Esports Medal Event Added to the 2022 Asian Olympics



As esports gains popularity, business and organizations become eager to invest in the industry that has become a worldwide phenomenon; soon, it will also become a part of one of the world's largest sporting events.

On Apr 17, the Olympic Council of Asia (OCA) and Alisports, Alibaba's sports-focused subsidiary, announced that they will be partnering to put esports on the official program of the 2022 Asian Games in Hangzhou, China. In addition, esports will be a demonstration event at the OCA's 5th Asian Indoor and Martial Art Games (AIMAG) in September and the 2018 Asian Games in Jakarta, Indonesia.

The Asian Games is seen as the second-largest sporting event in the world, the first being the Olympics. Esports' inclusion in such an event is because “(it will be) reflecting the rapid development and popularity of this new form of sports participation among the youth.”

OCA President HE Sheikh Ahmad Al Fahad Al Sabah said: “The Olympic Council of Asia has constantly been committed to the heritage, development and improvement of Asian sports, and we are extremely pleased about the strategic partnership with Alisports."

The game roster for these events has yet to be confirmed, but titles being considered for the 5th AIMAG include FIFA 2017, MOBAs (Multiplayer Online Battle Arena) and RTS (Real Time Strategy) games.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Josh Olalde

Comments

#2
What do you guys think about this news? Will we ever see a Fighting game in the Olympics? We've had success with Street Fighter V being casted on ESPN and have gained an immense popularity with big organizations with Smash.

Personally, I am ecstatic to hear this progressive news even though it is way off the spectrum of games I play. This partnership can potentially lead into so many possibilities in terms of esports that could impact different communities. Who knows, maybe we will Smash in the in the public eye real soon. Stay tuned.
 
Last edited:
#3
An asian esports tournament with no Brood War or CS? What is this madness?

Also, with Nintendo's weird attitude towards competitive smash, we're probably not going to see either Melee or Sm4sh in this big of a capacity for a while.
 
Last edited:
#4
An asian esports tournament with no Brood War or CS? What is this madness?

Also, with Nintendo's weird attitude towards competitive smash, we're probably not going to see either Melee or Sm4sh in this big of a capacity for a while.
What do you mean? Nintendo pushed for Wii U and Melee on EVO 2 years in a row now, they basically bought Pokkén's way to EVO too last year (we know that happened), they have been sponsoring tournaments since 2014 and displaying freaking Switch ads at the tournaments this year!!! Nintendo is officially the biggest supporter for competitive fighting games aside from Capcom now.
 
Last edited:
#5
What do you mean? Nintendo pushed for Wii U and Melee on EVO 2 years in a row now, they basically bought Pokkén's way to EVO too last year (we know that happened), they have been sponsoring tournaments since 2014 and displaying freaking Switch ads at the tournaments this year!!! Nintendo is officially the biggest supporter for competitive fighting games aside from Capcom now.
I agree. While we may not see melee up there, I'm sure we have a chance for smash 4
 
#6
What do you mean? Nintendo pushed for Wii U and Melee on EVO 2 years in a row now, they basically bought Pokkén's way to EVO too last year (we know that happened), they have been sponsoring tournaments since 2014 and displaying freaking Switch ads at the tournaments this year!!! Nintendo is officially the biggest supporter for competitive fighting games aside from Capcom now.
I'm mostly thinking of Sakurai. He seems to hate the idea of Smash becoming a competitive game.
 
Last edited:
#8
I agree. While we may not see melee up there, I'm sure we have a chance for smash 4
Smash 4 has no chance of reaching such importance, it vastly exist other games within the category where a lot of skill is needed such like by UMVC3, etc... SSBM is the most competitive Nintendo game ever where real skill and mental fortitude is required, guess, in order to survive Nintendo has no other choice than to produce a Melee remake.

Do you think Smash 4 can mess the following skill, considering it's a transitional average level to a high levels? No, only Smash Bross Melee.

 
Last edited:
#11
Smash 4 has no chance to reach such importance, it vastly exist other games within the category where a lot of skill is needed such like by UMVC3 and other games. SSBM is the most competitive Nintendo game ever where real skill and mental fortitude is required, guess in order to survive Nintendo has no other choice than to produce a Melee remake.

Do you think Smash 4 can mess this considering it's a transitional average level to a high level? No, only Smash Bross Melee.

If you don't think real skill and mental fortitude are required to succeed in Smash 4, you're an idiot.
 
#12
Wow. I'm not really sure what to think. On the one hand I'm excited to hear about this - I'm always up for more exposure of the gaming community, but I'm not sure at the same time - it's feels a bit premature right now, I like to think that eSport will be widely accepted but the cynic in me thinks there's a greater potential for mockery than acceptance.
 
#14
No offensive to smash, and I like it more than any other game. But I think team based games like league of legends are more likely to make it there than smash.
 
#15
Smash 4 has no chance of reaching such importance, it vastly exist other games within the category where a lot of skill is needed such like by UMVC3, etc... SSBM is the most competitive Nintendo game ever where real skill and mental fortitude is required, guess, in order to survive Nintendo has no other choice than to produce a Melee remake.

Do you think Smash 4 can mess the following skill, considering it's a transitional average level to a high levels? No, only Smash Bross Melee.

And yet, Project M requires the same amount of "real skill and mental fortitude", with none of those glitches that melee has.
Sm4sh requires real skill and a mental fortitude. It's just a lot lower than what's required for melee.
 
Last edited:
#17
If you don't think real skill and mental fortitude are required to succeed in Smash 4, you're an idiot.
And yet, Project M requires the same amount of "real skill and mental fortitude", with none of those glitches that melee has.
Sm4sh requires real skill and a mental fortitude. It's just a lot lower than what's required for melee.
Please, I'm not here to babysit your dull responses with your intention to pretend to be a troll... learn to discern between stupidity and being a troll.

Smash 4 has no chance of reaching such importance, it vastly exists other games within the category where a lot of skill is needed such like by UMVC3, etc...

In my first sentence, I'm clearly highlighting UMVC3 skill level requirement, while I'm pointing to Smash 4 as one game without the possibility of reaching a certain level of importance, this means by default that I'm already comparing and qualifying Smash 4 as one unworthy game which won't reach a higher importance level than games like UMVC3, where a lot of skill is needed.
Finally, within the context, I clearly stated that skill is required for Smash 4, but it doesn't demand the skill like by UMVC3 and SSBM.

-----------------------------------------------------

SSBM is the most competitive Nintendo game ever where real skill and mental fortitude is required, guess, in order to survive Nintendo has no other choice than to produce a Melee remake.


