There is literally nothing stopping someone from using "strategic" play styles in melee. [1] The thing is most people don't and they don't enjoy them either. The backlash against brawl being slow is that very few players enjoy that play style at a higher level and simply isn't fun for them. So yes defensive does equal boring for many of many people
[2] Wavedashing/L canceling aren't glitches and we aren't dissapointed because it isn't melee 2.0 we are dissapointed because so far it looks like brawl 2.0 and that certainly didn't look fun for me
[3] If you like Brawl than that's fine but I wish people would stop pretending people don't like it because "it's just different and they don't want to adapt" when there is much more going on
1. But that doesn't mean the game isn't competitive or "not a good competitive game." Frankly, that's an opinion. It doesn't even mean that it won't be popular. I would argue that Brawl less popular in competition more because its unbalanced and introduces random elements, not because it's defensive. And as I wrote before, Smash allows you to change the rules to compensate for that. I find it difficult to square the notion that people don't want the game to be Melee 2.0 are the same people complaining about landing lag, the nerfed DI, and other things that were halmarks of Melee. Personally, I'd be happy if the game didn't focus on swift controller motions and more on positioning.
2. Fine. Call them "exploits unintended by the developer" if you prefer.
3. I actually don't like Brawl as a fighter per-say. In that sense, it's my least favorite Smash. I agree that it is too slow and floaty overall, but I do like the fact it rewards placement over finger acrobatics. In that way, Brawl more in line with the original Smash Bros. where it gave you a fairly limited number of options on a quirky stage- the original design intent of the game itself. Melee, intentional or not, added a great deal of complexity to the physics, which helped create a competitive scene. The question is whether that competitive scene can exist without the complexity of the physics. I believe it can. People just have to be willing to accept it.
Earlier in the thread someone posted a quote from Reddit detailing what makes a good competitive game. Paraphrasing, the gist of it was: "the greater number of choices a player can make to gain an advantage in a game, the more competitive the game (assuming there's a good risk-reward balance)." This is true. However, when it comes to Smash Bros., we have to nail down
which choices should be pertinent. I do not think the game has to provide players with a plethora of "mobility options" like Melee did to be competitive. Rather, Smash can (and did, best of all in 64) use stage design to provide the player with options that can be fun to utilize.
For example: Consider another Nintendo game like Mario Kart. In Mario Kart 8, you only have so many options. You can: accelerate, brake, use items selected at a weighted random, powerslide, do tricks, draft, and glide. That's it. It's a lot less than you can do in Melee, and does not require pressing buttons at lightning speed. Rather, the choices in Mario Kart 8 are more strategic. It's about where, when, and how you use your abilities on a given course. Mario Kart does not rely on complex button inputs, or code exploits. In this way, Mario Kart is inline with Nintendo's general game design philosophy. Other Nintendo games follow this philosophy of limited options with design inspired choices- Super Mario Bros. being the prime example. It's why most Nintendo games only use 3 or 4 buttons. Melee is the outlier in this sense.
And though Mario Kart doesn't have a competitive scene like Melee (it's unbalanced), Mario Kart gets the basics of competition right because the best Mario Kart player generally wins (as we can see in the GAF Tourney).
Smash 4 should use its stage design to force players to use certain strategies to win, as 64 did. The best part of Brawl was the stage designer (I hope to God they bring it back). The stage designer allowed you to compensate for the game's floaty-ness and made the game more fun to play (and fun to watch). I wrote in a post earlier in the Smash threads about the tourney scene possibly embracing custom stages for Brawl over the provided stages, and it was soundly rejected. Which merely brings me back to my point about the tournament scene wanting the game to cater to them, rather than the tourney scene adapting to the game. Every game is not going to be Melee.