Once and for all, choose your side : Brawl or Melee ?

Brawl or Melee ?

  • Of course BRAWL : Final Smash baby !!!

    Votes: 8 57.1%
  • MELEE all the way : "why you wanna trip on me" ?

    Votes: 6 42.9%

  • Total voters
    14

Ex-Actarus

Well-Known Member
#1
Ok guys, it's time to choose a side once and for all.

ALL that chatter between Super Smash Bros Melee and Super Smash Bros Brawl reminds me of the other typical ongoing arguments among Nintendo fans : Super Metroid vs Metroid Prime, Super Mario bros 3 vs Super Mario World, Mario 64 vs Mario Galaxy, Donkey Kong Country vs Donkey Kong Returns, REmake vs Resident Evil 4 or Link to the Past vs Ocarina of Time...

So guys,

In which team are you and WHY ? So...


TEAM BRAWL



OR


TEAM MELEE






For me I'll go with Brawl.
I prefer the roster of Melee, but Brawl was just a more complete game with amazing new mechanics ( final smash, destructible environment, etc ). Besides the game was way more balanced than Melee where some characters were overpowered ( Roy ? ).
 

FriedShoes

MLG
Moderator
#4
Brawl. It got that I played that game so much more that trying to go back to Melee wasnt really pleasant. Melee is probably the more technically sound game but I found more fun in the character selection of Brawl, the stages, the shitload of modes and collectibles.
 
#5
Brawl. It got that I played that game so much more that trying to go back to Melee wasnt really pleasant. Melee is probably the more technically sound game but I found more fun in the character selection of Brawl, the stages, the shitload of modes and collectibles.
This. Some people laugh at me when I say I prefer Brawl but I do. The controls are just more fluid to me. I went back to Melee one day and actually found it half clunky in comparison.

And I mean, Brawl has Ness AND Lucas. Case. Closed.
 

terribledeli

isn't using that sucky pickaxe
#9
Brawl. But not for the fighting mechanics.

The Smash Bros. series, to me, has always been a museum of Nintendo. And with a larger museum of content about Nintendo, I'll have to toss my support behind it.
 

Juegos

All mods go to heaven.
Moderator
#10
At theend of the day, I played Melee like 400 hours and Brawl under a 100. So as much as I love Brawl's music, stages, and characters, it just didn't have the same effect on me as Melee did.
 

the_randomizer

Well-Known Member
#16
I like Brawl for the fact I've imported character and custom music, but I like Melee because of the nostalgia factor and the fact I got the game when it launched back in December 2001.
 
#17
Meele is all-round way to static for my tastes. Game didn't age very well for me. Then there's the fact that Brawl is just a better game overall.

Tripped? Died because of it? Lost the match because of the death? Oh well. Should have compensated and ensured your victory ahead of time.

Do you lose more in Brawl because you can't perform the same exploits seen in Melee? Do you complain when you can't glitch through walls in multiplayer shooters?

I like my games dangerous.

Lol, I'm not completely unfair though. I do hope Smash 4 is an even balance between Melee and Brawl so everyone is happy.
 

Koenig

The Architect
#18
I found melee to simply be a better game as a whole. Brawl had aspects that were done better, but it also had several aspects that felt unfinished or rushed; where as melee felt consistent throughout the majority of the games content. When given the option I generally prefer a well rounded product as compared to one that is not.
 
#19
I can see the appeal in consistency, but for fighters, that just makes the game a boring experience for me.

When I play on different maps, I expect them to actually require different strategy. When I play different characters, I expect them to require different strategy.

Tripping didn't exactly do anything to make the game better, but it didn't make the experience worse for me, it just made me want to play harder, and I find that entertaining on all fronts.

I would say that it gives people who aren't looking to play competitively a second chance, but this isn't the blue shell we're talking about here. Tripping is rare enough to not occur for an entire match or two so there are no second chances for people who hate that.

I could wrap this up saying I like my fighters with a certain level of uncontrollable factors, and if you think about it that's kind of what you're opponent is. Defying these uncontrollable factors is what makes the game for me.

Of course, I'm not having the most fun if the people around me aren't as happy so I'm totally game for compromise.
 

Juegos

All mods go to heaven.
Moderator
#20
In spite of all the bells and whistles of Brawl, Melee was still more fun to me. I enjoy tight mechanics in my games.

