Smash Bros. Comparison: Wii U vs Brawl vs Melee

So everyone has had a few months to play the new Smash Bros game(s), and with reviewers throwing around some truly insane scores it might be hard to understand where the differences are, and which Smash Bros game, if any, could be considered the best.

Metacritic is often used as a credible yardstick for reviewing anything in popular culture, as it creates a unique score out of 100 based on an average score from other reviewers. Given that Nintendo itself seems happy to be endorsed by Metacritic scores it seems reasonable to use this as a starting point for comparing the games; and it’s a pretty close run contest, with the games scoring thusly:

·         Super Smash Bros. (N64)- 79

·         Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS- 85

·         Super Smash Bros. Melee- 92

·         Super Smash Bros. for Wii U- 92

·         Super Smash Bros. Brawl- 93

So as we can see there is not a lot between the top 3 games, with Brawl emerging with a very slight lead. In this article I am mainly going to compare these top 3 games. This is for a few reasons; firstly, comparing the 3DS and Wii U games as separate entities seems slightly redundant one is effectively a port of the other, albeit with some minor technical and content tweaks. Secondly, as the above scores suggest, Melee, Brawl and Wii U are generally accepted to be of a notably higher standard than 64 or 3DS; and thirdly, I feel these games are what people picture most when they imagine a Smash Bros. game.

So, which is the stronger game? Well, let’s do a direct comparison.

Content

One of the key reasons for omitting Smash 64 is that, whilst it hits all the right notes in terms of basic gameplay, it is somewhat lacking in content. The presence of a large pool of content has been a key feature of the series since Melee; this usually consists of unlockable characters, stages, gameplay modes, trophies and, more recently, stickers, CDs and customisations. Since Brawl, Smash Bros is also one of the few Nintendo series that embraces the meta-gaming idea of “achievements”, with recent games featuring a challenge wall that contains various unlockables as specific challenges are beaten.

The "Brawl Wall", as literally only I call it.

In terms of miscellaneous content Wii U not only comes pre-packed with huge amounts of trophies, CDs and customisations to unlock but also has limitless potential to expand through DLC. As you play Wii U you always feel as if you are building up your treasure hoard and giving yourself new avenues to explore. First point goes to Smash Bros Wii U.

Characters

In terms of character count, Melee comes in at 26, Brawl comes in at 39, and Wii U has 51 characters (with 1 being DLC), meaning in 3 instalments the roster for the series has basically doubled. Obviously this gives general weighting toward Wii U, as having a bigger roster automatically means more variety and more combinations of characters. Moreover, whilst I feel both Wii U and Melee are fairly balanced, Brawl has some real issues with balancing. There is the infamous ban of Metaknight at tournaments, but even at a basic level the core stats and functionality of characters varies too widely, and this is only made worse with the introduction of the Final Smashes. These vary wildly in usefulness, with some, like Fox’s, being an almost guaranteed win for a skilled, whereas others, like Peach’s, being practically useless even for a veteran player.

All 3 games are guilty of character clones, whereby a character is effectively re-skinned and given some slightly different special moves and gameplay attributes. Whilst I have no problem with this, it does somewhat diminish the number of truly distinct characters that can be attributed to the above roster counts. That being said, I would say that again Smash Bros Wii U does the best job at making the clones it has inherited from previous games as distinct from each other as possible whilst also making them play like their previous versions. Furthermore, it does not introduce any more clones to the series. In terms of characters, Wii U definitely comes out on top.

Levels

The level count between the games is a little closer than the character counts, with Melee counting 29 stages, Brawl 41, and Wii U 47, again allowing for DLC with the latter, and excluding custom levels for Brawl or Wii U. The important factor with level counts is that there are enough for variety, but not too many so that they are impossible to remember or learn. I would say Melee had about the right number of levels, as a prolonged session on Melee meant you would probably see each level every couple of hours, which meant you had just grown eager to play it again when the random level select throws you a wonderfully chaotic “Big Blue”.

For even more chaos, try Chin Mode

For the levels themselves, I am personally against levels that are too big or complex. Even the original “Hyrule Castle” is too big for my tastes, as it can turn matches into a war of attrition, whilst also taking the most important ingredient, pacing, out of Smash Bros. Both Brawl and Wii U are particularly guilty of this, with “75m”, “New Pork City” and “The Great Cave Offensive” being some of the worst offenders. There are some excellent gimmicks in both of these games, with “WarioWare Inc.” in Brawl being a particular favourite. Overall, however, I feel the level design in Melee has a huge amount of variety, simultaneously being challenging and interesting whilst also being fair to all players. For levels, it has to be Melee.

