Capcom admit SSBB is a 'real' fighting game

[Matador]

So Poker and Blackjack are game that shouldn't be played seriously? Or any other games with random variables?

After all, games like Blackjack and Poker have large followings and consistent winners. In SRK's eyes, if the default settings don't yield a broken, inconsistent, and single character game, their is no reason to change them besides scrubbiness.

I can't believe you made this comparison.

Blackjack and Poker would be completely different without the element of chance; that's exactly what you're playing against. There are other aspects that bring more solid results like being able to efficiently bluff and read people, but you're essentially playing the odds and making the randomness less random.

Nearly every other competitive....ANYthing has no random element deliberately included in the rules.

 

[Skler]

Randomness isn't competitive. Can't we all agree on that?

Items spawn randomly.

Obviously skill is still involved in items play, but the added random factor detracts from competition. It's so ****ing simple. Nobody is saying item play takes NO SKILL AT ALL, just that it goes from being a competition of pure skill to one of skill and some luck.

Randomness is objectively not competitive.

 

[metaXzero]

I can't believe you made this comparison.

Blackjack and Poker would be completely different without the element of chance; that's exactly what you're playing against. There are other aspects that bring more solid results like being able to efficiently bluff and read people, but you're essentially playing the odds and making the randomness less random.

Nearly every other competitive....ANYthing has no random element deliberately included in the rules.

That doesn't change the fact you have no way of controlling the hand you are dealt. It doesn't matter how many other variables ensure that the RNG doesn't determine the match outcome. Their is still a random element there.

Randomness isn't competitive. Can't we all agree on that?

Items spawn randomly.

Obviously skill is still involved in items play, but the added random factor detracts from competition. It's so ****ing simple. Nobody is saying item play takes NO SKILL AT ALL, just that it goes from being a competition of pure skill to one of skill and some luck.

Randomness is objectively not competitive.

The only part about that that would really be agreed as objective is randomness on par of a capsule falling into an attack and KOing that player with an explosion, or an item spawn with way too much reward vs. risk. Items as a whole considered as a detriment to a competitive game is NOT objective. Everyone has opinions and they will differ. Some will say items add depth and and an extra layer and blablabla.

 

[ZMan]

i swear capcom has SOMETHING up their sleves with nintendo. first there was this ( http://www.nintendoeverything.com/?p=21803 ) where ryota niitsuma would like to see a nintendo vs capcom (saying capcom wins already) and now this.

if only...

 

[KirbyWorshipper2465]

Is it so difficult for people to play Smash and have fun with it? It's like I'm the only one here who cares about that anymore...

i swear capcom has SOMETHING up their sleves with nintendo. first there was this ( http://www.nintendoeverything.com/?p=21803 ) where ryota niitsuma would like to see a nintendo vs capcom (saying capcom wins already) and now this.

if only...

That'd be swell. Capcom has been in good terms with Nintendo for who knows what long, so a Nintendo Vs. Capcom game is possible.

Of course, having Megaman in the next Smash would be a good start.

 

[Matador]

That doesn't change the fact you have no way of controlling the hand you are dealt. It doesn't matter how many other variables ensure that the RNG doesn't determine the match outcome. Their is still a random element there.

That's not my point. I wasn't trying to disprove there being a random element in those particular card games.

I was contrarily pointing out that Blackjack and Poker are almost completely centered around bettering your odds and lowering the random aspect of the game to something pseudo-constant. Bluffing and being able to read people well increases your chances even further to a point where there CAN be consistent winners, but not as consistent as Tiger Woods, Justin Wong or M2K.

Including items into the competitive scene add an element not much different than tripping; something that can cost tourney matches based on nothing but sheer luck, even if it's just certain items.

 

[Sinatra']

how are items unfair if they are available to everyone on the playing field? I personally prefer items off but I'm just saying...

 

[Matador]

In that respect, they're fair since everyone can use them, and they even have that element of some characters being better with items than others.

But the fact that they appear randomly on random parts of the stage is what hurls that whole concept down the ****ter. If items are included, I have a better chance of beating better players than me, simply based on the fact that if I am lucky enough to get good items before my opponent, I can inflict high reward damage with little risk.

