The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Zaradi's Prized Debate Tournament Quarterfinal - TN05 vs. Valkrin

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2015 Category: Games
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,770 times Debate No: 68227
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (41)
Votes (2)




This is one of the seven debates in the Quarterfinal Round of Zaradi's Prized Debate Tournament ( The debate is between myself (#5) and Valkrin (#11). I look forward to this debate, and I thank Valkrin in advance for accepting.

Resolution and BOP
The resolution for the debate is "Super Smash Bros for 3DS is better than Super Smash Bros Melee". The burden of proof in this debate is split - that means that both Pro and Con must present a positive case as to which is better, while also attempting to refute their opponent's case.

1. No forfeiture.
2. No plaragism.
3. All citations must be presented in the text of the debate.
4. No new arguments are allowed in the final round.
5. Voting uses the 7-point system, and a minimum of 2,500 ELO is required to vote.

R1: Acceptance
R2: Opening arguments
R3: Rebuttals
R4: Rebuttals/closing statements


I thank my opponent for this debate, and I hope we can both have a fun time!

As in the wise words of Shulk...;
Debate Round No. 1


Before I begin my debate, I will examine what makes a video game "good". I think my opponent would find the following criteria agreeable in terms of judging games:
*Art design and presentation
*Amount and quality of content
*Control and fairness
*Long-term value

The brunt of my case will focus on establishing the superiority of Super Smash Bros. for 3DS, according to these elements; this would be sufficient to fufill my burden of proof.

First, let's focus on art design. The 3DS is considered to be a more powerful game console than the Nintendo GameCube, the console that SSBM is on.[1] However, the maximum resolution of the 3DS is only 400x240 (with a screen size of either 3.53 or 4.88 inches),[2] while the GameCube can output 480p (640x480 pixels) on any standard televison screen (which are going to be much larger than a 3DS screen).[3] This isn't even including the bottom 3DS screen. When you consider these factors, the 3DS has better hardware but must split processing power between two screens and it has much less real estate to work with. How does the 3DS cope with these limitations, however? Excellently. Characters are clear and recognizable, even on the larger maps, and it runs constantly at 60 frames per second (even in 3D!). Additionally, the characters look more realistic than in SSBM - they looks less like cartoons, and more like actual characters. At the very least, Super Smash Bros. for 3DS is equal to SSBM in the art design department.

Second, I want to talk about the soundtrack. In terms of sheer song count, Super Smash Bros. for 3DS includes far more songs than SSBM - over 100 songs, in fact, not including special effect songs.[4] In contrast, SSBM only includes 80 songs - and that's including all the special effects.[5] Sheer quantity does not always mean that something is better, but in this case it means there is a greater variety of songs that can be played on stages. This means that the same song isn't playing repeatedly, which is undoubtably a good thing.

Third, let's focus on control and fairness. To be completely fair, this is something one would think SSBM would have an edge in, because it uses the GameCube controller. This is a completely fair point to make, but I think it misses the bigger picture - how does the game actually control? SSBM has been cited as being "too hard" by the game's creator, Masahiro Sakuri.[6] Super Smash Bros for 3DS is slower than Melee and limits some of the glitchy exploits that SSBM was known for.[7] In that regard, Super Smash Bros. for 3DS is undoubtably better.

Fourth, we must look at the amount and quality of content. Both SSBM and Super Smash Bros. for 3DS have an extensive amount of content, including colletables, game modes, and more. However, Super Smash Bros. for 3DS undoubtably has more content - SSBM have 290 trophies,[8] while Super Smash Bros. for 3DS has 685.[9] Super Smash Bros. for 3DS has all of the game modes from Melee (with the exception of Adventure Mode and Target Test) and introduces new modes like the incredibly addictive Smash Run and Target Blast. It also eliminates some of the more obvious game elements, like edgehogging and planking, increasing the quality of matches.[10] There are 52 characters, exactly twice as many as Melee's paltry 26, and 39 stages as compared to Melee's 29. Additionally, Super Smash Bros. for 3Ds features and extensive online mulitplayer mode as well as a StreetPass mode, StreetSmash. Clearly Super Smash Bros. for 3DS has vastly more content than Super Smash Bros. Melee.

Finally, let's discuss long-term value. Super Smash Bros. for 3DS clearly has more long-term value with regards to characters, unlockables, and trophies, but that's not even the start of it. Super Smash Bros. for 3DS features support for Mii characters, which present an infinite possibility of possible Mii characters. Moreover, Super Smash Bros. for 3DS features Custom Moves (8 for each character, or 376 total),[11] changing the metagame entirely. There are 76 custom outfit pieces that can be unlocked for Miis,[12] as well as thousands of equipment pieces (that can be used to alter the stats of characters or Amiibos).[13] Melee, in contrast, only includes unlockable characters, stages, and trophies. Beyond the unlockable aspects, the support of online multiplayer in Super Smash Bros. for 3DS makes there be vastly longer appeal - rather than having to have friends over to play, you can have competitive matches will millions of people online. Additionally, all game modes in Super Smash Bros. for 3DS feature in-game leaderboards called "Global Smash Power". Rather than just playing for a high score, you can now play to be the very best online. Super Smash Bros. for 3DS clearly has more long-term appeal.

In short, Super Smash Bros. for 3DS is clearly superior to Super Smash Bros. Melee. It has a superior art design, a better soundtrack, better parity, far more features and unlockables, and immensely more long-term options. Because of all these combined, it is undoubtably a better game. Because I have upheld my resolution, I urge a vote for PRO.



I thank opponent for his response.

I will provide some reasons why I believe SSBM is better than SSB4 for the 3DS.

