One clarification from an IC player before I start, I don't know the answer:
Can't you grab -> dthrow -> Nana fair -> regrab at low percents?
The only reason I'm bringing it up is because I was under the impression you could do that before starting the reverse ICG to avoid it being DI'd out of.
Honestly, this futile bickering doesn't belong in Tactical discussion. This is where we get stuff done. Keep the whining in General disc, please.
I mean it's not like we haven't had this discussion thousands of times before, and its not like this is the first game to have infinites. Many other fighting games have have infinites and death combos and they are still widely played and widely enjoyed.
(Examples: MVC2, Street Fighter Alpha 3, Guilty Gear XX, Hokuto no Ken, Tekken 5, Smash 64, and Melee just to name a few.)
I understand this isn't the first game to have infinites.
I'm also not saying that, because of infinites, we should stop playing Brawl.
However, I think that, in any sort of competition, you need to limit the scale and scope of what you're presented with to provide an even playing field for your competitors. A prerequisite to competition is a fair starting ground. I'll admit, it's impossible to completely even the playing ground, especially when working within certain boundaries (like the mechanics of a video game). That's just a preface, onto your argument:
In those games, infinites play a far greater role in the game and those games still manage to be extremely deep and competitive. Why? Because instead of whining about how infinites are broken, or unfair or whatever, people learn to A) avoid the infinite in the first place, which is always possible, or B) use an infinite first if it's that big a deal.
Well, I actually answered point A in the OP and in several other posts. Read the rest of the thread if you want an answer. I'm not saying don't answer me, because I'm clearly not infallable, but if I've already countered the argument beforehand you've gotta come up with a response. (PS: It's not like all people do is complain about the infinites and quit. I argue against infinites while improving my spacing, etc, to try to avoid them more. The two aren't mutually exclusive).
I honestly don't know much about those games so it's hard for me to engage you on the actual mechanics of them. But I would say that first, telling people to use infinites first, in this case, would be extremely limiting. The list of characters that can infinite regardless of situation consists of two people (or, if you consider the characters it can be used on a situation, one character: ICs). The majority of the cast can't simply infinite first, unless everyone rolls with the Climbers. This clearly isn't going to happen.
But second, in this game at least, we choose to limit certain things despite the fact that the game would still be fairly competitive with them. If we left certain stages on, the game would be a bit less competitive, but it wouldn't ruin the competitive aspect of the game; you've still got two people fighting against each other, with their inputs determining the outcome of the game. If we allowed items, the game would be a lot less competitive, but competitive aspects would still exist. My point is this: those games might have been competitive with infinites, but could we make them more competitive by taking them out? My argument is that Smash could.
You have brought up an interesting conundrum though, at least to me, and I'm not sure how to answer it yet:
At what point is a ban too limiting? It's hard to find the perfect balance of limitations and competitive stuff in a fighting game. If we put items back in, the game clearly isn't competitive enough. If we ban everything except FD and ditto matches only, the game is way too limited, although that's where we might see the most even ground in terms of skill.
The only thing I could think of for now is that banning infinites wouldn't really harm Brawl's metagame too much. We wouldn't be banning moves from movesets, just very specific applications of moves. It's not very limiting, although I could be wrong. As I said, it's a good point.
The infinites in Brawl are very few and are no where near game breaking.
Many people have already posted ways in which you can avoid the Ice Climbers infinite by simply spacing well or killing Nana, and with good spacing you can avoid the DDD infinite too (with those five characters that it actually works on). Brawl infinites really aren't a big deal.
The OP argues that infinites ruin competition because for the duration of the infinite, you have no control, no defensive options. Honestly though, this is applicable for any strong attack.
If you get hit by DeDeDe's fsmash at 60%, chances are, you're going to die. No defense or DI can save you as you sail to your death, especially if you're using a light character. But you only have to worry about that if you get hit by the fsmash. Should we ban the fsmash for getting easy kills when it lands?
If you're using Pit and you get hit by something during your up-b, chances are, your going to lose that stock, often at low percents. Should we have a rule against hitting Pit during his up-b?
Again, the "don't get grabbed" thing was discussed a lot previously, so read that and respond.
Your second point is good though, but I think that you missed the point.
Infinites are good because they can be an instant kill, but that's not the reason I claim that they're broken or anticompetitive or whatever. I never meant to claim that someone was overpowered if it killed you. Obviously, kills are inevitable in a fighting game, I couldn't make that claim.
But there is a distinct difference between infinites and killing blows. Killing blows are the result of competitive play, you have to actually engage your opponent to even get to that point.
Infinites aren't. On one level, as I said in the OP, you're playing a one-player game. Your opponent can't do anything while you sit and press certain button combinations to get a win. I argued that, ultimately, that doesn't make it a fighting game because it is strictly anti-competitive (that is, competition doesn't even factor into the equation).
On another level, the move is, in comparison to the rest of the cast, so much better in terms of damage and killing ability that it doesn't provide for a fair playing ground. I think that fits in with your other fighters example; there have been characters to possess move(s) so effective compared to other people that the character is just outright banned. We don't even have to do that in Smash, we just have to ban the technique from occuring.
Let's look at a non-video game example. Mike Tyson has extreme knock out power with his upper cuts. If his right uppercut connects with your jaw, you can kiss the fight good bye. So should his uppercut have been banned? No. Lennox Lewis, Buster Douglas, Evander Holyfield and the other guys who beat Tyson will tell to simply avoid it and knock his *** out first.
Andy Roddick has the fastest serve in tennis history (155 mph I think). That serve is essentially not returnable. Should his serve be banned for being too good? No. Roger Federer, Raphael Nadal, and the other guys who whoop Roddick regularly will tell you to ace his *** on YOUr service games and win the tie break.
The same thing applies to all fighting games as well as Brawl. Don't whine about something because it beats you if you can avoid it or counter it. The infinites in Brawl are particularly avoidable and not in any way game breaking.
Those are clever examples, however, I don't think they apply.
I'm just going off of our previous history with banning things to justify this, because I think those standards are still important.
When other fighting games ban characters outright, their moves are avoidable. They don't come into the game with a win, the just enter the match with such a large advantage that people banned the character for more competitivity. It would be as if boxing set a limit on how strong someone could be before entering the ring (which is why I'm saying fighting games don't function like boxing/tennis).
When stalling was banned in Melee, you could avoid getting above a higher % than JigglyPuff before he could stall. It was still banned though because JP still had a huge advantage upon entering the match.
Basically: in fighting games, we have a history of not only banning things because they are unavoidable, but we also ban avoidable things because they are incredibly unfair.