It turns the whole competitive, even, balanced game on its head. I'm not saying it couldn't work, but it would undoubtedly be LESS competitive than Brawl currently is, simply because a huge random element is now included in the game.

 

[metaXzero]

You're assuming that every item is like the fan or curry. Not every item is a sudden free advantage that leaves their opponent no retort other then take damage. Some actually do have risks to usage (like the ordinary Hammer or Beam sword).

For standard tourney Smash, Stages with random and/or uncontrollable effects aren't banned when they don't determine the match too much. Yoshi's Story in Melee is allowed despite the fact that the cloud can aid recovering players (granted it's travel can be predicted) and Shy guys can mess up players combos and projectiles for no reason.

As I already said, it isn't "without a doubt" or "objectively" when the spawns aren't giving free victories. People will disagree and what you say takes away from competition and skill, someone else can say the opposite.

Why do people keep ignoring me bringing up the ISP?

 

[★Malik★™]

i swear capcom has SOMETHING up their sleves with nintendo. first there was this ( http://www.nintendoeverything.com/?p=21803 ) where ryota niitsuma would like to see a nintendo vs capcom (saying capcom wins already) and now this.

if only...

that would be domination (capcom), funny (nintendo) and epic (overall).

 

[CRASHiC]

i swear capcom has SOMETHING up their sleves with nintendo. first there was this ( http://www.nintendoeverything.com/?p=21803 ) where ryota niitsuma would like to see a nintendo vs capcom (saying capcom wins already) and now this.

if only...

Didn't Sakara or whatshisname say that there new secerate project is for the hardcore gamers? Whatever that is, they got a new studio for it.

 

[Matador]

metaXzero, the point is that if we're in a finals match, I don't want luck to be a factor. If I'm getting ready to beat M2K because I'm miraculously outplaying him this game, I don't want some random occurence mucking up my victory OR winning it for me. Random isn't competitive. I'd just as soon say the same about tripping.

The type of item doesn't matter, because as long as some randomly calculated aspect of the game decides to give me ANY sort of advantage because it merely felt like it, you're making the game less based on skill and more based on chance; if only a little.

Like I said, it could work. I'm just saying it would be less competitive, that's a fact.

 

[metaXzero]

What I'M saying is that you can't objectively define what makes something more or less competitive. You can say all you want that the randomness of item spawns is a detriment to competitive play. The thing is, people will disagree (some will even say they enhance competition when a ruleset is set right). The only part that overall may be agreed upon are items that throw the win into whoever's hands the win lands in. Anything will just boil down to 2 parties disagreeing

Why do you think we don't all agree Melee is more competitive then Brawl (or vice versa). Or Blackjack is more competitive then Magic or vice versa. Or just Sport A is more competitive then Sport B? Their isn't really a completely agreed or definition of what makes something more or less competitive.

 

[Matador]

It is CLEAR that randomness directly contradicts the nature of competition. In competition, the better player always wins; that's fact for all respected forms of competition. Randomness thoroughly prevents this from being true, because outside factors affect the outcome as well as the skill of your opponent instead of simply you vs your opponent.

I fully understand where you're coming from and how you're approaching this idea, because in some ways I agree with you. "Competitiveness" is truly an abstract, intangible idea that cannot really be measured or compared to other forms of competition objectively. However, the very definition of the word contradicts your claim that random factors that give advantages to either party based on haphazard segments of code dictating what and where a certain item should be at a given time does anything but decrease the competitive capacity of a game.

If the items were regulated or if the frequency were lowered, the outcome of most matches would still be the same, just as the outcome of most matches with tripping excluded are the same as they would be if it were still there. The random element affects the game, even if it's a small difference. Why not just expel it completely?

 

[metaXzero]

After looking around for definitions on competition and competitiveness, I discovered........................

That their is nothing that says luck is objectively a detriment to competition. Competition is just a contest between individuals seeking a goal they can't share, while competitiveness is just what makes something more or less suited for competition. And WHAT exactly makes something more or less suited for competition?

Their is no set thing. It's all opinion.

You say the randomness of an item's match won't effect the outcome of who's the better player so why leave it in. On the flipside, pro-item would say the same thing, but say why expel it if it isn't a problem. And then who's right?

