Scar on the Melee vs Brawl debate: What does competitive really mean?

[SynikaL]

To some people, Melee is more than just a game. My time spent with Melee was only 50% becoming better than everyone else. The other 50% was becoming a part of a community. My friends play Melee, and the most fun I have gaming comes from hanging out with them and competing with them.

I think you have a very wrong idea about what people's motivations are in playing video games. No one is seriously "trying to bind their existences and/or self-worth" to a game. You might be projecting.

Anyways, you said that I should stop and am ultimately doing nothing of service if I'm not ready to "swallow my pride" and concede to the point that the community will ultimately move on to Brawl. That's fine, but it's a matter of opinion, and my opinion is different. Only time will tell what will happen to Melee.

Anything taken to a competitive level becomes more than "just a game". Unfortunately for you, what's ultimately at stake here isn't your friendships, or the integrity of your very existence.

It's your pride.

No one is seriously "trying to bind their existences and/or self-worth" to a game. You might be projecting.

You may not realize it, but the fact is, that is exactly what you're doing.

Man is a social animal. Human relations is an integral aspect of a conventional man's configuration. Friendships are created and developed from this need. Friendships aid in giving a man a sense of his self-worth which will in turn, ultimately help define his existence.

Excise the "Competitive Melee Component" from your personal equation for just a moment: Do these "friends"/relations still exist? If they are truly endangered by the removal of the "Competitive Melee Component", then they are none other than transient companions crafted by a very specific social environment.

If they are not endangered by the "Competitive Melee Component", then there really is no issue to resolve outside your pride (Ego). Your friends will be your friends whether you're playing Melee competitively, or not. Melee tournaments will continue to exist as Melee enthusiasts continue to exist. The real issue here, is Ego. Just because Melee is not the face of this community anymore, does not truly endanger the Melee enthusiast's personal situation. It simply marginalizes it. Don't like being marginalized? Tell your Ego to get over it.

-Kimo
(In the context of our situation, that's the inevitability.)

 

[Card]

If consensus is truly not your ultimatum, then your motives have simply deteriorated into demagoguery. Attempting to proselytize using Smashboards as a rostrum will only serve to prolong the inevitable consensus, and only defame your character in the process.

You, yourself stated "the community has to make peace with this issue before we move on".

If the community is not to make peace with the two given agreements, then what other practical consensus are you expecting? Everyone stop playing Brawl and return to Melee? This is a disillusioned prospect.

"The players in question are the ones with good, competitive, secure attitudes"


As I've stated before, "Ego" is the corrupting agent that needs to be weeded out of both sects to refine and solidify the consensus. Here, is the agent in one of its more finer and more subtle forms.

At this point, you're only hurting yourself. Stop.

*****


Melee players: If it's our time, it's our time. Melee will not die if the game and the players subsist, but its tenure as the face of the competitive community is up. This may not make much sense, considering the game's qualifications as a competitive title in respects to Brawl, but those qualifications are not enough to stem the flux of change coursing through this community, full of new faces willing and eager to replace just about everyone of us with unabated alacrity.

Just because Melee is taking a backseat to Brawl, does not mean Melee players are ultimately subjected to some inferior state of existence. Keep playing Melee. Keep hosting tournaments.

Is Melee dead in your area? Find another hobby. I've chosen to use my extra free time not playing Melee or Brawl to increase my overall level of knowledge. I've begun reading a few books and I am becoming more intelligent by the day.

Reading not your thing? Street Fighter 4 and Soul Calibur 4 are on the horizon. Get involved with those scenes.

So many more practical and healthy options exist outside trying to bind your very existence and self-worth to Melee. Swallow your pride so we can truly move on.

Well... QFT because you basically said everything I would have said only better. I couldn't even bring myself to *snip* the quote, because it was said perfectly.

"The players in question are the ones with good, competitive, secure attitudes"

Dude... that's gross. Do you even hear yourself at this point? Drop the Ego.

Chillindude and myself said it, anyone who says Brawl is more competitive than Melee is just fooling themselves. But to go as far as to say that "People who choose to play Brawl over Melee don't have good, competitive, secure attitudes" (which is what you indirectly said) just showcases an amazing amount of bigotry.

