Sakurai does not want Smash to be a competitive franchise

[xcloser]

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

 

[thumbswayup]

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

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.

If a game is competitve simply because everyone else is playing it, that certainly doesn't make for an enjoyable competitive experience especially if the game is easy to become good at. Sure, the best players will still come out on top, (not nearly as much as in Melee though) but it requires less skill to accomplish. Now I'm not saying Brawl doesn't require skill, it just is nothing compared to Melee.

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).

 

[bovineblitzkrieg]

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.


Or you can go with a definition that's useless to this discussion and say "OMGz they're BOTH competitive because ppl play them against each other LOLz!!1!!1!!!"
or
"Aktuallies, BRAWL is MORE competitive becuz more peeps are playin it than MELEE now!!1!!!shift+1!!!!"

 

[thumbswayup]

lol blitz, we responded to him at the same time

 

[Wiseguy]

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.

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.

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.

Right. I could totally see the military training soldier with Smash. No terrorist could withstand a good Falcon Punch!

Videogames are just elaborate toys consisting of pixels and polygons instead of solid matter. It won't solve world hunger, usher in world peace, or make you a better person. It's a videogame. It's meant for fun. If you're looking for something deeper, you ought to get a hobby that's remotely productive.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sakurai knew this, which is why the game is more friendly to such people. It's neither right nor wrong, but it is smart videogame design.

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.

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.

There is only one reason to butcher the English language in this way: to exclude and belittle froms of play that one doesn't like. You simply "define" competitive to be skill measurement, and declare everything else to be "not" competitive.

No type of play has a monopoly on "competitive". That's just a fact.

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.

I disagree with your defintions because they are downright inaccurate and misleading.

As far as I'm concerned, Brawl is proof positive that Nintendo still makes the most fun games around. If it doesn't do it for you, then there is a whole wide world of other games to try out.

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.

(Accepting for the moment that "competitive" means "accurate skill measurement")

The future you describe is one where far more people recieve enjoyment from the game and where touramanet attendance is higher than ever. Sounds to me like toning down on the "competiveness" of Brawl could be the best thing to ever happen to the series.

Anyway, exams wait for no man, so I'll you gents get back to your pity fest.

 

[AlphaZealot]

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.

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.

 

[Yuna]

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.

 

[bovineblitzkrieg]

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.

 

[Yuna]

Not to mention that the vast majority of Brawl players aren't playing it competitively. They're playing it casually. And, still, by Wiseguy's and (gasp) Azen's definition, yes, the lottery would be one of the competitive "sports" out there and Guitar Hero is the most competitive videogame at the moment (unless I'm mistaken).

 

[Dime]

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

Doesn’t Brawl fit that definition?
By that definition you cannot apply any measure to a game and say this is more competitive than that.
By that definition you can only say that something either meets the definition or it does not.

 

[AlphaZealot]

I seriously can't believe how dumb this argument is.

 

[thumbswayup]

Uhh... so what? Does geting better at a videogame accomplish anything? Answer: no. It's a videogame.

Says the man with 2000+ posts in a forum dedicated to said game.

 

[bovineblitzkrieg]

Says the man with 2000+ posts in a forum dedicated to said game.

haha i had a good laugh at that.

ugh... back to marmoset parental care. yippee!!!

 

[Yuna]

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.

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.

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.

 

[twiblets]

Wiseguy your name is decieving

 

[Avalon262]

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.

I know there are certain people like the ones you listed that like brawl. In fact, all the ones you mentioned I saw at c3 last month.

 

[RDK]

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.

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?

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.

 

[Oskurito]

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.

Wow, this post was amazingly good. It has to be seen again.

 

[Avalon262]

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).

Brawl fits in both but w/e.

I'll agree with the bold statement once I play you again and see how much you have improved. If I beat your sonic again with that character that I don't know how to use at all, you'll have some explaining to do.

 

[Wiseguy]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Says the man with 2000+ posts in a forum dedicated to said game.

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.

Wiseguy your name is decieving

Ouch.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

 

[Yuna]

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.

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.

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.

Yes, and? Did you just post something that refutes your own points?

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.

Then according to Dictionary.com, you're not a competitive Smasher!

 

[Wiseguy]

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.