 

[Skler]

Items are a problem in closely matched games, this has been discussed before.

Let's have a competitive Candyland tournament since randomness isn't bad for competition.

 

[Matador]

After looking around for definitions on competition and competitiveness, I discovered........................

That there is nothing that says luck is objectively a detriment to competition. Competition is just a contest between individuals seeking a goal they can't share, while competitiveness is just what makes something more or less suited for competition. And WHAT exactly makes something more or less suited for competition?

There is no set thing. It's all opinion.

You're telling me that if we run a one mile race in which we can be mauled by any random animal in the animal kingdom at any given time during the race that it'd be CLOSE to as competitive as you and I running a normal mile-long race?

If I'm running and get mangled by a Cougar, Pitbull and Gorilla while you merely get nibbled on the shoe by a Gerbil, Squirrel and Goldfish (lolgoldeen), that we'd be in just as competitive a race as the 2nd idea? Yes, this is an extreme example, but that's exactly the point; where do you draw the line?

"Well, we'd obviously cut out any poisonous animals since they're overpowered, and turtles because they're not threatening..."

The line is nonexistent. Take all of the woodland creatures out and run a normal ****in race. It's not an opinion kind of thing. It's actually rather obvious if you throw out semantics and take a look at the hundreds of competitive sports, games, and even businesses that deliberately keep random elements out of the mix.

You're telling me that randomness is still competitive if regulated, even if it affects the outcome of the battle to the extent that the lesser player wins. Even if it's sometimes or rarely. You're basically saying that competitive gaming doesn't HAVE to be "the more skilled player always wins".

You say the randomness of an item's match won't effect the outcome of who's the better player so why leave it in. On the flipside, pro-item would say the same thing, but say why expel it if it isn't a problem. And then who's right?

However, I didn't say this. I was going more toward the idea that even if it's a little change in the game due to a random effect, THAT can be the difference between a person winning and losing, so keep them ALL out. Hell, random elements HAVE BEEN the difference between people winning and losing tournament matches. Little things like the ghost saving you on Yoshi's and tripping into attacks randomly cost matches where the better player WAS winning but a random element screwed them.

However, like Skler was saying, if it's a random element like Luigi's Misfire or Peach's stitchface/bomb or even G&W's 9 hammer, if there's some sort of risk:reward ratio to play against (both the user AND the opponent), then the random element is indeed detrimental to the competitive nature of the game. That's exactly where items come into play. There's no way to play against the chance of an item popping up at a given time, because it's completely random WHERE it will appear, WHAT will appear, WHO will get it, and HOW much damage it can inflict to whoever gets the item first.

It's like playing against the wind in Golf or in the snow in American Football. You can play against THOSE elements and be tested based on your skill in adapting to these outside factors and still be victorious, especially since weather is rarely so drastic in either game that radical adjustments need to be made.

 

[metaXzero]

Skler. If we truly wanted items, we could. The things is we of the Smash community don't enjoy items. It's not a case of them reducing competition because while WE can say they reduce competition, some other group could say removing them reduces competition. Competition is just 2 or more parties in a contest for an unsharable goal. Anything else added to the definition is just subjective.

Matador. According to the definitions of competition and competitiveness, yes. A race as extreme as random animals picking off runners can be competitive. WE may think it's a stupid display, but some other group (god forbid) will think it's the ultimate competitive sport. The RNG could hold all the cards in a game, yet if people seriously want to compete in that game, it's competitive. Is it MORE or LESS competitive then a consistent game? That's all opinion.

Our thoughts on a game being more competitive if it's more consistent are just our thoughts. As in they aren't universally agreed. The bottom line is anything can be competitive as long as people want to compete. All competitiveness is is what makes a something more or less suited for competition. For us at Smashboards, items make the game less competitive because they f*ck up consistency. For those at SRK, items add to competition for whatever reason and keep within their idealology of changing as little of the out-of-box game as possible. No one is right or wrong because what makes people want to compete in something that varies from person to person.

In the end, the best thing to do is not argue about what's more or less competitive and just accept people have varying standards.