 

[The Executive]

You quote the Unabomber Manifesto.

If I was a big-shot Melee player playing for big money, I'd have an ego too. Nothing wrong with doing what you love and getting paid for it.

 

[SynikaL]

I am not referring to "Ego" as a pejorative label of the elitist mindset. I'm referring to "Ego" in regards to its connotative relationship with "self-esteem". This distinction is very important , as it provides the foundation of the logic behind my argument.

-Kimo

 

[Jack Kieser]

SynikaL, I have to say... your brain is sexy.

 

[Dime]

The definition of competitive that has received the most support is the innate property of a game allowing better players to win consistently. This yields my mantra, that which I repeat over and over to prove my point.

Those who should win will win.

Ok, so let’s say that that Brawl does not have this innate property that lets the better player win. How can we be sure? How are we judging skill if not by the criteria set forth in the game? How can one person say they are better at Brawl than the next if winning matches is not a measure of skill?

I don’t think there is a way to test someone’s skill in a game other than playing that game. If that’s true there is no way to determine whether or not any game has the “innate property” you define as part of competition.

To put it simply:
You can’t determine who is more skilled without competing. That means there is no way to tell if a competition is a measure of skill because there is no way to measure skill without competing.

How are you determining whom is better if your not using the outcome of the game as a measure?

How do you know who should win before the game is played?

 

[Jack Kieser]

Dime just blew minds, guys. Prepare for a wormhole to eat reality.

 

[KeyKid19]

How do you know who should win before the game is played?

You make such assumptions based on your knowledge of each player's previous performances. If someone simply demolishes everyone else consistently, then by logic they SHOULD keep doing so until proven otherwise. In Melee this logic generally held true but with Brawl's many new random variables bad players have a little bit better of a chance of better good players.

I still say that good players still beat bad players in Brawl, but the chance of that notion being broken is higher than it was in Melee.

As for the rest of your post, games that require skill to win and not luck to win make a "best player wins" scenario. If the game was to pick a Jack out of a randomly shuffled deck of cards, then certain people would still win more than others but it wouldn't be competitive, it would be luck. Brawl has more luck elements than Melee so it is by that definition less competitive.

 

[Mew2King]

the better player will usually win more often, melee just has more opportunities to guarantee ****** ppl than brawl has due to how different the games are, making it much easier by comparison to show superiority and consistency because of game mechanics. That's all scar's saying, stop trying to argue with useless little proofs that need to be universally accepted that's just silly.

We know the better player will win more often in any game, but some games encourage it more than others. Mario Party for example, even if you're amazing vs a random joe you might only win 80% of the time, while in melee if you're amazing vs a random joe you should win like 99% of the time. These %s are just made up, to show the point I'm trying to make.

 

[SynikaL]

Dime's post is taking you all back to the beginning. The situation has clearly evolved past fundamental questioning of the constituents of competition -- which is not the real issue in the Brawl vs Melee debate.


If people aren't willing to at least read the last few pages to understand the current climate of the debate, they should not be posting in here.

-Kye

 

[Dime]

Dime just blew minds, guys. Prepare for a wormhole to eat reality.

LOL
Stephen Hawking warned me that this might happen. I just wish I could find the words to more clearly convey my meaning.

 

[Jack Kieser]

That's totally not what's happening, and you know it. People are saying that Brawl is not competitive because people who ***** in Melee get beaten every now and then in Brawl, as if Melee records factually dictate everything about Brawl. The fact of the matter (and the point I think Dime is trying to make) is that M2K (for example) is amazing at Melee, but because Brawl isn't Melee, we can't assume that he'll be amazing in Brawl. We can assume that he'll be good, but if he loses a match every now and then, that doesn't invalidate Brawl: that just means that M2K (or anyone else) needs to exhibit a different skillset than what he was previously exhibiting.

Basically, if we assume that people are supposed to win without taking the game they are playing into account, then we're screwing ourselves over. If someone wins at Brawl, they win. If they win consistently, then they deserve to win consistently. Thus, Brawl is competitive, if we're working off of Scar's own definition of 'Those who deserve to win will win.'

