L-Cancelling DOES ADD DEPTH TO THE GAME

[Sedda]

How is MajinSweet's interpretation of depth simpler than yours?

MajinSweet's = more buttons add depth as long as they offer players a mental workout (i.e. should I do it in this situation or not)

Yours = more buttons add depth

I think you're not getting the point because you're applying the decision making aspect of the game (options) to your Lcancelling argument (never optional), which doesn't work. You say that once you short hop, you don't have any more options because you're already short hopped, so short hopping is the only option at that point. That's true, but that's a different angle that nobody is talking about.

When we say "option" we mean that we have to make a decision between short hopping or not. Should I short hop in this situation or just full jump? That's a decision. There's never a point when you shouldn't L cancel.
You can always wavedash right or left, and even into the stage, plus you have the option of not wavedashing in certain situations. There's fast falling, but you shouldn't always do it because it's a bad habit that can be punished.

"So I am not going to list all the possible forms of "depth" in a game (I am not smart enough anyway) but I am to go ahead and say that execution difficulty and execution requirements adds depth to the game."

You can't just say that like it's nothing and build your whole argument on what you think depth means. It's been said before, but why then not make jumps more difficult by making them 4 inputs instead of 1? How about every time you jump, you have to press a button or else you trip. Every. Time. That is not depth. That is technical complexity added to make the illusion that the game possesses a lot of technical depth, but its only real achievement is making the game more difficult than it needs to be to be playable.

Imagine if a soccer player had to poke themselves in the chest every time they took three steps, or if a chess player had to wink after pressing the button on their timer. It would be unnecessary. Soccer is more technical than Melee, and Melee is more technical that chess, but they're all as technical as they need to be so that they can be played by human beings, but none of them add unnecessary technicalities except for Melee. I don't know if that train of thought makes sense, but basically I'm against games that have mechanics to make them playable, AND THEN developers go steps further just for the lolz to make them overly difficult.

Truth is, tech skill doesn't add depth. If you gave a noob near perfect tech skill (near because perfect would be gamebreaking) plus the ability to control the character with their mind, m2k would still be able to beat them with a controller. Depth doesn't come from technical complexity. Technical complexity, however, can be the vehicle that gives a game real depth by offering its players a lot of CHOICE and SITUATIONAL OPTIONS.
L cancelling never gives players that. It's a bad mechanic. It could be GOOD with some tweaking, but currently it's terrible.

 

[Kaeon]

If L-cancelling was simply a mindless extra input, we'd all hit every L-cancel we ever did. But that's not true. It DOES take thinking. What if you're facing the IC's? What if the opponent is light shielding? A lot of defensive options would just be obsolete if L-cancelling was a guarantee, and probably remove some depth in that area.

 

[Sedda]

Whether you can miss the timing or not is not evidence for depth. You can miss wavedashes too, and even short hops. You can mess anything up in the game in various ways, and it doesn't matter if you can because that doesn't constitute depth. Options and decisions do.

 

[1MachGO]

How is MajinSweet's interpretation of depth simpler than yours?

MajinSweet's = more buttons add depth as long as they offer players a mental workout (i.e. should I do it in this situation or not)

Yours = more buttons add depth

No, read what I say about depth:

In simple terms, depth should typically be viewed as something that adds intricacy to an aspect. Saying that viable options is the only thing adding depth to a competitive game is like saying that symbolism is the only thing adding depth to a book; it is just not as simple as that.

For example, it is a fair statement to say that viable options adds depth to the game, however , parallel to viable options is decision making. Decision making can only exist if viable options exist, but deicision making is ultimately what makes viable options intricate in a competitive environment. Ultimately, both of these things add depth to the game and their interaction adds even more depth. Depth is really just a fancy way of saying complexity.

I essentially explicity state what my view of depth is. Something which adds intricacy to an aspect. Or even simpler, additional complexity. And I never accused Majin's view to be simple, I said it was narrow. In fact, my definition is simpler because it is broader, however, you could say that my view is more complex because it is broader and permits more interaction between various concepts other than strictly viable options.

If you go by the dictionary definition of depth, the authoritative source, pretty much anything could be considered to add depth. Which, in that case, my broader definition is the more correct one.

I think you're not getting the point because you're applying the decision making aspect of the game (options) to your Lcancelling argument (never optional), which doesn't work. You say that once you short hop, you don't have any more options because you're already short hopped, so short hopping is the only option at that point. That's true, but that's a different angle that nobody is talking about.

When we say "option" we mean that we have to make a decision between short hopping or not. Should I short hop in this situation or just full jump? That's a decision. There's never a point when you shouldn't L cancel.
You can always wavedash right or left, and even into the stage, plus you have the option of not wavedashing in certain situations. There's fast falling, but you shouldn't always do it because it's a bad habit that can be punished.

