"Casual Style" Tournament Rules Proposal

[greenblob]

No one is having more fun than the other.

My logic comes from the fact that almost all competitive Smashers have been casual Smashers at one point and are now competitive because it's more fun for them, whereas casual Smashers haven't tried out competitive Smashing before and can't compare anything. It's more likely that as a whole, competitive Smashers are having more fun than casual Smashers.

 

[BigRick]

I'm not a fan of Guilty Gear, so no thank you. I'm not complaining about the imbalances, hell, really I'm not even complaining. I'm just stating my opinion that seeing more variance, even if it's forced, would be fun. And it's just that, an opinion. Same goes for expressing interest in low tier tourneys -- it's the same as wanting to play low tier Pokemon while still having a reasonably level playing field, in which circumstance two players who both share that desire agree to have a UU- or NU-tier battle. The general tone of your post seems fairly coarse, and it's kind of uncalled for, for you to point it in my general direction just because I have interest in tournament styles you don't. Of course, if it wasn't intended that way, I'm sorry for mistaking it.

Well Balance directly affects variety. The reason why almost every plays Fox, Marth, Sheik, etc. is because they're the best characters plain and simple. Stick to casual play if you wanna see variety then.

With random selection and low tier tourney, you simply stop ppl from playing the char they want to play... this is why I'm crying BS... because you affect ppl's freedom of choice.

Btw, don't take this personally, you're not the only one that had this idea.

 

[-Wolfy-]

Actually, in the case of the cloud, it could potentially be making a difference not in percentage, but in stock...which is an even larger difference. Again, I'm not saying that Pokemon Stadium is a completely "lucky" stage to play on, or that the Yoshi's Island cloud is based completely on luck - my point was only to illustrate that the current tournament rules DO allow for some "luck" to influence matches. If the Smash community is really that serious about playing for money, then they should technically ban ALL stages that have the slightest semblance of luck included (although that would probably mean that Final Destination, Battlefield, and Fountain of Dreams would be the only stages played).



It depends on how seriously you want to take the "play-to-win" policy - most people would probably only apply it to what they consider to be "serious" matches, which in this case would rule out item matches.



"Belligerent", eh? Yes, I've watched MANY videos on YouTube of SmashGames - most recently I watched some Gimpyfish videos, and before that I cycled through some PC Chris VS Ken videos. As for people "waiting out" the transformations on Pokemon Stadium, that's their own problem - technically they should be learning to maximize their advantages (or avoid disadvantages) as much as possible, like Sonic_Wave was saying.



Every match you play is played for money? I don't think so...please keep in mind, I'm NOT saying that item matches should replace current competitive Smash matches. I would not want that. You would not want that. Probably every Smasher with half a head would not want that. However, it WOULD be neat to see people start experimenting more with items and learning to use them well - perhaps, eventually, a "happy medium" would be found with items, to the point where some of them even COULD be used in competitive Smash. The problem is that no one has actually given this a valid try for some time. Items used to be part of competitive Smash, but now people tend to scoff at the very mention of them without even giving it a try. I think that some Smashers should at least try this, on various settings. Try with different types of items and different rates of appearance, and try mastering the usages and techniques of items. Perhaps a whole new area of advanced techniques could arise from the use of items, who knows?

As for a "random Joe Schmoe" beating Mew2King, you KNOW that's an exaggeration. It's not like an item match depends solely upon items...it's not like you're forbidden from showing your character skill when items are on. I'd be willing to bet that Mew2King would be able to thoroughly thrash any normal Smash player in an item match, simply because his own skill would be so much above their's. You CAN dodge Bomb-ombs, you know...

I see where you're coming from on the money aspect, though - I guess it wouldn't be wise to practice any other way then by the current tournament rules, or you might slip out of practice and get rusty.



I think we could ALL enjoy something like this...essentially, Smash was built to be played with items and with all the stages. Since current tournament rules don't make room for them, though, it's unlikely we'll ever see them in competitive play. It would be nice, too, however, to see that snobbish attitude that a lot of Smashers have towards items go away, since there's nothing really "wrong" with items - they do add more luck, but they also add a great deal of fun. I hope people are having as much fun playing their "money matches" out there in the "competitive" world...

You misrepresented my stance on money matches. I never once said all matches are played for money. I stated that since Money Matches are the peak of our play, that most other matches are played to prepare ourselves, and thusly, are played with the same rules. There is nothing you could say that would convince anyone that the tournament ruleset is totally.

Another example of pros avoiding advantage mismatches is in the realm of peach. several guides advise the player to just get rid of any beam swords or bombombs because they can just as easily backfire on the user.