 

[LLDL]

You ask my opinion? Smash as a series is a real fighting game genre. But brawl in particular, no.

 

[Matador]

Competition is just 2 or more parties in a contest for an unsharable goal. Anything else added to the definition is just subjective.

Your entire argument is hiding behind the semantics of the word "competition". Some things ARE more competitive than others. Maybe the webster definition of the word doesn't meet the criteria for what exactly IS competition to us, but there's a reason why StarCraft is still played around the world more than a decade after its release while games like GNT EX barely make it out the door. I'm not arguing "Green is a better color than Red for the following reasons...", because that IS purely opinion. However, the greatest competitive games ALL expel random elements from the rules wherever possible.

Hell, all sports have a standard ball size or field size or hoop size, not a randomly changing one for a reason.

If playing a game with nearly random outcomes is your cup of tea, then that's fine; I have absolutely no problem with that. Just don't expect me to play it with you when I know the victor is a toss-up and not reliant on skill, and definitely don't expect me to label it "competitive". That's something I simply cannot agree with.

 

[metaXzero]

As I said before, to say some things are "definetely", "objectively" or "factually" more competitive then others means to define what makes something more or less competitive then others in general. And when you try and define that, you will run into disagreements, arguments, and flame wars. That's just the facts. No matter how much you wish their was an objective definition of competitiveness past "more or less suited for competition" their just isn't. People will compete in whatever they feel like competing in for whatever reasons.

What exactly makes you determine Starcraft as more competitive then GNT EX (is this one a Naruto game?). Bigger following? (which by this logic, Brawl>Melee and Rock Paper Scissors>alot of games) Smaller following (YES. I know Starcraft has a huge following but bear with me)? More depth? Easier to get into? Harder to get into? Whatever reasons you come up with, you won't get a real, all agreed answer besides people just liking to compete in it.

My main point right now is simply, you can have your opinion on what makes a competitive game competitive or more/less. But just don't expect your way of thinking to be an irrevokable fact.

Back to the topic and in-conclusion, SRK and now Seth of Capcom believes taking away items is too much of a change to the out-of-box game for a mechanic that isn't broken. We of Smashboards believe that the randomness of items no matter how slight can effect the outcome and should be removed. Both believe that the other's way of competitive play is wrong and detrimental to competition. In the end, all they can do is maintain their scenes and play their games.

I normally don't play devil's advocate (I hate items after all and don't play Brawl much anymore other then Brawl+), but I can kinda see where they (SRK and Seth) are coming from.

"If randomness period is the reason to ban items, why are the appropriate stages and characters with random effect attacks still allowed? Because their effect on the better player winning isn't that strong and they aren't broken? Then what about the items that fit that same criteria?"

That's probably close to their overall thoughts.

 

[Skler]

Nobody will ever seriously argue that Rock, Paper, Scissors is a serious competitive game. It's a game where your best bet is to find a completely random way to determine what throw to make. Maybe competitive is the wrong word, but it's much easier than saying "X game is a more pure test of skill than X".

Speaking of X, lets say skill is X and luck is Y (there is a different X and Y for each player). Smash without items on neutral stages is skill vs skill, or X vs X. The better player should always win. If you add in items there is a random luck factor, so it would be X + Y vs X + Y. If the players are closely matched, Y can determine the outcome of the game. That's stupid as hell. Sure, skill is still more important than luck but why should we leave luck in a game where it can be removed?

I explained why characters with random effects are fine. There's no risk in picking up an item AT ALL. There is a risk involved in using one of the random effect moves.

Also, most stages with random events are counterpicks or outright banned. They also tend to have random events that hardly change the game or are easily avoidable (I'm talking Melee). You know where the klaptrap will jump up in jungle japes, you know when the cars are coming in mute city, you know when the stage is going to change in pokemon stadium and what it will become once it's done changing. You don't know what item will appear and where it will appear, and you have no control over if/when it will happen.

Which game is a more pure test of skill, smash with items or smash without items?

 

[metaXzero]

You'd think so wouldn't you Skler? http://www.worldrps.com. Even Wikipedia has a section on the RPS article about competitive RPS.