Modes

Of course, when anyone thinks of a Smash Bros game they think of the frenetic multiplayer, which I will leave as a section unto itself. Outside of this, there are the single player modes themselves, which for the dedicated Smash players can provide almost as much mileage. Wii U once again is certainly ahead in terms of sheer numbers, with some interesting mix ups to the formula. Crazy Orders is a great risk/reward system, but doesn’t have much variety or depth, whereas Smash Tour seems like a good idea but feels too unpredictable to be reliably enjoyable. Crucially, however, Wii U lacks a solid “campaign” mode, which Melee had in the form of Adventure mode and Brawl built on with the Subspace Emissary. Between Adventure and Subspace Emissary is a matter of preference, and although I have a huge amount of love for Adventure mode I have to admit Subspace Emissary does an excellent job at introducing a player to the entire roster and to get used to the variety the game has to offer. Melee is a solid entry, but Brawl just takes it.

Multiplayer

Now, this is where the strength of having a large character roster can start to backfire, as competitive multiplayer becomes a lot more random as greater numbers of characters, stages and items are thrown into the mix. When there are over 50 characters it is very difficult to remember how each character plays and thus what to expect when fighting them. This is fine during single player, when one is changing characters every few minutes. When trying to master a character in competitive play however it becomes frustrating having to keep track of such a large amount of information. It also requires a much greater time investment to test all the characters, which will put off company who are down with Smash Bros but don’t have the game themselves.

"I literally only own Waverace and one controller"

This leads to me the conclusion that Melee has the best multiplayer. It is well-balanced between all characters and stages, with items never being too sporadic or over-powered. Moreover, for new players it is easy to recommend characters to start out with (Link as an all rounder, Samus as sniper, Jigglypuff for someone who wants to focus on surviving) whilst giving experienced players a huge number of options. Seriously, of the dozen or so serious Smash Bros players I know there is practically no overlap of character usage in Melee, which is a testament to how well-balanced and interesting the multiplayer is.

Gameplay

This may well be the most important to factor in, and probably the most intangible and difficult to describe. Obviously the core gameplay is the same between all 3 games; what I want to work out is which game gets closest to the perfect blend of platforming, fighting, and that unique Smash Bros element.

This element is composed of at least 14% "ohshitaPokeballgettingitisthemostimportantthingever"

I have already discussed balancing between characters, which I feel falls in favour of Melee. In more technical terms, Brawl has been widely criticised for some of its more random elements, such as tripping, and I feel this criticism is generally justified. Whilst not a bad game but any stretch, the core gameplay can often feel too unpredictable, and has massive variance depending on the character chosen. I also felt this when first playing Wii u, but soon discovered this variance is deliberate to give the single player experience more variety and fairness, and that when I played the multiplayer I found a very solidly built engine which strips back a lot of the crazier factors in Brawl for a very solid and fair system, much in the style of Melee.

That being said, Wii U is very close to Melee, but it does not beat it. Melee has the perfect pace, being relentlessly quick whilst also giving perfect control to everyone; if you die, it is your fault. It also allows for almost limitless depth (feel free to Google wave-dashing and other pro techniques for detailed examples), and although there have been criticisms of it not being welcoming to new players, a few runs through Adventure mode will set a novice on the right path.

Summary

So, with 3 points to Melee, 2 to Wii U and 1 to Brawl, with a clear winner. I have put close to a thousand hours into Melee and will likely do so twice over in the years to come. They are excellent games, but Melee, in my opinion, comes out as the cream of the crop.

In summary? Shut up Metacritic. Just shut up.

Joss Whedon’s “Dollhouse” Should Have Been a Video Game

The notion of adapting works into different media has always been prevalent in popular culture, although this is often a cynical attempt to make money from brand recognition more than anything else. I recently watched a few episodes of the Joss Whedon TV thing, or “program”, if you will, “Dollhouse”, and it inspired me to write an article.