Have you got something against Guitar Hero, Yuna? It's not my favorite game, but most people seem to enjoy it a lot.

Yes, and? Did you just post something that refutes your own points?

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.

1. of, pertaining to, involving, or decided by competition: competitive sports; a competitive examination.
(This is more of a yes/no "is it a competiition or isn't it?" question. I would say, if you have people competing and there is a winner, then Brawl gets the nod.

2. well suited for competition; having a feature that makes for successful competition: a competitive price.

(Is Brawl well suited for competition? This is more your objection about lack of skill requirements, but it really goes to what you're looking for in a competition. I would say a successful Brawl tourament meets the requires if a large number of people show up and have a good time competing, but there is room for interpretation.)

3. having a strong desire to compete or to succeed.

(Here's the crux of the matter. It goes to a state of mind: are the competiters TRYING to win? Do they have a drive to succeed in a match? I would say this is absolutely the case in Brawl.)

4. useful to a competitor; giving a competitor an advantage: He was careful not to divulge competitive information about his invention.

(This deals with individuals effectively trying to reach their goal of winning, I believe. Oddly enough, nothing about "skill advancing" or "non-randomness" or "competitive ideals" is mentioned.)

Brawl is 4 for 4.

Then according to Dictionary.com, you're not a competitive Smasher!

3. having a strong desire to compete or to succeed.

 

[Yuna]

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.

 

[Snakeyes]

Just adding my two cents here... After reading the NP Sakurai interview, I see Brawl as an example of what the Street Fighter series would be like if the creators decided to remove comboing completely despite the depth they offered to the community.

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.

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.

I was sucked back into Melee and SSB64 play when I discovered L-canceling and wavedashing, mainly because of the immense offensive and defensive possibilities these two techniques offered and how this offered a completely new level of play. It was like the whole roster went SSJ or something (I can't think of a better analogy, really). I remember watching a vid where some Falcon player pulled off a sick combo (with the sexy knee->taunt finisher obviously). I was like "****, that was hot". I've yet to see (or experience) impressive stuff like that in Brawl. At times, there's some smart spacing but most of the game seems to revolve around camping. That just doesn't do it for me.

I like to see that a fair share of the community seems to be enjoying Brawl. However, with the aspect of Smash that appealed the most to my fighting gaming tastes removed, I’ll probably keep playing Melee, and SSB64 for that matter. I suggest that the rest of you do the same: if you love Brawl, play it and stop flaming the sceptics with trite quotes (“Brawl isn’t Melee 2.0, etc…”) and if you dislike Brawl, stop whining and do your best to keep the SSB64/Melee scene alive. Cheers.

 

[Dark Anakin]

I really can't be bothered to read through the whole of this thread, so somebody had probably said this already, but if he wanted the game to be balanced and non competative why did he make the most popular characters so crappy i.e Sonic and Link are 2 that come to mind that are no where near as good as say Solid Snake or Falco. If he wanted it to be balanced surly all characters would be balanced as well.

P.S I F******G HATE THE TRIPPING OVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Wiseguy]

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.

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.

 

[Yuna]

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.

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.

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.

It's pathetic that you're trying to tell the competitive community how to play when you're not even a part of it.

 

[Samochan]

Quantity does not make competitive by itself, otherwise we could classify such things as breathing, sleeping and eye blinking as competitive. So what other thing we need to accompany quantity with? That's right, quality. Not only you need skilled people but the competition itself must be something of quality and worthy of being competitive. If something is boring, it will not gather large audience and thus no competition. If something lacks skill factor or is random, there is no reward in winning or the competition itself is dull and too easy. If something is too demanding, it will not also cater to large audience than something more balanced skill wise, thus driving in formula F-1 could be called less competitive in quantity than Basketball or Football, for example. Without quantity, there is no one you can compete against. Without quality, there is no one you need to compete against.

Melee does this both, but there are lots of arguments going around that brawl does not. The quantity of Brawl competitive smashers is up to debate, because as we know, not every single smasher will become competitive and they do not magically sprout out of nowhere. You need the right mindset, dedication, time, practice and talent to be competitive in anything. Brawl also has not sold 6 million yet, but 2 million. I also doubt more people suddenly go to tournaments when they did not in the past, especially not when they can play online at home. There is also the fact that only USA and Japan have the game at the moment, Europe and other countries still lack brawl.