In the second part, you're apparently making fun of my formulation by implementing the word 'real'

Definition of real:

1. true, not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent.
2. existing or occurring as fact, actual rather than imaginary, ideal or fictitious
3. being an actual thing, having objective existence, not imaginary
4. being actually such, not merely so-called: a real victory.
5. genuine, not counterfeit, artificial, or imitation, authentic

One of genuine's definitions is quality ( if you want me to define quality I can do it)

6. Informal. absolute, complete, utter: She's a real brain.

adverb

7. Informal. very or extremely: You did a real nice job painting the house.


Please, next time try it better, don't make yourself ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
#18
Please, I'm not here to babysit your dull responses with your intention to pretend to be a troll... learn to discern between stupidity and being a troll.

Smash 4 has no chance of reaching such importance, it vastly exists other games within the category where a lot of skill is needed such like by UMVC3, etc...

In my first sentence, I'm clearly highlighting UMVC3 skill level requirement, while I'm pointing to Smash 4 as one game without the possibility of reaching a certain level of importance, this means by default that I'm already comparing and qualifying Smash 4 as one unworthy game which won't reach a higher importance level than games like UMVC3, where a lot of skill is needed.
Finally, within the context, I clearly stated that skill is required for Smash 4, but it doesn't demand the skill like by UMVC3 and SSBM.

-----------------------------------------------------

SSBM is the most competitive Nintendo game ever where real skill and mental fortitude is required, guess, in order to survive Nintendo has no other choice than to produce a Melee remake.


In the second part, you're apparently making fun of my formulation by implementing the word 'real'

Definition of real:

1. true, not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent.
2. existing or occurring as fact, actual rather than imaginary, ideal or fictitious
3. being an actual thing, having objective existence, not imaginary
4. being actually such, not merely so-called: a real victory.
5. genuine, not counterfeit, artificial, or imitation, authentic

One of genuine's definitions is quality ( if you want me to define quality I can do it)

6. Informal. absolute, complete, utter: She's a real brain.

adverb

7. Informal. very or extremely: You did a real nice job painting the house.


Please, next time try it better, don't make yourself ridiculous.
Nice explanation. I applaud you!
 
#19
Please, I'm not here to babysit your dull responses with your intention to pretend to be a troll... learn to discern between stupidity and being a troll.

Smash 4 has no chance of reaching such importance, it vastly exists other games within the category where a lot of skill is needed such like by UMVC3, etc...

In my first sentence, I'm clearly highlighting UMVC3 skill level requirement, while I'm pointing to Smash 4 as one game without the possibility of reaching a certain level of importance, this means by default that I'm already comparing and qualifying Smash 4 as one unworthy game which won't reach a higher importance level than games like UMVC3, where a lot of skill is needed.
Finally, within the context, I clearly stated that skill is required for Smash 4, but it doesn't demand the skill like by UMVC3 and SSBM.

-----------------------------------------------------

SSBM is the most competitive Nintendo game ever where real skill and mental fortitude is required, guess, in order to survive Nintendo has no other choice than to produce a Melee remake.


In the second part, you're apparently making fun of my formulation by implementing the word 'real'

Definition of real:

1. true, not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent.
2. existing or occurring as fact, actual rather than imaginary, ideal or fictitious
3. being an actual thing, having objective existence, not imaginary
4. being actually such, not merely so-called: a real victory.
5. genuine, not counterfeit, artificial, or imitation, authentic

One of genuine's definitions is quality ( if you want me to define quality I can do it)

6. Informal. absolute, complete, utter: She's a real brain.

adverb

7. Informal. very or extremely: You did a real nice job painting the house.


Please, next time try it better, don't make yourself ridiculous.
(Before you read the rest of this, I just wanted to say well done on this ^^^)

Are you guys serious? Esports just got confirmed for the Olympics! This is such a great thing, and yet the comment section is being jerks to each other. Just this weekend, I watched a video on YouTube called, the worst 5 video game communities. The Melee community was up there. I was thinking, "What? Surely there has to be worse. Let me check the comment section, he must have gotten some crap for that." But I was wrong. People pretty much agreed that the Melee community was cancer. I tried to argue against it, but I lost very quickly. They all said the same thing. The Melee community sucks because they are such jerks to everyone else who isn't pro Melee. This right here is kind what they were saying. Clearly, some of these other people don't really agree with what you had to say. While they way they said it wasn't great, you roasting the crap out of them doesn't help because it's all just opinions. (lol I'm laughing as I read this aloud) I said I thought Melee had no chance because sakurai is so against the idea of Melee being played competitively. I like the hope that smash 4 will make it to the Olympics because I believe smash 4 takes just as much skill as Melee, and sakurai supports it.


Wait.



Hold up.



Go back.




I like the hope that smash 4 will make it to the Olympics because I BELIEVE SMASH 4 TAKES JUST AS MUCH SKILL AS MELEE, and sakurai supports it.



Woah.


OH MY GOD DID HE JUST SAY HIS OPINION ONLINE?!? QUICK! BULLY AND HARASS HIM! (or her) TELL THEM THEIR OPINONS ARE WWWRRROOONNNGGG!!!!! MELEE IS CLEARLY DOMINANT AND TAKES IMMENSELY MORE SKILL THAN TRASH 4.


Ok hold on. Yes, Melee clearly has more strict technical skill in terms of things like wavedashing-etc. However, Melee has just about only 4 characters in the meta and 8 that are even seen at tournaments ever. Smash 4 has way more matchups to learn. Maybe in my OPINION, I think that makes smash 4 take more skill. As you put it, 'real skill', or genuine skill. Maybe in my OPINION, smash 4 takes way more genuine skill. (Truthfully, I think they are about even. That's why I'm a nerd for Project M. A good mix of balanced characters and a good Melee environment to go along with. Of course though, that is my OPINION.) Guys people hate the way we do this. People from the Melee group harass everyone else who supports smash 4 some much it's quite disheartening. Sorry for this long rant, but please be nice and respect each other's opinion. :(


(welp, lets see how long it takes for me to start getting harassed lol. plz don't hate me)
 
#20
I really hope that Nintendo sees the benefit of supporting competitive gaming with this new event. If they do see the benefit, maybe we could even get a competitively focused smash game similar to PM, where balancing is a main goal of the developers.
 
#21
(Before you read the rest of this, I just wanted to say well done on this ^^^)

Are you guys serious? Esports just got confirmed for the Olympics! This is such a great thing, and yet the comment section is being jerks to each other. Just this weekend, I watched a video on YouTube called, the worst 5 video game communities. The Melee community was up there. I was thinking, "What? Surely there has to be worse. Let me check the comment section, he must have gotten some crap for that." But I was wrong. People pretty much agreed that the Melee community was cancer. I tried to argue against it, but I lost very quickly. They all said the same thing. The Melee community sucks because they are such jerks to everyone else who isn't pro Melee. This right here is kind what they were saying. Clearly, some of these other people don't really agree with what you had to say. While they way they said it wasn't great, you roasting the crap out of them doesn't help because it's all just opinions. (lol I'm laughing as I read this aloud) I said I thought Melee had no chance because sakurai is so against the idea of Melee being played competitively. I like the hope that smash 4 will make it to the Olympics because I believe smash 4 takes just as much skill as Melee, and sakurai supports it.