Also, the idea that the player should "compensate" for forced random elements as part of their skill is ludicrous. When two players are equally skilled and equally able to compensate for bad luck, it is the player with no bad luck that will win the game. Tripping is no different than getting smitten by the wrath of god, and it can in no way be part of any accurate measure of skill in a game.
 

mattavelle1

IT’S GOT A DEATH RAY!
Moderator
#21
I reckon I should have said why I like Melee better and the main reason was I felt like it had much tighter gameplay than Brawl.

If you know me you know I don't do or learn exploits or care for the top Melee players or the way they play the game.

I enjoy the random bomb falling outta the air blasting you to kingdom come, and the levels were wild. I found Marth, and I hate the smash ball. In brawl I always turned it off to get it closer to Melee. I love all other items, and any level was fine. My favorite thing to do in Melee alone was team and I did 1v3 level 9 computers. That was a blast. And they screwed Marth in Brawl that's another reason I didn't care for it as much.
 
#22
In spite of all the bells and whistles of Brawl, Melee was still more fun to me. I enjoy tight mechanics in my games.

Also, the idea that the player should "compensate" for forced random elements as part of their skill is ludicrous. When two players are equally skilled and equally able to compensate for bad luck, it is the player with no bad luck that will win the game. Tripping is no different than getting smitten by the wrath of god, and it can in no way be part of any accurate measure of skill in a game.
That argument of tripping making the playing field unequal is tried, but isn't true.

The reality is that everyone has the same level of chance as tripping. Getting smitten by the wrath of god however, well you'd must've done something to provoke that. In other words, "god" would just be your opponent, not the tripping.

Prior preparedness prevents poor performance. 5 P's people. Lost a game because you tripped and died? Well you obviously didn't work hard enough to protect against losing the game because of that so did you feel the need to change up your game plan because of the death? No? Sorry buddy, but you just weren't prepared, and quite frankly, you're strategy ain't that good.

 
#23
The reality is that everyone has the same level of chance as tripping. Getting smitten by the wrath of god however, well you'd must've done something to provoke that. In other words, "god" would just be your opponent, not the tripping.
On second thought, technically, everyone has the same chance of getting smitten by "the wrath of god" (you're opponent as I described), so I guess what I'm saying here is that potentially any random element goes so long as it doesn't directly result in your death.

Maybe I'm just insane.

 

nerdman

pig's gotta fly
#26
In brawl, you can cancel your hitstun before your opponent's move ends. This is really just unacceptable for a fighter. In TvC and Guilty Gear, you can cancel hitstun, but these are specific moves that require a ton of meter.

Brawl is the better party game, but Melee is the better fighter.
 

Juegos

All mods go to heaven.
Moderator
#27
Everyone has a roughly equal chance of being struck by lightning while playing their Wii. That doesn't mean that if you got struck by lightning and lost (and died), you were the least skillful player.

Let me explain why forced luck elements make competition meaningless.

Imagine you're a tiny scrawny guy with no fighting experience wrestling against a gigantic muscular man who is a true street fighter. During your wrestling match, a bee flies near both of you. Your opponent is allergic to pollen, which makes his face swell and his eyes water, allowing you to make him submit and give up before you break his arm or whatever. You won. You feel like you are the shit, a master tactician, like you were prepared, like your training (which was little) paid off, and like you have the longest dick in written history.

Then he asks for a rematch, in which there are no bees, so he promptly humiliates you. Then he does it again. Then again, and again, and again, for hundreds of times until another bee statistically shows up and makes his allergies come up again.

If you know anything about statistics and probability, right from the first match you'd know that your victory was worthless, because it cannot be replicated except under rare circumstances. With that in mind, you could hardly derive any satisfaction from either the match or the victory. And if you do enjoy it, you better get your mileage out of it because you're going to get your ass handed to you the next hundreds of times.

That is why forced random elements, such as tripping in Smash Bros, cheapen the game.
 
#28
I like it when fighting games have adaptability. Whether melee or brawl.

I do enjoy playing some 1v1 final destination, but with items, you just gotta know how to adjust on the fly, and I love that. I'm glad tripping is gone, but imo it's not as big a deal as everyone makes it out to be, doesn't happen that often.
 
#29
In brawl, you can cancel your hitstun before your opponent's move ends. This is really just unacceptable for a fighter. In TvC and Guilty Gear, you can cancel hitstun, but these are specific moves that require a ton of meter.

