Originally posted by Pandaren

---

And comboing in Brawl isn't that hard. If you know the moves of the character and how long it takes till they impact... meh.

---

How good of people are you playing against? If they're decent with directional influence and airdodging, it's almost impossible to get anything over a two-hit combo. Especially if grabs aren't counted.

Originally posted by Xenesis

---

The more combo-friendly the game becomes, the more like a traditional fighter it becomes and all that, the less emphasis on what makes smash a unique game, etc. etc. Combo to 100% and smack out of the arena with a finisher isn't much different to combo to 100% and deplete their HP bar.

---

So you're saying Smash Bros. is unique because it doesn't have combos? Both SSB64 and Melee had huge amounts of combos.

And there are very, very few combo-to-death abilities in any of the games. In fact, I think only Smash 64 has them, excluding shinesparking in Melee. (Also things like the Ice Climbers' Wobble)

____________________

Originally posted by The Red Snifit

---

I thought that the combo argument was not so much about using your attacks to string together a combo but the "Hold down L+Select and press X, Y, Y, X, B+A to do an attack that obliterates the other guy if it doesn't miss" thing that every generic fighter has.
...Or possibly the fact that none of the Smash Bros. games have attacks that are based on what attack you used before. (For example, in the combo "A, A, B", "B" would be something different alone in a generic fighter, while "B" would be the same both ways in Smash Bros.)

---

Exactly. How can Smash Bros. be the same as Generic Fighter X when the basis of combos are different? Smash Bros. is SO much different than other fighting games, to say "Wanting to be able to hit somebody multiple times makes it basically the same as ____!" a silly argument.

____________________