Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Depends on your definition of competitive. The debate here seems to be between two definitions:I was just wondering
how exactly do you measure whether something is more or less competitive?
I'm not trying to play devil's advocate or anything, its an honest question
It's something you can't measure without sound knowledge of both games. There's no really solid empirical evidence... hence why so many Smash noobs feel justified in saying Brawl is just as competitive/has more potential, etc.I was just wondering
how exactly do you measure whether something is more or less competitive?
I'm not trying to play devil's advocate or anything, its an honest question
Uhh... so what? Does geting better at a videogame accomplish anything? Answer: no. It's a videogame. And the only motivation to play it is the enjoyment you recieve from it.Well, they are superior. A game that requires no practice whatsoever or minium amounts simply have less things in them to learn, get better at and try out.
Right. I could totally see the military training soldier with Smash. No terrorist could withstand a good Falcon Punch!WRONG! The military uses it for training purposes and lots people earn loads of money both from making and playing games. Dont try to 'downgrade' their value, many games have more impact on peoples lives than most politicians/laws/people.
But I would hazzard to guess that, for all its depth, not everyone on planet earth finds Starcraft's gameplay appealing. Some do, and that's great. The same goes for Wii Sports, Tetris, Halo, Madden, whatever. People find different things they like, and play the game that delivers.Any company can hire people to make game for them, most companies cant make good games however. How enjoyable a game is seriously affected by the amounts of options in it.
Starcraft vs Rock paper scissors is a prime example of one game having a total of 3 options while the other is having far more. I and millions of others prefer Starcraft.
Riiiiigggghhhht. What I'm saying is that there is nothing wrong wanting instant gratification from games without the hassel of spending years practicing all the techniques. Some people have work, and school and relationships that get in the way of playing Smash 24/7.This is so stupid that it deserves its own thread.
Think about it for a second. Who are the people that make up the smash community? Well, as of now there are three camps as i see it.
1. Scrubs playing Brawl.
2. Non-scrub/good players playing Melee
3. Non-scrub/good players playing Brawl
Category 1 players dissapear quickly, and maby 1 in 1000 goes on to become non-scrub/good. Category 2 players recognizes Melees solid gameplay and depth and category 3 players will most likely share fate with the category 1 players once they find out that Brawl lacks the depth of Melee. Unless, of course, they revert to category 2 players.
Note that i didnt add a fourth section (scrubs playing Melee) because the barely exist anymore.
A popular game have lots of 1's thus being popular. A game that consists of 100% 1's will die off quickly as they discover newer and shinier toys to play with.
Easier gameplay have always attracted newer players, thats why the market is crawling with them. The average Joe sucks at games, he want stuff that requires zero effort and minimum amounts of time to learn and play. And the game companies want it that way because that means they get to sell more games making even more money.
Well, if you look "competitive" up in the dictionary, it supports my definition. The fact that a few message board posters can rewrite their own arbitrary defintion doesn't make it any better than mine.You have no grasp of what the term "competitive gaming" means. No, its does not simply mean "compete using a game".
To be a competitive gamer is to play according to a certain mindset, certain values. The term has a meaning to it. We wrote the term, we decided what it means. The fact that you're using it with the wrong connotation does not make it right.
Is it confusing? Perhaps. But it doesn't change that fact that you're simply using it wrong.
I disagree with your defintions because they are downright inaccurate and misleading.Wiseguy, your definitions are strange. You don't even refute our points properly, you just disagree on definitions.
Your basic point is "it doesn't matter what you say, people will have fun playing coin matches and using poke balls and playing the SSE"... which has nothing to do with the competitive community.
Also you seem to think that flashy candy coated gameplay will result in fun over the long haul, perhaps even more so than a game that sucks you in with depth. Most of these kids are gonna play Brawl for a few months, get bored, and move onto the next piece of crap that's well marketed. We're in it for more than some random shallow entertainment.
The reason I always preferred Nintendo over Sony/Microsoft is the actual gameplay... Nintendo games have always been better designed and more fun. PS games were just flashy, "badass", dark... but the gameplay sucks. It seems to me that Nintendo is leaning towards that as well. The symbol is more important than the substance, because the symbol is all you really need to sell games.