Brawl is the better party game, but Melee is the better fighter.
Smash has always pursued being a mix a both. The way I see it, it's ability to both be a great fighter and party game is what makes the franchise so unique an successful at attracting a wide audience.

Humans love to label everything and if they can't, they get confused so to settle the differences between the party genre fans and the fighting genre fans, I propose that Smash should fall under a new genre, because I would hate for Smash to submit to the pressure of the fans and become something it never was (which won't happen so long as people keep buying).
 

Juegos

All mods go to heaven.
Moderator
#31
Sakurai himself even said Smash is primarily a party game.

I'm not talking about you guys, but the hardcore Smash community is honestly the most annoying group of gamers I've encountered. Not because they want it to be a fighter, but damn some of them are arrogant fucks
Shut it, scrub.

I agree, they are difficult to interact with. I don't even think competitive Street Fighter players are that elitist (maybe they are).
 

Koenig

The Architect
#32
Tripping was a minor detail added to general combat that made the core mechanics of the game feel a bit more well rounded, however several other aspects of the game seemed to lack little touches like it. So for this post ill go over one that stuck out to me.

A personal pet peeve of mine was how coins were earned and used to get trophies. Coins were far too easy to get, I often maxed out the number I could have and found it impossible to get rid off all of them easily. I did like the fact that I could spend the coins on a minigame, however this it was the only minigame available and while adequate in the means of unlocking new trophies and stickers, it was very dull. If you wanted to spend all of the coins you had to get new awards, you would need to spend hours playing in order to actually get rid of the coins you had amassed, Likewise the awards available to you in this minigame were completely random as you had no control over which ones were placed on the table. Essentially you had to dedicate a large amount of time to a minigame that quickly grew dull. Now compare this to way coins were acquired and used in melee.

In melee coins were harder to get and required the player(s) to play the game well to earn them; this gave the coins greater value do to how difficult they were to get. Likewise, instead of a minigame Melee had a machine that let you trade the coins in exchange for trophies, albeit at random; however players could adjust the number of coins they payed to adjust the rarity of the trophy that was rewarded. This meant that players could either spend very little money in favor of getting a lot of trophies though at a high a risk of getting ones they already had OR they could spend a lot of money for a high or even guaranteed chance of getting a new trophy. Because of this players were not required to spend an excess of money in order to unlock new trophies if they did not want to nor did they have to spend an excess amount of time using this aspect of the game in order to unlock new trophies. It is a case of doing alot more with much less.

Don't get me wrong, I loved the idea Brawl had of spending coins on minigames; however by only having one minigame which was in and of itself very dull it became very tedious and I personally found it to become a chore. In this regard Melee had something that was far less interesting but infinitely more functional. I would love to see more minigames in the Wii U/3DS version along with other ways to spend coins like the machine, in fact I think the new SSB games will use coins to adjust the difficult setting in certain modes akin to Kid Icarus Uprising.
 
#33
Everyone has a roughly equal chance of being struck by lightning while playing their Wii. That doesn't mean that if you got struck by lightning and lost (and died), you were the least skillful player.

Let me explain why forced luck elements make competition meaningless.

Imagine you're a tiny scrawny guy with no fighting experience wrestling against a gigantic muscular man who is a true street fighter. During your wrestling match, a bee flies near both of you. Your opponent is allergic to pollen, which makes his face swell and his eyes water, allowing you to make him submit and give up before you break his arm or whatever. You won. You feel like you are the shit, a master tactician, like you were prepared, like your training (which was little) paid off, and like you have the longest dick in written history.

Then he asks for a rematch, in which there are no bees, so he promptly humiliates you. Then he does it again. Then again, and again, and again, for hundreds of times until another bee statistically shows up and makes his allergies come up again.

If you know anything about statistics and probability, right from the first match you'd know that your victory was worthless, because it cannot be replicated except under rare circumstances. With that in mind, you could hardly derive any satisfaction from either the match or the victory. And if you do enjoy it, you better get your mileage out of it because you're going to get your ass handed to you the next hundreds of times.