Overall it boils down to these points:
1. Controller
2. Graphical Power
3. Competitive Scene
4. Critic Reviews
5. Gameplay
6. Overall Lifespan

I. Controls/Controller

I see Pro's point regarding the controls of the game, especially the quote from Daddy Sakurai himself. However, I believe that opponent quoting Sakurai saying the game is "too hard" is merely used as a scapegoat, rather than an actual reason to oppose the controller/controls of the game. The controller puts Melee in a huge lead over SSB4. If a game is harder than another, it won't ease you into its gameplay. It'll give you the challenge and tell you to overcome it. Many players then want to train harder to become better and better at the game. Once they do, they'll get a greater reward than mastering the SSB4 game, as the game is appently considered easier. This is why many pros in Melee refused to play Brawl, as they simplified the game for a more "casual" audience, or those who don't want to delve deep into the game. While I don't deny SSB4 is a complex game as well, especially with characters such as Shulk and Robin, SSBM, I feel, is more complex, as it implements more strategy (most notably in wavedashing and l-cancelling) and faster gameplay, punishing others more for their mistakes. While SSB4 is indeed a faster game than Brawl, it's still seemingly sluggish in comparison to Melee, and somewhat slower in comparison to Project M, which I shall cover later.

As well, take the GameCube controller in comparison to the 3DS. The 3DS is relatively the same size of the GameCube controller, as shown below (these are mine, so no citation is needed):

And here's the reverse side:

As you can see, the overall controller style of the GameCube is superior to that of the 3DS, providing a larger space for the buttons (and having them stand out), the additional C-stick and z buttons (which the 3DS does not provide), as well as a grip to help players keep better control of their hands. While the 3DS does have a grip similar to the GameCube's available for it [1], a majority of the players do not buy it. Even so, it must be accounted for that no matter how good a game truly is, if the controls are set in a specific way, rendering you unable to play the game to the best of your ability, then why play on the worse controls?

As well, there have been various reports of the circle pad breaking due to the rapid movements that SSB4 requires. [2] If the controller has the potential to break, and isn't optimized to the player, it doesn't matter how good the game is, as I've said before, if the player isn't able to use it to the best of their ability.

II. Graphics/Power

I feel the best way to analyze the graphics of the games are to look at them in their places in history.
Graphics in SSBM were greatly ahead of its time. In fact, The GameCube was ahead of the PS2 in terms of raw power, and somewhat behind to the Xbox. The GameCube, made in 2001, had a 162 MHz graphics processor, in comparison to the PS2's 147 MHz [3]. The Xbox had 233 MHz. [3] Overall, the GameCube was still a powerful system, and not the weakling of the bunch. While it has become the weaker of the three systems over time, the GameCube, in its current state, was more powerful than the PS2 and somewhat close to the Xbox in terms of graphical capability. With this in mind, SSB4 for the 3DS is extremely behind in comparison to the other consoles: Wii U, Xbox One, and PS4, most notably.

The fact that a system made in 2001 is even comparable to a system made in 2011 raises some serious questions, even seeing as the 3DS has had many more versions of itself, and still displays a lower resolution than the GameCube! Even though the textures may be cartoony compared to the ones we have now, they still were highly ahead of its time, and one critic even said that "the character models are pleasantly full-bodied, and the quality of their textures is amazing". [8] Overall, if Melee is able to put up a fight against a game that was made nearly 13 years after it in terms of graphical resolution, it shows that Melee is far superior, having graphics far ahead of its time.

III. Competitive Scene

In this department, SSBM obviously wins.
Many tournaments were help for SSBM at the start of its release, and many more are still being held today! In fact, if you take a look at the Smashboards, many are still hosting tournaments for SSBM, which highly renowned players still play, such as Armada, Mew2King, and Mang0. [4] In fact, a channel and streamer called VGBootcamp regularly uploads and streams videos of SSBM, Project M, and SSB4 for the Wii U. [5] [6] However, the 3DS version sees little to no light in the competitive scene. To compensate for this, it has its online feature, which is what is mainly used for the competitive players, as opposed to showing up in person and competing for cash prizes. SSBM is able to be run on both GameCube and the Wii, and you can even play Melee online with others using a Dolphin emulator and a PC, which is far ahead of the 3DS. [7] While it may not contain online natively, nor the ranking feature, the fact that there were many tournaments around the world for it, and still are today, that contain multitudes of players and cash prizes, makes up for it.

IV. Critical Success

According to the overall ratings of SSBM and SSB4 for the 3DS, there are some differences amongst ratings. The 3DS version was generally rated lower than Melee.
For the following I'll put Critic: (Rating for Melee, rating for SSB4)

Aggregate Reviews

GameRankings (90.52, 85.88)
MetaCritic (92, 85)

Review scores

IGN (9.6/10, 8.8/10)
Eurogamer (10/10, 7/10)
GameSpot (8.9/10, 8/10)
Famitsu (37/40: Melee)
Edge (6/10: Melee)
Official Nintendo Magazine (95%: Melee)
GamesRadar (3.5/5: SSB4)
GameTrailes (7.4/10: SSB4)
Polygon (9/10: SSB4)

(all taken from [8], [9])

I'm not trying to cover up the bad reviews, as I even included a 6/10 review from Edge, which heavily criticizes Melee. The point here is that many different gamers and critics alike have different perceptions, but many of the same reviewers for both games heavily favored Melee as opposed to the 3DS version of SSB4.

In regards to soundtrack, the amount of songs do not matter, rather, the quality of them does. Many critics and reviewers have praised the soundtrack, stating that it is "one of the best sounding games ever" and that "it all sounds brilliant". When opponent mentions "sounds included" I am assuming he refers to the sounds of the game, such as hit sounds. However, when looked at, there were overall 80 sound tracks for stages, that included alternate tracks that had a chance to randomly play on a stage, or play upon request. [10] The amount of actual sounds in the game far exceeds that.

