anything where you compete can be competitive and utilize strategies, but there are widely varying levels of competition and there are some games that i would be willing to risk money playing and other I would not (like, Mario Party).
Yeah, and you choose what you like. Debate the merits of how deep a game is, not that it isn't competitive.
You don't have to learn combos in any smash game except arguably the first one. You CAN learn some ridiculous 0-deaths with falcon in melee if you want, but you can get by fine with simpler stuff.
Bull****. CGing is a combo. Gonzo Combo is, obviously, a combo. ROB has multiple INFINITES on him. Locks are combos. Multiple characters have specific combos in specific situations. Jab->Shoryuken is an example. Because they don't look like Street Fighter combos doesn't mean you don't have to learn them and they aren't combos. Drop that bull****.
If you want to say you don't have to learn combos in Smash, you don't have to learn them in any fighter and the extent to which that handicaps you is different in each game.
the wake up game in smash is not a mixup. tech/roll chasing can be done on reaction in most cases and is unavoidable unless the person doing it messes up, or the stage randomly gets in the way or something. tech chasing doesn't happen often in brawl, and in general you can just stand near a downed opponent and shield and there's nothing they can do about it but reset the position. these are not deep mechanics, this is not rock paper scissors. This is random mechanics that have easy solutions most of the time.
If tech chasing can be done on reaction, then it is a combo. Roll left/right, techroll left/right, rising attack, normal standup, tech up, and lay on the ground are all different options. I don't care if it's Brawl or Melee, the hard read gives you the advantage every time. How in the hell is it less deep than roll left, roll right, stand up block, stand up grab, stand up attack, stand up DP? Again, because it doesn't look like SF doesn't mean it isn't wake up games.
please don't even try to compare smash's character imbalances with street fighter. You're reaching really hard on this one. Obviously all games will have characters that are better than others, but there is no other respected fighting game where LITERALLY half the cast is tournament non-viable. that's absurd. Except Marvel 2, and that game is almost as dumb as smash.
Have you played that match-up I listed? How about Dan vs. Bison? It depends on your definition of tournament viable. Do you consider Pokemon Trainer unviable in tournament? In practicality, I do. Same with any character past a certain point on SF's tier list. Because Brawl has more characters, it has more unviable characters. Tough ****.
Even a character as good as Sagat, most of the basic game mechanics still APPLY to him. He still can be crossed up, he still can be mixed up, he still has to block mid attacks while standing etc. in smash, the character changes the whole game. Like in brawl, edgeguarding is one of the things you have to learn to do efficiently, but then you have a character like MK who basically can't be edgeguarded. and then you have a character like Snake or Diddy Kong who can PRODUCE ITEMS. (You know, those things that we TURN OFF so the game will be more competitive LOL?)
Okay? Diddy has a move that spawns bananas and MK is hard to edge guard. Rose has an ability that spawns orbs that create extended pressure strings and deal hard damage in combos and El Fuerte has movement options that most of the cast can't compare to. Character individuality has nothing to do with it and due to the differences in Smash and other fighters, character individuality will emerge in a different way.
"Don't Get Hit" is viable in smash, because its easy to not get hit, because the game is built to make bad players better. "Don't Get Hit" is not a viable strategy in any other game because there is too much going on, too many mechanics to understand, too many mixups to deal with. You can't get by simply by "not getting hit". You can in smash.
Bull****. I've never played you and had you "Not get hit." I've never played Reflex and had him "Not get hit." I'VE PLAYED ****ING M2K AND HE DIDN'T "NOT GET HIT!" The entire basic strategy of "Don't get hit" is the CORE strategy of EVERY fighting game. You've seen multiple Perfects in other games and I doubt you've ever seen a single one in smash.
I dont know why you hate mortal kombat, the series in general is dumb, but MK9 is a very well made and competitive game. I don't really understand why you disagree, especially since you've never really elaborated.
Exactly what I wanted you to say. I don't know about MK. The reason I don't play it is because it feels too slow compared to fighters I enjoy. I hate the concept of a block button. I don't like the general design behind any of the characters and the gore is a turn off for me. However, it's got a ****ty reputation and gets trashed by people who don't **** about it. Same as Brawl. Everyone keeps saying it's a shallow bad game and it's not. It's gotten to the point where smash players have started saying it as well. I have yet to see (this included) a reasonable explanation as to why the game is not as deep as any traditional fighter on the market. I want to ask you if you're saying it because you've come to that conclusion or because someone else told you as much.
in terms of cheap's question, melee is, for one, the most technical fighting game I've ever played. and being good at the game requires a certain level of technical ability, which all games do, but it is exaggerated in melee. blockstrings are dumbed down in smash because there is no hi/lo mixup. basically either you learn something thats safe to do, or you get shield grabbed. In general its a bad idea to attack someone's shield in smash. In other games, its essential to learn how to get around a block. in smash you get around a block by grabbing or just not doing anything. and they can't do anything about that unless they predict the grab. So basically you can grab, do something safe, or not do anything. These are easily resolved dilemmas. In SF for example, when you're blocking you have to be prepared to deal with mixups including hi/mid/low attacks, crossups, and be prepared to tech throws. similarly, crossups are different because the shield blocks both sides. obviously i'm not a melee pro, but it seems like the primary reason to cross someone up is to provide pressure while avoiding getting shield grabbed, not to set up a combo or blockstring.
Wha? Have you not heard of shield pressure? The shield in smash is limited and you've got to get out of it, especially in melee. There are different solutions to different situations, so you mix up your shield pressuring options (Including grabs), aim to make their shield inneffective or punish their attempt to escape whether it means reading/reacting to the roll/spotdodge or choosing the right option to defeat their attempt at going onto the offensive.
I think the jist of what I'm saying is that in smash, there is almost always a safe option for everything. There is little creativity involved, you just run around and do safe stuff until you have a chance to do more damaging attacks. Some players play more aggressively, but that's not the optimal way to play smash.
Do you not do safe things in SF4/MK9/MvC3 until you have a chance to punish a mistake with a more devestating attack? Think about blockstrings, what's the key there? It's safety and risk vs. reward. The only time you'll do something unsafe in a blockstring is when you think you can get away with it and that the potential reward is worth the risk. Now think about fireballs and pokes. Safe options that are trying to force a reaction out of an opponent. Why do they not equate?
People talk about mindgames all the time, but I'm not even sure that ****'s even real in smash beyond simple baiting. When you get hit in smash its usually because their character did something overpowered or because you dont know enough about the game. I rarely am like, awe man you tricked me, or awe man i guessed wrong (as opposed to other good games, where those are the reason you got hit about 80% of the time). I believe the overwhelming majority of tournament matches are people trying to outgimmick each other, and there are very few matches where people are actually doing something creative and thoughtful. This is the only thing that kept me playing this game because i thought there was some level where it was actually competitive. But I dont know anymore.
.....
>Got hit because their character did something overpowered.
Please give me examples of things that are impossible to not get hit with and how it is overpowered.
Maybe it's just me though and i'm not compatible with this type of game. Ive played smash for years and really haven't gotten very good at it. But I get into other fighting games a hell of a lot quicker. they just make more sense to me.
Because their simpler. Because you don't have to keep in mind as many variables. It seems deeper because you can wrap your head around the options. Not being a ****, but you probably would be at the same stage playing traditional fighters for years. Fairly decent, but not a pro. Playing JWong, you'd get sunk just as fast and feel like you didn't know what to do against his options. I'm at that point and I get it. I'm working to fix it.