That is why tripping, and any other forced random elements, cheapens the game.
Yes, but getting struck by lighting or having a bee allergen and tripping is the difference between direct death or permanent injury and indirect death (and it doesn't have any permanent ramifications). If at random times, Reggie's fist would just punch a certain player out of bounds, then, yes, that would cheapen the game. Victory is no longer in the player's hands. In fact, one might as well play keep-away for the entire game and hope their opponent gets punched off the stage more times than they do lol.

Tripping, however, just breaks your flow. It's both random to you and your opponent so no amount of skill will allow your opponent to take advantage of you tripping, and it doesn't result in direct death or permanent injury like a bee allergen or a lightning strike would lol. In fact, tripping only happens while walking or running so all tripping really does is disallow you to ensure the completion of certain combos. At any rate, Melee doesn't even allow you to ensure combos (stage hazards, 3rd or 4th opponent interference) so there's really no reason to complain about tripping exclusively unless you're the type of person who prefers to play smash in a 1v1, final destination (or any stage without hazards) environment.

So once again, blaming your loss on tripping really just makes you a sore loser.
 
Last edited:
#34
Everyone has a roughly equal chance of being struck by lightning while playing their Wii. That doesn't mean that if you got struck by lightning and lost (and died), you were the least skillful player.

Let me explain why forced luck elements make competition meaningless.

Imagine you're a tiny scrawny guy with no fighting experience wrestling against a gigantic muscular man who is a true street fighter. During your wrestling match, a bee flies near both of you. Your opponent is allergic to pollen, which makes his face swell and his eyes water, allowing you to make him submit and give up before you break his arm or whatever. You won. You feel like you are the shit, a master tactician, like you were prepared, like your training (which was little) paid off, and like you have the longest dick in written history.

Then he asks for a rematch, in which there are no bees, so he promptly humiliates you. Then he does it again. Then again, and again, and again, for hundreds of times until another bee statistically shows up and makes his allergies come up again.

If you know anything about statistics and probability, right from the first match you'd know that your victory was worthless, because it cannot be replicated except under rare circumstances. With that in mind, you could hardly derive any satisfaction from either the match or the victory. And if you do enjoy it, you better get your mileage out of it because you're going to get your ass handed to you the next hundreds of times.

That is why forced random elements, such as tripping in Smash Bros, cheapen the game.
I think you're over-reacting here.

Me and my roommate are pretty equal, but if one of us trips, it's not like the game is over. One dude allergic to pollen? He's done for. Trip once? Nothing significant usually happens. Same thing with green shells in Mario Kart, just because one hits me, doesn't mean it's "game over".

I'm not trying to make you like tripping, I'm just trying to say it's not as big a deal as everyone makes it out to be.
 

Juegos

All mods go to heaven.
Moderator
#36
I'm only against the argument that all uncontrollable factors make the game better, and the idea that tripping doesn't make the game worse. It does make it worse. Maybe just a small amount depending on who you ask, but it makes it worse. And random elements come in two kinds, voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary random elements includes going for a pokeball and getting a Goldeen. This is often great fun. Involuntary random elements include tripping right as you were trying to get away from a deadly attack or prevent an enemy from executing one. These are often frustrating.

See at 2:38

Also, of course tripping can be punished by skilled players. Competitive players know how to punish the smallest mistakes, what makes anyone think they couldn't punish a trip?

Again, I don't care much for or against the mechanic. But you can't argue that it doesn't make the game worse in some measure, as do all involuntary random elements. If you ask me, even party games are ruined by involuntary random elements. I've never been in a situation where an involuntary random element makes me enjoy a game more, whether that is in tripping in Smash, 3rd place getting a crazy 8 in Mario Kart, or a throw of the dice making 1st and 4th place swap stars in Mario Party.
 
Last edited:
#37
Tripping was a minor detail added to general combat that made the core mechanics of the game feel a bit more well rounded, however several other aspects of the game seemed to lack little touches like it. So for this post ill go over one that stuck out to me.

A personal pet peeve of mine was how coins were earned and used to get trophies. Coins were far too easy to get, I often maxed out the number I could have and found it impossible to get rid off all of them easily. I did like the fact that I could spend the coins on a minigame, however this it was the only minigame available and while adequate in the means of unlocking new trophies and stickers, it was very dull. If you wanted to spend all of the coins you had to get new awards, you would need to spend hours playing in order to actually get rid of the coins you had amassed, Likewise the awards available to you in this minigame were completely random as you had no control over which ones were placed on the table. Essentially you had to dedicate a large amount of time to a minigame that quickly grew dull. Now compare this to way coins were acquired and used in melee.