Wait.



Hold up.



Go back.




I like the hope that smash 4 will make it to the Olympics because I BELIEVE SMASH 4 TAKES JUST AS MUCH SKILL AS MELEE, and sakurai supports it.



Woah.


OH MY GOD DID HE JUST SAY HIS OPINION ONLINE?!? QUICK! BULLY AND HARASS HIM! (or her) TELL THEM THEIR OPINONS ARE WWWRRROOONNNGGG!!!!! MELEE IS CLEARLY DOMINANT AND TAKES IMMENSELY MORE SKILL THAN TRASH 4.


Ok hold on. Yes, Melee clearly has more strict technical skill in terms of things like wavedashing-etc. However, Melee has just about only 4 characters in the meta and 8 that are even seen at tournaments ever. Smash 4 has way more matchups to learn. Maybe in my OPINION, I think that makes smash 4 take more skill. As you put it, 'real skill', or genuine skill. Maybe in my OPINION, smash 4 takes way more genuine skill. (Truthfully, I think they are about even. That's why I'm a nerd for Project M. A good mix of balanced characters and a good Melee environment to go along with. Of course though, that is my OPINION.) Guys people hate the way we do this. People from the Melee group harass everyone else who supports smash 4 some much it's quite disheartening. Sorry for this long rant, but please be nice and respect each other's opinion. :(


(welp, lets see how long it takes for me to start getting harassed lol. plz don't hate me)
It's sad where the internet has come to. We tend to disagree with others more than agree. :/
 
#22
Smash 4 has no chance of reaching such importance, it vastly exist other games within the category where a lot of skill is needed such like by UMVC3, etc... SSBM is the most competitive Nintendo game ever where real skill and mental fortitude is required, guess, in order to survive Nintendo has no other choice than to produce a Melee remake.

Do you think Smash 4 can mess the following skill, considering it's a transitional average level to a high levels? No, only Smash Bross Melee.

Any point you may have made with that comment was put into question the instant you said UMvC3 needed alot of skill to be played. It's a game where spamming a single team combo will win you a game one-sidedly regardelles of any potential skill gap. It literally requires less skill to play professionally than Smash 4.

With that being said, I agree that Smash 4 isn't Olympic's worthy (then again, it was never meant to be in the first place).
 
#23
Any point you may have made with that comment was put into question the instant you said UMvC3 needed alot of skill to be played. It's a game where spamming a single team combo will win you a game one-sidedly regardelles of any potential skill gap. It literally requires less skill to play professionally than Smash 4.

With that being said, I agree that Smash 4 isn't Olympic's worthy (then again, it was never meant to be in the first place).
What are you talking about? the following combo video was problemless applicable because the gamer had the right positionings against a none controlled opponent, every single distance was calculated.

By the way, did you ever see snooker on television?

------------------------------------------


Instead of searching for excuses, support the skill development, stop complaining, Nintendo should wake up and produce a real modern competitive game capable of messing SSBM tech skill requirement by integrating all SSBM's codification mechanics and more, making the game even more difficult.

This is a professional game, now I ask you, where is your so called one single combo spamm?

 
Last edited:
#24
Please, I'm not here to babysit your dull responses with your intention to pretend to be a troll... learn to discern between stupidity and being a troll.

Smash 4 has no chance of reaching such importance, it vastly exists other games within the category where a lot of skill is needed such like by UMVC3, etc...

In my first sentence, I'm clearly highlighting UMVC3 skill level requirement, while I'm pointing to Smash 4 as one game without the possibility of reaching a certain level of importance, this means by default that I'm already comparing and qualifying Smash 4 as one unworthy game which won't reach a higher importance level than games like UMVC3, where a lot of skill is needed.
Finally, within the context, I clearly stated that skill is required for Smash 4, but it doesn't demand the skill like by UMVC3 and SSBM.

-----------------------------------------------------

SSBM is the most competitive Nintendo game ever where real skill and mental fortitude is required, guess, in order to survive Nintendo has no other choice than to produce a Melee remake.


In the second part, you're apparently making fun of my formulation by implementing the word 'real'

Definition of real:

1. true, not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent.
2. existing or occurring as fact, actual rather than imaginary, ideal or fictitious
3. being an actual thing, having objective existence, not imaginary
4. being actually such, not merely so-called: a real victory.
5. genuine, not counterfeit, artificial, or imitation, authentic

One of genuine's definitions is quality ( if you want me to define quality I can do it)

6. Informal. absolute, complete, utter: She's a real brain.

adverb

7. Informal. very or extremely: You did a real nice job painting the house.


Please, next time try it better, don't make yourself ridiculous.
If we want to talk about ridiculous things, we can start with your word choice...

'It vastly exists other games..."

What the heck does that even mean!?

Perhaps expressed more politely, I'd be able to communicate more effectively if I could understand what you were saying in the first place, and that sentence doesn't convey to me anything other than the suggestion that English isn't your first language (which the rest of your post would seem to hide otherwise).

You simply say the game has no possibility of reaching importance. Either you have an extremely unorthodox definition of importance, or you must live under an impressive rock, because EVO 2016 Smash 4 had more entrants than EVO 2016 SSBM (2,637 vs 2,350). Beyond that, the game is growing with sponsorships from various companies for both events and players (C9 Ally, TSM | ZeRo, etc.), massive events like 2GGC: Civil War, and (at a more basic level) tons of thriving local scenes.

Your assertion that the skill required is less than that of UMvC 3 and SSBM is not only unqualified, it[s frankly arbitrary. Both required more technical skill to play at most levels of play, but technical skill is not the be-all end-all for a game's relevance by any stretch of the imagination [see Divekick and chess]. And Smash 4 has significantly more interactive ledge play than SSBM, with ledge traps, ledge trumping and ledge trump baits, and more chances to somewhat safely offstage edgeguard as compared to rolling to cover ledge and invincible ledgedashes for over 90% of the cast, making the ledge an insanely strong (perhaps basically uncontestable) position for many characters.

But beyond the ledge, Smash 4 generally has fewer sustained shield pressure options, but more moves that threaten shieldbreaks. This requires both more shield management and more conscious spacing from a larger portion of the cast at all levels of play. Smash 4 also has different movement focus, which makes walking a significantly bigger part of the game and means the top tiers are much less able to invalidate the rest of the cast with superior movement, leading to a lot more competitive diversity. The airdodge system also means frame traps are a very real and [for many characters, dangerous] part of Smash 4 that simply isn't in Melee [where pure juggling is much more frequent]. I could go on and on but if I haven't made my point yet, I don't think longer walls of text will help.

Your definitions of real do literally nothing to advance your point in the context of what I said, but you were responding to multiple comments so I'll assume it wasn't directed at me.
 
Last edited:
#25
If we want to talk about ridiculous things, we can start with your word choice...

'It vastly exists other games..."

What the heck does that even mean!?