The substance only needs to be there at first glance. A la Brawl.
(Accepting for the moment that "competitive" means "accurate skill measurement")There will be plenty of casual gamers who'll play the game for fun. They might dabble with tournaments. The majority of them won't have the dedicated, talent or even motivation to spend the time to get really good at Brawl.
They might keep playing it casually with their friends and whatnot (like there are tons of casual Melee-players), but they won't be playing it competitively. This is how people work.
Just because millions or gamers are playing Brawl casually doesn't mean that a good portion of them will become competitive.
Don't blanket everyone in for hating Brawl. I like it. Chillin/G-reg/Azen like it, other like it. Its just a very vocal minority of Melee player who just want to keep playing Melee that have made everyone look like they want to keep playing Melee.This thread and scars thread already showed us how much pro melee players hate brawl and think Sakurai is an idiot. The fact is there are a lot of new people on this board that don't understand the competitive player logic and they continue to post and pros continue to take the bait in responding.
Doesn’t Brawl fit that definition?Depends on your definition of competitive. The debate here seems to be between two definitions:
1. A game that requires skill, practice, and experience to become the best
2. A game that the majority of the community is playing
Says the man with 2000+ posts in a forum dedicated to said game.Uhh... so what? Does geting better at a videogame accomplish anything? Answer: no. It's a videogame.
haha i had a good laugh at that.Says the man with 2000+ posts in a forum dedicated to said game.
I don't hate it. I like it... as a casual game and playing it on a minor competitive level. I just don't want to play it competitively on the same level I play Melee.Don't blanket everyone in for hating Brawl. I like it. Chillin/G-reg/Azen like it, other like it. Its just a very vocal minority of Melee player who just want to keep playing Melee that have made everyone look like they want to keep playing Melee.
Don't blanket everyone in for hating Brawl. I like it. Chillin/G-reg/Azen like it, other like it. Its just a very vocal minority of Melee player who just want to keep playing Melee that have made everyone look like they want to keep playing Melee.
Wow, this post was amazingly good. It has to be seen again.Here's an example... when you say a college is competitive, what you mean is that it's hard to get into.
Why is it hard to get into? Because a lot of skilled people are applying. You have to be better than the majority of others applying if you want to get in. If there's a ton people who are terrible candidates, it's not very competitive, because someone who's "below average" in terms of candidacy is going to be way better than these terrible candidates.
How bout a competitive business?? You have to play your cards right and make the proper decisions to stay on top. It requires sound business skills.
A hot dog eating contest is very competitive because it's freaking hard to wolf down the most hot dogs. It takes skills. The people who are great at it try extremely hard and put effort into it.
I suppose you could make a competition out of... say... guessing random numbers 1-10, but how competitive is that really? A monkey is just as good as you would be. A computer is just as good. How much of a competitive streak is this random game going to bring out in people? Try, absolutely none at all. Your efforts have nothing to do with the results, so you can't really compete directly, it's more of a process of observation and getting lucky.
Going by thumbswayup's #2 definition (and the definition Wiseguy goes by, and from what I hear, Azen as well)... would you call a sweepstakes competitive? By their logic a huge number of people are 'competing' for the prize, so it must be competitive... there's just SO MANY people involved!!! The lottery is the greatest competition on earth!!!!!
Competitive means skill is required. People get competitive over things they have control over, that's what makes something competitive. Human impact on results, amount of skill/effort required, a scene of some sort to fuel competitive spirit, and drive to succeed.
Not sheer numbers. That's just dumb.
Brawl fits in both but w/e.Depends on your definition of competitive. The debate here seems to be between two definitions:
1. A game that requires skill, practice, and experience to become the best
2. A game that the majority of the community is playing
Now, based on these definitions, we all can agree Melee is more competitive with definition 1, and Brawl is more competitive with definition 2. I believe more in definition 1 because in order for a game to be truly competitive, it must take years of time and effort to excel in. Not only that, but you must play many different people in many areas and consistently beat other highly ranked players.