Quality is also something that cannot be applied to every single competitive player on smash. There is no 10.000 players like Azen all around the world and never will be. Instead, there will be plenty of players on the same level and god who knows how many amateur players. Maybe over time there will be really good players playing brawl, but that's just guesswork. Also the quality of the said game... the good question is, is brawl fit to be competitive? Or better, is it more suited for competition than melee? This is up to debate as well, but 2 facts speak up against brawl. First and foremost is tripping, random variable that can have decisive influence over how the turnout is and cannot be influenced by player themselves. Second is Sakurai's ideals themselves. He does not deem brawl competitive the slightest, made everything in his power to make the game easier for masses (see skill factor) and promotes "everyone is a winner" attitude when in competition there is only one winner. These do not mean brawl is competitive failure, but certainly spark discussion.


I'd also like to address another issue. Some people say melee scene will die out because brawl will take over. I fail to see this happening for 7 reasons.

a) It's played on the same console
b) It's played on a same controller
c) It's a sequel, therefor appeals to smash bros fans
d) It's a different game
e) There is enough time and tournaments to support both
f) Melee's metagame still has not reached it's peak (see Perfect Control)
g) Both are wonderfull games on their own ways


Food for thought.

 

[Wiseguy]

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.

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 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.

Obviously everyone should and do have the freedom to play by whatever rules they wish, and likewise call themselves what they like.

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.

It's pathetic that you're trying to tell the competitive community how to play when you're not even a part of it.

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."

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.

 

[Yuna]

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.

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".

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

 

[arrowhead]

Why am I not yet in the club? Oh, right. I forgot. It’s because I don’t share the same “competitive” ideals.

basically, yes.

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.

almost everyone can be competitive. but being a competitive gamer is completely different

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 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?

 

[Pink Reaper]

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.

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.

/me buys a plane ticket and moves to Europe

 

[bovineblitzkrieg]

What's funny is that the lottery fits as many of Wiseguy's dictionary definitions of competitive as Brawl does.

Samochan, my applause for your comments about quality.

We're not using the dictionary definition when we talk about Smash. We're using the gaming definition. Obviously the competitive gaming community is going to be somewhat elitist, much like the world of basketball stars, business executives etc. (obviously we're not on that level but it's a parallel... we have reasons to feel superior as far as gaming goes)

Wiseguy, are you actually reading and trying to absorb what we're saying or do you just fight it on the surface? I'm seriously taking your points in and they don't stick at all. You come off as having scrubbish opinions and you fail at comprehension. Try and follow the argumentative process properly. You tend to sidestep a lot. There's these Gods of Logic and Reason that I try to respect, perhaps you should acquaint yourself with them.

Btw, I do like it up here on my high horse, the view is nice.

 

[Firus]

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.

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.

Wiseguy your name is decieving

Agreed.

This guy comes in with these totally bogus definitions of things, not to mention that he's insulted the whole gaming community a bunch of times.

Games aren't all about fun, maybe they are to you, but gaming is my life. I play games for enjoyment, but also to get really good at them. If you're not good at the game, what the heck is the point of playing? Unless you buy a game with the intent to play it for an hour and get bored, you want to get good at the game. Saying that the only reason to play a video game is enjoyment is like saying the only thing reason to do practically anything in life that you enjoy is for the enjoyment, which is untrue. So please stop saying "enjoyment is the only goal", you sound like a freakin' robot.

If you consider getting good at a game a hassle, then you shouldn't be playing games. Everyone has one conflict or another, it's a fact of life. There are very few people that don't have a job or school. But if you really enjoy the games, you'll put in the time to get good.

Did you actually look up competitive in the dictionary for this argument? You really are hopeless...the dictionary definiton of competitive isn't what people are referring to. When they say "competitive", they mean competitive gaming/gamers. You can't take a word out of context and say someone is wrong. Even if you argue that there are multiple types of competitive play, when it comes to Smash Bros, there's only one.

And by the way, before you accuse people of butchering the English language, I suggest you learn how to spell "hassle", "getting", and "hazard".