Edit: Oh, the irony that M2K would post above me... Life really rocks sometimes.

 

[Mew2King]

also regardless of how much you think melee evoled, it hasn't evolved nearly as much as it could have if brawl never came out

i feel if I had a few more years I could be like 20 X better than I am now, or something really big, just because the game is that great

however, brawl is out and I have to play that, so I don't play melee anymore except AT tourneys that scar hosts, hopefully I'll be able to still win them but without the competition or any motivation, I have no reason to care anymore which is sad . It didn't have to end like that but it is, when new games come out they overshadow the old ones even if they are not nearly as good, and that's what Brawl is doing now.

Although I must say, I will never accept Brawl on the level that Melee was, EVER, in my entire life.



Melee > 64 > Brawl, but for me smash is smash and I'll play them ALL



edit - I've already beat Forte Vidjo Azen(Wolf) Chillin and others in Brawl by decent amounts, I'm fine at the game. Why do people think that just because I wasn't nearly as smart in a2006 doesn't mean people don't have to ability to learn or adapt or improve, because that's what everyone seems to think. Oh he was a technical player, that means he's not intelligent and can't be good at other things. Come on, horrible assumptions, and I've heard many people say I would suck at Brawl already for no reason.

 

[SynikaL]

You know what, nevermind. I thought my posts were getting through to people and we were truly on a path to a consensus. If people want to regress the debate back to ethereal points that have been made and addressed before this thread's very existence, be my guest. Some enjoy jogging in circles, but I like variety in my scenery.


-Kimo
(I guess I'm done here)

 

[Jack Kieser]

also regardless of how much you think melee evoled, it hasn't evolved nearly as much as it could have if brawl never came out

i feel if I had a few more years I could be like 20 X better than I am now, or something really big, just because the game is that great

however, brawl is out and I have to play that, so I don't play melee anymore except AT tourneys that scar hosts, hopefully I'll be able to still win them but without the competition or any motivation, I have no reason to care anymore which is sad . It didn't have to end like that but it is, when new games come out they overshadow the old ones even if they are not nearly as good, and that's what Brawl is doing now.

Although I must say, I will never accept Brawl on the level that Melee was, EVER, in my entire life.



Melee > 64 > Brawl, but for me smash is smash and I'll play them ALL



edit - I've already beat Forte Vidjo Azen(Wolf) Chillin and others in Brawl, I'm fine at the game. Why do people think that just because I wasn't nearly as smart in a2006 doesn't mean people don't have to ability to learn or adapt or improve, because that's what everyone seems to think. Oh he was a technical player, that means he's not intelligent and can't be good at other things. Come on, horrible assumptions, and I've heard many people say I would suck at Brawl already for no reason.

Why don't you play Melee anymore (with the exception of those tourneys you mentioned)? I mean, it's good that you say you'll play all the Smash games regardless, but I don't see the sense in not playing a game you love. Metroid Prime 3 has been out for a while now, but I still play the original every now and then because I have fun playing it. Same with SMRPG. I have Pokemon DP, but I love training Pokemans in RSE and FR/LG, so I bust those out every now and then.

Just because there is a new game doesn't mean anyone has to abandon an older one. I don't see the logic in doing so (for any reason).

PS: Sorry if I offended you, but I just threw out the first pro name I could think of for the sake of argument (hence the 'for example' part). I'm not saying you don't **** at Brawl, I'm just saying that, in the event you didn't, it still wouldn't prove anything (which extends to anyone who plays Smash games, pro or not).

 

[Mew2King]

I do like original games but in a multiplayer game it's more fun if you can play tons of different good new people at thing called MAJOR TOURNEYS. My motivation for the game is lost now, but I still hold it in the status of "God"

I left inui an instant message to send me fire emblem hours ago, but he hasn't responded yet. =( Inui maybe you'll randomly read this message since you're not reading my AIM messages




Brawl is the same skillset as Melee as long as you practice or are smart, it's just FAR more shallow, far more rock paper scissors which is bad, and far less fun to me so my motivaton for the game is nowhere near what it was for Melee and I know other people feel the same as me.

