Super Smash Bros. Brawl Delayed

Dr. Eggman writes "As feared when it was announced that the Japanese launch was being pushed back to January 24, Nintendo has announced that Super Smash Bros. Brawl has been delayed in North America as well. 1up.com cites the new launch date as February 10th. On the bright side, however, 16-bit era fan's prayers have been answered: Sonic the Hedgehog is officially in the game."

It's upsetting

[Anonymous Coward]

But I'd really rather prefer a late game to a bugged game.

Good news

[Sciros]

That should give me plenty of time to finish Mass Effect and Revenant Wings before beginning a Wii hunt to play Smash.

Can't care less about Sonic, though. Just hope he's not a broken character, since in Smash speed is paramount (hence space animals and Sheik being top tier).

Re:Missing the Holidays

[Javi0084]

Nintendo has Mario Galaxy for Christmas, that will probably sell out too.

Re:It's not upsetting

[trdrstv]

But I'd really rather prefer a late game to a bugged game.

Not only that, but I wouldn't mind if they spaced out their "tent pole" games through out the year, and not just the 3-4 months at the end. I realize Quarter 4 is when they do most of their business, but games like Smash Bros, Mario, Zelda, Halo, Final Fantasy, MGS... don't need to come out for Christmas to sell. They will sell in the millions no matter when they release, so why not spread them out a little more?

Re:It's upsetting

[moderatorrater]

It's amazing how many people bitch and moan about delaying a game that they're expecting without giving any consideration as to why that game is going to be delayed

While there's usually a good reason (in the case of Smash Bros. it's going to be really, really good to miss the holiday season), it's always disappointing that the developer wasn't able to more accurately estimate the amount of time the game would require. Yes, i would rather wait longer than I expected for a good game; at the same time, I would have rather had them wait another month before giving a release date and have that release date be accurate.

Re:It's upsetting

[shoptroll]

Name me a software product that has ever shipped on time. By on time I mean the original planned release date.

Re:Good news

[Workaphobia]

A fun game. It's not based on raw skill and straightforward proper-sequence button mashing. There's some strategy, prediction, knowing your opponent, and moments when all that goes to hell because the other guy got a star, heart, and hammer at the same time. Tournament players don't know what smash is because they're too busy studying how to break it rather than have fun.

Re:Good news

[Workaphobia]

> "They've played the HECK out of Smash using its usual setups, and have simply discovered ways to play the game competitively that your casual players wouldn't have even thought of."
True, but they also play the game competitively in ways that are obvious, yet I simply wouldn't do. Mostly this pertains to choice of characters.

> "They are the most dedicated, die-hard Smash Bros fans you'll ever meet."
For certain definitions of what Smash Bros is, yes. For the way I play, and what Smash Bros really means to me, they are the worst group of players.

> "I can promise you that most of the folks in the Smash tournament scene would be very offended at what you wrote "
Of that I have no delusions.

> "because it's so unbelievably inaccurate. The game *can* be based on raw skill under certain setups; "
That's not the point I was making. When I say it's *not* based on that, I mean that any situation under which chance (in the form of items) and asymmetry is not a factor, is not a proper instance of a Smash Bros game. I know you can take the Smash Bros title and play on final destination with sword characters and fox, and get a fairly even game out of that; but that is not Smash Bros.

> "that's how strong Smash's customizeability is!"
Agreed. I just wish there were more tournaments that required you play pichu or ness on the Ice Climber's level, so we could actually see some professional usage of that customizability, rather than finding the absolute minimum variance in options and playing the hell out of it.

> "And yes, competition in a level playing field can be load of fun (Starcraft/Halo anyone?),
I refuse to acknowledge Halo's existence. As for Starcraft, suppose that the races weren't as perfectly balanced as they are: would you condone the removal of all but one race, just to ensure balance via symmetry? Would you get rid of all maps that didn't have exactly the same resources, positioned in a manner that worked with the game engine to make sure that worker units had exactly the same opportunity to harvest them at a particular rate? At what point do you stop and say, "This isn't the game I bought, this isn't why I play it"?

> "especially after you've had the game since 2001."
Check.