When a game takes less effort and time to be good at, it becomes boring very quickly. I can see the Brawl competitive scene dying out in about a year or two if nothing miraclous is discovered in the game mechanics (probably will never happen due to Brawl's engine).
If you choose what games to play based solely on how popular they are, sure. Most people, however, play a certain videogame because they personally like it.If a game is more competitive simply due to sheer number of players, everyone should move over, Guitar Hero and SingStar just took the crown for Most Competitive Games since I'm pretty sure they are the most played games at the moment (due to the casual market loving them).
So in conclusion, according to this logic, we should all quit Smash and start playing SingStar and Guitar Hero.
com·pet·i·tive – adjectiveHere's an example... when you say a college is competitive, what you mean is that it's hard to get into.
Why is it hard to get into? Because a lot of skilled people are applying. You have to be better than the majority of others applying if you want to get in. If there's a ton people who are terrible candidates, it's not very competitive, because someone who's "below average" in terms of candidacy is going to be way better than these terrible candidates.
How bout a competitive business?? You have to play your cards right and make the proper decisions to stay on top. It requires sound business skills.
A hot dog eating contest is very competitive because it's freaking hard to wolf down the most hot dogs. It takes skills. The people who are great at it try extremely hard and put effort into it.
I suppose you could make a competition out of... say... guessing random numbers 1-10, but how competitive is that really? A monkey is just as good as you would be. A computer is just as good. How much of a competitive streak is this random game going to bring out in people? Try, absolutely none at all. Your efforts have nothing to do with the results, so you can't really compete directly, it's more of a process of observation and getting lucky.
Going by thumbswayup's #2 definition (and the definition Wiseguy goes by, and from what I hear, Azen as well)... would you call a sweepstakes competitive? By their logic a huge number of people are 'competing' for the prize, so it must be competitive... there's just SO MANY people involved!!! The lottery is the greatest competition on earth!!!!!
Competitive means skill is required. People get competitive over things they have control over, that's what makes something competitive. Human impact on results, amount of skill/effort required, a scene of some sort to fuel competitive spirit, and drive to succeed.
Not sheer numbers. That's just dumb.
Hey, I'm a nerd. And I really love Smash Bros. But I'm delusional enough to see it as anything but a videogame useful only in so far as it provides enjoyment.Says the man with 2000+ posts in a forum dedicated to said game.
Ouch.Wiseguy your name is decieving
Fun is most definitely subjective. We each decide for ourselves what is fun. I hope I haven't suggested otherwise. Which is why designing a game to cater to the largest number of people is so difficult. But Brawl does the best it possibly can in appealing to as large a number of people as possible.Wiseguy, I like how you keep alluding to the only thing mattering in videogames is the enjoyment it brings the player. Who are you to decide what enjoyment is? Fun is subjective. That is a ridiculous cop-out statement.
To you? That's your decision. You, like everyone else, are free to decide which games to play which provide you the most enjoyment. For instance, there are lots of games I don't enjoy. But I usually don't waiste my time posting about how much I don't like them.
I could apply the very same thing in terms of a game's competitiveness. What if the games that are most competitive give me the most enjoyment? What use is Brawl, then?
Well, if you can decide what game elements make for a good competition, so can everyone else. And I'd hazzard to guess that Brawl fits the bill quite nicely for the vast majority of Smashers.
Also, Azen really is a fool if he thinks random, out-of-control elements (tripping, the lottery, number guessing) makes something just as competitive as another thing without those random elements. Gimme a break.
You claim competitive viability is determined by how many people play a game, even when they're only playing it casually.If you choose what games to play based solely on how popular they are, sure. Most people, however, play a certain videogame because they personally like it.
Yes, and? Did you just post something that refutes your own points?com·pet·i·tive – adjective
1. of, pertaining to, involving, or decided by competition: competitive sports; a competitive examination.
2. well suited for competition; having a feature that makes for successful competition: a competitive price.
3. having a strong desire to compete or to succeed.
4. useful to a competitor; giving a competitor an advantage: He was careful not to divulge competitive information about his invention.