You're whole argument is off-topic anyways, you're talking about gaming in general, not Brawl's competitive viability, which is what this topic is about. Why did you even come to this topic? You're making all the wrong arguments. It's moot that our definition of competitivity is wrong (even though it's not) since you know what we're talking about. Either go somewhere else or actually add to this debate.

On the actual topic, I have two things I'd like to say. First of all, while I agree that Sakurai really screwed Brawl over, I really have to say that it seems kind of like a lot of people are just giving up on Brawl. It's only been a month since it's been out, and in even less time than that, people have gone back to Melee permanently. Melee is a great game, I love it, and would never give it up, but I would say the exact same for Brawl. After a month, Brawl has been dubbed non-competitive, and a lot of people have done nothing more with it. But think about how long it took for wavedashing, just as an example, to be discovered. Isn't it possible that we could discover a technique that conquers camping, or that makes the game competitive? I'm not saying it will necessarily happen, but I really think that we should wait longer before we lay down the final judgment.

On another note though, I'd like to say this; Nintendo's need to be innovative and new is going to be the death of them to the hardcore gamers. Yes, now, with the motion-sensor and stylus-utilizing, the non-gamers are playing now. But they shove this junk into every game they can, and if they don't the game is criticized for it. (Brawl was criticized for lack of motion-sensor, as was Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn) Now how does this relate to Brawl? Sakurai was trying to screw the competitive community over, but he also was trying to make Brawl different from Melee. That's one of the reasons he gives for removing it in the interview with Nintendo Power. To quote him directly on trying to make it different, he says things like "I thought that the way things worked in Smash Bros. Melee with the speed of fighting being very quick was good in its own way, but with Brawl, I wanted to try emphasizing something a little bit different." Think about games like Sonic and the Secret Rings. Sonic had bad games before that, but the motion-sensor only added to how bad the game was. Now with Brawl, they have to make it different, when there was really nothing wrong with the original style of the game. I have no problem with change, but the changes Nintendo is doing now just...they're just awful. Some games have worked fine with the changes (Metroid Prime 3 I think, actually flourished with it) but others just don't work. They need to take a step back and realize that, if there's nothing wrong with the original formula, and a change wouldn't assist the franchise, they should leave well enough alone.
Yes, I realize a lot of these games make them more money, I realize that economically, it makes more sense to make it new and easy for newcomers, but personally, I don't like this. Samus, Marth, and others are not the only things to get nerfed--Smash Bros was as well.
Going back to what I said before though, we shouldn't give up on it--just as I haven't given up on maining Samus.

P.S. You've inspired me, I think I'm going to go play Melee now.

 

[Yuna]

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.

Approaching is not encouraged in this game because of the following:
* There is very little shieldstun. Pretty much every single aerial in the game leaves you open for a shieldgrab if they're within range if they shield it. Heck, even if you space your aerials, because of the lack of shieldstun, people can just shielddrop into a jab/tilt/fast smash or shieldhop into an aerial. In other words, you need to limit yourself to only lagless and practically lagless aerials when approaching.
* But, hey, guess what, the game wants to screw you over even more! So say you space it right and have a few moves that are safe for approach or at least allow you to approach and then immediately shield Marth's shieldhopped fair. Never fear, the powershield is here to screw you over! Now easier than ever to execute (surprise, surprise), powershielding negates all hitstun!
* Powershielding is much easier to do now and the rewards are greater. Therefore, if you camp and force people to approach, you can bait them into a PS and punish accordingly. Same with normal shielding.
* Stale Move Negation makes it bad to use the same moves repeatedly (on hit and I'm not sure but I think on shield as well). This means that you cannot use the same moves for approach if they're also good damage builders and/or KO-moves... lest you want to forego using them as damage builders or KO moves.
* Camping is easy, especially if you have a projectile. Just spam it. There's no powershielding projectiles anymore. People will be forced into approaching and this is when you strike. There's the buffed spotdodges and rolls (Lucario's roll anyone?), there's superarmor BS, there's PS BS, normal shielding BS and much more. If you force your opponent into approaching, you're forcing them to take a big risk, especially if they're someone who doesn't approach well and you're good at shieldhop aerialing.

These are just some of the reasons why the game engine itself promotes camping without actually going into character-based camping.