 

[Jack Kieser]

I do like original games but in a multiplayer game it's more fun if you can play tons of different good new people at thing called MAJOR TOURNEYS. My motivation for the game is lost now, but I still hold it in the status of "God"

I left inui an instant message to send me fire emblem hours ago, but he hasn't responded yet. =( Inui maybe you'll randomly read this message since you're not reading my AIM messages




Brawl is the same skillset as Melee as long as you practice or are smart, it's just FAR more shallow, far more rock paper scissors which is bad, and far less fun to me so my motivaton for the game is nowhere near what it was for Melee and I know other people feel the same as me.

Well... that just makes me a sad panda. I love tournaments and serious matches as much as the next guy... but I won't lose all motivation to play one of my favorite games if I don't have direct access to a major tournament (a little motivation, maybe, but not the majority of it).

 

[pockyD]

People are saying that Brawl is not competitive because people who ***** in Melee get beaten every now and then in Brawl,

swing and a miss

i'm not going to bother explaining again because i've done so at least 5 times (as has scar and many others; i'm sure there are at least 20 posts explaining this exact same situation in this thread), but people just refuse to read and understand such a simple concept

 

[D20]

I'd just like to say that counter picks are extremely brutal in Brawl (both in terms of characters and stages). If you lose the first game, you are in serious trouble. Banning one stage can't save you anymore.

On a side note...
M2K, come to Smashtastrophe.

On another side note...
I have 600 posts.

 

[Jack Kieser]

swing and a miss

i'm not going to bother explaining again because i've done so at least 5 times (as has scar and many others; i'm sure there are at least 20 posts explaining this exact same situation in this thread), but people just refuse to read and understand such a simple concept

Actually, no. That was a direct example given to me. Someone said that Melee is a more accurate measure of skill (and thus more competitive) because in Melee, in a battle between two people of near = skill, the person who is slightly more skillful will win every match in a set (though by a small margin). As a rebuttal, I said that in Brawl, the slightly more skillful person may lose one of the matches in a set, but will win the set regardless. We argued for a little on which was more accurate, but I settled on Brawl because we already play best of 3/5/7, and if Melee's way of determining skill was really the better way, we wouldn't need to do so as a more skillful player, according to Melee's logic, will always win a match.

So, it wasn't a 'swing and a miss'. Try not to be that arrogant, please.

 

[pockyD]

no one's being arrogant, you're just bringing up old, tired, defeated points

in Melee, in a battle between two people of near = skill, the person who is slightly more skillful will win every match in a set (though by a small margin)

who said that?

 

[Dime]

You make such assumptions based on your knowledge of each player's previous performances.

How does that help if performances in the game do not measure skill? That’s the point. If performance does not measure skill how can skill be determined? If you can't determine skill then you can't decide who should win in the first place.

As for luck negating competition that’s a completely different argument. I'll just say that I believe something can be competitive while having some random elements.

Dime's post is taking you all back to the beginning. The situation has clearly evolved past fundamental questioning of the constituents of competition -- which is not the real issue in the Brawl vs Melee debate.


If people aren't willing to at least read the last few pages to understand the current climate of the debate, they should not be posting in here.

-Kye

I did read some of the last pages; however I felt that some of the points in the OP’s post still needed to be addressed. I don't understand how he measures skill in brawl if he’s not using the outcomes of brawl matches to do so.

 

[Scar]

I said something like that, but he missed the point somewhat. I'm not arguing that people will win by a small margin, I don't know how often they will win, I just think that those two people in Melee will have a win/loss ratio farther from 50% than a different Brawl pair of equal skill proportion.

And who cares, anyways?

the better player will usually win more often, melee just has more opportunities to guarantee ****** ppl than brawl has due to how different the games are, making it much easier by comparison to show superiority and consistency because of game mechanics. That's all scar's saying, stop trying to argue with useless little proofs that need to be universally accepted that's just silly.