Perhaps expressed more politely, I'd be able to communicate more effectively if I could understand what you were saying in the first place, and that sentence doesn't convey to me anything other than the suggestion that English isn't your first language (which the rest of your post would seem to hide otherwise).

You simply say the game has no possibility of reaching importance. Either you have an extremely unorthodox definition of importance, or you must live under an impressive rock, because EVO 2016 Smash 4 had more entrants than EVO 2016 SSBM (2,637 vs 2,350). Beyond that, the game is growing with sponsorships from various companies for both events and players (C9 Ally, TSM | ZeRo, etc.), massive events like 2GGC: Civil War, and (at a more basic level) tons of thriving local scenes.

Your assertion that the skill required is less than that of UMvC 3 and SSBM is not only unqualified, it[s frankly arbitrary. Both required more technical skill to play at most levels of play, but technical skill is not the be-all end-all for a game's relevance by any stretch of the imagination [see Divekick and chess]. And Smash 4 has significantly more interactive ledge play than SSBM, with ledge traps, ledge trumping and ledge trump baits, and more chances to somewhat safely offstage edgeguard as compared to rolling to cover ledge and invincible ledgedashes for over 90% of the cast, making the ledge an insanely strong (perhaps basically uncontestable) position for many characters.

But beyond the ledge, Smash 4 generally has fewer sustained shield pressure options, but more moves that threaten shieldbreaks. This requires both more shield management and more conscious spacing from a larger portion of the cast at all levels of play. Smash 4 also has different movement focus, which makes walking a significantly bigger part of the game and means the top tiers are much less able to invalidate the rest of the cast with superior movement, leading to a lot more competitive diversity. The airdodge system also means frame traps are a very real and [for many characters, dangerous] part of Smash 4 that simply isn't in Melee [where pure juggling is much more frequent]. I could go on and on but if I haven't made my point yet, I don't think longer walls of text will help.

Your definitions of real do literally nothing to advance your point in the context of what I said, but you were responding to multiple comments so I'll assume it wasn't directed at me.
I will be directly here, stop shielding yourself behind excuses and confront your mistakes, it's your fault when you lack manners.

Definition for vastly:

1. of very great area or extent, immense
2. very great in number, quantity, amount, etc

Finally, I have a very simple concept on the matter, I don't need to make a great discussion on this, but greater is the challenge of performing something, more work and dedication is invested more valuable it becomes.

The most valuable result is the most important one which should be an optimal target and be the representative option within the subject.

I must accept that SSBM's meta is really limited around few characters but what if not? what if it could have the same balance like in Smash 4 by supposing an SSBM remake where its top characters remain intact and lower Tiers buffed?

At the end of the road, it's something relative, but what isn't relative is the tech behind on both sides.

Definition of importance:

1. important position or standing; personal or social consequence.

My mother language is German, my apologies anyway, despite your low/primitive behavior not even capable of apologizing.
 
Last edited:
#26
This guy using an unbalanced Zero/Vergil/Morrigan-fest infinities galore game as example of good competitive game, though....
 
#27
I will be directly here, stop shielding yourself behind excuses and confront your mistakes, it's your fault when you lack manners.

Definition for vastly:

1. of very great area or extent, immense
2. very great in number, quantity, amount, etc

Finally, I have a very simple concept on the matter, I don't need to make a great discussion on this, but greater is the challenge of performing something, more work and dedication is invested more valuable it becomes.

The most valuable result is the most important one which should be an optimal target and be the representative option within the subject.

I must accept that SSBM's meta is really limited around few characters but what if not? what if it could have the same balance like in Smash 4 by supposing an SSBM remake where its top characters remain intact and lower Tiers buffed?

At the end of the road, it's something relative, but what isn't relative is the tech behind on both sides.

Definition of importance:

1. important position or standing; personal or social consequence.

My mother language is German, my apologies anyway, despite your low/primitive behavior not even capable of apologizing.
You... missed the point completely. At this point, trying to argue is clearly a waste of my time, but... I know what vastly means. And use of the word vastly is superfluous to your argument.

I'll cut out your adjectives and quote you again:

"It exists other games within the category..."

So since you are so keen on defining things, define for me what "it exists other games" means (and I know what it, other, and games means...). Do you mean "there exists other games"? Because the "it" in this sentence can only be constructed logically to mean Smash 4, based on the previous sentence, and "Smash 4 [vastly] exists other games" is an incoherent statement.

As for your argument, Smash 4 does have techniques that open up characters' approach options not present in Melee, a tighter shield drop window [and therefore, according to you, more valuable], and requires timings similar to ledgedashes with doing options out of ledge jump, the generally considered strongest option, as well as some frame-perfect techniques like shadow I-frames, an option from ledge rather equivalent to an aerial interrupt (although it might technically be different), and an increased focus on pivoting for combo extension.

But if technical ability is all that matters, Project M is superior, at least by your own reasoning, because it also offers Reverse Aerial Rush, DACUS, and invincible wavelands out of ledgejump, as well as all the techniques present in Super Smash Brothers Melee [the exception of course being a few glitches like wobbling and the boomerang super jump], which are all additional options that require technical prowess to execute and expand the game. Project M also offers additional methods to ledgehog, which further expand edgeguarding options.

[The real problem of this post, the conflation of technical skill with "real" skill, is a very commonly held misconception that I don't feel like trying to dispel once again, although I could easily link to you some Melee videos that point it out all too clearly...]
 
Last edited:
#28
If we want to talk about ridiculous things, we can start with your word choice...

'It vastly exists other games..."

What the heck does that even mean!?

Perhaps expressed more politely, I'd be able to communicate more effectively if I could understand what you were saying in the first place, and that sentence doesn't convey to me anything other than the suggestion that English isn't your first language (which the rest of your post would seem to hide otherwise).

You simply say the game has no possibility of reaching importance. Either you have an extremely unorthodox definition of importance, or you must live under an impressive rock, because EVO 2016 Smash 4 had more entrants than EVO 2016 SSBM (2,637 vs 2,350). Beyond that, the game is growing with sponsorships from various companies for both events and players (C9 Ally, TSM | ZeRo, etc.), massive events like 2GGC: Civil War, and (at a more basic level) tons of thriving local scenes.

Your assertion that the skill required is less than that of UMvC 3 and SSBM is not only unqualified, it[s frankly arbitrary. Both required more technical skill to play at most levels of play, but technical skill is not the be-all end-all for a game's relevance by any stretch of the imagination [see Divekick and chess]. And Smash 4 has significantly more interactive ledge play than SSBM, with ledge traps, ledge trumping and ledge trump baits, and more chances to somewhat safely offstage edgeguard as compared to rolling to cover ledge and invincible ledgedashes for over 90% of the cast, making the ledge an insanely strong (perhaps basically uncontestable) position for many characters.