Then according to Dictionary.com, you're not a competitive Smasher!Hey, I'm a nerd. And I really love Smash Bros. But I'm delusional enough to see it as anything but a videogame useful only in so far as it provides enjoyment.
Have you got something against Guitar Hero, Yuna? It's not my favorite game, but most people seem to enjoy it a lot.You claim competitive viability is determined by how many people play a game, even when they're only playing it casually.
As such, Guitar Hero should be the most competitive game in existence (I'm assuming). It was an absurd statement to show you how absurd your claim was.
I was just throwing out the official defintion, just to clear up doubt that it is not limited to skill measurement. But let's think about that for a moment. Let's go through the various official defintions and see where Brawl succeeds.Yes, and? Did you just post something that refutes your own points?
3. having a strong desire to compete or to succeed.Then according to Dictionary.com, you're not a competitive Smasher!
I still think Sakurai could've implemented the aspects we loved about Melee in Brawl with an advanced "Turbo" mode or something. But he probably decided not to because Smash is clearly designed to be a casual, friendly experience, definitely something that Brawl feels like when played, IMO. There's nothing wrong with that.The combo (or 2-1 combo) notion was introduced with the fighting game Street Fighter II from Capcom, when skilled players learned that they could combine several attacks that left no time for the computer player to recover, if they timed them correctly. Combos were a design accident; lead producer Noritaka Funamizu noticed that extra strikes were possible during a bug check on the car-smashing bonus stage. He thought that the timing required was too difficult to make it a useful game feature, but left it in as a hidden one. Combos have been since a design priority in almost all fighting games, hardening significantly the learning curve of fighting games. The first game to count the hits of each combo, and reward the player for performing them, was Super Street Fighter II.
That's the catch, isn't it? The "competitive" commuity gets to define things they like as "competitive" while games and people they don't like are dubbed "non-competitive." The defintion itself is arbitrary and open to change at a moments notice, depending on what what/whom people wish to exclude. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic.Competitive gaming = Being competitive. Competitive gaming pertains a lot more than just being competitive. I don't know if it's in the dictionary because not everything is in the dictionary, especially not when it's a term coined by small group of people.
Stop trying to refute "my" definition of competitive gaming. It's a term set up by the competitive gaming community at large. You claiming our own word is wrong does not make it so.
You are not a competitive gamer. Neither are the bazillions of casual gamers who've bought the game who just happen to like winning.
The end.
It's not about being exclusive or being elitist. It's about having an identification, a name to refer to oneself by.That's the catch, isn't it? The "competitive" commuity gets to define things they like as "competitive" while games and people they don't like are dubbed "non-competitive." The defintion itself is arbitrary and open to change at a moments notice, depending on what what/whom people wish to exclude. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic.
Odd. I’ve gone to several tournaments over the years, and yet I remain “not competitive” by your infallible standards. Why am I not yet in the club? Oh, right. I forgot. It’s because I don’t share the same “competitive” ideals.It's not about being exclusive or being elitist. It's about having an identification, a name to refer to oneself by.
We do not exclude people from the community. You can join us if you want. If you don't want to, then don't. But if you're not a part of the community, then don't expect get a say in how we shape it. The only requirement we have is that you actually join the community before you demand to get to influence it.
Obviously everyone should and do have the freedom to play by whatever rules they wish, and likewise call themselves what they like.It's just a name. A way to differentiate between two different mindsets when it comes to gaming. We make no claims as to which one is superior as whichever way is superior is subjective depending on the player (some people like competitive gaming more, others casual gaming). I am myself a casual gamer of several games/genres. The casual gamers are free to play however they like.
Casual gamers in general do not feel the need to flock together to form a common ruleset. The competitive community does so they'll have clear boundaries for what's allowed and what isn't so they'll be able to Play-To-Win without utilizing banned tactics.
Not at all. I'm all for everyone playing however they please. I'm just pointing out how self-serving and condesending the language of "competitive" players is. It's no less stupid than a "casual" player such as myself (apparently) rounding up a like minded following, deciding what "fun" is and declaring ourselves to be "Fun-Loving Smashers" and all others to be "Fun-Haters."It's pathetic that you're trying to tell the competitive community how to play when you're not even a part of it.