V. Gameplay

The gameplay style of Melee is just what the title says: melee. Overall it favors Melee combat, and due to the fast-paced nature of the game simply camping isn't a good choice. Much of the games features rely on fast characters, who have the potential to hit hard, fast, and typically don't have good ranged options. This is why characters such as Fox, Falco, Captain Falcon, and Sheik are picked so much. With the faster-paced nature of Melee, campy characters don't really have an edge. As well, all of these characters require great practice and skill to use properly, especially with essential skills such as wavedashing, l-cancelling, etc., and landing aerials and specials. A common mechanic for Fox players is the shine spike, which uses his reflect ability multiple times in quick succession, then using it when the opponent is off the stage to spike them out of the area. This requires great skill and precision, and with the naturally slower gameplay of SSB4, this doesn't occur as often. While characters such as Fox and Falco aren't as powerful as their Melee counterparts due to the slower gameplay, they still have lots of show in competitive SSB4 Wii U matches.

VI. Overall Lifespan

Melee has been around in competitive Smash over 13 years. With its constant prized tournaments and active fanbase, even an entire community driven mod to replace Brawl into a more Melee-esque game, Melee has shown to be the superior. While the entire lifespan of SSB4 for the 3DS has yet to really be figured out, as the game has only been out for a few months, many players still have fun and enjoy Melee, enough to even have tournaments which can reach over 30 THOUSAND viewers on Twitch. In fact, this happened just yesterday, with VGBootcamp's tourney. The Wii U and 3DS versions don't receive nearly as much, in fact the 3DS doesn't receive any at all. With this in mind, let's keep in mind Melee has been around for over 13 years, and is still enjoyed and adored by the community today.

In Conclusion...
I thank opponent for his arguments, and I believe I have shown reasons why Melee could be considered the better game, which are all valid points.

I await opponent's refutations. Thanks :)

Debate Round No. 2


I'd like to thank my opponent for his excellent response. As this is the rebuttal round, I will primarily be refuting comments that my opponent has made; I will also be raising some issues I did not have time to discuss in round 1.

To begin, my opponent asserts that Super Smash Bros for Melee is better, saying "If a game is harder than another, it won't ease you into its gameplay. It'll give you the challenge and tell you to overcome it. Many players then want to train harder to become better and better at the game". This argument falters as it assumes that games that are harder are, on balance, better than games that are easier. In this case, it simply isn't true - Melee, as my opponent notes, is an extremely complex game. For most people, this means the game is much too hard. Going from too hard to reasonably hard is not a downside, it is actually a benefit. Some of the strategies my opponent notes (like wavedashing) weren't really intentional, but were only there because the game engine was very, very slippery - they were removed in later games.[1] To tout these as 'benefits' really overplays their importance to the designers and non-tournament players. Super Smash Bros. for 3DS may be less difficult than Melee, but that's a good thing.

My opponent also notes the controller difference - that the GameCube controller is better than the 3DS controller. I don't actually contest this point - however, the New Nintendo 3DS that is being released in February has a c-stick and two Z buttons (as opposed to the one Z button on the GameCube controller), and I personally think the 3DS works just fine as a controller as-is once you get used to it. My opponent also notes that some 3DS users have found their circle pads broke while playing it. This concern is overblown - I've played over 100 hours of Smash 3DS and circle pad has no damage. These cases can likely be attributed to poor treatment of the circle pad than a basic defect of the 3DS.

Next, my opponent decides to take on graphics. He asserts that the graphics of SSBM are superior because they were ahead of the times. To his argument, he notes (correctly) that the GameCube was a very powerful system in its day, second only to Xbox. In comparison he notes the 3DS is weaker graphically than current home consoles. This is a silly argument - handheld consoles are always weaker than home consoles, at least one or two generations behind. The Game Boy (1990) was far weaker than the SNES (released the same year) and was black and white; the DS (2004) was roughly on par with the N64 (1996). Even the most powerful handheld, the PS Vita, is less powerful than a PS3. This is why I focused on art design - not graphical power. This is not a debate on whether the 3DS or GameCube is more powerful, is it on which Smash is better.

My opponent notes the strength of the Melee competitive community; there are many tournaments going on, the game is (remarkably) still evolving, and it remains the focal point of the competitive community. I don't contest that this is the case, and will likely stay the same for the forseeable future. Still, I think the competitive scene for 3DS will develop and will grow to occupy it's own niche. One reason for this is the stages - the 3DS version generally has a focus on smaller stages, several of which are originally from Melee. Some stages, like Jungle Japes, Paper Mario, Yoshi's Island, Tortimer Island, and Gaur Plain, are very well suited for competitive smash. Moreover, the customization of character movesets is something that I think will grow in the competitive community - Nintendo held an official National Tournament back in October 2014 for Super Smash Bros. for 3DS, and it was open to customizations.[2] These include the custom special moves as well as special bonus equipment moves I mentioned in the first round. These upgrades can really allow for interesting tournaments and unique matchups for any character, and allow players to really show their personality and create a fighter that works for them, and is something Melee cannot provide. One thing I also want to touch on is my opponent's mention of online Melee - while it is indeed possible, it isn't exactly legal because it uses emulation, and it also requires a reasonably powerful computer. Whereas you can go out and buy a 2DS and Smash for $120, you might have to pay $500-1000 just to get the compter needed to play Melee online, and even then it's a very limited community. In comparison, there are over 3 million people who own Super Smash Bros. for 3DS.[3]

My opponent's remarks on critical approval are a rather clear appeal to authority, a logical fallacy; just because a game has a higher score on Metacritic or GameRankings does not mean it is better, especially when it is 13 years difference between the two, and over time some games are regarded as better or worse than their initial reviews were. In particular, there are a number of factors that cannot be accounted for, including different publications reviewing, different reviewers, changes in grading scales, etc. For example, Smash Bros for 3DS has roughly twice as many reviews on Metacritic as Melee. Also, who is to say modern reviews wouldn't be lower? In terms of soundtrack, my opponent makes a fair point in terms of quality, not quantity, mattering. However, I hold to the claim 3DS has a better soundtrack.

