Dissenting Opinion: Does Brawl Actually Suck?
Apr. 13If you hype yourself up enough for a game, then almost anything can seem good when you sit down and start playing it. I couldn't make myself argue that Brawl wasn't a fun game, but I also eagerly ate up two years of pre-release hype.
So Mitch Krpata's belated review of Super Smash Bros. Brawl at the Boston Phoenix is rather interesting. Most newspaper reviews of Brawl were breathlessly enthusiastic, but Krpata is roundly unimpressed. This isn't a case of a reviewer "not getting it", as Krpata clearly knows what he's talking about when it comes to gaming.
Nostalgia isn't a bad thing. The problem with Super Smash Bros. Brawl is that it doesn't give us any fresh insight or perspective on the worlds it depicts. It doesn't expand the Nintendo universe; it exploits it. Instead of using our built-in love for gaming history as a jumping-off point from which to create new memories, it siphons them. Looking at the massive roster, you may find yourself wondering how long it's been since Nintendo launched a successful new franchise.
Is he right? Are we all suckers when it comes to Brawl? I'm not sure I think so... then again, I'm not sure I could bring myself to agree.
Beefcake (3)
Dave Rudden (1)
KouAidou (9)
Sardius (89)
Comments
I have to wonder though... is this an objection to Brawl specifically, or SSB in general? I can't really imagine how even the first one actually told us anything new about the characters.
I think the problem is that if you want to make a product that is actually universally appealing, you need to resist doing genuinely new things with it. Doing something new or challenging is invariably going to piss someone off -- I mean, that's the point of art. If SSB had succeeded the way this reporter wanted it to, you would not have heard the almost universal praise that the game got.
If they'd tried to actually make the story about anything, to expand anything, you would have had to short-change characters, and take definite stands on what these characters are "about" that people just don't want to see in a game about punching things. I mean, this is the only reason I can think of for why you'd put in multiple versions of Link.
Now don't get me wrong. It takes at least an equal amount of skill to create something that has this kind of near-universal appeal and have it actually succeed rather than come off as pandering. I'm just saying... it is what it is. But I'm glad someone is saying these things and not being automatically dismissed.
BS. Brawl is an fantastic title. It just happens to be a fantastic title that's schtick is bringing all of 'Tendo's old chracters together to, as KouAidou put it, punch things.
I bought Brawl so that i could more or less punch things with Nintendo characters. Brawl delivered in spades. Besides, it's got MFin CHARIZARD for christsakes.
In all honesty, the value of Brawl lies in its sheer number of options. The fundamentals - which the original pioneered and Melee perfected - have not changed at all; but it was such a winning formula, what was the point of changing it drastically? Its much like Zelda: Twilight Princess in that sense... a game that, though not the most original, was rock solid in its design.
Krpata's comments, I think, aren't really all that relevant since the Smash Brother's game is meant to be about nostalgia and just plain having fun - its not like a lot of series that have gotten stale from all the mindless sequels that have been made...
You must be registered and logged in to leave comments.
If you are already have a login with GamePro.com, Gamerhelp.com, Games.net or GameProFamily.com, then use that login!