QFT. Go from there, arguing semantics will only get you so far, I've done it way too many times in this thread, I'm not prepared to do it again.

 

[Brookman]

You know what, nevermind. I thought my posts were getting through to people and we were truly on a path to a consensus. If people want to regress the debate back to ethereal points that have been made and addressed before this thread's very existence, be my guest. Some enjoy jogging in circles, but I like variety in my scenery.


-Kimo
(I guess I'm done here)

Just because you post something overly verbose doesn't mean it's automatically going to gain the approval of the opposition.

 

[Brookman]

My post was referring to the numerous times in previous pages you pointed out irony in other people's posts. I don't go on the boards on weekends so I just now was reading everything that was posted in the last few days while I'm at work. It was not directed at your post right above mine. I don't know if that was the reason you took offense to my post or not, or even if you're being sarcastic. I can never tell with you.

I was just kidding man, don't worry about me

 

[thumbswayup]

I was just kidding man, don't worry about me

Ah, cool. The mad smiley face gave me the wrong impression then lol.

I just realized I want to ask you what the meaning was in something you posted earlier. Let me find it so I can repost it.

 

[thumbswayup]

I think it's amazing that people who have no idea what they are talking about continue to post.

Irony is my favorite literary tool as well.

Was this an agreement, insult, compliment, or sarcasm? It has obvious implications, but I tend to read too far into these things and was confused by what you really intended to say.

 

[Dime]

I said something like that, but he missed the point somewhat. I'm not arguing that people will win by a small margin, I don't know how often they will win, I just think that those two people in Melee will have a win/loss ratio farther from 50% than a different Brawl pair of equal skill proportion.

And who cares, anyways?

So if a skilled Melee player win/ loss ratio is greater than a skilled Brawl player win/loss ratio then Brawl is less competitive. Ok that makes sense and is valid.

The only thing I don’t understand is that your definition of a competitive game involves that game’s ability to measure skill. The only way to test if a game meets that definition is to test skill independently of the game and compare those results with results from the game. How can this be accomplished?

Oh and I care because they seem like important questions to be answered in a thread that asks “What does competitive really mean”.

BTW your thread does the best job of debating this of any I have seen.

 

[Pakman]

So if a skilled Melee player win/ loss ratio is greater than a skilled Brawl player win/loss ratio then Brawl is less competitive. Ok that makes sense and is valid.

The only thing I don’t understand is that your definition of a competitive game involves that game’s ability to measure skill. The only way to test if a game meets that definition is to test skill independently of the game and compare those results with results from the game. How can this be accomplished?

Oh and I care because they seem like important questions to be answered in a thread that asks “What does competitive really mean”.

BTW your thread does the best job of debating this of any I have seen.

Competitveness isn't like a quantifiable entity. There is no objective way to say game A is more competitve than game B. This is a subjective matter.

The argument is essentially that there are more elements that effect gameplay in Brawl that are outside a player's control eg. tripping than there are in melee.

A concrete example of this is at a recent tourny in the atlantic north. Two players considered to be some of the best players of the area were taken out of the tournament pretty early by other players considered mediocre. These "upsets" will occur more often in brawl then in melee.

Essentially thats the whole argument. In general, upsets should be minimalized in a fair competitve game. Melee does a better job at minimalizing upsets. BRAWL IS COMPETITVE. We never said it wasn't. We are just saying Melee is more competitve according to Scar's definition.

 

[Dime]

Competitveness isn't like a quantifiable entity. There is no objective way to say game A is more competitve than game B. This is a subjective matter.

The argument is essentially that there are more elements that effect gameplay in Brawl that are outside a player's control eg. tripping than there are in melee.

A concrete example of this is at a recent tourny in the atlantic north. Two players considered to be some of the best players of the area were taken out of the tournament pretty early by other players considered mediocre. These "upsets" will occur more often in brawl then in melee.

Essentially thats the whole argument. In general, upsets should be minimalized in a fair competitve game. Melee does a better job at minimalizing upsets. BRAWL IS COMPETITVE. We never said it wasn't. We are just saying Melee is more competitve according to Scar's definition.