Items are fun, i like having fun play with my friends and every once and a while we each pick one a piece and just play the more whacky of the levels, but I also really enjoy the metagame. Theres no doubt that there isn't one group of people that is having more fun than the other. Referring to us like we're afflicted because we don't play with items like the game is "intended" to be played is frankly condescending and out of place. If you want to get a point across I would cut the condescending attitude.

I don't really agree with the whole "how the game was meant to be played" argument, because where does it say that the game is meant to be played any specific way? If it were meant to be played one way then there wouldn't be options that allowed you to change the frequency and type of items that appeared, or the duration of matches, the handicaps, the levels avaliable, or even the characters able to be played. It can be played however the player wants, and theres no be all end all ruleset, but there is one that we like to play by, and there will always be dissent, but in tournament play, that is typically the most agreed upon ruleset, not necessarily for ALL play though. It goes back to my statement on how we usually play with the same ruleset in friendlies just so that we are used to the match type.

It keeps getting lost in the conflict, but its not like the competitive scene has always been as is. The game was once played as is, and as time progressed, aspects were stricken. We aren't shrugging it off without giving it a chance because we have given it a chance and we have played that way before, and the ruleset we play with now is what it evolved into.

I would like to step back and put a new perspective on things. What are you actually arguing for? We're arguing on a concept, but what is the actual goal of our exchange? Because I am in support of a "casual" tournament, and i would play in one for fun, and i also support some of your reasonings, but in some ways I don't get why we are arguing.

I really can't emphasize enough that I understand where you're coming from in alot of you points, and that I value your input on the issue, and I've enjoyed our exchange on the subject.

 

[Midboss]

Btw, don't take this personally, you're not the only one that had this idea.

Oh, I'm actually not 'having' this idea. It was posted several times, and I personally think it would be fun, so I'm stating that I, for one, would enjoy playing in that way, and if I was able, would show up to such a tournament. It'd offer a slightly different flavor of challenge where not only is your skill brought into play, but also your versatility. I'm not suggesting any rules be changed, I'm not even saying that a tournament with random character selection should be played for money, just that it'd be fun, which, as has probably been stated hundreds of times, is subjective, so while YOU might not think playing a randomly chosen character sounds fun, others might.

In theory it wouldn't be too far off from playing a draft tournament of a card game, where each player is given three boosters, and opens one at a time, picking out a single card from it and passing the rest to the person next to them, and repeating. Of course, in a draft tournament, you still have the power of choice, however, your possible choices are random. Yet, time and again draft has proven to be the most popular tournament style for Magic and the Spoils. Of course, things are often far different in practice than in theory.

Edit: Glancing at the post above mine I feel like adding/reiterating that I'm not in here arguing against standard tournament rules. I just happen to think a few of the ideas pitched in here regarding a more casual style of tournament to be hosted separately, or in the shadow of, real tournaments, sound like good fun. Ideally, one wouldn't host the casual formats with a particularly large prize, or perhaps even without one at all, it'd be just as the name implied, casual.

 

[Randofu]

Wow. This thread has certainly got a bit of attention. I should have put more thought into it before I posted it. Also, I love the analogy to a CCG draft tournament, and couldn't agree more.

With random selection and low tier tourney, you simply stop ppl from playing the char they want to play... this is why I'm crying BS... because you affect ppl's freedom of choice.

Btw, don't take this personally, you're not the only one that had this idea.

Can anyone seriously play Bowser in a traditional-style tournament? You say that random selection restricts people's freedom of choice. I'd rather be forced to know how to play well as every character than to be basically forced not to use a character. Sure I can choose between a bunch of characters I don't like, but I'd rather have a shot at playing Bowser.

Bowser forever! Top tier for Brawl!

 

[Puffer]

You misrepresented my stance on money matches. I never once said all matches are played for money. I stated that since Money Matches are the peak of our play, that most other matches are played to prepare ourselves, and thusly, are played with the same rules. There is nothing you could say that would convince anyone that the tournament ruleset is totally.
.

First off, let me just say to everyone - thanks a bunch for your input. I was afraid that people might be a bit too conceited to discuss this, but I admit, I was wrong.

It looks like I've misjudged the Smash community; initially I thought that items, "non-neutral" stages, and other non-competitive aspects of Smash would be scoffed at by most, if not all, of the Smash community. I'm glad to see that people ARE actually responding to the whole item discussion, and it's helped me understand a bit more why things are the way they are. Again, thanks to all of you...