By that very argument, we should ban Peach, G&W, Luigi, and so many stages. But then why don't we? Because they don't determine outcomes too much? Well neither do certain items yet we ban them all anyway. Doesn't matter if the player has to do an input to do an attack with a random effect and it's part of the character. That randomness can can effect a match outcome just as much as a random spawn that player chooses to utilize. You know the potential outcomes of a random attack or stage and how to react accordingly? Well, you can know the outcomes of a spawn, and how to react to each. And don't bring up a bomb-omb or fan example.

I could make an argument for either. And whichever one I'd choose, their will be disagreements everywhere. And in the end, nothing is agreed or upon.

 

[Skler]

The competitive RPS league is considered a joke by people IN the league. They know it's a joke, a hilarious one at that. It's competitive, but they know and accept it's based on luck.

It's like you ignored the entire risk/reward part of Peach/G&W/Luigi's attacks. Amazing. I even mentioned it in my posts. Did you not read my posts or did you not understand it? Items have no risk/reward, they only have reward. How can you not understand such a simple concept?

 

[choknater]

i remember hearing about some girl who won a rock paper scissors tournament

and ppl asked her what her strategy was

she said that she was just doing stuff at random and tried to not think

 

[th0rn]

The winner of the 1,000,000 RPS tournament won by using the clock on the wall.

12- 4 = Rock

4-8 = Paper

8-12 = scissors

What a joke.

 

[Masmasher@]

This is stupid randomness is not bad for competition . luck is . we tested items for melee. brawl is different. there wasnt any testing going on.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

This is stupid randomness is not bad for competition . luck is . we tested items for melee. brawl is different. there wasnt any testing going on.

What does it matter? Once you decide what items are ban-able or not, it removes the main appeal of the items in the first place.

Might as well just ban all of them instead of testing each one.

 

[th0rn]

Well if we say no itmes, its the same as saying no Akuma.

No its not....

Its 2d like all the others, and takes a tremendous amount of skill, just as much if not more then any MvC or SF.

not at all LOOOL

 

[Masmasher@]

What does it matter? Once you decide what items are ban-able or not, it removes the main appeal of the items in the first place.

Might as well just ban all of them instead of testing each one.

thats lazy and scrubby. Appeal would be for like or dislike.
I dont like honda. should we ban him.. no

 

[CRASHiC]

thats lazy and scrubby. Appeal would be for like or dislike.
I dont like honda. should we ban him.. no

Items were tested in Brawl. We have had item tournaments. WHOBO.
Also, it originally started out that items were banned at a lot of tournaments from the get go. There were lots of debate over it, and it ended up being a west coast vs. east coast thing. Then, on the opposing coast, someone held a no items tournament, and it was a large and popular success. Then it became custom to have items banned, not because of testing, but because people favored them off.

 

[Matador]

As I said before, to say some things are "definetely", "objectively" or "factually" more competitive then others means to define what makes something more or less competitive then others in general. And when you try and define that, you will run into disagreements, arguments, and flame wars. That's just the facts. No matter how much you wish their was an objective definition of competitiveness past "more or less suited for competition" their just isn't. People will compete in whatever they feel like competing in for whatever reasons.

Yes, but as I previously stated, the word "competitive" doesn't accurately describe the idea that successful competitive communities stand by, especially if your idea of "competitive" is the verbatim definition in Webster.

It's similar to the way Brawl "combo videos" aren't really combo videos at all, but rather "series-of-strings-of-attacks-that-the-opponent-failed-to-defend-properly-against video". Combo video is accepted instead for obvious reasons.

On the surface, we're covered under the definition "competitive", but it doesn't include the idea that the more skilled player MUST win. Without that essential concept, "competition" doesn't describe Competitive Gaming.

What exactly makes you determine Starcraft as more competitive then GNT EX (is this one a Naruto game?). Bigger following? (which by this logic, Brawl>Melee and Rock Paper Scissors>alot of games) Smaller following (YES. I know Starcraft has a huge following but bear with me)? More depth? Easier to get into? Harder to get into? Whatever reasons you come up with, you won't get a real, all agreed answer besides people just liking to compete in it.

The depth in general. The best competitive games are the ones where the most skilled player wins the most frequently. The more depth a game has, the more consistent winners you'll have.