In regards to gameplay, my opponent is absolutely correct in saying Melee is faster. It is very, very fast - too fast. Almost nauseatingly fast. Take a look at this top-tier tournament match.[4] Sure, it takes a lot of skill - but can anyone really comprehend what's going on there? Moreover, as my opponent notes, the best characters in the game - Fox, Falco, Shiek, and Captain Falcon - are miles better than other characters. Not only are these characters the only really good ones, but all good players fall into their archetype - fast. Slower, more powerful fighters are, ironically, nearly useless. This unbalanced character lineup is not ideal for a fighting game, and is resolved in Super Smash Bros. for 3DS. GamesRadar notes that "At the moment, no character in Smash 4 is in a class above the rest... Seemingly any character from the A to C tiers could potentially take the winning spot in a tournament".[5] This is a great thing, not just for tournament players, but for casuals as well. Who wants to watch a tournament where 95% of matches are Fox only? Now you have to worry about more powerful characters like Bowser or Rosalina and Luma, as well as more quirky characters like Duck Hunt Dog.[5] A more balanced character roster means more excitement as players need to plan for maybe 10 or 15 characters, not just 3 or 4.

Finally, my opponent attempts to argue that Super Smash Bros. Melee has a better lifespan, because there is a larger tournament scene. While I don't disagree here, as I said above, competitive smash is admittedly a niche market. For the average Smash player, they will undoubtedly find a more expansive and content-rich experience on the 3DS, especially if they utilize the online play and StreetPass functionality. The amount of trophies, equipment drops, custom moves, and smash run powers is so expansive I haven't fully unlocked everything, even after owning the game since launch. The online play and leaderboards alone are enough to push 3DS over the edge - being able to see how many players you are better than in any given category (for myself, I'm better than 2,733,828 players in Smash Run as a whole) is immensely rewarding. In most games, it's been a chore to go for high scores in Classic mode - in Super Smash Bros. for 3DS, the leaderboard gives you an incentive to not just complete classic mode with all characters, but to boost your status on the leaderboard. It's a rich, immensely satisfying experience with no parallel in Melee.

With rebuttals out of the way, I want to briefly go over something both me and my opponent have touched on: unique characters. In Melee, most characters fall within one of three archetypes - fast players like Fox and Sheik (who are on balance the best in the game), balanced characters like Mario and Samus (who are roughly average), and power characters like Bowser and Ganondorf (who suck). There is very little variation here - in fact many characters are outright clones. The most unique character may well be Pichu, a clone of Pikachu whose gimmicks are that his attacks are worse than Pikachu and every attack he makes damage himself. That sucks. In Super Smash Bros. for 3DS, however, there are many unique characters, like:
*Little Mac, a powerhouse who is weak in the air but strong on the ground. While fighting there is a meter which when full, allows him to attempt a one-hit KO.
*Robin, a fighter who wields a powerful spellbook. (S)he only has a certain amount of magic, however, and can thus only use attacks a certain number of times before having to wait for them to recharge.
*Shulk, a powerhouse whose neutral B attack, Montado Arts, can temporarily boost stats of his like power, shield, and jump at the expense of another stat.
*Mega Man, a fighter who almost exclusively relies on projectiles and has a powerful side-A blaster.
*Duck Hunt, fighter who relies on speed and close-range projectile attacks.
*Rosalina and Luma, who are like a puppet-master and puppet; Rosalina controls Luma, who can be sent to fight at distance.
*Bowser Jr., who employs a zany mix of projectile attacks from his Koopa car.

These sort of fighters just don't exist in Melee.

With that, I turn the debate back over to my opponent. I highly look forward to his rebuttal round.


I thank opponent for his responses. It is now my turn to refute opponent's statements.

I may respond to these arguments out-of order, as I am responding according to which arguments I wish to address. If they are, I apologize.

Preface - Singleplayer

First, I concede that the singleplayer in SSB4 has by far more unlockables than the ones in SSBM, but overall, it won't matter too much. Many veterans in the game can kill level 9's easily in both games, especially pro players who play in tournaments. However, the main goal of Smash is to have fun in the multiplayer it offers, whether it be with friends or other online (in the case of SSB4). Overall, multiplayer simply offers more experience and a new adventure each time, as opposed to the repetitive classic/adventure play. This applies to both games, I feel.

I. "Hard" contentions
The first contention about a game being "hard" is something I believe probably needs to be covered more than the rest, as even the difficulty level can help determine the entire outcome of your playing experience. Allow me to elaborate.
As opponent mentions, simply because a game is "hard" it doesn't make it better. However, hard games provide a greater challenge to the easier games.

Let me make an example. Suppose a five year old is playing piano. He is happy upon playing the first few lines of "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star". He grows older, and more proficient in his skill. Soon, simply playing "Twinkle Twinkle little star" won't satisfy him. As he grows more proficient, he wants harder challenges that truly test this skill. This is applicable to the SSB series. The more proficient someone becomes, the more challenge he requires; he craves, even. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying SSB4 isn't hard, but it's not as hard as the challenge compared to Melee, where in competitive players need fast fingers, good reaction times, and awareness of the ins and outs of the game, to a much greater extent than SSB4, which is naturally slower-paced. Even though opponent claims "it could be a good thing" overall slower gameplay allows for more time for the opponent to react to a move you made. With less time and less forgiveness, arguably the faster game will be more rewarding than the slower one. And while many casual players still seem to prefer slowness, Melee offers both fast and slow characters, as opponent points out. In exchange for speed, slower characters deal lots more damage than the faster ones, and overall it's a matter of playstyle.