 

[Reaver197]

I personally think that Brawl is lacking a certain aspect that really ought to be present in a fighting-based "competitive" (definition-slinging war aside) game.

I've heard a lot of people stating the lack of technical skill it requires to play, the addition of randomness and chance into the equation via tripping, or the lack of comboability. Though, none of those help Brawl with its competitive consideration, I do not think that those in of themselves dismiss Brawl as a competitive game.

Rather, I think what really keeps Brawl from being considered a competitive game on the level of Melee is how the game handles various fighting styles. Truly competitive fighting games allow for all types of fightings styles to be viable and effective, from the most aggressive, combo-happy styles, to the most defensive, turtleish styles, and to anything in between. A player can be rewarded for whatever style he chooses to play for that match/game/particular instance.

I don't think Brawl can cater to that, with specific reference to playing aggressively. Brawl does not reward aggressive play, and heavily favors and caters to more defensive play types due to its system of diminishing returns, tiny hitstun, and how quickly, with little regard to being punished, you can use your shield/roll/dodge/airdodge.

I think that was what the issue with the Dead or Alive series (as I've been told), in terms of its lack of a competitive community. The counter-attack option was absurdly overpowered, obviating aggressive play styles, and making a defensive style by far the best approach to take.

Unless there is some hither-to undiscovered technique that greatly increases the reward for playing aggressively, and makes it an equally viable approach to playing Brawl as is a defensive, more cautious one, I personally believe Brawl cannot really be held up as a competitive game in the league of Melee or that of Street Fighter.

I would like to point out that by no means does that mean I think Brawl sucks or is not fun. This is strictly an appraisal of it's competitive viability.

 

[Dream Chaser]

Lets assume that Melee is more "competitive" than Brawl.

What does it matter?
What end are you fighting for?

Theres no need for argument if what you say is so true. Everyone'll be flocking back to Melee in no time.
You dont need to try to force your opinions in the rest of the community. They'll make up their own minds.

 

[SiegKnight]

I seriously can't believe how dumb this argument is.

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.

Dude, I recall, right? The competetive community saying they can't stand other people coming onto their board and trolling it. Well, look here. This is a highly pro melee thread. Can't they go kill themselves or take it the melee board?

Yuna = blatant troll. A very, very smart troll maybe. But its a troll attempt nonetheless. An epic one.

You have no idea how much laughter I'm in when I look at this thread. No wonder my community is ****ing up Evo for you guys. Alot of you obviously don't give a **** about Brawl, why argue for the neutral competition you want so much? Fuuu~cking SRK seems to certainly give a **** about developing their defences and offenses at it better, items or no items, hence they're making their rules how they want.

If you don't want them to screw up your game - I think items and unneutrility are totally workable, but I understand entirely the notion of preffering unrandom gameplay and I sympathise - all of you should show some bloody passion for it. Start caring. More eyes browse this board than you think.

I'm pretty sure if the Evo guys are looking at this, your chances of deciding brawl are zilch. They take lack of passion and disrespect for one players own game very seriously. Guilty Gear got dropped from evo just for a slight half an hour lateness at the finals and seeming a bit too lazy for its own good as a community.

If its ridicolously more campy, work with it. Turn it into a game of baiting, cat and mouse, whatever. If you don't like it still, well, SRK seems to. And they're pretty competetively hard to satisfy as people. Keep the ****ing anti Brawl discussion in Melee at least. It makes your community seem like the brawl players troll themselves. Yuna doesn't play brawl competetively often it seems, or she said its only a 'for fun' thing for her as opposed to a competetive thing like Melee, I recall.

So keep her from trolling the ****ing Brawl board on a competetive smash forum. God****it. ~_~

edit - hahahaha swear words are censored here

 

[mikeHAZE]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^i like how you dont know what you're talking about, how is yuna a troll lol.

(*HI YUNA WE MET ONCE AT MLG ANAHEIM IN LIKE 06!)

 

[SiegKnight]

she's classic trolling. Just very smartly since she's a director, known smasher and no one has the balls to call it out. I'm sure everyone who's being annoyed by her arguing everywhere feels like they're being trolled.

also stfu *** *karakusa -> fierce -> exhayate*

I know what I'm talking about, as do the legion of srk'ers laughing at your board.