Haven't really kept up with this thread, but I have to say that I've been pretty disappointed with your vids so far.
The reason is that you really come across as presumptuous, when you claim a position of authority, sounding like the Mythbusters, but have very uneven experiences with both games.
In your vids, the pattern I often see is:
State a melee player's assertion.
Call it a myth.
Make an assertion which is contrary to the melee player's assertion.
Explain your reasoning.
Declare the myth busted.
You see, this really isn't like the Mythbusters at all. Partly because these are qualitative properties we're testing, but also partly because the Mythbusters go out and thoroughly test their assertions.
The thing I don't like about your vids is basically that you make these assertions, and we never see you test them. I don't think we can really come to a clear agreement, because while many of us have both a rich brawl and melee experience background, and speak from experience which draws from both games, I don't think you can claim to have the same.
There's no point in trying to use the "experience" angle. You admit that you haven't kept up with this thread, which is obvious. Some of the points you bring up have already been addressed multiple times.
As far as thoroughly testing my assertions, if you listened closely I left many points inconclusive. I clearly stated up front that gamers have good instincts, but that doesn't mean we should automatically trust their views without questioning and testing them. So while outlining the terms and definitions, I addressed the myths/topics as I went along. Some could be busted without the need for heavy research based on the definitions I presented. And since no one else has a more exacting and thorough lexicon, using my terms is best.
The logic is in the language. For everything I didn't have data for or the time/resources to test, I left open ended. Even if I worked out math in each video, the result would be the same. The problem is many people here would rather be right than to communicate clearly (even when there's no right or wrong). You can point out that I don't have enough data or that I didn't walk you through my testing process in the video, but it would be more fruitful to comment about the structure, gather data, ask questions, and raise doubt about conclusions. Good Game is inspired by Mythbusters and Good Eats. So if the show isn't Mythbusters enough for you, that's probably the reason.
But if you want more support, I hope you read through my blog. The videos could only communicate so much you know. So if you think some of the statements aren't well supported, I hope you did your research. If you want more math like logic, then check out part 16-18 in the examination of skill series. If you want thorough, then first be thorough in everything I presented. Otherwise, it's much safer to ask instead of assume.
Coming to an agreement is not the ultimate goal here. If you now realize that video games are more complicated than you thought and it won't be easy to prove hardly anything, then that's a win. If you realize that the terms you used and the definitions you thought you knew weren't solid or specific enough, that would be win #2. I try to address all comments and submitters as completely as possible. I never expected everyone to do the same back.
The point was to look at things more closely and cast a lot of doubt where needed. The episodes were written as a direct response to the survey responses. You should be ready to prove something you think is so true/obvious using the system (terms and structures) rather than complain about the video presentation or possible bias.
I don't think many of you can compare your Melee and Brawl experience to mine. I've been a part of this community for longer, I've researched tons, written more, and worked harder at game design theory and language than anyone period. Regardless of what you think you know, if you can't even express it clearly on your own terms or otherwise, then your experience isn't as impactful.
actually I think its things like this
"according to the survey about 95 to 99% of smashers agree that melee takes more technical skill than brawl. I'm not so sure"
If you think it's wrong to doubt and question, then that's you. At least I supported my reason for doubting with solid theory.
It's definitely not right to say that because 95-99% of people think that Melee has more tech skill than barwl, Melee has more tech skill than Bawrl.
I mean, it does, but not because 95-99% of people think it. Majorities can be wrong (although in this case I don't think we are).
This is a good way of looking at it. And if we continued to work toward gathering data and refining our arguments, we would both gain from the experience. The idea involves being able to work with people you don't necessarily agree with. And this isn't possible without a common/clear language.
If anyone else here feels fed up, then you can only imagine what I feel.
why is this thread still alive
hasn't everybody gotten tired of this guy's lame videos and moved on yet?
I'm just sorry to say I know nothing about tournaments.