But beyond the ledge, Smash 4 generally has fewer sustained shield pressure options, but more moves that threaten shieldbreaks. This requires both more shield management and more conscious spacing from a larger portion of the cast at all levels of play. Smash 4 also has different movement focus, which makes walking a significantly bigger part of the game and means the top tiers are much less able to invalidate the rest of the cast with superior movement, leading to a lot more competitive diversity. The airdodge system also means frame traps are a very real and [for many characters, dangerous] part of Smash 4 that simply isn't in Melee [where pure juggling is much more frequent]. I could go on and on but if I haven't made my point yet, I don't think longer walls of text will help.

Your definitions of real do literally nothing to advance your point in the context of what I said, but you were responding to multiple comments so I'll assume it wasn't directed at me.
You... missed the point completely. At this point, trying to argue is clearly a waste of my time, but... I know what vastly means. And use of the word vastly is superfluous to your argument.

I'll cut out your adjectives and quote you again:

"It exists other games within the category..."

So since you are so keen on defining things, define for me what "it exists other games" means (and I know what it, other, and games means...). Do you mean "there exists other games"? Because the "it" in this sentence can only be constructed logically to mean Smash 4, based on the previous sentence, and "Smash 4 [vastly] exists other games" is an incoherent statement.

As for your argument, Smash 4 does have techniques that open up characters' approach options not present in Melee, a tighter shield drop window [and therefore, according to you, more valuable], and requires timings similar to ledgedashes with doing options out of ledge jump, the generally considered strongest option, as well as some frame-perfect techniques like shadow I-frames, an option from ledge rather equivalent to an aerial interrupt (although it might technically be different), and an increased focus on pivoting for combo extension.

But if technical ability is all that matters, Project M is superior, at least by your own reasoning, because it also offers Reverse Aerial Rush, DACUS, and invincible wavelands out of ledgejump, as well as all the techniques present in Super Smash Brothers Melee [the exception of course being a few glitches like wobbling and the boomerang super jump], which are all additional options that require technical prowess to execute and expand the game. Project M also offers additional methods to ledgehog, which further expand edgeguarding options.

[The real problem of this post, the conflation of technical skill with "real" skill, is a very commonly held misconception that I don't feel like trying to dispel once again, although I could easily link to you some Melee videos that point it out all too clearly...]
May I ask, what is the point of asserting that his contention that Melee takes more skill than Smash 4 is unqualified, considering that you immediately proceeded to give counter arguments to his claims without providing any sort of "qualifications" you claim him to be lacking?
We're allowed to talk about differences between smash games without being top players if we find it productive.

"But beyond the ledge, Smash 4 generally has fewer sustained shield pressure options, but more moves that threaten shieldbreaks. This requires both more shield management and more conscious spacing from a larger portion of the cast at all levels of play."
This appears to be a very biased dissection of the implications of the game properties you described. Clearly, having fewer shield pressure options is a point against the idea that you need "more shield management". You have taken 2 properties of the game that have opposite effects on the level of necessity of shield management but have different qualitative properties, claimed that smash 4 required more shield management without providing an explanation for why the concept more prevalent in smash 4 has a more profound effect on shield management necessity than the one more prevalent in Melee, and finally claimed without evidence or explanation that the qualitative differences between these 2 phenomena lead smash 4 to require more conscious spacing than Melee. As it turns out, I disagree with both of these unsubstantiated claims, and am willing to substantiate my reasoning. Melee requires more shield management because opponents have options to actually threaten shielding. Smash 4 moves can do lots of shield damage, but this just means they have the opportunity to get random cheese shield breaks with reads. Since general shield pressure still doesn't exist, it's just a binary situation of whether you can break their shield or get punished, because hitting a shield in general in smash 4 means you can usually get punished. This also does nothing to increase spacing depth; it changes whether or not a move can punish shields, which just makes that move a single element of the Rock Paper Scissors dynamic of the game, whereas shielding in Melee opens up a whole new dynamic of interaction between someone who is shielding and someone who is doing shield pressure. Unlike a single move, shield pressure is a dynamic extension of the neutral game of Melee.

The skill required to explicitly perform tech in Melee is not the meat and potatoes of what skill is unique to Melee. The main reason the tech makes the game so much deeper is the implications the Melee tech has on how the game can be played. It gives you more options in neutral and fundamentally makes the game more offense based rather than defense based. This is unbelievably important; when approaching is less desirable than being approached, the game devolves into essentially a stalemate where the main goal is to bait your opponent into messing up without messing up yourself. In a game where offense is desirable, on the other hand, it's a fundamentally more exciting game where you have to think quickly and outsmart your opponent at each interaction; higher level and more creative moves naturally reward you.

By the way, Project M is overall slower and requires less tech skill than Melee.
 
#29
May I ask, what is the point of asserting that his contention that Melee takes more skill than Smash 4 is unqualified, considering that you immediately proceeded to give counter arguments to his claims without providing any sort of "qualifications" you claim him to be lacking?
We're allowed to talk about differences between smash games without being top players if we find it productive.

"But beyond the ledge, Smash 4 generally has fewer sustained shield pressure options, but more moves that threaten shieldbreaks. This requires both more shield management and more conscious spacing from a larger portion of the cast at all levels of play."
This appears to be a very biased dissection of the implications of the game properties you described. Clearly, having fewer shield pressure options is a point against the idea that you need "more shield management". You have taken 2 properties of the game that have opposite effects on the level of necessity of shield management but have different qualitative properties, claimed that smash 4 required more shield management without providing an explanation for why the concept more prevalent in smash 4 has a more profound effect on shield management necessity than the one more prevalent in Melee, and finally claimed without evidence or explanation that the qualitative differences between these 2 phenomena lead smash 4 to require more conscious spacing than Melee. As it turns out, I disagree with both of these unsubstantiated claims, and am willing to substantiate my reasoning. Melee requires more shield management because opponents have options to actually threaten shielding. Smash 4 moves can do lots of shield damage, but this just means they have the opportunity to get random cheese shield breaks with reads. Since general shield pressure still doesn't exist, it's just a binary situation of whether you can break their shield or get punished, because hitting a shield in general in smash 4 means you can usually get punished. This also does nothing to increase spacing depth; it changes whether or not a move can punish shields, which just makes that move a single element of the Rock Paper Scissors dynamic of the game, whereas shielding in Melee opens up a whole new dynamic of interaction between someone who is shielding and someone who is doing shield pressure. Unlike a single move, shield pressure is a dynamic extension of the neutral game of Melee.

The skill required to explicitly perform tech in Melee is not the meat and potatoes of what skill is unique to Melee. The main reason the tech makes the game so much deeper is the implications the Melee tech has on how the game can be played. It gives you more options in neutral and fundamentally makes the game more offense based rather than defense based. This is unbelievably important; when approaching is less desirable than being approached, the game devolves into essentially a stalemate where the main goal is to bait your opponent into messing up without messing up yourself. In a game where offense is desirable, on the other hand, it's a fundamentally more exciting game where you have to think quickly and outsmart your opponent at each interaction; higher level and more creative moves naturally reward you.

