@moviequest14 It's not like any of the characters were hard to unlock to begin with. Well, except Mewtwo. Unlocking him was a nightmare lol. And for what cost?

@ABEzilla116 What? The opinion is very common among those who played both games for the same amount of time (and when I mean time, I mean +around 60 hours). Melee is much more challenging and fun that Brawl. Brawl, the fun is easier to get into because it's easier. But Melee, the reward is much greater when you finally play the game to it's fullest. Brawl could be considered the training mode to Melee in a sense. Brawl is not a bad game. It's just that Melee is better. And not by just a little.

@MrCrazyAsianBoy Oh god yes please. PLEASE.

@ABEzilla116 Melee was better from a competitive standpoint. MUCH better. Brawl was better from a casual standpoint. MUCH better. Why? Melee is much more ridiculously harder than Brawl. Brawl is much easier to get into, so the fun is easier to access. Melee is very unforgiving and takes much more skill and hours to play. In that regard, having fun in Melee takes longer than it does in Brawl. But when you get good at Melee, the reward is much higher.

At least that's how I view it. Melee was one of the first games I ever got, but I spent almost as much time on Melee that I did on Brawl. I play both competitively, but Melee is much better from a competitive viewpoint.

@ar2_arr Well, Brawl was just considered much less competitive than Melee. For those who played Melee first, they could see that hitstun, wave-dashing, SHFFLing and etc. made the game much more competitive and enabled combos. In that sense, you could see how they considered Brawl a worse game because they took out what made Melee fun and made Brawl drastically less competitive. Combos still exist in Brawl, but not in the way Melee was. In Melee, because of hitstun, you could experiment with combos easier, and it was always exciting to create your own combos that no one else thought of (which happened all the time thanks to the freedom of the game and its physics). You could argue that Brawl is competitive, but Melee will always be the one that is more competitive, more challenging, and a game that required more skill and the creative mind to play. I'm not saying Brawl is a bad game. Melee is still a very challenging game and, because how different it is from other fighting games, it requires a lot more skill to play. That's why more casual players will like Brawl better because it's much more forgiving and contains elements that still make the game unpredictable and fun. I like Melee better, but I can still understand those who like Brawl more.

@Joedgabe Fox has different kinds of aerials than falco and the differences expanded in brawl. In the beginning, Fox's d-air is a dril. Falco's d-air is a spike. In Brawl, the differences are clear, so I don't think I need to capitalize. When it comes to specials, the techniques that each character can do is drastically different. Fox's blaster can only go for raw damage since it can't flinch the opponent. Falco's blaster on the other hand was considered one of the best projectiles in the game since it could flinch the opponent, travel a ridiculous range, and even set up a pseudo-infinite in Brawl. Fox's side-special, in Melee, travels farther than Falco's. This gave Fox the overall better recovery, which is a very important difference. Fox's up-b, Fire Fox, also traveled a greater distance than Falco's, but this time with a clear difference in distance. This drastically showed how much better Fox was at recovering than Falco. Fox's down-b, the Reflector, can do what professionals call "shine-spiking", which scores for some pseudo-infinites and easy KOs. This is because upon impact, the opponent is sent horizontally. Falco on the other hand has a reflector that sends opponents vertically upon impact. As a result, Falco could not "shine-spike". However, a technique was developed for this reflector. It was a variation of a technique called pillaring, which could do great damage that was easier to execute than "shine-spiking" and, if placed correctly, can score and easy KO. In brawl, Falco threw his reflector. This was a dramatic difference because Falco could no longer pillar or hold onto his reflector. In Brawl, Falco and Fox's tilts are also very different. Fox's are a little bit better though for combos. In Brawl, Falco also has one of the best chain grabs in the game. Fox does not have one. Falco also is slower and slightly faster than Fox in Brawl. Fox is lighter and faster but has a slightly faster falling speed. Also in Brawl, Fox's Smash attacks are faster, most notably his forward smash (though it is much weaker). Falco's forward smash has a large amount of start and ending lag as well. Falco also uses his wing for attacking rather than using his legs and arms, which fox uses. Opponents hit by wings are usually sent at a vertical or diagonal direction. Falco also has a much better DACUS than Fox. All this combined makes Fox and Falco very different in all iterations.

