And Dunas: Did you just advocate having a tournament where "fair" wasn't that the most skilled player would win? At any tournament, the players that have played the game more and had more time to practice will most probably win. And unless the tournament is for something that hasn't been released anywhere, you can't prevent this from happening.
You also cannot help that if the game isn't out yet, then the people who'd played at the demo stations the most will win.
Also, how the XBOX 360 are they supposed to create a ruleset where the best players don't win?
You misinterpreted my point. Although, for a ruleset where the best players don't automatically win, you could try the default rules for Super Smash Brothers and its sequels.
Oh wait.
Anyway, I find tournaments where the same people are always winning to be bland, to be honest. I suppose that sounds odd, but if you consider it, it's not so strange. I like sudden upsets, surprising victories, and amazing comebacks more than anything, and SSBM tournaments just haven't offered enough of them. It's usually no surprise when the winner is announced, because the winner is ALWAYS the more skilled person, and everyone knows who that will be. There are no sudden upsets- the rules dictate that the random element of luck must be banished, after all.
Me, I like to see the odds thrown asunder by luck and randomization, and that's really what draws me to Super Smash Brothers in the first place- what other fighting game out there allows for luck and random chance to overcome dedicated skill? None. If I wanted that, I'd watch one of the thousands of Street Fighter tournaments. I like the random element, and I feel that it's not represented enough in the tournament scene, which is why I joined SmashBoards in the first place. I'm not saying "hey, let's remove skill from its dominant spot!" I'm saying that skill should be one of multiple factors, including luck.
And before you declare that to be against the way a competition works, let's look at Poker, where skill and luck go hand in hand in the most elaborate of dances. There are prizes there exceeding a million dollars in cash. Yet, by definition, the most skilled, experienced player is not always going to be the winner. Why? Because of luck. Because of chance. I can't take the so-called "tourney***" scene seriously until it acknowledges that skill is not the end-all be-all for deciding a winner.
Only an idiot would enter a competition without being very good at the game and then run home and cry when someone who's obviously good at the game beat them, even if it were a curbstomp. I've never cried, whined or even reacted adversely to getting crushed at something.
Good for you. However, need I remind you that Nintendo is catering to children and seniors along with the powergaming crowd? Don't be naive; you're not the only kind of person interested in Smash tournaments, and it's demoralizing and humiliating to some to get thoroughly trashed like that. It's not a way to be introduced to a community, it's a brick freaking wall.
Because I am smart enough to realize that I'm not perfect. That I'm not the best in the world at anything. That there will always be someone better than me even in games I've practiced.
Something that everyone here acknowledges, I'm sure, is that no one is the best of the best- there's always a better player.
And, again, only a complete idiot whose stupidity far exceed's George W. Bush's would enter a tournament and vow never to play the game again if they encountered someone obviously much more skilled than them.
Not sure the bolded segment was really necessary, but okay, I'll bite. There are people who will do this- and not only with Smash. The best way to get to know a community is to experience it first-hand, and if you get your lack of skill thrown into your face, well, you're likely to be a little wary of that community. Brawl offers online play, and in fact, that's likely to be a major factor in its sales as compared to Melee. It'd be crushing if you couldn't even play the game because your opponent was absolutely, utterly destroying you. Don't intimidate your opponent if they're a casual, but don't hesitate to defeat them. Let them have fun at the expense of a longer match. It's better for the community as a whole. That said, I doubt that anyone would be stopped from buying the game, and your point stands in that regard.
When that happens, you have two choices:
* Continue on playing the game the way you do, knowing you won't be able to beat skilled players like the one who just beat you.
* Learn more about the game.
Neither choice is "right" or "wrong". The choice to run away and never play it again, citing "He destroyed me! I can never enjoy this game as a casual gamer ever again!" as a reason is, however, wrong.
I'm not touching this one, personally, because I already admitted your point was valid as a counter-argument to what I said.
Trust me, I wouldn't have any qualms about destroying such a player in a tournament because such a complete douchebags needs to be taught a lesson and just stay away from my tournaments. I'd relish in it. Because stupidity should not be rewarded or given leeway to. Stupidity is to be discouraged and routed out before it can fester and grow.
What stood out here for me was "my tournaments". They are not "your tournaments". An open tournament like this is obviously not designed to be "your" tournament. It's open to everyone, including people like that, and I see no reason why sportsmanship can't play a part in that. I, obviously, am not you, and have differing views as to what sportsmanship is, but I find it entirely unlikable that you feel that "destroying" people in a
game is necessary at all. Win against them, decisively. Show them you're not to be trifled with. But don't make it where they can't have fun, or it's no longer a game, it's a pissing contest.
.