For those of you who don’t know, the “program” is about a company that effectively deals in slaves, or “dolls”, in modern America. The dolls, however, have willingly signed up to have their minds wiped, and then have new personalities inserted to suit the needs of the customers. This can range from fulfilling sexual desires or emotional needs to making them into temporary assassins or spies, depending on the client. After they have done the job, they have their mind wiped and reset back to their default mode. After a few years of servitude they are given their old personality back and sent back out into society. If I explained that badly, feel free to do a quick Wikipedia check.*

Joss Whedon, showing off his new banister.

 Whilst I think the “program” is okay, I couldn’t help thinking it was a missed opportunity. The creators clearly put a lot of time into devising a unique and interesting premise, and then building a world in which this premise can be explored in different ways. I couldn’t help feeling, however, that this premise would have been far better suited to a video game.

There are two good reasons for thinking this. Firstly, the idea of interchangeable personalities within the same character is a brilliant gameplay concept. Not only does it give a narrative explanation for why one person can do so many diverse things (unlike, say “Grand Theft Auto” or “Fallout”, where we just accept that a talented murderer is also brilliant at flying planes or fixing satellite dishes), but it also gives excellent progression and limitations on a character. It can also be used to explain why you lose useful abilities between levels, as your character has been reset and can no longer hack computers or speak French. Compare this to the “Metroid” games, which have to come up with increasingly convoluted ways of explaining why Samus has none of her equipment at the start of each game.

Such as the incident at the start of "Other M", where Samus loses her character traits, empowerment and likability.

The second reason I think the “doll” idea would work so well is the narrative potential. Throughout the course of “Dollhouse” we learn more about the previous life of Echo, the central protagonist and one of the dolls. Whilst I think “Dollhouse” does a decent job of exploring her past and her motivations, I think this could have worked far better in the form of a video game. A confused perspective works to a degree in a television “program”, but when we experience that character’s confusion in an interactive way it becomes far more engaging. There is an episode of “Dollhouse” where Echo has memories of breaking into a laboratory, and these break through her memory loss, helping her artificial personality do it’s job. This is fine to watch, but I feel it would have worked a lot better if we were playing as Echo, and had the choice between relying on her amazing but artificial skills or her personality, something that is a central and seemingly invincible part of her. This tension seems so much more exciting in a video game format.

I think it’s such a shame that there is a perceived cultural hierarchy, that seems to suggest that film and television are always the best formats. It is a simple fact that some ideas suit some media formats better than others. Should fans be constantly pushing for a “Halo” film? Would “Citizen Kane” work as a television series? Could “Watchmen” work the same way as a film?

I'm pretty sure Alan Moore loves it when his deconstruction of an entire medium is reduced to "ooh, look at her bum".

 Well, at least for the last one we know the answer. And it’s no.

*A fun game to play with Wikipedia with a friend or friends is to hit “random article”, read out the title (and nothing else) and then you all have to draw your interpretation of that title in 5 minutes. Jak and I have spent many an evening playing this, and I now have a whole stack of drawings that look like the holy book of the shittest cult ever.

Winterton's Fridays: Gaming on the Go- Balloon Popping in Serbia

I am currently in Belgrade. I’m not saying this to brag, only to demonstrate that I am in fact no longer in my country of residence (i.e. Britain), and as such have no access to my usual video game library. Hence, I can’t be writing another bunch of “Mass Effect” articles, save for doing it from memory.

I was, however, very happy to discover that a sequel to one of my favourite games has been released in the last few months, and therefore know that during my time away if I find myself with a hour or so of nothing to do I can sit down with a cocktail and “Bloons Tower Defence 5”.

The “Bloons Tower” (or “Blower”) series is the first tower defence series I encountered, when I became slightly addicted to the third instalment. I then played number four a great deal, and when I found that number five was out I couldn’t contain my joy. By which I mean I smiled slightly.

Slighty less than this.

Why do I love this series so much? Well, I’d be the first to admit that I am sucker for tower defence games in general.  I’ve played “Plants vs Zombies” to death (if there is a pun there, it’s intended), and cannot recommend highly enough “Desktop Tower Defence”. One thing all three of these games do incredibly well, arguably better than any other games I’ve played, is difficulty curve.

“Bloons” expertly introduces you with one tower and one concept, and then incrementally adds new elements. Not only do these elements do lots of different things individually, but also combine to allow for innumerable strategies. Moreover, as a game series it has excellent support and regular updates, in the form of new levels and upgrades, meaning that you are rewarded for repeatedly coming back to it.