WGWolverine, I'm sorry if I "misrepresented" anything you said - from your previous posts you seemed to be implying that the focus of most Smash players was to play competitive matches with money on the line. If you didn't mean that, I'm sorry...clearly I was mistaken.

Now, let me explain a bit about MY situation so you guys can see where I'm coming from.

Based on what I've said before, this will seem unlikely, but it's not. I LIKE playing Smash competitively. The last time I played Smash Bros. with any items/wacky stages was some time ago. I have gone to tournaments and I enjoy competing with other players for the same reason that most of the Smashers here probably do. I like competitive games in general, and have played them before (my favorite at this point is probably StarCraft, but I've also dabbled with fighting games on the SNES). When I know that I can get better at a game (i.e. I find myself losing more than I'd like), I try to improve.

That was the case with Smash. I was the stereotypical "scrub" at the beginning. I found myself growing more and more disgusted with the game as I started discovering how sickeningly imbalanced it was. I decided that such a game was not worth the time of day, so I told myself that I shouldn't waste my time with it. I guess Smash is one of those games that tends to plague your mind, even if you try to ignore it, and that's exactly what happened to me. I used to think that advanced techniques were a big joke, something that only the most hopeless nerds/geeks could learn. Boy, was I wrong. The day finally came when I sat down and realized if I wanted to improve, I'd better start now. I sat down at the computer, zipped over to Smashboards and read up on as much stuff as I could. I soon discovered that I was wrong about advanced techniques - in fact, they weren't really "advanced" at all. They were just UNKNOWN techniques, and therefore harder (obviously) to use. If you don't know about something, it can be extremely difficult/impossible to use it in your game. So I started practicing wavedashing, teching, shield canceling...the usual stuff. I got over the whole mental wall and started applying myself a bit more.

Also, in general, I LIKE a match to be "fair." That was why the imbalance in Smash really got under my skin - I knew that very few of the matches I ever played would ever be truly "fair." I think for a match to truly test the skills of each person, the playing field must be "level" so to speak...and in Smash, it's FAR from level. I don't like knowing that I'm completely thrashing my opponent because their character is badly matched for mine, and obviously, I also don't like losing because I know my character is badly matched with my opponent's. Well, I learned to get over this with Smash - I decided that, even if I ended up fighting lots of high-tiers, I could at least appreciate the added challenge and learning it would give me. And I still do appreciate it to this day - after all, the harder the fight is, the more you'll learn (that's true with EVERYTHING, not just Smash). Assuming, of course, that you're familiar with the game's mechanics, have a bit of self-discipline, and know how to work the controller. (hah). So I decided to start really trying at Smash and honing myself into a decent player.

Now that you know that much, you should probably guess that I was against using items in games. And you'd be right- I was against them, and still am against them in serious competitive play. To tell the truth, I hardly ever play with them - I can't specifically remember the last match I played items with.

Only recently, however, I started thinking that perhaps the Smash tournament rules were a bit hypocritical. As everyone pointed out before, the rules are meant to "minimize the luck" involved in the game. I thought, "Heck, there's already IMBALANCE in the game...if they don't allow LUCK, why would they allow imbalance"? I also thought that other stages and the addition of items might provide a whole new field of concepts that the Smash "pros" and competitive players could expand upon and evolve, just as they did with the original game. I knew that in its early stages, competitive Smash did a bit of experimenting with items. Apparently, it was more than just a bit (according to previous posts). My mistake was that I assumed that Smashers had developed a sort of "aloofness" to the concept of anything else other than tournament-friendly stuff, which would include non-neutral stages and obviously, items. I see now that the Smash community is not as ignorant (or as conceited) as I thought. Again, I apologize if I misrepresented something in my previous posts - I was just trying to "test the water" and see what people actually THINK on the subject. It turns out that a lot of you actually DO experiment with items on your own time and are aware of the possibilities they have.

Thanks to Randofu for starting this thread and thanks to everyone for discussing. Good luck in your Smash endeavors!

 

[festizzio]

If you frequent tournaments enough, you'll notice the same people keep showing up, and they'll notice you keep showing up, and then you guys are basically skipping through flowery meadows holding hands, singing songs about rainbows and unicorns.

I am soooooo putting this in my sig. :D May I just say that randofu you can do whatever you want, I'm sure not many good people, if any, will be coming to any random character, random stage, all items on tourneys anytime soon. Maybe in Brawl's infant years, but that's all.