I was trying to dissociate L-cancelling from being included in that option category by making the arugment that it is a form of execution like pressing the jump button quickly. L-cancelling is tied entirely to aerial attacks. Aerial attacks are the option, L-cancelling is something you are required to do as a result of that choice.

The problem is a lot of people are having trouble discerning execution from actions. Actions are things in the game which change the state of your character and grant you or take away certain options to give it pros and cons. This includes wavedashing, attacking, running, jumping, crouching, shielding, etc.

Execution mechanics are things which you are required to do in order to perform actions correctly. In other words: inputs. This includes pressing the A button to jab correctly, jump and directional air dodge to wavedash correctly, or L-cancel to land correctly. It is never a pro-con decision when it comes to inputs, when you make a decision to execute an action, you are required to perform its associated inputs correctly.

This is why I said this:

This like trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. You are trying to judge it based on a criteria it was never meant to be in. Understand that L-cancelling is purely an execution mechanic for effectively perform an aerial close to the ground.

Round peg = L-cancelling, square hole = actions, round hole = execution, square peg = wavedashing, running, jumping, etc.

And that analogy I made to short hopping can be remade with aerial attacks and includes L-cancelling.

Decision = aerial attacking near the ground
Requirements = initiating input of aerial attack (pressing the A button or cstick) and correct landing input (L-cancel)

"So I am not going to list all the possible forms of "depth" in a game (I am not smart enough anyway) but I am to go ahead and say that execution difficulty and execution requirements adds depth to the game."

You can't just say that like it's nothing and build your whole argument on what you think depth means.

I already stated what I think depth is, listing other types of depth wouldn't serve to enhance my argument and remain as extraneous, pointless information. This would be the same as defining what an element is, but then listing all the elements on the periodic table when I only need Hydrogen, Carbon, and Oxygen to get the points I want to get across.

It's been said before, but why then not make jumps more difficult by making them 4 inputs instead of 1? How about every time you jump, you have to press a button or else you trip. Every. Time. That is not depth. That is technical complexity added to make the illusion that the game possesses a lot of technical depth, but its only real achievement is making the game more difficult than it needs to be to be playable.

But it is depth. Its requiring more of the player to access better options and has impact on the player's decision making ability because they have more things to perform which will dampen their reaction time. However, at the price of arbitrary difficulty. (Which I said, is a valid argument against L-cancelling)

While two buttons being required to jump is not the kind of depth either of us would want ideally, it (technically) adds more to the game on both a surface and subtext level by incorporating a requirement and tripping mechanic previously not existing in the game.

Imagine if a soccer player had to poke themselves in the chest every time they took three steps, or if a chess player had to wink after pressing the button on their timer. It would be unnecessary. Soccer is more technical than Melee, and Melee is more technical that chess, but they're all as technical as they need to be so that they can be played by human beings, but none of them add unnecessary technicalities except for Melee. I don't know if that train of thought makes sense, but basically I'm against games that have mechanics to make them playable, AND THEN developers go steps further just for the lolz to make them overly difficult.

You could make a stance that dribbling in basketball and soccer or short time limits in chess are unecessary difficulty. Wouldn't the game be more accessible to the masses if you could just hold the ball and run or take a day to determine your strategy and turn for chess? Maybe, but you'd lose some other complex elements. Depth comes from restraints.

Truth is, tech skill doesn't add depth. If you gave a noob near perfect tech skill (near because perfect would be gamebreaking) plus the ability to control the character with their mind, m2k would still be able to beat them with a controller. Depth doesn't come from technical complexity. Technical complexity, however, can be the vehicle that gives a game real depth by offering its players a lot of CHOICE and SITUATIONAL OPTIONS.
L cancelling never gives players that. It's a bad mechanic. It could be GOOD with some tweaking, but currently it's terrible.

Maybe, but could M2K controlling a character with his mind beat M2K controlling a character with a controller? Definitely. So I guess tech skill adds depth then?

And I think it should be said that my goal isn't to say that L-cancelling is the best thing ever, but I do want people to argue for and against L-cancelling correctly. IMO, this boils down whether or not you think L-cancelling adds enough to the game where the difficulty is worth it. What complicates the anti-L-cancel stance is the narrow view of depth and miscategorizing L-cancelling.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

I agree that complexity is a good synonym for depth

Lcanceling by definition adds depth to the game because it adds complexity. If it were truly inconsequential to the game, people wouldnt even notice it being there. What KishPrime was trying to explain in the OP is just that.