It also carries a simplistic charm that makes a pleasant change from the high-concept art styles of a lot of games I play. “Bloons” is simple yet colourful, with each type of bloon and tower being a perfect demonstration of economic design.

This genuinely has more strategic depth than "Final Fantasy XIII"

My only real complaint is that as the series progresses the necessity of some of towers comes into question, and I find myself only using some of them simply because I feel I should. This most recent iteration seems to have made the “Monkey Ace” totally redundant, and I’m not convinced that the “Spike Factory” was ever a good investment.

Still, if you are ever left with only the internet to entertain you, you could do much worse than this addictive game, though it can cause you to miss out on sightseeing due to prolonged gaming sessions in hotel rooms. You have been warned.

Winterton’s Fridays: Endings Part 2- The Importance of Themes

Last week I looked at the importance of narrative and character in the endings of video games. This week I’m going to look at how the presence of themes, and see how they can be put to good use. Again, there are obviously going to be spoilers here, specifically about “Red Dead Redemption” and “Mass Effect 3”. Just so you know.

So the theme of “Red Dead Redemption” is, ostensibly, redemption. We are told this in the title, and Marston himself keeps talking about how he hates what he is being made to do. Now, forgive me for missing something, but when exactly does John Marston get redeemed for his violent crime sprees? Is it…erm…when he is committing more violent crime sprees? Yeah, not sure how killing lots of people is penance for killing a few people in the past.

Hog-tying is, at best, morally ambiguous.

And yes, I know he’s doing it so he can see his family, but surely that sort of undermines the gesture? Numerous characters point out that he is killing hundreds of people just for selfish reasons. I mean, his family aren’t exactly in danger, they’re just away from him (and, as we see at the end, John often brings danger with him). Moreover, it’s hardly redemption if you are being forced to do it. Charles Manson didn’t suddenly become a better person when he was arrested, he just wasn’t around to commit crimes anymore.

Now let’s clarify something; the people John kills don’t necessarily deserve to be killed. Even if we accept that being shot dead by a cowboy is something someone can deserve (I have mixed feelings), it feels strangely at odds. Moreover, since “Red Dead” is a sandbox game, it implicitly encourages exploration, looking for side-quests and whatnot. Which leads to Marston actively seeking out trouble. In fact, the game ends with possibly the most clear indication that John has failed, as we see his son Jack gunning down a former FBI agent. Then, with no apparent irony, the title card flashes up, as if redemption has finally been achieved.

You can't just put a red filter on things so your title has a rhyme in.

The only hint we get at John’s internal dilemma is a recurring sidequest with a mysterious stranger who hints at John’s dark past, who it later turns out is a hallucination John is having. This was undoubtedly my favourite part of the game, and yet was never alluded to at the end, nor given much time.

Compare this to “Mass Effect 3”. Now I’m sure we’re all aware of the controversy and generally negative fan reaction to this ending. In simple terms, Sheppard finally gets to a point where s/he can kill the Reapers and save the universe. S/he is then presented with a choice: destroy them, but also all other synthetic species (such as the Geth who, in my playthrough at least, were a staunch ally), control them, or fuse all organic life with all synthetic life. Seeing the final option as the most suiting of my “solve-all-problems” Sheppard, I picked it, and was treated to a beautiful, transcendental journey as Sheppard sacrificed himself for this change. I then see the human Joker and the AI robot EDI landing on a new planet together, both sporting evidence of their new merged genetics.

I can honestly say I think this is one of the best endings, not just in video games, but in any popular media. The theme of choice that runs right throughout the “Mass Effect” series is solidified in these final moments. Throughout the game, we see the toll Sheppard’s journey has taken on him or her, as Sheppard is continually haunted by the memory of an Earth boy s/he failed to save. Throughout all the moral complexity of “Mass Effect”, the ending underlines quite simply and elegantly the things that are important in life, and for once ends on an optimistic note, after the fatalism of the series up until that point.

Pictured: Pure awesome.

I know many people have complained that we do not see what became of the supporting cast and how things developed, but my answer to that is simple; if you do not know Garrus or Tali well enough after three games you never will.

I’m interested to know what people make of this, and hope to read some controversial comments and interpretations.