In melee coins were harder to get and required the player(s) to play the game well to earn them; this gave the coins greater value do to how difficult they were to get. Likewise, instead of a minigame Melee had a machine that let you trade the coins in exchange for trophies, albeit at random; however players could adjust the number of coins they payed to adjust the rarity of the trophy that was rewarded. This meant that players could either spend very little money in favor of getting a lot of trophies though at a high a risk of getting ones they already had OR they could spend a lot of money for a high or even guaranteed chance of getting a new trophy. Because of this players were not required to spend an excess of money in order to unlock new trophies if they did not want to nor did they have to spend an excess amount of time using this aspect of the game in order to unlock new trophies. It is a case of doing alot more with much less.

Don't get me wrong, I loved the idea Brawl had of spending coins on minigames; however by only having one minigame which was in and of itself very dull it became very tedious and I personally found it to become a chore. In this regard Melee had something that was far less interesting but infinitely more functional. I would love to see more minigames in the Wii U/3DS version along with other ways to spend coins like the machine, in fact I think the new SSB games will use coins to adjust the difficult setting in certain modes akin to Kid Icarus Uprising.
Everyone is too focused on core of Brawl to discuss the other parts of the game helped to make the experience. In fact, the hardcore competitive smash scene are so vocal and annoying that it almost seemed like nobody cared about the extra parts of Brawl.

I totally agree with you here. It would seem as if Nintendo half-assed every other part of brawl that wasn't part of the core experience really, which was originally strange to me considering the core mechanic of brawl doesn't really change much to require years of development time. So I supposed that it just took a while to construct the other parts of the game (Subspace Emissary, online, coin blaster game). This kind of just highlights how far Smash Bros has yet to come. The most recent entry was exactly perfect and I don't even think Smash 4 will be. They're always just good enough.

I hope Smash 4 at least bridges a connection between Melee and Brawl and for Smash 5, I'd love for them to bring the Sub-Space Emissary back (because I think the real reason it was taken out was because of development time and I guess they're just too prideful to admit that they're releasing a game that isn't exactly complete), build upon the online mode, as well as other current modes and continue to add new modes. Smash Run already looks like it's going to be a 'Smash' hit. :D
 

Koenig

The Architect
#38
I disliked Subspace emissary. It felt hollow, clashed with the core gameplay, and made characters far to easy to unlock-essentially removing any sense of achievement. Though I would not mind its return if it was more focused on the core design of the game.
 
#39
I'm only against the argument that all uncontrollable factors make the game better, and the idea that tripping doesn't make the game worse. It does make it worse. Maybe just a small amount depending on who you ask, but it makes it worse. And random elements come in two kinds, voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary random elements includes going for a pokeball and getting a Goldeen. This is often great fun. Involuntary random elements include tripping right as you were trying to get away from a deadly attack or prevent an enemy from executing one. These are often frustrating.

See at 2:38

Also, of course tripping can be punished by skilled players. Competitive players know how to punish the smallest mistakes, what makes anyone think they couldn't punish a trip?

Again, I don't care much for or against the mechanic. But you can't argue that it doesn't make the game worse in some measure, as do all involuntary random elements. If you ask me, even party games are ruined by involuntary random elements. I've never been in a situation where an involuntary random element makes me enjoy a game more, whether that is in tripping in Smash, 3rd place getting a crazy 8 in Mario Kart, or a throw of the dice making 1st and 4th place swap stars in Mario Party.
I agree that tripping can cause a level of frustration, but that's really it. If anything kills you, it'll be your loss of focus. At least I'm not so sure if even who you ask if it affects matters. Also, I'm not sure if tripping actually is any more involuntary as an item is. If you'll allow me to continue...

I don't care who you are, no amount of skill will allow you to take advantage of your opponent tripping. Tripping happens randomly and quick enough so not to give your opponent a clear upperhand. I'm willing to say that, at worst, tripping gives you the upperhand by maybe 3 - 5 percent (off the top of my head), but I'm pretty sure there's some scientific theory outlining the limit to how quickly the human brain is able to detect opportunity, a limit I'd think detecting tripping in Brawl falls under. Tripping happens so fast that if it actually influenced an outcome in the match for you, that outcome was probably going to happen anyways or you didn't roll the right was or recover quick enough. So sure, I think tripping at least can make the game worse in some measure, but I don't think the element is crippling enough for it to play out like that. Who know though, maybe seeing is believing, but after 2000 logged hours of Brawl, I'm not sure how much left there is to see.