I believe Melee is simultaneously easier and harder than SSB4. If you feel confused, let me explain. Overall, the characters are a lot simpler than the alternatives in SSB4. They're easier to understand and don't have zany mechanics like LM's KO punch meter and Robin's magic management. They're easier for a newcomer to pick up. However, with the naturally faster gameplay, this requires the player to be more attentive and faster with reactions and moves than SSB4. As well of the introductions of mechanics such as L-cancelling and wavedashing, while slip-ups in the engine, add to the depth and complexity the game offers as opposed to SSB4.

II. Controller
Overall, I bring this point up as a topic of concern. While opponent claims that it has not happenend to him (which I believe), I feel that there is a greater possiblity of the circle pad breaking than a part of the GameCube controller breaking, as the GC controller was more designed to have rapid movements, while the 3DS wasn't. With enough mashing of the controller, it has the potential to break, and render the person's controller useless. While it seems unlikely for it to happen (as opponent says he has logged over 100 hours to no circle pad problem), the possibility is still there for such a problem to arise, and if it does, then the controller is useless. Even though the new 3DS (releasing in February, as opponent pointed out) has a C-stick and two Z-sticks. However, even though something like this is coming out, it seems pointless to mention, as the debate is taking place in late January, and the new 3DS has not yet been released, unable to impact the ones playing it as of now. While it is something to consider in the future, at our current point in time it isn't benefiting anyone, and still lacks a grip and buttons that stand out, optimized for the user.

III. Characters
I feel opponent brings up a fair point with this topic. Many of the faster characters have a large edge over the slower ones, and they tend to do better. However, many of the faster characters require faster fingers and more inputs, as opposed to slower ones who require a lot still, but noticeably less. However, when opponent mentions this: "At the moment, no character in Smash 4 is in a class above the rest... Seemingly any character from the A to C tiers could potentially take the winning spot in a tournament", I have to show him the video. The video displays many characters in Melee with their amazing plays. You'll notice that there are many "low-tier" characters on the video, or ones opponent has not mentioned, including Marth, Jigglypuff (these two are somewhat slow yet still play extremely well), Yoshi, Young Link, Peach, Ganondorf, and Pikachu. Not all matches are "95% Fox only" as opponent seems to believe. Players can still play seemingly low tier characters very well. For instance, aMSa plays a great Yoshi, ESAM Samus, Armada Peach, and the list goes on. This goes to prove my point that while the character matters, it doesn't nearly matter as much as what the player can do with the character.

This is mostly why I believe Melee is superior to SSB4. SSB4 does provide great characters, but overall it comes down to what players have the potential to do with characters. While Shulk has a lot of options with the Monado Arts, and Rosalina manipulation of Luma, these rely on other factors, and rely on the characters to win the game for the player (*cough cough* Diddy Kong *cough*). But with Melee, what wins mostly is pure skill. It's been shown again and again the "rejects" of Melee, it seems, get picked up by players and they master them to such a degree they destroy the seemingly "top tier" picks. As well, many of the characters opponent mentioned seem highly projectile-reliant, and this only promotes the sad act of camping, or simply spamming projectiles so your opponent can't come near you. This is a sad strategy, that seems to be endorsed by characters such as Duck Hunt and Megaman. Take this as opposed to Melee, who the only projectile-heavy characters I can think of would be Link (or Young Link) and Samus. While the rest probably contain at least one projectile it's not enough to be considered camp-heavy, while SSB4 has Samus, ZSS, Link, Toon Link, Duck Hunt, Megaman, etc. To wrap this point up, the characters in Melee promote more skill, while the characters in SSB4 promote almost melee or ranged combat exclusively, forcing the player to conform to that strategy.

IV. Art Stlye
While I tried to raise the point of the power of the system in the last argument, opponent returns to the idea of "Art Style". Combining this with soundtrack, I feel that both art style and soundtrack tastes are totally up to the player itself. While the rest of the debate is focused on mechanics and characters, the art aspect of it it seemingly pointless, as each person has a unique and individualized taste on which music they prefer and which arty style they prefer. Some prefer the cartoony style of Melee, while others seek a somewhat more realistic approach of SSB4. Overall, this is a matter of taste as opposed to a factual, reasonable debate of "which is better", and I feel both conflicting ideas need to be dropped on both sides.

V. Competitive Scene
Opponent, in this argument, states that while he agrees Melee has a better competitive, he believes the 3DS version will find its own "niche" and it could be greatly expanded upon in the future.

First of all, customized moves are, more often than not, banned in competitive tournaments. While it gives some players more opportunity to explore, most of the custom moves will be near useless in a competitve scene.
Secondly, while SSB4 does indeed have a competitive scene, it's nowhere near the extent of Melee, PM, and SSB4 Wii U version. More players practice and play on a console as opposed to a 3DS, and it feels a lot better playing on a huge screen rather than a small device (then again this is a matter of taste), and there are a lot of better features on the consoles that simply aren't present on the 3DS. While the 3DS will indeed occupy it's own area, as does every game, Melee, PM, and SSB4 Wii U will continue to shine against the 3DS' dim glow.

VI. Critic Reviews
I did not bring this point up to try a plea to authority, rather I bring it up to show a majority of critics believe it to be a better game. While this alone does not make it the better, I believe it helps my case, by showing that a majority prefer one over the other.

Overall, here is what my argument boils down to:
- Fastness, or the harder ability of a game, rewards more competitive players, with enough slow characters and easier character understanding to keep the game interesting for casual players.
- The competitive scene of Melee keeps the game alive, while almost no competitive matches of SSB4 3DS are livestreamed or recorded. Not to mention there are little to no live events of it.
- Melee promotes the player working hard as opposed to having a character that almost exclusively promotes one playstyle, limiting the player's decisions and actions.