By the way, Project M is overall slower and requires less tech skill than Melee.
I was skimming over this, and probably going to respond to this, but then I read the last sentence, which is fundamentally false, so I'm not going to waste time with the rest of this mess either.
 
#30
May I ask, what is the point of asserting that his contention that Melee takes more skill than Smash 4 is unqualified, considering that you immediately proceeded to give counter arguments to his claims without providing any sort of "qualifications" you claim him to be lacking?
We're allowed to talk about differences between smash games without being top players if we find it productive.

"But beyond the ledge, Smash 4 generally has fewer sustained shield pressure options, but more moves that threaten shieldbreaks. This requires both more shield management and more conscious spacing from a larger portion of the cast at all levels of play."
This appears to be a very biased dissection of the implications of the game properties you described. Clearly, having fewer shield pressure options is a point against the idea that you need "more shield management". You have taken 2 properties of the game that have opposite effects on the level of necessity of shield management but have different qualitative properties, claimed that smash 4 required more shield management without providing an explanation for why the concept more prevalent in smash 4 has a more profound effect on shield management necessity than the one more prevalent in Melee, and finally claimed without evidence or explanation that the qualitative differences between these 2 phenomena lead smash 4 to require more conscious spacing than Melee. As it turns out, I disagree with both of these unsubstantiated claims, and am willing to substantiate my reasoning. Melee requires more shield management because opponents have options to actually threaten shielding. Smash 4 moves can do lots of shield damage, but this just means they have the opportunity to get random cheese shield breaks with reads. Since general shield pressure still doesn't exist, it's just a binary situation of whether you can break their shield or get punished, because hitting a shield in general in smash 4 means you can usually get punished. This also does nothing to increase spacing depth; it changes whether or not a move can punish shields, which just makes that move a single element of the Rock Paper Scissors dynamic of the game, whereas shielding in Melee opens up a whole new dynamic of interaction between someone who is shielding and someone who is doing shield pressure. Unlike a single move, shield pressure is a dynamic extension of the neutral game of Melee.

The skill required to explicitly perform tech in Melee is not the meat and potatoes of what skill is unique to Melee. The main reason the tech makes the game so much deeper is the implications the Melee tech has on how the game can be played. It gives you more options in neutral and fundamentally makes the game more offense based rather than defense based. This is unbelievably important; when approaching is less desirable than being approached, the game devolves into essentially a stalemate where the main goal is to bait your opponent into messing up without messing up yourself. In a game where offense is desirable, on the other hand, it's a fundamentally more exciting game where you have to think quickly and outsmart your opponent at each interaction; higher level and more creative moves naturally reward you.

By the way, Project M is overall slower and requires less tech skill than Melee.
I was skimming over this, and probably going to respond to this, but then I read the last sentence, which is fundamentally false, so I'm not going to waste time with the rest of this mess either.


Same! Saw that last sentence and was just like,
"Uhhhhh....... opinions opinions." Pm may have less tech skill, but has a bigger amount of strategy because of the larger, more balanced and more diverse cast of characters. My opinion of course.
 
#31
What are you talking about? the following combo video was problemless applicable because the gamer had the right positionings against a none controlled opponent, every single distance was calculated.

By the way, did you ever see snooker on television?

------------------------------------------


Instead of searching for excuses, support the skill development, stop complaining, Nintendo should wake up and produce a real modern competitive game capable of messing SSBM tech skill requirement by integrating all SSBM's codification mechanics and more, making the game even more difficult.

This is a professional game, now I ask you, where is your so called one single combo spamm?

I wasn't talking about your video. This perspective comes from both my own viewing and hands-on experience. Your "professional game" is infamously known for it's poor roster balancing exploitive mechanics (that's not to say other games don't have them, mind you, but this is one of the worst offenders).
In my own experience, all I had to do was match the set rythm I saw from tourney players. After that I was able to spam a specific combos at my leisure considering I was able to successfully get the first hit. Other people at my level did the same thing, and even the pros perfomed in the same way.

As for pro players:
https://youtu.be/s3Z5bnIt_9A?t=2m16s
Keep in mind that even the announcers say that this is a normal sight. If that's the case, than you too should know this. Curious that I even had to give you proof of this in the first place.

----

Let's clear the air on my stance here; I am saying that UMvC3 is a piss poor example for a skill based game, because skill isn't the deciding factor in those matches. Any other fighting game I can think of, Smash 4 included, requires far more skills than a game that hinges on whether or not your opponent messes up a combo that (s)he's using to destroy your entire team.

People are quick to forget that Melee was often hit with the exact same criticisms. The Smash 4 scene is developing just fine. Whether you want to belive it or not is up to you, but UMvC3 is still no example that can be used against it.
 
Last edited:
#33
You... missed the point completely. At this point, trying to argue is clearly a waste of my time, but... I know what vastly means. And use of the word vastly is superfluous to your argument.

I'll cut out your adjectives and quote you again:

"It exists other games within the category..."

So since you are so keen on defining things, define for me what "it exists other games" means (and I know what it, other, and games means...). Do you mean "there exists other games"? Because the "it" in this sentence can only be constructed logically to mean Smash 4, based on the previous sentence, and "Smash 4 [vastly] exists other games" is an incoherent statement.]
Superfluous? the definition for this situation is 'redundancy(it falls in redundancy)' to begin with and as fact, I did a mistake, but it's understandable, since if looking based on the context of this sentence, I'm trying to say 'It exist a vast variation of games' but like always, it exist persons like you who dedicates their entire senseless lives criticizing others without being constructive as reflection to your own disgraceful lives, despite you have enough knowledge to support others in this situations, you reject this option with the target of praising yourself toward your adversary, as I said, might you have a respectable performance in the English language, but a complete caveman at the time to discuss with others politely, if you don't fix your behavior, the life will roll you on the floor.

As for your argument, Smash 4 does have techniques that open up characters' approach options not present in Melee, a tighter shield drop window [and therefore, according to you, more valuable], and requires timings similar to ledgedashes with doing options out of ledge jump, the generally considered strongest option, as well as some frame-perfect techniques like shadow I-frames, an option from ledge rather equivalent to an aerial interrupt (although it might technically be different), and an increased focus on pivoting for combo extension.]
We don't need to discuss anything on this subject, it's already established that Melee needs a better domain on the senses, a higher mental fortitude at the time of making strategies since the game is by far faster, the mechanics are way faster and more complex.

Conclusion on the matter, the brain needs to perform calculations at higher speeds, while in Smash 4 isn't the situation.

The game demands a very complex coordination as well, while in Smash 4 isn't the situation again.

(SSBM demands more dedication and work to domain = therefore the investment is higher = making the game more valuable in comparison to Smash 4)




But if technical ability is all that matters, Project M is superior, at least by your own reasoning, because it also offers Reverse Aerial Rush, DACUS, and invincible wavelands out of ledgejump, as well as all the techniques present in Super Smash Brothers Melee [the exception of course being a few glitches like wobbling and the boomerang super jump], which are all additional options that require technical prowess to execute and expand the game. Project M also offers additional methods to ledgehog, which further expand edgeguarding options.