I agree with everything you said there. I just think our definition of competitive should be tweaked a bit. It sounds like most people see a game’s competitiveness not as a measure of skill but that games ability to give the player control over the outcome without external variables.

I’m ok with that. However, by that definition Texas Hold’em would not be competitive and I think that it is even with some luck involved.

 

[theGreatDekuTree]

whoever said halo2 is competetive needs to learn what "autoaim" is, look up on youtube about comparisons involving halo 1 and 2, halo 1 was competetive, halo 2 is fake.

and brawl? its competetive, you can be competetive racing shoppings carts with homeless people, anythings competetive.
but now the playing field is more level with LESS, not "NO" techs, so you have to work harder to win.
as opposed to using some cheap instakill tech.

 

[RDK]

whoever said halo2 is competetive needs to learn what "autoaim" is, look up on youtube about comparisons involving halo 1 and 2, halo 1 was competetive, halo 2 is fake.

and brawl? its competetive, you can be competetive racing shoppings carts with homeless people, anythings competetive.
but now the playing field is more level with LESS, not "NO" techs, so you have to work harder to win.
as opposed to using some cheap instakill tech.

Logical fallacies all around. You have it completely backwards.

You don't have to work harder to win in Brawl than you did in Melee. Because the game was so deep, you actually had to work at winning. With Brawl, now you can just pick Snake, spam f-tilt all over the stage, and call it a night.

Your notion of balance is ridiculous. And I challenge you to name a single advanced tech in Melee that was anything close to a "cheap instakill move".

 

[thumbswayup]

And I challenge you to name a single advanced tech in Melee that was anything close to a "cheap instakill move".

Beat me to it.

 

[pockyD]

well moonwalking would make your opponent swoon from all the awesomeness

 

[RDK]

well moonwalking would make your opponent swoon from all the awesomeness

Dammit. Got me there, Pocky.

 

[thumbswayup]

****ing smashboards

 

[BlackPanther]

whoever said halo2 is competetive needs to learn what "autoaim" is, look up on youtube about comparisons involving halo 1 and 2, halo 1 was competetive, halo 2 is fake.

and brawl? its competetive, you can be competetive racing shoppings carts with homeless people, anythings competetive.
but now the playing field is more level with LESS, not "NO" techs, so you have to work harder to win.
as opposed to using some cheap instakill tech.

You're ********. What tech was "instakill"? Only dumb *** sore losers would say somethin like that, if there were truly "instakill" techs in Melee why didn't you use them? You afterall have the ability. If you say they're too cheap then you shouldn't be playing Brawl either because that game has cheap written all over it.

And what's with the argument that Melee and Brawl are different games so the outcome of someone winning should be different? The game is exactly the same with the exception of things like the physics tweak and removal of imporant technical aspects of the game. Sooo someone who was winning more in Melee should win more in Brawl but the random factors just totally screw with the outcome of a match and that's somethin we want to avoid in a competitive game

And you don't need more mindgames in Brawl there's just more emphasis on mindgames because of the lack of the technical aspect in Brawl, whatever worked in Melee will essentially work in Brawl with the exception of some things not working because the of lack or complete removal of things. Calling the two games completely different is just silly in my opinion you really have a few changes and everything in the game following those changes but the basic fundamentals that makes Smash Brothers Smash Brothers is still in the game.

I would just like it if people would admit that Melee is the more competitive game like Scar said then we could all move along with our happy lives and maybe the two games can coexist but until we get the nubs to understand what's better competitively this war will wage on till the end of time.

 

[LOL_Master]

beat me to it hard!!!!!

 

[Brookman]

mindgames in brawl? for the most part it seems like you're forced to play obvious guerilla style

 

[Dime]

I would just like it if people would admit that Melee is the more competitive game like Scar said then we could all move along with our happy lives and maybe the two games can coexist but until we get the nubs to understand what's better competitively this war will wage on till the end of time.

Sure I agree with you. Melee caters to the competitive community more than Brawl. Although, if and when I become competitive it will be with Brawl not Melee. Why does everyone have to agree that Melee is more competitive before the two games can coexist? Can't we just move on now?