As well, opponent concedes that many of the important elements that should be present in a fighting game (competitive scene, controller, etc.) are better in Melee than SSB4 3DS.

As I am running out of text I will refute more of your statements in the final round. I await opponent's refutation, and good luck in R4.
Debate Round No. 3


Before I begin my final round, I'd like to thank my opponent for an excellent debate. The hard work and passion he has put into his arguments has made for a great debate.

To begin, my opponent makes an immediate concession in that he agrees Super Smash Bros. for 3DS undoubtedly has a more expansive amount of unlockables. This is a major concession - he is, in essence, conceding that my arguments on long-term value and/or amount of content are accurate. My opponent attempts to counter by noting that experienced players may not find even the most difficult computer players to be fairly easy, and that the crux of Smash Bros. is multiplayer. To the first point, I would like to note the existence of amiibos, as I noted in round 1 - amiibos can be trained to level 50 and beyond, and have nearly won at least one tournament.[1] Amiibos will not be available for support on 3DS until February (when the New Nintendo 3DS launches),[2] but their upcoming release will significantly extend the difficulty of computers. In regards to the point of multiplayer, I return to my point earlier that Super Smash Bros. for 3DS has online multiplayer, while SSBM does not. This makes it much easier to enjoy Smash Bros. with others, be they strangers or friends.

In regards to difficulty, I think me and my opponent are arguing on different fronts here. My opponent is arguing that SSBM's greater difficulty makes it undoubtedly a bigger challenge, whereas I am arguing the difficulty is the result of designer error (given that many of the things that made SSBM challenging, like L-cancelling and wavedashing, were removed in all later installments) and that, through the more expansive content and online options, SSB4 has the better experience. I am arguing Melee's challenge creates a game where a few fast characters are miles ahead of all other characters in terms of quality, while SSB for 3DS offers both a less difficult and more parsed challenge. In other words, it is difficult, but not intentionally so and not in a way that rewards unique play. SSBM undoubtedly offers a more challenging tournament experience - but tournament play is a niche that 99% of Smash players will never bother even attempting. SSBM's difficulty, then, rewards a certain type of play (tournament play) at the expense of most other play. Confusingly, my opponent attempts to argue the added complexity of characters like Little Mac and Robin is a bad sort of difficult - one that alienates casuals. I disagree; it is far simpler to understand a one-hit KO and learn to execute it than to learn how to L-cancel. In my view, these more complex characters are aimed at the tournament players - those people who will spent dozens of hours learning the game inside and out. Melee may have glitches like wavedashing, but SSB4 offers actual intended content in the more complex characters.

In regards to the controller, my opponent and I will simply have to agree to disagree here. While I would argue all controllers have the potential to break when misused, I don't contest the point the GC controller is better. The question is 'how better' and 'is it detrimental', and I don't think there's been anything established either way there.

With characters, my opponent concedes Melee does inherently value faster characters over stronger ones; he does not concede my argument on most matches inherently favoring a select few characters, however. While my opponent does note some players have learned to master lower-tier characters and can play competently with them, this does not negate my point on initial value - while Young Link could possibly beat Fox (like the video shows), Young Link - along with almost every character in the game - is at an inherent disadvantage to Fox.[3] Players can do a lot, but they can only do so much. My opponent then argues that Melee is decided by pure skill, whereas SSB4 is decided by the character. This is a silly argument to make; as I demonstrated, SSB4 is a very balanced game, while SSBM is not. Character arguably makes more of an impact in Melee than SSB4. Now, a SSB4 player will have to learn how to counter more characters, but is that a bad thing? I don't think so. It's quite exciting, really. Also, my opponent attempts to argue that SSB4's wider use of projectiles leads to more camping; I respectfully disagree here. Melee is well known for the prevalence of camping, specifically planking, among certain characters like Fox.[4] Planking, where a character repeatedly drops off and then grabs onto a ledge, is impossible in SSB4 as ledge-grabbing only grants invincibility the first time a player does it.[4] Similarly, edge-hogging (where a character holds on to a ledge to prevent another from using it) is common in Melee, but is impossible in SSB4.[5] Contrary to what my opponent says, camping is more difficult in SSB4 than in Melee.

In the art style department, I think my opponent is correct in saying that art style and soundtrack are tastes that should be left to the player to decide. I accept my opponent's idea to drop these two arguments.

Next my opponent argues that the competitive scene for SSB4 is not just nascent, but virtually non-existent. Unfortunately this is the case right now, as SSB for Wii U has taken much of the attention away. However, I don't think it is unfair to count it out - as I noted, there are many unique stages that would be excellent for tournament play. My opponent notes that many tournaments ban custom moves. I do concede this is the case, but some do allow them, and I contend those that do will become the norm in the long run. Audiences and players alike love a fluid, growing metagame, and custom moves ensure that there is always a possible alternative. I do contest my opponent's claim that most custom moves are useless for tournaments, however - while I won't go into specifics (as that would take up too much room), it's a baseless claim. Why are most custom moves useless?

With regards to critic reviews, I think my opponent has kind of backed himself into a corner here - he says he's not appealing to authority by saying Melee got better reviews, but simply showing most critics liked it better. Take that as you will.

My opponent sums his own argument into three legs: Fastness, Competitive scene, and hard work. I think I've demonstrated the first one is a negative, both from the perspective of the game's creator to how the game is fast to it's own detriment by making fast characters so much better than strong ones. In the competitive scene, I think we can agree Melee has the edge, but tournaments are a very niche market that the vast, vast majority players won't ever deal with. And with hard work, I've demonstrated SSB4 has the edge in diversity of characters and parity of characters; whereas Melee favors speed almost exclusively, strong characters are capable competitors in SSB4. The difference between SSBM and SSB4 is that it is now more likely for players to try to learn a strong character than in Melee, where the drawbacks are many and the benefits are relatively few.