There will always be people on both sides of the argument who will exaggerate claims, but that doesn't solve anything. Honestly I dont see potential for much rational discussion happening anonymously over the forums, which is why i have been refraining from talking...

 

[Sedda]

"You could make a stance that dribbling in basketball and soccer or short time limits in chess are unecessary difficulty. Wouldn't the game be more accessible to the masses if you could just hold the ball and run or take a day to determine your strategy and turn for chess? Maybe, but you'd lose some other complex elements. Depth comes from restraints."

Those are not restraints. Do you want to watch a sport where you can carry the ball with your hands? You can. It's called HANDBALL, and it has its own great strategies and its own metagame different from Basketball and Soccer. Dribbling in Basketball and Soccer gives you options that holding the ball wouldn't give you, and holding the ball gives you options that Basketball and Soccer don't. In either case, you're given options. As far as time goes for chess, I can say that I used to play chess a lot in school (For about 3 years solid), and they have a timer mostly because of time management issues, but untimed games never last as long as you're suggesting because the nature of any competitive game forces players to feel like they HAVE to make a move. I think that timed games allow you to become better quicker (it helped me become better at chess), but the same progress would be made with untimed games eventually.

Your defense of L cancelling is based purely on thinking that technicalities add to depth, period. I don't buy your argument of miscategorizing L cancelling by the ones who think it's a flawed mechanic, because you've purposely created that point of view to isolate that aspect of the game from everything else and justifying it's lack of options by saying that it's there as an execution after the option has already been made. You're pushing it really hard with that, because everything else in the game offers people options. There is no reason why there should be an extra input after an option has already been made. Why should there be one??? And don't say that timing the L cancel is an option. If you do, that completely goes against your stance that (paraphrased) "L cancelling is not what offers you options, it's just an execution barrier after you're committed to the option."

I don't mind technical games as long as all the techniques are optional depending on the situation. Depth doesn't equal complexity as you've inferred. If you looked at a dictionary, they might appear as synonyms, but there's a reason why both words exist and I'm sure they both have background to account for that, but here's the gist of it. The idea that you opponent can always outsmart you and come up with a strategy to counteract your own is the definition of DEPTH in a game like his. Complexity simply means that something is, in fact, complex; that there's a lot in it, but depth is endless.

Let's say that L cancelling was a form of give and take. You'd still have to practice the timing for when you DO L cancel, but it's not always the best idea to do so depending on the situation after you do an aerial attack. The skill barrier would still be there, but it would still take intelligence to decide whether you should L cancel or not. So you would be adding viable options and decision making to L cancelling, not just execution. This would, in some ways, make the mechanic even more difficult but justified. Wouldn't this be better? If you say no and you like L cancelling just the way it is, you just like pressing a lot of buttons.

You said that L cancelling is there as a requirement after you've chosen to aerial attack. Why does it have to be a requirement? Why is it there? I understand that it IS there, but why? Why can you not see that L cancelling MUST be subjected to the same criteria as the other mechanics in the game to be evaluated fairly. Why don't you get that L cancelling SUCCESSFULLY in the wrong moment could create as exciting gameplay as forward smashing in the wrong moment does. From a developier standpoint and a gameplay standpoint, L cancelling is an incomplete mechanic.


Also, the comparison with books and symbolism is very bad because it's a different medium from video games. The way you interact with them is totally different. Decisions and options are DEFINITELY what give competitive games competitiveness.

 

[1MachGO]

You seem super heated about this debate lol

And your counter argument against L-cancelling being an execution based mechanic doesn't even prove anything. Your stance seems to be that everything else in the game gives people options, thus, L-cancelling must be trying to give you options? That conclusion is borderline non sequitur

I see L-cancelling as an execution mechanic because it has the qualities of one. There is no reason not to do it correctly and it is a button press associated with an action as opposed to being an action itself; to short hop correctly, press the jump button quickly. To land correctly from an aerial, L-cancel.

If the developers had intended some kind of con to L-cancelling like weaker aerial knockback, but it failed to affect decision making, then we could say that L-cancelling failed as a mechanic based on the fact it didn't do what it was intended to do. However, since there was no intended con, we can only conclude this: Press L, R, or Z right before touching the ground if you want to land correctly during an aerial attack. A purely execution based mechanic was the intention of the developers. Doesn't mean you have to like it, but its the truth.

And there is no denying that L-cancelling's location is atypical. Execution mechanics are typically not randomly thrown in the middle of an action and could easily occur automatically. This is a reason why the arbitrary difficulty argument is a valid one.

Also, the comparison with books and symbolism is very bad because it's a different medium from video games. The way you interact with them is totally different. Decisions and options are DEFINITELY what give competitive games competitiveness.

