Leprechaun_Drunk
Smash Journeyman
Let me start off by saying this thread is NOT intended to be a debate about tiers, Sakurai, or competitivness. These are just some of my thoughts about the subject from an objective point of view. (I have expressed anti-competitive sentiments in the past, but you will not find those in this post).
It is a fact that Sakurai intentionally tried to balance the game to appeal to a broader audience (casual players, ect.). He has stated that he does not want Smash bros. to be competition driven, and therefore changed things around from Melee to Brawl. Whether he failed to balance the game or not (and in my opinion he failed epicly), it seems that in Brawl, players with less skill have a seemingly increased chance to win against a player of more skill than they would in a Melee match. This has been a heated subject, and has competitive gamers up in arms. They have argued that fighting games are naturally competitive and should be developed so that victories are decided based upon the skill of the player rather than any other outside influences (i.e. tripping). There have been feelings that Sakurai should not have attempted to balance the game and should have appealed to the smaller, more dedicated fanbase of competitive players. This leads me to my next point.
The existance of tiers and their effect on the game is another heated subject. Many casual players believe tiers don't exist, but the general consensus of competitive players is that tiers indeed do exist. This leads to the main point of my post.
Now, logically, a player of more skill who mains Captain Falcon and faces off a player of lesser skill (not significantly, but still less skilled) who mains Snake will lose. Snake is currently the top tier character, and Captain Falcon is currently considered the worst in-game. Doesn't this detract from the spirit of competitivness? A player of greater skill should always be the victor, but in Brawl (and I would argue that this is less true in Melee, but that's beside the point) that does not always apply. Therefore, shouldn't competitive Smashers be yearning for a balance in the characters? If the game (or future games) were truly balanced (and I realize this will probably never happen), then and only then would victories be desided upon skill. In my experience, competitive smashers generally feel that attempting to balance the game is detrimental to the competitive community (in the instance of Brawl, at least.). Shouldn't it be the opposite? If the game was truely balanced, that would only enforce competitiveness in that matches would be decided soely on skill, rather than outside influences or "broken" characters.
I just found it odd that anti-tier players call for balance while the competitive smashers detest it.
Discuss intelligently, please.
It is a fact that Sakurai intentionally tried to balance the game to appeal to a broader audience (casual players, ect.). He has stated that he does not want Smash bros. to be competition driven, and therefore changed things around from Melee to Brawl. Whether he failed to balance the game or not (and in my opinion he failed epicly), it seems that in Brawl, players with less skill have a seemingly increased chance to win against a player of more skill than they would in a Melee match. This has been a heated subject, and has competitive gamers up in arms. They have argued that fighting games are naturally competitive and should be developed so that victories are decided based upon the skill of the player rather than any other outside influences (i.e. tripping). There have been feelings that Sakurai should not have attempted to balance the game and should have appealed to the smaller, more dedicated fanbase of competitive players. This leads me to my next point.
The existance of tiers and their effect on the game is another heated subject. Many casual players believe tiers don't exist, but the general consensus of competitive players is that tiers indeed do exist. This leads to the main point of my post.
Now, logically, a player of more skill who mains Captain Falcon and faces off a player of lesser skill (not significantly, but still less skilled) who mains Snake will lose. Snake is currently the top tier character, and Captain Falcon is currently considered the worst in-game. Doesn't this detract from the spirit of competitivness? A player of greater skill should always be the victor, but in Brawl (and I would argue that this is less true in Melee, but that's beside the point) that does not always apply. Therefore, shouldn't competitive Smashers be yearning for a balance in the characters? If the game (or future games) were truly balanced (and I realize this will probably never happen), then and only then would victories be desided upon skill. In my experience, competitive smashers generally feel that attempting to balance the game is detrimental to the competitive community (in the instance of Brawl, at least.). Shouldn't it be the opposite? If the game was truely balanced, that would only enforce competitiveness in that matches would be decided soely on skill, rather than outside influences or "broken" characters.
I just found it odd that anti-tier players call for balance while the competitive smashers detest it.
Discuss intelligently, please.