Before I conclude, I want to bring up some arguments and points my opponent has not responded to. The fact these arguments have gone to can be considered a concession to their merit:

*SSB4 has virtually all of Melee's game modes in addition to a number of brand-new modes.
*SSB4 includes Mii characters, with a potentially infinite amount of characters to create.
*SSB4 features a leaderboard, Global Smash Power, which makes it more fun to compete for high scores in single-player mode because you can increase your leaderboard score.

*Many fundamental elements of Melee's competitive scene, like L-cancelling and wavedashing, were not intentional inclusions and were removed in all future installments.
*Handheld game consoles are always weaker than home consoles.
*Playing SSBM online is of dubious legality, requires a powerful computer and the potential list of opponents are much, and there are much fewer than the millions of possible online opponents in SSB4.

To conclude - throughout this debate, I have focused on demonstrating Super Smash Bros. for 3DS is a better game than Super Smash Bros Melee. I've done so by demonstrating it has more game modes, more characters, more stages, more unlockables, and impressive new features (like custom moves and equipment), as well as online multiplayer; I've also demonstrated that it is a fairer game, removing many of Melee's glitches as well as removing bad elements like edgehogging and planking. My opponent, in contrast, has focused almost entirely on one area: tournament play, a niche market that most Smash Bros. players will never be involved in. If this were a debate on which game is better in the competitive scene, I think it's fairly clear Melee would win - however, this is not a debate on that topic. Rather, it is a debate on which game is better, period. By focusing so much on tournament play, my opponent has neglected so much of what makes a game good. He's dismissed the value of unlockables and single-player play in general, while noting the general appeal of SSB's multiplayer - however, this argument turns against him when one notes SSB4 has online player, while SSBM does not, meaning is much easier to enjoy the multiplayer of SSB4 (ie. the key part) than it is of Melee. In essence, my opponent's case simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny, while much of mine remains intact or not even touched. As I have upheld the resolution and fulfilled my burden of proof, while my opponent has not, a vote for PRO is warranted.

With that, I turn the debate back over to Con for his final round. I very much look forward to seeing it!



I thank opponent for his responses. I, as well, am glad to have had this opportunity with opponent, and it has been a pleasure debating him.

I'm gonna try pretty hard here cause I got nailed in the last round. Consider this a "last stand". :P


Opponent is true in the regard these are exploits of the physics engine, and not actual features meant to be implemented. However, they still play a key role in playing the game whether players seem to recognize it or not, as more than often if a player spams enough buttons they can pull off the right maneuver for at the very least a wavedash, at the very least an l-cancel. For those that understand the mechanic (not just casual players, but those who've looked up various Melee mechanics) it's very useful on characters such as Luigi, who often relies on his ground based attacks. The wavedash can be used for Luigi to have movement and still deal ground based attacks without walking or running, in fact the Melee Luigi somewhat relies on this. As well, l-cancelling allows for faster movements out of an aerial attack (most notably Link's down air). If used properly, characters that normally are bad because they have a lot of landing lag are now somewhat faster due to l-cancelling, and this makes characters like Link/YL a lot easier to maneuver and control if used properly. Even if they were not intentional, they are still a vital part of the game regardless, and should be taken into consideration, as this is an ability that can still be utilized by the players in gameplay.

Overall Gameplay/Camping

My opponent states that camping is harder is SSB4 than in Melee. Unfortunately, opponent is mistaken. There are characters that have extremely projectile-based kits, such as Duck Hunt, Link (and TL), and Megaman (Robin included if you're able to manage his spells properly), and projectiles are pretty much what they rely on. When someone picks up this character and you play against them, it's always frustrating, as they're simply zoning you back with projectiles and not actually meaning to attack you close up. When a character is specifically designed to be projectiles-only, that screams out "camping". While opponent denies that camping is prevalent in SSB4, and instead decides to use the "edgehogging" idea as his escape, keep in mind that Fox's projectiles deal very low damage and do not cause flinching, and Falco's projectiles take a lot longer to fire, are slower and easier to predict, and can easily be blocked. As well, this is the only projectile-based move of these two characters. Take this as opposed to MM and DH, who constantly spam projectiles based on their kit and rarely try to fight close up. Overall this is what I feel makes the SSB4 experience less interesting than Melee, as there are many characters with the ability to camp as opposed to Melee. As well, even though elements such as edgehogging and planking were removed from SSB4, Melee has rarely seen plays of edgehogging/camping. As well, even though you are only invincible the first time in SSB4, this doesn't destroy the existence of camping, rather, if an opponent tries to attack you it's almost as easy as Melee to get an easy aerial off on him and kill him, depending on the % and if it's a dair or not.

In regards to character, other characters have benefits that the seemingly "fast" characters don't. The main point is raw damage. Notice I didn't say "Damage output". Faster characters are able to deal less amounts of damage on a more consistent basis, while heavier characters can only deal one hit, yet deal lots of damage. As well, characters like Marth and YL have swords, which allows for a greater range than the faster characters, who almost exclusively use their fists. As well, most of the faster characters rely on aerials and regular attacks, while the more powerful ones tend to rely on their specials. This is why many prefer the faster characters, or characters with great regular attacks, and why these are used by pros. Because they are able to use their fingers faster than most, and properly manage their character, they can wield the faster ones with great precision. In the casual scene, the matches are relatively even, as most cannot move as fast as pros, and people in lower tiers tend to use specials more than regular attacks. So this is somewhat of an advantage for the more "casual" side of the community, which opponent says is a lot larger than the competitive community. Overall, some agree easier games are better, while some agree harder. An easier game would easily benefit a more casual player, but if a player truly wishes to get better at the game (which a lot do) they don't mind the harder edge, to improve. After all, how can you get better if you face an opponent easier than you? As well, opponent often mentions features available in the future, rather than the current point in time, which is what we are discussing.


