Guess I'll post my argument here - where it has a 50/50 shot of being ignored.
I'm going to try to respond to the best of my ability to all posts that seem to be intelligently written and haven't already been addressed. I've been getting a good bit of help (which I greatly apprecite) and was a bit upset by page 9 (holy fawken **** so many fawken *s), but the debate returned to civility so it's all good.
I'd like to meet the judge and jury of "pro Melee debaters" who has the authority to determine at their own descretion who is and who is not skilled. It seems to me as that the only true determinant of skill is how well they play (ie: whether they win or lose). And if someone can go toe-to-toe with a "Melee pro" they must be doing something right.
Melee is too in depth to say how good a person is based on a few matches. I'm sure you know all the factors. Silent Wolf is probably the BEST IN THE WORLD technically, and he does well at tournaments but he's not one of the very top pros. Magus, locally, is one of the smartest, most knowledgeable, experienced smashers, but I'm sure you've never heard of him.
In the end, though, we do know who is better than who. The Melee community is very tight, we all know eachother, we all know our records in tourney, we are a community. So yes, we know who is better than who, and even when people are REALLY CLOSE in overall skill, there is usually a very consistent winner.
This is because Melee allows us to see these small differences in skill. It translates them into results, honest to God it does.
The "pro Melee debaters" are generally 4 or 5 respected and knowledgeable members of the community.
If you're the biggest, baddest "Melee pro" around and you lose to someone who couldn't wavedash to save their life - it isn't the game's fault. The other guy is just "better" at this new game than you are.
First of all, this simply doesn't happen. This is the beauty of Melee IMO, you
almost never win luckily. It's always because your level of skill is higher than the other person! I have had to argue this with non-gamers, too. They seem to think, from their limited video game experience, that anyone can win at any game, you're just pushing your fingers. It's not like a sport.
I argue that Melee is different from other video games. You need to condition your body (muscle memory) before you can even move like the others. You need this movement to increase your options and your overall speed. Then when you're playing the same game, you need experience. You cannot win without both.
My arguments for why Brawl is not as competitive lie here. I don't think Brawl has that.
It took one of the moderators on Smashboards watching Youtube videos to make the disovery.
I mean that's just the difference between smart people and not so smart people. Ryoko is one of the most technical Melee players there is, he never messes up. His deal is mostly frame perfection and being one pixel away from getting hit.
He's just the kind of player who would find something like that. The people who imported Brawl aren't that way, in the Melee community at least. So I mean this point is going to show that people who are good at Smash are good at Smash. Not a point I'm trying to make, but it's there.
Similarly, I think those who have played Brawl for a week and decided it will be lacking in competitveness are failing to think outside the box. For instance, I assume the vast majority of the "testing" going on has been limited to 1 vs 1 matches with no items.
This is a fine assumption to make, but it is false. Everyone has been playing every game mode, and there are lots of FFAs and teams going on due to limited supply of Brawl setups and ridiculously large demand for Brawl. I prefer items off, but people nearby are playing with items on.
How much time have self-proclaimed "competitive" players devoted to new advanced techniques in team matches?
I thought you said you weren't going to preach? Well I'll let that one slide. Competitive players are competitive players, established as such by the community. If you're going to argue that the whole community is competitive by their own decree then go for it.
Anyways, I mean my buddy Chocobo came up with a C4 trick with Snake in teams. He puts it on his teammate, the teammate gives it to an enemy and then they blow him up. Again, you're working with false assumptions. Good points if your assumptions were true, but they simply aren't.
How many of them have given an honest attempt at incorporating certain items into advanced matchs? Has anyone completely realized the potential metagame of radically new movesets like Snake's?
For the first part, I don't think anyone is ever going to play Brawl for money if there is a chance that a heart drops in front of their enemy who has 100%. Items are too random and unfair. And yes, we realize how bizarre Snake is. Lots of people are playing with him, trying to figure stuff out, myself included.
For anyone to say that they've found the depth in Brawl lacking after a mere week is laughable. As much as some people may like to think they can discover everything there is know so soon, the fact is that we are in uncharted waters. Talk to me again in six months.
The depth I speak of MOSTLY has to do with lack of l-cancelling and hitstun on aerials. The former gets rid of too many safe approaches. Any good player realizes that you cannot approach in Brawl without being punished unless you're playing someone who isn't going to use the best strategy available.
No hitstun gimps a critical aspect of fighting games, the punishment part. This is discussed on page 6, I think, but it's important.