I can listen to a rock song or two and still not be rocker. I can play three games of football yet not magically become a football player. I can paint a painting and not be a painter. Competitive gaming is a mindset, a philosophy if you will. To be a competitive gamer is to adhere to certain principles. Yes, it can be confusing when people think "to be competitive" = "to be a competitive gamer".Odd. I’ve gone to several tournaments over the years, and yet I remain “not competitive” by your infallible standards. Why am I not yet in the club? Oh, right. I forgot. It’s because I don’t share the same “competitive” ideals.
We're not saying you're not competitive or that you don't play to win. We're just saying that you're not a competitive gamer.My objection is that any one group can unilaterally "define" the boundaries and qualifications of competitiveness and declare themselves to be "competitive" and everyone outside those boundaries to be "casual." The fact is, almost everyone already sees themselves as competitive for the simple reason that there are many different varieties of competition one can pursue.
But we're not putting anyone down by calling them "Casual" (despite what some think). The difference between Casual and Competitive gaming lies in the mindsets of the two philosophies. Neither one is better than the other.Not at all. I'm all for everyone playing however they please. I'm just pointing out how self-serving and condesending the language of "competitive" players is. It's no less stupid than a "casual" player such as myself (apparently) rounding up a like minded following, deciding what "fun" is and declaring ourselves to be "Fun-Loving Smashers" and all others to be "Fun-Haters."
There can be communities/groups within a community. If someone is not willing to dedicate themselves to playing Smash, pardon me, competitively, then they have no say in how the competitive Smash community should be. It's as simple as having a club and have someone who's not a member and who doesn't even want to become a member come in and say "You're doing it wrong! This is how it should be!". The term "Competitive gaming" is old by now. Yes, it would've been better if it'd been called something else as it can be confusing at times.Basically, I think the distinction between "competitive" and "casual" to be misleading and unnecessary. The only community that matters is the Smash community, and the only requirement of entry shouldbe: love of Smash Bros.
basically, yes.Why am I not yet in the club? Oh, right. I forgot. It’s because I don’t share the same “competitive” ideals.
almost everyone can be competitive. but being a competitive gamer is completely differentThe fact is, almost everyone already sees themselves as competitive for the simple reason that there are many different varieties of competition one can pursue.
it's only a word to describe a community. they don't think they're more important than anyone else and they support others joining our group. what's so condescending?Not at all. I'm all for everyone playing however they please. I'm just pointing out how self-serving and condesending the language of "competitive" players is.
/me buys a plane ticket and moves to EuropeI don't hate it. I like it... as a casual game and playing it on a minor competitive level. I just don't want to play it competitively on the same level I play Melee.
And for all of the people you just named (and probably all the people you can name), I can name tons of others who don't like Brawl. Some of then are American. The majority of them are European, however.
So maybe the US is quite divided (50/50 perhaps?). Europe is pretty unanimous. The majority wants to stick with Melee.
Can you please explain to me why Brawl encourages camping so much? It's not that I disagree, I've just heard this a thousand times over and I really can't understand how it encourages camping so much. Personally, I haven't really found that camping is encouraged, but maybe I'm just weird. If you could explain this it would be a real help to me.The problem is that high level Brawl will be interminably boring both to watch and more importantly to play. Brawl played "the best way" will be campfest. Even if we ban all camp-friendly stages, the characters, moves and game mechanics themselves promote camping to such an extent, if you aren't camping, you're practically scrubbing yourself.
Agreed.Wiseguy your name is decieving
Approaching is not encouraged in this game because of the following:Can you please explain to me why Brawl encourages camping so much? It's not that I disagree, I've just heard this a thousand times over and I really can't understand how it encourages camping so much. Personally, I haven't really found that camping is encouraged, but maybe I'm just weird. If you could explain this it would be a real help to me.
This. Even the most competetive Smash players can't stand how dumb it is, see? Then you have one of the best VF players about - its a game meant to be competetive and nothing else - ala me in here thinking all the trolling is stupid.I seriously can't believe how dumb this argument is.