[The real problem of this post, the conflation of technical skill with "real" skill, is a very commonly held misconception that I don't feel like trying to dispel once again, although I could easily link to you some Melee videos that point it out all too clearly...]
I'm skeptical about Project M, there isn't the same codification like in SSBM, the game is still slow, second point, it's a fanmade, there isn't a real professional designer behind who really knows about balancing, he nerfed Melee's top tiers instead letting them intact while buffing the lower tiers.
 
Last edited:
#34
I'm skeptical about Project M, there isn't the same codification like in SSBM, the game is still slow, second point, it's a fanmade, there isn't a real professional designer behind who really knows about balancing, he nerfed Melee's top tiers instead letting them intact while buffing the low tiers.
Ohhhhhh and Melee is the super balanced game made by a balancing professional at the time, right? Melee Fox is only second to Brawl's MK on the subject of being literally broken, but sure is a balanced game, uh?
 
#35
Ohhhhhh and Melee is the super balanced game made by a balancing professional at the time, right? Melee Fox is only second to Brawl's MK on the subject of being literally broken, but sure is a balanced game, uh?
Melee is balanced on a little group, the only reason why Fox is SS tier, is because he's good against heavy and floaty, Falco is very good against heavy but neutral against floaty, etc... a good C.Falcon such like Wizzrobe's, is good against anything like by a good Fox, I think that Wizzrobe could potentially put C.Falcon above Falco's tier.
 
Last edited:
#36
Superfluous? the definition for this situation is 'redundancy(it falls in redundancy)' to begin with and as fact, I did a mistake, but it's understandable, since if looking based on the context of this sentence, I'm trying to say 'It exist a vast variation of games' but like always, it exist persons like you who dedicates their entire senseless lives criticizing others without being constructive as reflection to your own disgraceful lives, despite you have enough knowledge to support others in this situations, you reject this option with the target of praising yourself toward your adversary, as I said, might you have a respectable performance in the English language, but a complete caveman at the time to discuss with others politely, if you don't fix your behavior, the life will roll you on the floor.
"You shouldn't be rude"

*proceeds to insult me*

Uhhhhhhhhhh... lol?

My point was that I can't really engage if I can't tell what you're trying to say in the first place.

We don't need to discuss anything on this subject, it's already established that Melee needs a better domain on the senses, a higher mental fortitude at the time of making strategies since the game is by far faster, the mechanics are way faster and more complex.

Conclusion on the matter, the brain needs to perform calculations at higher speeds, while in Smash 4 isn't the situation.

The game demands a very complex coordination as well, while in Smash 4 isn't the situation again.

(SSBM demands more dedication and work to domain = therefore the investment is higher = making the game more valuable in comparison to Smash 4)
If you don't think you have to calculate quickly in Smash 4, you're still just wrong. Melee has some parts of neutral where you need to account for CC, DD, etc., but things like Diddy Kong crawling at you holding a banana produce an extremely similar effect [respecting/beating z-drop fair vs monkey flip vs item throw dash grab vs item throw dtilt vs item throw wait... and the list goes on beyond that].

Furthermore, Smash 4's combos are generally shorter than Falco fighting a fastfaller on FD, but it also means there's more player interaction... in Melee all you can hope to do is DI/SDI for your life, but in Smash 4 a lot of good characters have a plethora of landing options that are in general decent but eminently beatable, meaning juggling decisions occur at an extremely fast rate if you want a sustained punish by keeping someone in disadvantage for large periods. But unlike Melee, where it's usually just "try to shine out of marth's grab at 20, guess when he will go for the uthrow tipper fsmash", the opponent must also quickly go through landing options, assessing relative positions, and trying their best to reset neutral as the juggler seeks to maintain disadvantage. It's rather like a Marth juggling a Peach, but generally less one-sided and more interactive.

The difference is that in some Smash 4 matchups, decision trees are cluttered by crouch cancel considerations, which admittedly simplifies them somewhat. [The lack of crouch cancelling is also why characters with generally weak moves aren't garbage.]

I'm skeptical about Project M, there isn't the same codification like in SSBM, the game is still slow, second point, it's a fanmade, there isn't a real professional designer behind who really knows about balancing, he nerfed Melee's top tiers instead letting them intact while buffing the lower tiers.
No one has actually provided any evidence that Project M is slow, they've literally only asserted it with no argument as to WHY it would be slower.

Characters in the game do not have nerfed movement speed [in fact, some move faster]. I could provide a wide variety of examples of how characters have been sped up, but I don't think you'd particularly care.

Instead, I'm going to try to interpret what you mean by slower, and argue against that. But I suppose I'll miss the mark anyway? Worth a shot because this is going nowhere fast otherwise.

The *ONLY* way the game could be construed to be slower, is that certain heavy characters suck a lot less [and a new moderately heavy high tier in Snake], which means matchups between two moderately heavy characters with decent projectiles [say, Mario vs Link] will take longer to play out. But that's not the game itself being slower, that's just the matchups being less spacey-dominant.

As an example of what I'm talking about, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUcPaoXdfHU has three spacy matchups that have two games slightly below 3 minutes and one game around 3 and a half minutes. And even with the floaty characters Zelda and Peach, this other set is below 10 minutes including dead time [stage picks and the like]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWa3KGD_8ZA

Meanwhile, a recent-ish Melee set between Leffen and Mang0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIsTgPo71Kc ) has games mostly below 3 minutes, but the big key to remember is that these players have better punish games, so stocks are taken faster. That's not a product of the game engine, it's a product of player skill. [I picked this set because Leffen and Mang0 came to mind, but I'm looking at game length, not set length, because otherwise the cherry-picking would be obscene].

Similarly, this set takes a similar amount of time for 4 games, but while the players do have strong punish games, they aren't playing spacies, which means they have less dominant neutrals which means they can't force issues as easily (neither Ness nor Sheik are particularly strong in neutral): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9x6urC-B5o

As such, if your only argument for Melee being "faster" is that it has more spacies running around because spacies are obscenely good, and not that the gameplay itself is any slower, then like, yeah duh, but it doesn't make Project M any less fast for the people playing it (and you will see very fast matchups involving fastfallers), it just means you're less likely to see the 2-3 minute games that result from having the bound-to-go-fast spacey neutral/punish/recovery combination and saturation of fastfallers, because characters of all fall-speeds are viable [more or less].

As for nerfing Melee's top tiers, they tried for the longest time to barely touch Fox, and then they realized that trying to build a character that went even with Fox meant that character also dumpstered the rest of the roster [see 3.02 Mewtwo/Pit, older builds of Sonic and Ivysaur, etc.]. Even with his nerfs, Fox is still likely the best character in the game and Sheik is considered top tier. Meanwhile Falco was arguably buffed because laser damage loss is nigh-irrelevant and shine lost I-frames, and dair spiking certain recoveries is harder, but the new movement options let him get around MUCH faster, and Marth was almost unarguably buffed due to changes to his dair improving the move overall. Falcon was also buffed substantially, so unless you think arguably the most broken character in Smash history [MK and Pika have claims from their games, but...] should not have been nerfed [lol], it's very hard to argue the PMDT's balance isn't better than the mess Sakurai left us with.
 