About there being two kinds of random elements, I don't actually think items fall under the category of voluntary. If the items were on the stage from the start, I think they would, but Smash Orbs, Pokeballs, and bombs appearing randomly from the sky... well come on, it's right in the sentence.

Lol in fact, if competitive smash players really want something to complain about, complain about the activated boxes filled with gunpowder that can randomly fall from the sky and explode on you. That shit pissed me off all the time in brawl. In fact, they wouldn't even fall, they would appear directly above your head, giving you no time to react, explode on you, and promptly kill you (depending where you were on the stage and how high your damage meter was). That's an involuntary direct kill, the worst kind.

Which brings me to my next issue with Brawl. It probably isn't but I would love for Sakurai to have fixed the kill point system in Smash. I'm not sure about the past games, but Brawl is programmed where even if an opponent had nothing to do with your death, if they hit you last, the point goes to them. If there was a restriction on that, then maybe randomly appearing spontaneous exploding boxes wouldn't be such an issue (or at least less of one, you still lose a point for dying). :mad:
 
Last edited:
#41
I used to play like that, but now I alternate. I find that timed matches up the urgency to engage in combat more. Plus you get to record replays if the limit is 3 minuets or below.
 

nerdman

pig's gotta fly
#45
Smash has always pursued being a mix a both. The way I see it, it's ability to both be a great fighter and party game is what makes the franchise so unique an successful at attracting a wide audience.

Humans love to label everything and if they can't, they get confused so to settle the differences between the party genre fans and the fighting genre fans, I propose that Smash should fall under a new genre, because I would hate for Smash to submit to the pressure of the fans and become something it never was (which won't happen so long as people keep buying).
I consider Smash a party game, but this is not an issue of nomenclature. It's well establish that people play Smash Bros like a traditional fighter.
 

Juegos

All mods go to heaven.
Moderator
#46
To clarify on voluntary versus involuntary random elements:

Pokeballs are voluntary random elements because the player has to choose to make use of them. The random element, the actual pokemon that comes out of the pokeball, is only in play after the player chose to grab and throw a pokeball. Another example of voluntary random elements are care packages in Call of Duty, equipment that increases your critical hit rate in RPGs, and the lottery (you can't win or lose unless you buy a ticket).

Tripping is an involuntary random element because the player has absolutely no say in whether they want to participate in that event. Whether you like it or not, you are always at the mercy of a random trip event (much like the exploding falling barrels, yes). Other examples of this are spiny shells in Mario Kart, item drop rates in Monster Hunter, and death by Zeus' lighning bolts.
 
#48
Ah, but how skilled are you really if you can't adapt on the fly to a change in traffic density?

I bet you didn't see that pole coming either. :mmischief:

This is smash bros though, I agree that items are more of a voluntary element, but it still has a certain level of involuntary elements. It's not like you have a say in whether you wanted that pokeball to drop randomly in front of your opponent.

This is why the more competitive scene likes to play with no items on.
 

Juegos

All mods go to heaven.
Moderator
#49
Ah, but how skilled are you really if you can't adapt on the fly to a change in traffic density?

I bet you didn't see that pole coming either. :mmischief:
I honestly don't know if you're serious with this, so I'll reply anyway. Removing traffic in NFS:MW is for the sake of beating time records. To beat time records, you have to perfectly nail various events with skill. Having traffic on means these events are randomly unachievable, forcing you to restart your race anytime any of them come up.
 
#50
I honestly don't know if you're serious with this, so I'll reply anyway. Removing traffic in NFS:MW is for the sake of beating time records. To beat time records, you have to perfectly nail various events with skill. Having traffic on means these events are randomly unachievable, forcing you to restart your race anytime any of them come up.
I was serious, but I didn't actually mean that it's totally fair to compare the skill levels between two people if one is driving with traffic while the other is not, or at least you better be giving the guy who chooses to drive with traffic on credit where it's due. I mean if you get your ass beat by someone driving with traffic on while you had it easy driving with it off, you should probably question your existence. :p
 
Top