

ly

SHITE!

I love that game! I played as many characters as I could and found myself sticking with Marth, Shiek, Ike, Pitt, Metaknight and kirby. Completely didn't use samus, one of my standards from old smash bros. Personal opinion on characters.

Marth: Absolutely the best so far. He's fast, he has a decent jump, smash attack is death if you run into it and dodges like a mofo. My only problem with him is that when you switch to him from meta knight, kirby, and pit is that it's rough dying when you expect that extra second or two of height.

Shiek: Ninjas ftw!!! I her forward attack is sweet. I never knew she was so much fun to play. Unfortunately lacks the power of marth (who is my fav)

Ike: Flame sword. Wow his hits are so obscenely powerful. His regular smash is neerly impossible to time or hit with, but he's still fun. The forward smash is a fun edge killer. Flip up and then die. And his ultimate smash is just, well evil. Can jump worth crap though.

Pitt: Dissed this guy before I played it. Not as fast as I thought he'd be though. Decent mid character. I like the spinning double blade thingy of doom. It's quite frankly a death blade, especially if you're mean to your buddy in a 3 person ffa and are pitt with another guy and get him caught in it.

Metaknight: Not so bad. Rather liked the whole miniswordsman bit. Slower than marth, so it's not entirely wonderful but still cool.

Kirby: Nothing to say other than. HHIIII!!!

My friends blow, so one of these days I've got to get playing online at my buds house.

RIPP_n_WIPE wrote: My only problem with him is that when you switch to him from meta knight, kirby, and pit is that it's rough dying when you expect that extra second or two of height.
.

Okay in my opinion Metaknight (and to some Pitt) has the best recovery in the game. Mostly because all four of is B moves can be used to recover. Especially his up B. Does anyone else disagree with that.

Schuyler Colfax wrote:

I tried.

I'm pretty sure that 9 times out of 10 your attempts at posting images fails. I don't know if you're just a hotlinking asshole or just use a shitty imagehost, but fix it.

At any rate, I love Snake. He's pretty much the opposite of what I've played in the other games, but he's definitely my favorite. Especially his up-Smash, since it's pretty good at knocking flying characters out of the sky or blowing Fox to hell when he tries rushing me. Of course, his down-Smash fucks those people too.

Losonti Tokash wrote:

Schuyler Colfax wrote:

I tried.

I'm pretty sure that 9 times out of 10 your attempts at posting images fails. I don't know if you're just a hotlinking asshole or just use a shitty imagehost, but fix it.

At any rate, I love Snake. He's pretty much the opposite of what I've played in the other games, but he's definitely my favorite. Especially his up-Smash, since it's pretty good at knocking flying characters out of the sky or blowing Fox to hell when he tries rushing me. Of course, his down-Smash fucks those people too.

I had to post it from the site since I can't upload anything on photobucket. So either you fix it or make one of your own.

Nevermind.