I would argue that players are what make games competitive. Players create goals to compete for. Whatever adds to the gameplay involved in acheiving that goal will then add competitive depth. This includes technical execution as well as decisions and options.

 

[MikeHaggarTHAKJB]

your argument:
if you suck so much you cant l cancel, which noone does after playing the game for MAX a year, it limits your options
no **** sherlock, but the thing is everybody has mastered it, so it does not limit options. it just adds an arbitrary and unnecessary input

 

[Sedda]

I understand that L cancelling is already in the game, and I accept it. **** what else am I gonna do? It's the truth. What does that have to do with this topic? We're arguing if it adds any depth and if it's any good to the metagame.

Also, while of course I agree that the players are the seed of any competitive community, that's not what we're arguing about either. Your defense now is basically "it's in the game, so we have to accept it and deal." I agree, but that's not what this is about.
Anyone can decide to make a competition out of anything, like Brawl (I don't hate Brawl). It's the community the one that decides where they want to take their game, but that's a different story.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

your argument:
if you suck so much you cant l cancel, which noone does after playing the game for MAX a year, it limits your options
no **** sherlock, but the thing is everybody has mastered it, so it does not limit options. it just adds an arbitrary and unnecessary input

I agreed with everything until that.

 

[Strong Badam]

what a constructive and thought-provoking response

 

[XTrEMeSteel14]

Very important to high lag aerials.Also useful for combos

 

[Morin0]

I have no complaints 'cause L-cancelling has been basically ingrained into my brain. Hell, I try to L-cancel in other games. It's almost second nature. However, despite me seeing L-cancelling as something so easy that it has become second nature to me, it's still an unecessary and arbitrary input where you need to do it or you're screwed. I can't think of a good reason as to why you wouldn't L-cancel. Thus, it seems a bit pointless to have L-cancelling in the first place if choosing to or not to L-cancel does not lead to different options other than you getting punished heavily for it if you don't L-cancel. There are no mixups, and it's all just an unneeded technical barrier.

My 2¢

 

[Falconv1.0]

More button presses=more depth to some people.

That's so ****ing sad. I mean not dead babies in Africa sad but it's at least mid tier sad.

 

[BTmoney]

Very important to high lag aerials.Also useful for combos

 

[Falconv1.0]

We've got a high level Smash Rookie in here, dawg.

Stay alert.

 

[Kink-Link5]

The "no reason not to" argument never made much sense, outside a very superficial level. There's never a reason not to do many things (Why not have teching be done by holding down the trigger instead of requiring timing, why not allow macros for inputs in fighting games?), but there is a inkling of timing difference in the L-cancel when it comes to, at the very least, missing with the move, and hitting (a shield or opponent, either way). Miniscule as that difference is, it does mean there is an element of variability and situational awareness involved when executing the technique.

Are there ways to make L-canceling better? Yes, certainly so. But there are ways to make everything better than it is, and just because the technique is not as fleshed out as it could be, does not make it an inherently flawed mechanic.

 

[1MachGO]

I understand that L cancelling is already in the game, and I accept it. **** what else am I gonna do? It's the truth. What does that have to do with this topic? We're arguing if it adds any depth and if it's any good to the metagame.

Also, while of course I agree that the players are the seed of any competitive community, that's not what we're arguing about either. Your defense now is basically "it's in the game, so we have to accept it and deal." I agree, but that's not what this is about.
Anyone can decide to make a competition out of anything, like Brawl (I don't hate Brawl). It's the community the one that decides where they want to take their game, but that's a different story.

I can't tell if this a response to my post or not?

 

[Beat!]

When and why was it decided that a mechanic/aspect of a game/sport/whatever that doesn't add "depth" (however you define it) is bad by default? Because that seems to be a mutually agreed-upon premise for this entire discussion and I've never understood it.

 

[ph00tbag]

Well, I think if there's anything everyone in this thread can agree with, it's this post.

 

[Bones0]

People continue to ignore the fact that every L-cancel is a decision because there are multiple timings you have to choose from when doing it based on what happened in the last split-second of gameplay. If you hit an opponent, you have to adjust your FF and L-cancel timing accordingly. This requires you to focus on it, which directly impacts how well any given player is able to aerial or hit confirm aerials. If you make L-cancelling automatic, it changes what players can reasonably react to, and thus changes the game's balance of mechanics. If you think that the mechanics would be better balanced without L-cancelling, then you should explain why instead of trying to explain why L-cancelling is arbitrary (like tons of other things in every game). Either way, you are removing something players have to pay attention to and make a decision based on, so would still be removing depth from the game.