GNT EX, as I understand it, boils down to learning the 0-deaths, converting said 0-deaths to muscle memory, then mindgaming into that first hit to initiate the combo.

Simply put: SC isn't so one-track.

My main point right now is simply, you can have your opinion on what makes a competitive game competitive or more/less. But just don't expect your way of thinking to be an irrevokable fact.

Then we should abandon the word "competitive" and adopt Skler's definition; pure test of skill. Or PTOS for short.

Of course, we won't do that because that'd be silly. If you don't cling to the word-for-word definition, competition describes Competitive Gaming adequately enough to get the point across.

 

[Masmasher@]

Items were tested in Brawl. We have had item tournaments. WHOBO.
Also, it originally started out that items were banned at a lot of tournaments from the get go. There were lots of debate over it, and it ended up being a west coast vs. east coast thing. Then, on the opposing coast, someone held a no items tournament, and it was a large and popular success. Then it became custom to have items banned, not because of testing, but because people favored them off.

Whobo had items... man texas will try anything.
But you can turn off explosive barrels in brawl
I cant deny that its the norm.. so the community should just stick with it
smash just has drama

 

[LLDL]

loool. Smash is serious business mannnn.

 

[metaXzero]

The competitive RPS league is considered a joke by people IN the league. They know it's a joke, a hilarious one at that. It's competitive, but they know and accept it's based on luck.

It's like you ignored the entire risk/reward part of Peach/G&W/Luigi's attacks. Amazing. I even mentioned it in my posts. Did you not read my posts or did you not understand it? Items have no risk/reward, they only have reward. How can you not understand such a simple concept?

Tourneys and in-depth descriptions of "advanced" play for a century over a joke? That's a bit much don't you think? Either way, whether the game has some inate skill or just RNG's will, they maintain a community and host tourneys for RPS. They are competitive and any claims of it being less or more are opionated.

Tell me the risk of Peach plucking turnips until she can find a stitch-face, bomb-omb, or beam saber. She's open when going for it? That can apply for players going for items.

Matador

So basically, you agree it's our opinion as the Smash community what makes a game more competitive instead of the irrevocable fact of the word. Well then we are on the same page (I hope).

 

[Fuelbi]

YES SMASH BROS IS FINALLY A REAL FIGHTING GAME!!! Let us rejoice our brothers as we are one step closer to taking over the internet!!!

 

[ZMan]

That'd be swell. Capcom has been in good terms with Nintendo for who knows what long, so a Nintendo Vs. Capcom game is possible.

Of course, having Megaman in the next Smash would be a good start.

it kind of hard to choose just one capcom character to be in a smash game. theres just so many awesome characters like ryu, v joe, morrigan and strider, to name a few.

maybe nintendo v capcom (along with tatsunoko v capcom) could be a new generation of crossover fighters to pick up were marvel and cvs2 left off. this is just wishful thinking though. one can dream

 

[BigDaddy4]

its technically a fighting game so yeah its a fighting game. its not like blazblue, street fighter, tekken, marvel vs capcom, but yea its a fighting game.

 

[Skler]

Tell me the risk of Peach plucking turnips until she can find a stitch-face, bomb-omb, or beam saber. She's open when going for it? That can apply for players going for items.

I explained why you aren't open when picking up an item. Do you even READ my posts? Aerial item pickup is a move with no startup and no lag, it's a one frame move. Picking up a turnip is more than enough of an opening to make an approach and gain an advantage. Dropping an item in the air is also instant, so if you ever decide the item is limiting you there is a completely safe way to get rid of it without any possible punishment.

Don't argue about things you don't understand. You don't understand items, you thought there was a RISK involved in grabbing one. SHing backwards and hitting Z isn't risky. Taking the time to pull a turnip is risky.

Also, have you read the RPS site? They name gambits (a series of 3 throws) things like the "rock slide" and "scissor sandwich". It's pretty tongue in cheek.

 

[metaXzero]

Problem. The person picking up the item still has to go over to where the item is located to pick it up (grounded or aerial pick-up regardless). And they aren't always going to be in a "I can go pick it up with no loss" location. How is that different from Peach having to sit down and pluck a turnip again?