#37
Thor Thor

We have to agree and disagree and I don't recognize Project M as something legit, that's my own opinion, which is in fact biased in general terms, that's why I remain skeptical on the subject.

I hope that Nintendo brings up SSBM's remake while recognizing the Moonwalk as a legit technique while giving it its own optical effect.

I'm done for now, looking Armada's stream ^^.
 
Last edited:
#38
I was skimming over this, and probably going to respond to this, but then I read the last sentence, which is fundamentally false, so I'm not going to waste time with the rest of this mess either.
LOL.

So, let's get what you've directly implied straight:
1) You think that the addition of one supposedly "fundamentally" false statement to a comment with multiple unrelated arguments automatically invalidates everything else in that comment;
2) Even disregarding the fact that the above notion makes no sense, you've constructed an argument that my arguments are too nonsensical to be worth responding to. And yet you're posting on smashboards just to tell me that this is the case. This conceited statement obviously is not doing anything to actually convince me of arguments you have, and the only real purpose it could serve is to attempt to make it seem like you're "above" me in terms of the reasoning and knowledge you have on the argument topic in question. This goes well with the funny sense I've gotten reading through your posts that you seem to be deliberately using convoluted language to appear intelligent, though I may be reading too much into this. And... Oh, what's this?:

"No one has actually provided any evidence that Project M is slow, they've literally only asserted it with no argument as to WHY it would be slower.
Characters in the game do not have nerfed movement speed [in fact, some move faster]. I could provide a wide variety of examples of how characters have been sped up, but I don't think you'd particularly care."

I laughed when I read this. You claim the fact that people haven't given details supporting their claim about Project M as evidence that they don't have supporting reasoning... After a previous incident with a different user in which you essentially claimed you wouldn't bother with reasonable discourse with them because all their arguments must be wrong, without a single attempt at providing supporting details. I'm glad you toned your reaction down upon repeated confrontation with the idea that Project M requires less tech skill than Melee, though. Maybe the extent to which you thought you could ridicule such an idea as being outlandish lowered when it became obvious that it was a relatively common belief? I don't even care about the double standard of treatment put on display here; I just find it fun to point out the extreme holes that exist in your words.

I'd include a comment elaborating on the statement that triggered you so much, but at this point it's not apparent enough that you're interested enough in rational argument for it to be clearly worth the effort.
 
#39
LOL.

So, let's get what you've directly implied straight:
1) You think that the addition of one supposedly "fundamentally" false statement to a comment with multiple unrelated arguments automatically invalidates everything else in that comment;
It warned me that I'm likely dealing with gish gallop, which means I lose if I engage, unless I want increasingly large flows of it [and I don't].

2) Even disregarding the fact that the above notion makes no sense, you've constructed an argument that my arguments are too nonsensical to be worth responding to. And yet you're posting on smashboards just to tell me that this is the case. This conceited statement obviously is not doing anything to actually convince me of arguments you have, and the only real purpose it could serve is to attempt to make it seem like you're "above" me in terms of the reasoning and knowledge you have on the argument topic in question. This goes well with the funny sense I've gotten reading through your posts that you seem to be deliberately using convoluted language to appear intelligent, though I may be reading too much into this. And... Oh, what's this?:

"No one has actually provided any evidence that Project M is slow, they've literally only asserted it with no argument as to WHY it would be slower.
Characters in the game do not have nerfed movement speed [in fact, some move faster]. I could provide a wide variety of examples of how characters have been sped up, but I don't think you'd particularly care."

I laughed when I read this. You claim the fact that people haven't given details supporting their claim about Project M as evidence that they don't have supporting reasoning... After a previous incident with a different user in which you essentially claimed you wouldn't bother with reasonable discourse with them because all their arguments must be wrong, without a single attempt at providing supporting details. I'm glad you toned your reaction down upon repeated confrontation with the idea that Project M requires less tech skill than Melee, though. Maybe the extent to which you thought you could ridicule such an idea as being outlandish lowered when it became obvious that it was a relatively common belief? I don't even care about the double standard of treatment put on display here; I just find it fun to point out the extreme holes that exist in your words.

I'd include a comment elaborating on the statement that triggered you so much, but at this point it's not apparent enough that you're interested enough in rational argument for it to be clearly worth the effort.
It's not that I'm not interested in a rational argument about it, as I laid out an extremely detailed reasoning to why Project M's appearance of longer games is not due to slower gameplay but character diversity, it's that if I list specific things that make Project M have some aspects of gameplay that speed up the game [Marth's dair has less landing lag letting him combo from it more efficiently, you can teeter on edge, turn around, and press back softly to instantly grab ledge which for characters with slow jumpsquats might be faster than a wavedash to ledge, DACUS gives certain characters burst mobility to tech chase and move faster, reverse aerial rush gives characters like DK better approach options... the list goes on], they would have [from where I see how this has gone], been ignored... but I'll list them now here since apparently you're interested?
 
#40
Please, I'm not here to babysit your dull responses with your intention to pretend to be a troll... learn to discern between stupidity and being a troll.

Smash 4 has no chance of reaching such importance, it vastly exists other games within the category where a lot of skill is needed such like by UMVC3, etc...

In my first sentence, I'm clearly highlighting UMVC3 skill level requirement, while I'm pointing to Smash 4 as one game without the possibility of reaching a certain level of importance, this means by default that I'm already comparing and qualifying Smash 4 as one unworthy game which won't reach a higher importance level than games like UMVC3, where a lot of skill is needed.
Finally, within the context, I clearly stated that skill is required for Smash 4, but it doesn't demand the skill like by UMVC3 and SSBM.

-----------------------------------------------------

SSBM is the most competitive Nintendo game ever where real skill and mental fortitude is required, guess, in order to survive Nintendo has no other choice than to produce a Melee remake.


In the second part, you're apparently making fun of my formulation by implementing the word 'real'

Definition of real:

1. true, not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent.
2. existing or occurring as fact, actual rather than imaginary, ideal or fictitious
3. being an actual thing, having objective existence, not imaginary
4. being actually such, not merely so-called: a real victory.
5. genuine, not counterfeit, artificial, or imitation, authentic

One of genuine's definitions is quality ( if you want me to define quality I can do it)

6. Informal. absolute, complete, utter: She's a real brain.

adverb

7. Informal. very or extremely: You did a real nice job painting the house.


Please, next time try it better, don't make yourself ridiculous.
top kek. I DID say that sm4sh required real skill and mental fortitude but NOT as much as Melee, or for that matter UMVC3.
 
Top