 

[thesage]

I'm glad you understand stuff better now... But, what tournaments do you go to exactly? The ones at your school and the ones featured on this website are vastly different.... sadly... =(

 

[Randofu]

I'm glad you understand stuff better now... But, what tournaments do you go to exactly? The ones at your school and the ones featured on this website are vastly different.... sadly... =(

Was this directed towards me? The one I went to at my school was organized on this website, so I don't know what to make of your post.

Maybe I'll try to organize an event once Brawl comes out. What might be nice would be to have it free to enter the tournament, but with some really small prizes (like a $20 Wii Points card for the winner or something). That way, no one gets upset that they lost their buy-in to a bob-omb, and people still have a small incentive to play.

 

[Sliq]

Oh, I'm actually not 'having' this idea. It was posted several times, and I personally think it would be fun, so I'm stating that I, for one, would enjoy playing in that way, and if I was able, would show up to such a tournament.

This will never happen because 1.) The competitives are happy with the current ruleset, and therefore feel no need to change it, 2.) no casual player is going to hold a tournament, and 3.) there is no standard "casual" ruleset, and therefore some casuals would not go because a certain s not the way they'd like it.

Just because you think something is a good idea doesn't make it one. I think it would be fun to have a Hammering contest, where the competitors smash their hands with a hammer. Should I hold this tournament, I'm pretty sure no one would show up to it.

And that's exactly what will happen with almost all casual tournaments. They will never break 30 or so people, unless done in like NYC or San Fran, and only then if it gets A LOT of press coverage in news and magazine (which won't happen).

It is about supply and demand, and there is currently not enough demand for a different ruleset tournament to even consider supplying it.

Was this directed towards me? The one I went to at my school was organized on this website, so I don't know what to make of your post.

Maybe I'll try to organize an event once Brawl comes out. What might be nice would be to have it free to enter the tournament, but with some really small prizes (like a $20 Wii Points card for the winner or something). That way, no one gets upset that they lost their buy-in to a bob-omb, and people still have a small incentive to play.

20$ is not enough incentive for people to drive to a tournament. That doesn't even cover gas for people coming from far away. There isn't that much incentive to play if, even if you win, you lose money on the venture.

 

[-Wolfy-]

First off, let me just say to everyone - thanks a bunch for your input. I was afraid that people might be a bit too conceited to discuss this, but I admit, I was wrong.

It looks like I've misjudged the Smash community; initially I thought that items, "non-neutral" stages, and other non-competitive aspects of Smash would be scoffed at by most, if not all, of the Smash community. I'm glad to see that people ARE actually responding to the whole item discussion, and it's helped me understand a bit more why things are the way they are. Again, thanks to all of you...


WGWolverine, I'm sorry if I "misrepresented" anything you said - from your previous posts you seemed to be implying that the focus of most Smash players was to play competitive matches with money on the line. If you didn't mean that, I'm sorry...clearly I was mistaken.

Now, let me explain a bit about MY situation so you guys can see where I'm coming from.

Based on what I've said before, this will seem unlikely, but it's not. I LIKE playing Smash competitively. The last time I played Smash Bros. with any items/wacky stages was some time ago. I have gone to tournaments and I enjoy competing with other players for the same reason that most of the Smashers here probably do. I like competitive games in general, and have played them before (my favorite at this point is probably StarCraft, but I've also dabbled with fighting games on the SNES). When I know that I can get better at a game (i.e. I find myself losing more than I'd like), I try to improve.

That was the case with Smash. I was the stereotypical "scrub" at the beginning. I found myself growing more and more disgusted with the game as I started discovering how sickeningly imbalanced it was. I decided that such a game was not worth the time of day, so I told myself that I shouldn't waste my time with it. I guess Smash is one of those games that tends to plague your mind, even if you try to ignore it, and that's exactly what happened to me. I used to think that advanced techniques were a big joke, something that only the most hopeless nerds/geeks could learn. Boy, was I wrong. The day finally came when I sat down and realized if I wanted to improve, I'd better start now. I sat down at the computer, zipped over to Smashboards and read up on as much stuff as I could. I soon discovered that I was wrong about advanced techniques - in fact, they weren't really "advanced" at all. They were just UNKNOWN techniques, and therefore harder (obviously) to use. If you don't know about something, it can be extremely difficult/impossible to use it in your game. So I started practicing wavedashing, teching, shield canceling...the usual stuff. I got over the whole mental wall and started applying myself a bit more.

