Sarix
Smash Ace
Just a disclaimer, this is not a “Boo High Tiers! Yay Low Tiers!” blog. The purpose of this is to provoke some thought and possibly get answers.
One of the things I’ve questioned about this community is its very condescending nature towards new players or budding players choosing lower tiered characters. Now I understand that given this is a competitive community so obviously you want the most viable option so you can win; but what warrants chewing out a player for choosing a lower tier character for their main whether or not they realize they are putting themselves at a steeper disadvantage? What benefit do we gain from criticizing players for choosing less optimal characters for competitive play even if they know it’s less optimal and is it even productive for the community to begin with?
Being someone who actively tries to promote the Smash community through my college’s gaming club I try to just see if anyone would be interested in learning before picking a main. I always gain uneasiness though whenever a new player wants to use a low tier character and possibly join the community; because I feel they’ll want to leave the community for being berated because of their choice by players who have been in the scene longer, I know I have experienced it.
Another thing I’ve noticed while lurking around the boards is how some people treat newer players especially who choose lower tiered characters like they’re a disease to the metagame. It’s understandable when those players try to promote their main like they are on the same level as MK or think they are better because they choose to use a lower tier character. But why do those who just happen to like the character receive the same treatment? You would think some players would like to see newer players pick up worse characters so they aren’t threatened by them potentially in a tournament setting?
Being a Peach and Samus main I’ve seen it from both perspectives. Whenever I mention I main Peach I get treated like a player who has potential to improve become fairly good later on but whenever I mention I main Samus I’m viewed like I’ve turned into a thirteen year-old who has just joined the scene with no knowledge of the game. Granted I do view Samus as having some potential but I don’t think she’ll ever shoot up to Borderline Tier or anything crazy, at most just possibly being viable in the future with some effort. I just don’t see the justification in more experienced players bashing my choice and actually having a little bit of optimism and enjoyment in choosing her.
This double standard I feel is very destructive to the Smash community as it not only detracts respect from players who use lower tier characters but have a clear understanding of the game but it also can put incorrect judgments on players solely based on the main they chose. Granted like minds are going to be attracted to certain characters and common traits are going to be categorized but I don’t see the point in creating a negative stigma towards players who choose characters who happen to be low tier.
I also don’t see what good from just saying a character is bad, it’s such a vague and general description when you think about it. When I think of bad characters I think of Ganondorf and Zelda (no offense to those who main them) who were clearly designed with very linear concepts in mind that could’ve easily been expanded upon but weren’t (Being a studying character animator this greatly frustrates me). Both have a few options, techniques, or underlying potential to really tap into and this makes them very linear and lacking in gameplay variation between players. I can understand why other low tier characters like Link and Bowser can be considered bad but overall they have more to tools to work with and are less limited in how they can be played. Granted they have other flaws that bring them down but I feel considering them below average would be a more accurate description of them. I’ve seen mid and borderline tier players gleefully bash low tier characters considering if we want to say what characters are technically “bad” by tier status it’s D tier and under.
Overall I’m not trying to criticize anyone but I would just like to know what would be gained from viewing non-successful low tier mains with a negative connotation? I just personally believe in giving everyone a chance at anything but that may be just me and I’m not a well-known highly influential figure in this community. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion I just think it would be better to be productive to just let new players know certain characters are less optimal but still be accepting of their choice. One of the things that makes this game fun is we can play as characters we like, despite how good they are.
Again this is not a “yay low tiers” I just feel that just because a player uses a low tier character shouldn’t derail what they do know about the game.
One of the things I’ve questioned about this community is its very condescending nature towards new players or budding players choosing lower tiered characters. Now I understand that given this is a competitive community so obviously you want the most viable option so you can win; but what warrants chewing out a player for choosing a lower tier character for their main whether or not they realize they are putting themselves at a steeper disadvantage? What benefit do we gain from criticizing players for choosing less optimal characters for competitive play even if they know it’s less optimal and is it even productive for the community to begin with?
Being someone who actively tries to promote the Smash community through my college’s gaming club I try to just see if anyone would be interested in learning before picking a main. I always gain uneasiness though whenever a new player wants to use a low tier character and possibly join the community; because I feel they’ll want to leave the community for being berated because of their choice by players who have been in the scene longer, I know I have experienced it.
Another thing I’ve noticed while lurking around the boards is how some people treat newer players especially who choose lower tiered characters like they’re a disease to the metagame. It’s understandable when those players try to promote their main like they are on the same level as MK or think they are better because they choose to use a lower tier character. But why do those who just happen to like the character receive the same treatment? You would think some players would like to see newer players pick up worse characters so they aren’t threatened by them potentially in a tournament setting?
Being a Peach and Samus main I’ve seen it from both perspectives. Whenever I mention I main Peach I get treated like a player who has potential to improve become fairly good later on but whenever I mention I main Samus I’m viewed like I’ve turned into a thirteen year-old who has just joined the scene with no knowledge of the game. Granted I do view Samus as having some potential but I don’t think she’ll ever shoot up to Borderline Tier or anything crazy, at most just possibly being viable in the future with some effort. I just don’t see the justification in more experienced players bashing my choice and actually having a little bit of optimism and enjoyment in choosing her.
This double standard I feel is very destructive to the Smash community as it not only detracts respect from players who use lower tier characters but have a clear understanding of the game but it also can put incorrect judgments on players solely based on the main they chose. Granted like minds are going to be attracted to certain characters and common traits are going to be categorized but I don’t see the point in creating a negative stigma towards players who choose characters who happen to be low tier.
I also don’t see what good from just saying a character is bad, it’s such a vague and general description when you think about it. When I think of bad characters I think of Ganondorf and Zelda (no offense to those who main them) who were clearly designed with very linear concepts in mind that could’ve easily been expanded upon but weren’t (Being a studying character animator this greatly frustrates me). Both have a few options, techniques, or underlying potential to really tap into and this makes them very linear and lacking in gameplay variation between players. I can understand why other low tier characters like Link and Bowser can be considered bad but overall they have more to tools to work with and are less limited in how they can be played. Granted they have other flaws that bring them down but I feel considering them below average would be a more accurate description of them. I’ve seen mid and borderline tier players gleefully bash low tier characters considering if we want to say what characters are technically “bad” by tier status it’s D tier and under.
Overall I’m not trying to criticize anyone but I would just like to know what would be gained from viewing non-successful low tier mains with a negative connotation? I just personally believe in giving everyone a chance at anything but that may be just me and I’m not a well-known highly influential figure in this community. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion I just think it would be better to be productive to just let new players know certain characters are less optimal but still be accepting of their choice. One of the things that makes this game fun is we can play as characters we like, despite how good they are.
Again this is not a “yay low tiers” I just feel that just because a player uses a low tier character shouldn’t derail what they do know about the game.
, 
