------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~~~~~~~~~
Mindgames inyourhead
~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know I'll get a lot of flaming for my mindgame section. I won't accept any
refutes until you explain in detail (with backup examples and references) why
and how my arguments are flawed. Also, PLEASE read it first, rather than just
sending an email telling me mindgames don't exist. I know there are a fair few
holes in my argument, but there are enough points to cover those holes. The
examples used may be unlikely and hard to implement, but are realistic enough
to be considered examples. Alright, let's step into the foggy, unknown world
of concise mindgame definitions and the reasoning behind them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a mindgames as 'A psychological tactic
used to manipulate or intimidate.' Is this a good definition? Below are some
of the more concise definitions, or explanations of things I believe fit into
the category of 'mindgame'.
First of all, mindgames are totally distinct from technical skill. They are
psychological games, not contests of skill. This is undisputable, as the word
itself is derived from 'mind' and 'game', suggesting a contest of the mind.
You can dispute the description of your definition by suggesting 'mindgame' is
unsuited to what you believe mindgames are, but you cannot dispute the purest
meaning of the word, contained within the word itself.
Here's a broad starter. 'Using mindgames is the ability to know and predict
the opponents' moves.' In SSB, this is often the case. However, with this
definition, mindgames are broken down into basic prediction. I partially
disagree with this basic definition, and believe that mindgames also involve
knowing what to do AGAINST your opponent's moves. For instance, you find an
enemy Jigglypuff's favourite approach is a simple dash attack. You stand your
ground and take the dash with your shield, then shield-grab them. This is not
yet mindgaming: it is prediction and use of prediction to counter.
Another varied elaboration on mindgames is: 'Doing something different from
what your enemy believes you are going to do.' You rush at them with Fox. In
prior rushes, you went for a SHed aerial attack. They shield to prevent this,
and you grab them instead of aerialling them. Basic unpredictability.
Another source informs: A mindgame is any intentional manipulation of the
opponent, usually to lead them into traps or condition the opponent to do
certain things. You pressure the opponent to approach by spamming projectiles,
then counter them as they come close with a good smash attack. The important
word here is *intentional*, or else it's luck, not a mindgame.
Alternatively, people argue that mindgames are a generalisation of intelligent
play, and have no concise definition, or at least none that can appropriately
be worded. What is intelligent play? It is very different to technical play,
where you merely use character skill to overwhelm enemies. This is proven by
the fact that mindgames can be used to con pro players. It is distinct from
prediction, which is defined by heavy experience. Intelligent play does not
require a lot of prediction or extreme technical skill. Instead, I believe it
is the use of situation to turn the game in your favour. This is the reason
why prodigies can completely overturn established champions in games like
chess, despite lack of classical skill and any experience.
Situations lead to choices, and good choices lead to victory. For instance,
the enemy goes to spike your recovering Falcon from above using Ness's D-Air.
You then use your Up-B early when you would normally never reach the stage.
The Up-B connects and allows you to recover unmolested, and you even get a
chance to reverse the situation. This does not seem like much of a mindgame,
but has connections. After all, even life relies on making good choices.
Mindgames have another medium from which they work: Adaptation. Adapting to
your opponent's method-of-play, the stage you are playing on or the character
matchup. Adapting is different to prediction in that you change your behaviour
on the spot. The method in which you adapt spawns chance for mindgames. Ness
is notoriously easy to KO through off-ledge edgeguarding. You leap off and try
to repel them. The opponent will try and space themselves away from the ledge
so it takes longer for you to reach them. However, if you jump right back onto
the stage, you can score a KO from a ground-based edgeguard or a edgehog. They
predicted you would come at them and adapted to that. You then adapted to the
change in recovery and took them out from the stage rather than jumping out
and risking getting hit and KOed by the recovery.
So, in summary...
[1] Mindgames are prediction.
[2] Mindgames are being unpredictable.
[3] Mindgames are intentional manipulation.
These three definitions have a basis of experience. You need to be experienced
to predict and be unpredictable. Manipulation requires prediction.
[4] Mindgames are intelligent play.
[5] Mindgames involve adaptation.
These definitions are broader, harder-to-define statements. Intelligent play,
in my opinion, is use of the situation (this includes who you are playing,
what they are about to do, what character they are using and environmental
factors) to change the game in your favour. In short, adapting so you can get
a KO, which is the other statement.
******************************************************************************
In conclusion:
Mindgames are intentional manipulation of the enemy that involves countering
prediction with unpredictability USING prediction, adaptation and use of
intelligent play.
******************************************************************************
Does this definition hold true? If not, which definition does holds true? I
believe all of them have some truth. However, there are some fundamentals for
mindgames. First, experience. Without any experience, you cannot predict well
or perform mindgames. Second, knowledge and experience of the character. This
is fundamental to actually pulling off the actions you intend to do. Third, an
open mind. This allows adapting and quick thinking, and is apart from my other
fundamentals, if only because it cannot be practised.
Here is what I believe is the best explanation of experience-based mindgaming
from a very experienced and established Melee player/Smashboards member. It
has been modified, and since it is on a public forum, is free for use.
"Mindgames do not equate to experience. Experience is knowing what options
work and when they work. Mindgames are knowing what options work in a given
situation and choosing between the options. Purely having experience without
mindgames is like being a robot choosing the 'best' option every time, and
becoming predictable and punishable for it. Experience has no conscious
thinking involved, you just do what you find usually works in that situation.
Mindgames involve a lot of conscious thinking, such as changing what you would
normally do in order to trick someone who think you're going to do something
else (if it's broken, fix it). Experience is not a fixed constant. It changes.
The force that changes it is mindgames. According to the above arguments, if
a person lacks mindgames, he ALSO must lack experience, since experience is
the basis and provides the options for mindgames."
Experience breeds mindgames, that's the idea. Mindgames spring from experience
and also change experience. This is game adaptation, adapting to any obstacles
and bypassing them in a non-regular way (as compared to your regular way).
Finally, we come to the segment where we discuss whether mindgames even exist.
I firmly believe they do, for a multitude of reasons. Before you read this, go
up and read again my 5 summary statements, because I'll be referring them to
prove my point. Here are some realistic scenarios to help my argument.
You're Ness. Your enemy is Fox. They rush at you from above with a D-Air. You
catch their aerial on your shield, proceeding to grab and throw them.
Pretty simple. This satisfies [1] and [2]. But it isn't a mindgame.
You're Captain Falcon. An enemy has repeatedly SHed you with Yoshi's D-Air as
an approach. He runs at you from a distance. He aims the same approach at you.
You run back and Pivot Smash him as he lands.
This satisfies [1], [2] and [5]. That seems quite good. It's starting to look
like a mindgame. But what about the other points? Let's continue.
You're Link. Your enemy is Luigi. This Luigi, when knocked off, always tries
to sweetspot the ledge. As such, you predict this and ledgehog. As soon as
this happens, they jump and attempt to make it back onto solid ground, but as
he tries this, you ledgejump and use D-Air. They go right into your D-Air and
fly away to plummet to their death.
All have been satisfied. You've predicted they'll sweetspot, so you ledgehog,
satisfying [1] and [2]. They react as you thought they would, and you adapt by
jumping up and countering. This satisfies [3] and [5]. you chose D-Air rather
than another move, which is the best choice in this situation (most useful
hitbox, greatest chance to hit, good enough power). [4] has been satisfied.
And with that small demonstration of manipulation, I conclude the long-winded
speech about the existence of mindgames. Yes, they do exist. No, this is not
groundshaking proof.
Streak!) but I am a lot better on the console, I do almost all the advance techs, and am fine tuning my combo abilities.