Now for Wolf, his aerials are primarily meant for juggling. So are his tilts, so not only are they drastically different looking than Fox and Falco's, they are also meant for different purposes (I'm not positively sure, but I think Wolf's aerials have slightly more hitstun than both Fox and Falco's). His standard combo (AAA) is also very different since its a three-hit standard combo rather than the traditional multi-hit StarFox standard combo. Wolf also uses his claws for battle, so opponents, upon impact, are also sent in a vertical or diagonal direction. Wolf's smash attacks are also faster and very good. His forward smash travels a great distance and hits several times. His up smash hits twice and juggles at low damage and KOs really well at high percentages (it can also DACUS pretty well). His down-smash semi-spikes amazing well and is much better than Fox and Falco's. Moving onto specials, Wolf's blaster cannot rapid fire and is slow compared to Fox and Falco. However, the bayonetta on his blaster can damage opponents at close range. His gun also does the most damage and has the same hitstun as Falco's blaster if not more. Wolf's side special, his wolf flash, travels diagonally and is one of Wolf's best KO moves. It has a ridiculously powerful sweetspot, but is greatly punishable in he only hits with his sourspot (I don't know if it travels a shorter or longer distance than Fox and Falco's side special). It can also do something called "scarring" which is a technique exclusive to Wolf's side-b. Wolf's up-b has the most noticeable "drag-effect" out of all of them. It also doesn't have any start-up flames, which can make the move slightly easier to edge-guard and only meant for recovery. It also has less ending lag, making it less punishable. His reflector also travels a greater distance than Fox's. However, it has less hitstun and knockback, so it can't be used for "shine-spiking" (even though shine-spiking couldn't be used against most characters in Brawl using fox anyway). I think I may have missed something, but I can't put my finger on it.

Moving on to Final Smashes, Fox's is the most balanced out of all three of them. Falco's can star-KO since it has longer jet boost times. Wolf's has greater firepower and flight time but stays on the map for longer. Falco's is considered the best while Wolf and Fox's are considered par on par with each other.

The point of this is that characters may look like character clones, but all characters are dramatically different from each other and meant for different purposes. That's why in America (in Brawl), Falco is drastically higher in the tier list than fox and wolf, and in Japan, both Falco and Fox are drastically higher than Wolf (though Falco is still considered better by a good margin) and why Fox is better than Falco in Melee. So I don't mind having clones. They will play much more differently in the end.

I can go on to rant how different Link and Toon Link/Young Link are, Captain Falcon and Ganondorf are, Pikachu and Pichu are, Mario and Dr. Mario are, Luigi and Mario are, and so on and so forth.

@Wolfgrey While a touch screen isn't necessary, I wouldn't call it a completely "useless". Although I wouldn't say it helped producers come up with new game ideas, they did make playing a game easier (like having a default map so you're not having to open it up every time you want to know where you are). Plus, there are some really good games out there that really do use the touch screen well like 9 Hours 9 Persons 9 Doors, and etc. It didn't open any new doors at all, but it isn't a "useless" feature per se. And don't tell me you've never had fun with a DS before, because that does sound like a lie, because there are plenty of good games on the DS. Oh and I don't think Skyward Sword deserved to get a 7.5. I agree that the control scheme is a little clunky, but as long as you have a wii motion plus, it's not that bad. Skyward Sword's gameplay isn't bad enough to get a 7.5, perhaps and 8.5 at best.

I'll still buy a Wii U for those exclusive games like Zelda and Mario, but I can't help but feel disappointed. I can't see many fun and engaging ways that Nintendo or 3rd Parties can take advantage of this tablet-based controller without making the gameplay awkward. If the TV and the controller really are connected, it's more like an extremely glorified DS. I think nintendo jumped a little too far and announced it too soon. I'm hoping, thanks to success of the 3DS and the Wii, that nintendo will drop this idea altogether and create a new console with either a better idea or just a controller-schemed system. And if Nintendo releases a good Starfox game, I'll be happy.

Okay, two things. 1. The Wii wasn't a terrible console, well at least to start out with. I can't believe how many games that gamers ignore that were released on the Wii. Twilight Princess = Great game. SSBB = A little casual for my taste, but nevertheless a pretty good game. Super Mario Galaxy = OMG AWESOME. And now we have Skyward Sword, which I'm pretty sure I don't need to go over. My point is not saying that Nintendo has better exclusives than the PS3, but that the Wii had some really good games and I don't think it's fair to say that it was "an absolute failure" or "a terrible console". 2. This is what I hear: "The 3DS is failing". Just so you guys know, the 3DS is finally picking up it's pace thanks to great remakes of the N64, Super Mario Land 3D, and Mario Kart 7. All of these are great games. And if you look at any game sites, you can see that the 3DS has a lot of potentially good games in 2012. KH: Dream Drop Distance, Resident Evil, Paper Mario, Kid Icarus: Rising, Metal Gear Solid: Snake Eater, and the list goes on. I have my hopes on the 3DS. The only thing I think it's missing is more battery power, which I hope is updated in the "lite" version of the 3DS. AND NOTICE HOW I'M NOT BASHING THE VITA. I also wholeheartedly agree that the Vita has the potential to be a GREAT handheld console, despite whatever's happening in Japan.