Forum:Is this game really more balanced than Brawl?

Forums: Index → Melee Talk → Is this game really more balanced than Brawl?

I often hear Melee player who hate brawl say "OMG Brawl nerfed Fox and MK is so cheap". While both of these are through, the statement is misleading. While many characters that were good in Melee were nerfed in Brawl, their nerfs were not that bad. This is compared to Kirby's nerf from smash 64 to Melee. Also consider that in Melee, because of really cheap wavedashing and L-Cancelling, Fox, Sheik, C. Falcon, Falco etc dominate, while Kirby, Ness, Pichu, Mewtwo and Bowser are so bad they are unplayable. Opinions? Mr. Anon (talk) 23:38, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Melee is not necesarily more balanced then Brawl, there are dominating and unplayable characters in both games. Dr. Pain 99 (talk) 23:58, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

I don't like using terms like "cheap" and "broken", but I do agree that Brawl is more balanced then Brawl. Meta Knight and Snake are better in Brawl than Fox and the rest of the top tiers were in Melee, but Ganondorf in Brawl is certainly better than Pichu, Kirby, and Mewtwo were in Melee. There are more viable characters in Brawl then there were in Melee in my opinion. Also, L-canceling I would not consider "cheap" by any means. Every character could use it and it helped slower characters such as Bowser and Ganondorf more than the faster characters. L-canceling did balance things more but when it comes to how the characters compare to each other, I say Brawl is more balance than Melee was. Omega Tyrant 00:04, June 13, 2010 (UTC)