Also, in general, I LIKE a match to be "fair." That was why the imbalance in Smash really got under my skin - I knew that very few of the matches I ever played would ever be truly "fair." I think for a match to truly test the skills of each person, the playing field must be "level" so to speak...and in Smash, it's FAR from level. I don't like knowing that I'm completely thrashing my opponent because their character is badly matched for mine, and obviously, I also don't like losing because I know my character is badly matched with my opponent's. Well, I learned to get over this with Smash - I decided that, even if I ended up fighting lots of high-tiers, I could at least appreciate the added challenge and learning it would give me. And I still do appreciate it to this day - after all, the harder the fight is, the more you'll learn (that's true with EVERYTHING, not just Smash). Assuming, of course, that you're familiar with the game's mechanics, have a bit of self-discipline, and know how to work the controller. (hah). So I decided to start really trying at Smash and honing myself into a decent player.

Now that you know that much, you should probably guess that I was against using items in games. And you'd be right- I was against them, and still am against them in serious competitive play. To tell the truth, I hardly ever play with them - I can't specifically remember the last match I played items with.

Only recently, however, I started thinking that perhaps the Smash tournament rules were a bit hypocritical. As everyone pointed out before, the rules are meant to "minimize the luck" involved in the game. I thought, "Heck, there's already IMBALANCE in the game...if they don't allow LUCK, why would they allow imbalance"? I also thought that other stages and the addition of items might provide a whole new field of concepts that the Smash "pros" and competitive players could expand upon and evolve, just as they did with the original game. I knew that in its early stages, competitive Smash did a bit of experimenting with items. Apparently, it was more than just a bit (according to previous posts). My mistake was that I assumed that Smashers had developed a sort of "aloofness" to the concept of anything else other than tournament-friendly stuff, which would include non-neutral stages and obviously, items. I see now that the Smash community is not as ignorant (or as conceited) as I thought. Again, I apologize if I misrepresented something in my previous posts - I was just trying to "test the water" and see what people actually THINK on the subject. It turns out that a lot of you actually DO experiment with items on your own time and are aware of the possibilities they have.

Thanks to Randofu for starting this thread and thanks to everyone for discussing. Good luck in your Smash endeavors!

I'm glad we stopped shooting eachother down and got down to business. I totally understand where you're coming from. The ruleset most commonly used is not necessaily meant to completely eliminate luck, but to minimize it as much as possible, while still allowing for a bit of depth in the form of stage counterpicking. I know what you're saying as far as the cloud goes. This has been one of the more intelligible debates I've been involved in. None are ever good in the brawl discussion area >_< .

And to aid your stance, in todays update Sakurai threw in the comment in one of the first pictures "Real men use items" XD

 

[Binx]

Oh, I'm actually not 'having' this idea. It was posted several times, and I personally think it would be fun, so I'm stating that I, for one, would enjoy playing in that way, and if I was able, would show up to such a tournament. It'd offer a slightly different flavor of challenge where not only is your skill brought into play, but also your versatility. I'm not suggesting any rules be changed, I'm not even saying that a tournament with random character selection should be played for money, just that it'd be fun, which, as has probably been stated hundreds of times, is subjective, so while YOU might not think playing a randomly chosen character sounds fun, others might.

In theory it wouldn't be too far off from playing a draft tournament of a card game, where each player is given three boosters, and opens one at a time, picking out a single card from it and passing the rest to the person next to them, and repeating. Of course, in a draft tournament, you still have the power of choice, however, your possible choices are random. Yet, time and again draft has proven to be the most popular tournament style for Magic and the Spoils. Of course, things are often far different in practice than in theory.

Edit: Glancing at the post above mine I feel like adding/reiterating that I'm not in here arguing against standard tournament rules. I just happen to think a few of the ideas pitched in here regarding a more casual style of tournament to be hosted separately, or in the shadow of, real tournaments, sound like good fun. Ideally, one wouldn't host the casual formats with a particularly large prize, or perhaps even without one at all, it'd be just as the name implied, casual.

Except the level of luck in a draft tournament can be controlled with better ease than the 1 in 26 chance of getting whatever character also if the random stage ended up being hyrule and the other character wasnt fox then fox wins.

 

[Puffer]

And to aid your stance, in todays update Sakurai threw in the comment in one of the first pictures "Real men use items" XD

Just saw that - it made me laugh out loud.

Along the same line, does anyone actually know how MUCH the dudes at Nintendo know about the competitive Smash scene? I can't quite tell from the Brawl updates whether or not they're going to give serious consideration to fine-tuning the competitive aspects of the game (balance, advanced techniques, etc.), so it's hard to say. I would think that after years of Melee being as heavily and seriously played as it is, that the developers would pick up on the fact that YES, some people actually do play the game on a high, competitive level. Does anyone know if Sakurai/the developers have acknowledged this yet? I'd sure like to know.

 

[-Wolfy-]

I'd think they know a bit, but remember Sakurai is like half way around the world, and as I understand his english isn't that good, so I doubt they do alot of reading of this site. It has to be hard for them to ignore though. I mean, there are japanese smashers so they have to have at least some knowledge of it. I'm in the camp that think it is sort of aimed at the competitive crowd of North America, since when you translate the Japanese page(thanks to SamuraiPanda) it says something completely different. So who knows. I'm definitely curious though. Don't try emailing Nintendo, they have pre programmed responses based on trigger words in your email. I've been frustrated by that many a time before like with the Geno question and one other that escapes me right now...

 

[House M.D.]

I'm a tournament player (relatively new, not a lot of experience, but that's my mindset)/ ignore the post count. sorry if this has already been mentioned on this thread (too lazy to read all of it), but here's the way i see it.

i used to play FFA with or without items (it varied), but eventually it just got boring. i'd be playing with friends and after half an hour i would just get bored. when i met someone with some knowledge of advanced techs and he crushed me with climbers chain grabs on marth (didn't know about DI then), i get interested. what i discovered was this whole new amount of depth; i started having fun again. in fact, i had more fun than i ever had before.

when you play with items, there's not nearly as much of an incentive to learn advanced techs because you feel like you can just rely on items to win the match for you. but on the barren landscape that is a battlefield with just you and an opponent, you come to realize how much there really is to the game and how much advanced techniques really matter.
maybe this is wrong, but it seems like a lot of people had this experience; people learned about how to play effectively while playing without items. so when it came down to organizing tournaments, the thought is, when i played with items i didn't really play well but when i played without items i actually started improving. so they decide not to allow items.

now, i'm not saying that items should necessarily be allowed in tournaments. the randomness is an element that should probably be eliminated. i'm just trying to point out that the randomness isn't the only reason that items aren't allowed. they also aren't allowed because that's how we played when we really learned to play, and that's when i'm having the most fun. in light of these comments, an items tournament is not repulsive; it's just not how we want to play.

not sure if anyone agrees but i'm curious to know if they do.

 

[-Wolfy-]

Firstly, house is awesome. watching it right now.
Secondly, I know what you mean. In some ways a person who isn't as good at the Standard Techniques can use items as a crutch.
Thirdly, I also don't believe an items tournament i repulsive. I just think items on high and even the always random characters are my only points of contention.

 

[Puffer]

I'd think they know a bit, but remember Sakurai is like half way around the world, and as I understand his english isn't that good, so I doubt they do alot of reading of this site. It has to be hard for them to ignore though. I mean, there are japanese smashers so they have to have at least some knowledge of it. I'm in the camp that think it is sort of aimed at the competitive crowd of North America, since when you translate the Japanese page(thanks to SamuraiPanda) it says something completely different. So who knows. I'm definitely curious though. Don't try emailing Nintendo, they have pre programmed responses based on trigger words in your email. I've been frustrated by that many a time before like with the Geno question and one other that escapes me right now...

I'm assuming you're referring to Geno from Super Mario RPG for the SNES - I completely forgot about the characters from that game. Geno and Mallow would definitely make interesting Brawl characters, although I don't think that game receives as much attention as others did at the start of Brawl's development. Obviously, Sonic and Metal Gear Solid were much more widely talked about than Super Mario RPG or other Nintendo titles, which is a shame. I'd much rather see Geno and Mallow in there than what's going now... To me it feels pretty WRONG to see Solid Snake and Sonic invading a Smash title...but hey, I'm sure that there are plenty of people who were literally dreaming of seeing those characters in it. I can understand why Nintendo put them in there; they're trying to appeal to the wants of their fanboys/consumers/players, whatever you want to call it. But pushing it that far makes it seem as if they're only doing it "for the sake of doing it", so to speak, meaning that they're only putting those characters in to attract more players because those players would play Brawl because "their character is in it." The whole thing seems like a commercialized marketing ploy for raking in more money and achieving more success, which it partly is: clearly, Nintendo is a company driven by a profit motive, and ultimately that means their goal is to make money.

However, I've been playing Nintendo games since I was about 4 years old - I don't want to see this company doing things "for the money." The Nintendo I know is one that makes classic, polished, GREAT games - primarily with gameplay in mind. Yes, they ARE a company, they need to stay in business, but I think that they're pushing things just a BIT too far. After all, the unique thing about Smash is that it involves characters released on Nintendo consoles or characters from Nintendo titles. Sorry, but last time I checked, Sonic and Snake don't fall into those categories. It DOES add more variety, true; it DOES add more flare and spice to the game, true; but it detracts from that classic Nintendo feel because it's not classic Nintendo anymore.

There's my twenty cents on the issue - and before I'm flamed by all the Sonic and Snake fanboys, please consider where I'm coming from: I've played Nintendo games all my life, I deeply appreciate the originality and "classic" feel behind all Nintendo games, and seeing Sonic and Snake mix with these familiar faces makes me feel kinda sad. Granted, I'm sure that the Sonic and Metal Gear series are great games - but, that doesn't mean that you have to go blending them with classic Nintendo stuff.

I apologize in advance this time if I've offended anyone.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

*facepalm.*

Wrong thread for this, Puffer. But, I'll bite.

And if you really wanna get technical, Snake had his humble beginnings on the 8-bit NES console. The first two Metal Gear games released on that system. Yeah, he didn't really get notoriety until MGS was released for the PSX but he started on a Nintendo console before anywhere else. If you wanna get down to brass tacks and brush aside the third party hullaballoo, it makes a certain amount of sense. I'm just hoping that Sakurai touches base on the fact that Snake started on NES consoles somehow.

And while I am a Sonic fanboy (old school, 2-D jobbies; don't even get me started on the ****ty 3-D games), you are absolutely right about it being beyond strange to see Sega's spiny mascot in a Nintendo-based game. I would've never dreamed that Sonic would be in a game like this. I had good reason to believe so, yeah, but I always thought it was way too far-fetched. He's in Brawl, so I'm pretty happy.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Puffer]

*facepalm.*

Wrong thread for this, Puffer. But, I'll bite.

And if you really wanna get technical, Snake had his humble beginnings on the 8-bit NES console. The first two Metal Gear games released on that system. Yeah, he didn't really get notoriety until MGS was released for the PSX but he started on a Nintendo console before anywhere else. If you wanna get down to brass tacks and brush aside the third party hullaballoo, it makes a certain amount of sense. I'm just hoping that Sakurai touches base on the fact that Snake started on NES consoles somehow.

And while I am a Sonic fanboy (old school, 2-D jobbies; don't even get me started on the ****ty 3-D games), you are absolutely right about it being beyond strange to see Sega's spiny mascot in a Nintendo-based game. I would've never dreamed that Sonic would be in a game like this. I had good reason to believe so, yeah, but I always thought it was way too far-fetched. He's in Brawl, so I'm pretty happy.

Smooth Criminal

DUDE - you are so right. I completely forgot about the NES game that features Snake...ironically, I actually played it myself (if I remember correctly it was an overhead-view shooter, similar to "Commando" if you've ever heard of it.) So...I guess I can't make the argument that Snake isn't Nintendo - he's technically a third-party character, but Konami actually made many games for Nintendo and he did show up on a Nintendo console. Sorry dude - you're right. As for Sonic, it's not like I hate him - I just thought him "out of place" amongst Nintendo's cast of characters. I guess, though, if Snake is allowed to be in it, I wouldn't have that much problem with Sonic either. Crazy, man, I completely forgot about Snake's NES game...

 

[Midboss]

Actually, the NES version of Metal Gear was a horribly butchered port of the MSX original. So Snake didn't 'start' on the NES. Just thought I'd point it out.

 

[Puffer]

Actually, the NES version of Metal Gear was a horribly butchered port of the MSX original. So Snake didn't 'start' on the NES. Just thought I'd point it out.

Are you saying that this NES game was in NO WAY Metal Gear? Whether or not it was horribly butchered doesn't really mean anything in this case; what counts is that it was actually on that console to begin with (i.e. it "got its roots" there). I'm reasonably sure that I remember playing a NES game that featured Snake Solid in it...if anyone has proof that contradicts this, please let me know.

 

[Midboss]

Yeah, it was Metal Gear. The point wasn't that it was butchered, but that it was a port, where it was stated above that Snake "had his humble beginnings" on the NES, which isn't actually true. I wasn't trying to disprove his eligibility, just pointing out that Metal Gear was on the MSX first, something not many seem to know.

It was in response to this:

And if you really wanna get technical, Snake had his humble beginnings on the 8-bit NES console. The first two Metal Gear games released on that system. Yeah, he didn't really get notoriety until MGS was released for the PSX but he started on a Nintendo console before anywhere else. If you wanna get down to brass tacks and brush aside the third party hullaballoo, it makes a certain amount of sense. I'm just hoping that Sakurai touches base on the fact that Snake started on NES consoles somehow.

 

[joenopride]

Now I'm making a post that doesn't relate to conversation on this page at all...

In any case, I don't think items in a tournament on it's own would work out very well. With money and recognition on the line, people prefer to know that their fate is more or less, in their own hands. But as an additional tournament, it's a cool idea. $3 buy-in, items on medium, and a little experimentation on what items/stages, and this idea could have some legs!

 

[Puffer]

Yeah, it was Metal Gear. The point wasn't that it was butchered, but that it was a port, where it was stated above that Snake "had his humble beginnings" on the NES, which isn't actually true. I wasn't trying to disprove his eligibility, just pointing out that Metal Gear was on the MSX first, something not many seem to know.

It was in response to this:

I feel stupid for having to ask this, but I will anyway: What's the "MSX"? It can't be a Nintendo console - I'm sure I'd have heard of it by now. Yes, it may be incorrect that Snake "began" on the Nintendo, but the fact that he was still ON a Nintendo console adds eligibility to his inclusion in Brawl.

 

[Midboss]

It's ancient technology from a lost civilization. But to get back on topic, I do think that if it was kept short enough, a less serious, far more 'random' ruleset could very well be run in the shadow of a serious tournament, before or after. Make it 3 stock with a 4 minute time limit, best 2 out of 3, single elimination, and the 'casual tourney' will run much shorter, and if the buy-in is incredibly low like joen suggested, I could see quite a few people signing up just for the hell of it, while it might also draw in players who previously wouldn't have entered tournaments because of a hard-headed "Real men use items!" belief.

Edit: And I was never trying to say he wasn't eligible. Just pointing out he didn't start on the NES like certain (Mega) others (Man) did.

 

[-Wolfy-]

4 minutes is too short. as far as melee goes, matches are usually only at that proportion with certain top tiers, as in most matches damage is slowly chipped on, and ko's are fought for, especially with characters like falco and peach who benefit from camptactics. i'd say 5 min for 3 stock is about right. I agree with low buy in. Probably winner takes all to be worth the time or second place gets buy in or something. Single elimination best ofr three sounds right too, and i would still argue that items be on medium instead of high. i would play in one.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Actually, the NES version of Metal Gear was a horribly butchered port of the MSX original. So Snake didn't 'start' on the NES. Just thought I'd point it out.

Hm. You learn something new everyday.

Thanks for pointing that out, man, Now I just need to figure out what the hell the MSX is.

Smooth Criminal

 

[-Wolfy-]

I heard the Ancient Egyptians played MSX.
True story.
10char

 

[NES n00b]

Hm. You learn something new everyday.

Thanks for pointing that out, man, Now I just need to figure out what the hell the MSX is.

Smooth Criminal

Something that Konami released. It is just a console that only the Japanese bought. Crazy Japanese.

 

[pablovirus]

What do all these posts ^ have to do with the Torunament..?

As for the suggested format, I think it doesnt make much sense if you call it a "Tournament" (or like "a big event where players compete to show who has the best skill"). It's pure randomness, AKA luck based. Why would anyone compete that way if the outcome can be affected by luck? Because of "fun" ?

 

[Midboss]

Most of us (including the original poster) completely dropped the 'very high items' thing. ...like, on the first page. Actually, I WOULD support items, even in a tournament setting, if not for the crates, barrels, and capsules that come with them and frequently explode. Even still, I'd insist on low spawns, which is what I've ALWAYS played with. Medium or higher and they just tend to take over the battle, which is another argument many people make (wrongly, in my opinion) against items period. Why I think the argument is used improperly is because on low, or very low, they're not so frequent and leave plenty of time between items focused on real fighting ability.

 

[Desh.]

i dno...i played some casuals who knew of advanced techs from youtube lol...they used them semi decently...but they didnt go by tourny rules and got beaten savagely (made 10 bucks off those sucker)...they asked to play a match with items on very high so i said sure if they promised to never use the words items again if i won.

so they said fine but they made me play on MK and with items on very high and with dk.

i still slaughtered them...i think who ever is a more skilled player in general will win in most/any situation

 

[joenopride]

The problem with your example, is that you are two different skill levels. When it gets to really close skill levels, then randomness could throw a match in a certain players favor.

 

[smash superstar]

i hate items! lol

 

[smash superstar]

using items turns smash into mario party

luck~

 

[Dark Sonic]

This conflict has already been settled a few pages back. Just let this thread die or close it.

 

[Retroking2000]

This conflict has already been settled a few pages back. Just let this thread die or close it.

quoted for the truth

 

[Yoshi'stheBombers7]

This conflict has already been settled a few pages back. Just let this thread die or close it.

quoted for the truth

Same with me.