SSB4 does have the option of online, while the only option for Melee online is the PC, which, opponent points out, is dubious in terms of legality and doesn't have a huge community. The first is part-true. It's illegal if you do not own a physical copy of the game, however, it is legal if you rip a copy of the game files from the disc itself instead of using a torrent. And secondly, while the online community isn't huge it's still present. And the 3DS with SSB4 had some extreme problems with online connectivity. Enough that even Sakurai himself commented on it in order to give advice to reduce lag. [1] In instances this will work with no problem, however, there have been enough complaints about lag for Sakurai himself to take notice and comment about it, which says something about the online right there.

Competitive Scene

Opponent constantly states how I use the words "competitive scene" too much, and the competitive scene for Smash, compared to the "casuals" who play the game. Overall this is true, there are far more people who play the game simply for fun rather than competitively. However, not only is the competitive scene I think the biggest asset to the game, but also the community. A community of a game can make or break it. For example, I find League of Legends to be a good game, however with its number of toxic players, trollers, etc. I find the game unenjoyable. The community of both of the games are relatively large and have great people within them. For example, some players in the SSBM community raised over $100,000 dollars in research for breast cancer. [2] As well, while not the grandest in scale, a user figured out that at least 40K people had claimed points for tourneys in Melee on SmashBoards. [3] While not grand in scale compared to the casual scene, that's still, undoubtedly, an extremely large amount of people that have claimed points in Melee tournaments (not to mention there are those who failed to claim points!). As well, with the creation of Project M, it has turned a dead (community-wise), badly designed and glitchy game (Brawl) into a true masterpiece, combining the good elements of both Melee and Brawl together. Despite what opponent says, by far there are less than the supposed "99% of Smash players". My point here is that no matter how good a game is, if there aren't people who play it it will die out. And the 3DS community of nearly any game is a lot smaller than the community of a console-game (3DS vs Wii U version is a good example). Even though there are more sold copies in the US of the 3DS version than the Wii U version, some seem to refer to the Wii U when talking about the game, because that's what the Smash series is known on: the consoles that support it. The Melee community is a lot more outspoken than the 3DS one, and seems to be greater in number as of now. As well, I never stated custom moves were useless, simply banned in most tourneys.


My opponent wraps his debate up by stating that there a number of various things the 3DS SSB4 has, that are far more than the amount of features in Melee. However, as opponent himself states in my response to the amount of soundtracks: Quality ≠ quantity, and by far quality is not worse than quantity. Typically a game with more features tends to have a better outcome, and that is what opponent is basing his arguments off of, such as more game modes, more characters, more stages, and more unlockables. However, in the features Melee does excel in, they are by far more important than the features SSB4 excels in, as shown below.

My final arguments are this:
• The controller is one of the cruxes of a game, as proper controlls and controller shape, size, etc. affect everything about how you play said game.
• Melee has by far a greater community and competitive scene that are a lot more outspoken than the 3DS one.
• Characters in casual Melee are more balanced than what meets the eye, and in the competitive scene to properly use a fast character it requires faster fingers than most and great aerial management as well as attack management. As well, many characters in SSB4 promote camping while the opposite is true is Melee. Thus, Melee requires a lot more work to play the faster characters effectively.
• While SSB4 has an online option, it can have great amounts of lag, even enough for Sakurai to take notice.
• At the end of the day, multiplayer > singleplayer in Smash, and SSB4 focuses on singleplayer while Melee focuses on multiplayer. This is evident in the competitive scene and large, supportive community.

While this was certainly tough, I believe we both put up great arguments for our respective sides. I thank opponent for his time and hope we can debate in the future. :)

And now, I leave the rest to the voters.

Debate Round No. 4
41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TN05 3 years ago
I'm online now.
Posted by TN05 3 years ago
Posted by Valkrin 3 years ago
Speaking of Smash, you able to get on the Wii version for a little bit? I can play for like 15-30 minutes
Posted by TN05 3 years ago
I've been lucky enough not to see Diddy Kongs online yet, really, and I almost always play For Glory. Hopefully they patch and fix him though - they did do that for other players.
Posted by Valkrin 3 years ago
Jiggles is really good once you learn to punish w/ Rest. That's something I've been trying to learn how to do, and I like that she's often underrated and people don't know how to punish fair, bair, or dair that well.
Marth is really good just because of range and constant fairs.
The thing I hate most about Sm4sh is Diddy Kong. He's super cheap and I hate when people play him in both competitive and For Glory; it's just a get out of jail free card.
Posted by TN05 3 years ago
Marth is pretty freaking good. I prefer Lucina, personally, but they are clones so it's just a matter of taste. Jigglypuff is really though to master but I think its specials are good enough to pack a punch. I'm leaning towards a custom Mario I've made (with adjusted special moves), Zero Suit Samus, and Bowser myself.

I really like SSB4; the mechanics are fantastic IMO. I like how it fits a middle ground between Melee and Brawl. Oddly enough I've played the 3DS one a lot more than the Wii U one... I love the classic mode on 3DS and the Wii U one is really, really bland. For multiplayer though the Wii U one is better. Smash Tour is a blast and I love the 8-player stuff.
Posted by Valkrin 3 years ago
I'm starting to lean towards Jigglypuff and Marth now. The reason I like them so much is because I played them all the time in Melee (and I still have an emulated Melee copy on my PC). Hands down a great game.
Posted by TN05 3 years ago
GG. I might have won the debate, but I'm pretty sure you're the better Smash player. :P
Posted by Valkrin 3 years ago
Thanks for the debate, GG. :)
Posted by Valkrin 3 years ago
Thanks for the RFD.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments