Sakurai and the competitive scene

[Luco]

Perhaps yes but it could be argued that competitive players also fluctuate way more than casual players in this regard. I think I take losses and wins way more seriously here than I did as a casual player and I can get really down after a string of losses.

Also I don't think it's a proven fact that players playing the game competitively have to like it more. I think in many cases, yes but you don't have to be totally engaged to be enjoying something: I know of experiences where i've loved the game because it's a trigger for something else good, like socializing with friends as an instance. For smash, whether this is just as fun if not more fun than normal competitive play, I don't know. I've had a few experiences like this myself on other games though and I can point to the casual experience on that as being just as good as the intricate for different reasons.

 

[SmashChu]

He wasn't a new player. He was a player who claimed he tried to get good, tried to learn the game's mechanics, even had at least one person trying to help him and failed even in an easy game like WoW. He wasn't hated, he just was so bad that it made no sense to group with him since he couldn't pull his own weight because he sucked. Source: the one guy that tried to help him posted about it. As for players that are new, the internet is there and answers are easy to find. The "shunning" is probably for players that don't listen to others and play some ******** suboptimal way.

When you suck, and you lose, I think the game is working as intended. I am appalled that people see this as a problem, when without this order of things, there would be no losing, and therefore no winning. Don't you understand that without some people feeling bad for losing, winners can't feel good for winning?


Part of the reason Melee is amazing is just how much of a difference, a distance, in skill one can create between other players. This difference exists in other games that are played competitively but in Melee you can really see it. The top players seem like gods to novice players and even to those who don't understand the game. Games that allow such an overbearing level of dominance are rare throughout gaming's history, let alone this decade, where they're practically nonexistent.

You basically proved my point. Your attitude is that of elitism which was the problem here. The guy wanted to enjoy the game and play with other people. This is why he tried so hard to get good so he can fit in. It got to the point to where he was shunned for being bad. No one wanted to play with him. See, games are a social experience. Like anything we humans do, they are for interaction. The problem here was the social aspect went away and it became solely about winning. The reason people hate competitive gaming is because winning for winnings sake isn't fun. It's nice to win, but if you can only derive enjoyment from winning, the game loses meaning. The WoW problem was that the game no longer became a past time to play with others but a Pavlovian exercise. The guy just wanted some people to play a game with, but everyone else wanted to win and picked players on stats alone. Not to mention EVERYONE on the server was ignoring him. Doesn't sound like fun which, funny enough, is the whole point of a game.

When people got upset with Melee and the competitive community, this is why. Surprisingly, people don't care that much about winning and losing in a video game. They want to play and enjoy themselves. Things like Wavedashing or even Snaking (in MKDS) take the fun out because it becomes about winning for winnings sake. Since the mentality is "get better or shut up" most people tend to leave. The game loses the sense of fun they enjoyed. The evidence tells us that games with strong competitive focus tend to do worse than games that don't. Smash is the best example, but you can also see it in Dota and LoL. The reason for this is because the design of the game is not to enjoy the game or to be a social experience (which is what WoW was built on) but simply, winning for winning's sake. That might explain better what I'm getting at Ziodyne.

Signia, the reason you can't understand it, or even sympathizes, is because you are the problem. You are the elite player who shuns other players away. The end result, of course, is that you drive everyone else away. The Melee community did this by calling everyone who wasn't playing their way a n00b and they sure where not nice about it. This is why making a game be targeted to the competitive crowd doesn't work. Going this route would not be good for anyone. Sorry to insult you in this last paragraph, but there really wasn't another way to say it.

 

[Ziodyne]

If casual players didn't care about winning/losing in the slightest, why would competitive players be bothered in the slightest?
You have constructed a strange caricature of competitive players in your head that doesn't resemble anything remotely close to the truth.

Competitive players understand the difference between competition and casual play. When they go to a competition, they enter the competitive mindset and play to win. When they play among friends, they play among friends. Surprisingly, competitive players actually have FUN with the game they play.

See, the reason why I still can't agree with what you're saying is that you haven't distinguished at all between competitive and casual games even though anything that has competition does so. Look even at competitive games as a whole (chess, football, basketball, etc.), and you'll see how people distinguish between when they're playing with friends or they're playing a competitive match: playing with friends means MUTUALLY AGREEING to play for fun or semi-seriously or whatever, playing a competitive match means MUTUALLY AGREEING to play to win.

The claim that competitive gaming detracts from the social aspect of games is one of the biggest loads of hogwash I've heard in my life. Competitions encourage gamers to go out and meet other gamers who are also passionate about the same game. Competitive players come together to discuss strategies, metagame changes, the really cool combo video that came out last week, and above all, to play the game that they all agreed was fun and fit for competitive play.

Ultimately, I feel like competitive gaming in general is something that is downright unavoidable as long as it is a game that can test the skills between two players because in general, life is competitive. If it takes more than one player to play, at some point one person will want to know who's the better player. This happens in casual AND competitive play, there will always be people with a competitive or elitist mindset regardless of whether they're in the competitive community or not. Any multiplayer game will have this type of competitive interaction between people because it's a large part of social interaction in general: even in real life, people will judge you by your merits and skills. Therefore, it seems the only solution to me for this problem you claim to have with competitive games is to get rid of all multiplayer games, but even then, people will probably still compete for speed runs of single-player games.

Maybe we shouldn't even have games. Those are competitive.

tl;dr Competition and fun have never been mutually exclusive.

Large rant aside, I still see no inverse correlation between competitive success and popularity.

 

[Luco]

See, the reason why I still can't agree with what you're saying is that you haven't distinguished at all between competitive and casual games even though anything that has competition does so. Look even at competitive games as a whole (chess, football, basketball, etc.), and you'll see how people distinguish between when they're playing with friends or they're playing a competitive match: playing with friends means MUTUALLY AGREEING to play for fun or semi-seriously or whatever, playing a competitive match means MUTUALLY AGREEING to play to win.

The claim that competitive gaming detracts from the social aspect of games is one of the biggest loads of hogwash I've heard in my life. Competitions encourage gamers to go out and meet other gamers who are also passionate about the same game. Competitive players come together to discuss strategies, metagame changes, the really cool combo video that came out last week, and above all, to play the game that they all agreed was fun and fit for competitive play.

Just on these two paragraphs:

1. I will say, though, that even when playing with friends, you're going to bring your experience with you to that game. Unless you deliberately try to make yourself lose, you're more likely going to win. This is evident when my friend and I play together. I can't 'unlearn' all the things i've learnt just to make our matches even and even going my worst character (Dedede, as it so happens), I still win against this guy. Now we don't play smash as much as we used to (though we're still best friends and pick it up occasionally and are even going to co-host a tournament in school), not because he doesn't win but because often he gets entirely shut down. I've had plenty of matches where i've lost and thought it was all a hoot but if you're getting totally shut down it's nowhere near as fun.

So, that's just my 2 cents there.

2. Actually, the more I think about it, the more you might have a point. I never thought about it this way.

And @ Signia: I'm gonna have to agree with chu, that sounds pretty harsh on a player.

 

[Frostwraith]

So much tolerance and respect between players here... oh wait.

I'll be honest now. No matter if you're "casual" or "competitive", we're all players and obviously it feels good to win. But, it's also important to remember that to win, the other must lose. And we are 'others' for the other people.

However all this fundamentalism and arrogance from either side is just childish. Smash is a game in which you can customize your ways to play, so if you want to play with items on, go ahead, if you don't want items, go ahead and turn'em off.

But, shoving ways to play down the others' throat is just intolerant and, once again, childish. Regardless of whether you play or not with items, you're always bound to develop your skill as a player, because it's by practicing (whether "casually" or "competitively") that you get better as a player. That statement applies to any activity, since it's the way our brain works.

On the sales subject, I've said before: sales =/= quality. Sales only reflect the number of people who buy the games, nothing more.

Most people that claim themselves as "competitive" don't know the meaning of competitive as they are more on the definition of fundamentalism.

To think that people take trivial things such as video games or sports so seriously... a sane person must wonder what kind of wretched species we are. Oh well.

 

[Ziodyne]

Not to be rude, but nothing you've said really has any relevance in the current argument at hand afaik.

I argued that competitive play does not detract from casual play and that competition is an essential part of almost any multiplayer game just because of how people are wired. It's not a great argument to be sure, but we all do what we can with what little intelligence we have.

And yes, people do take video games or sports seriously. It's a great thing that people can be passionate about something, pursue it with great endeavor, and talk about it at great length. Usually, taking a subject matter seriously involves personal growth, lengthy discussions, and social interaction with fellow community members.

Also, I feel like the discussion was never about sales = better game but sales = popularity, which in turn means what would developers have the incentive to make.

 

[Luco]

Hehe, frostwraith, don't worry, i've seen way more heated threads than this. Compared to that, this is a tea party! :D

Arguments like this happen sometimes but they'll run their course, my friend.

 

[Frostwraith]

Not to be rude, but nothing you've said really has any relevance in the current argument at hand afaik.

I was making a response to the thread as a whole, since all I've posted here was merely sarcastic remarks and otherwise making fun of the overall Melee vs. Brawl debates that elitist people (from both sides) whip up and create senseless flame wars. Melee and Brawl are both great games and have their own good parts and flaws. No game is perfect, nor there will ever be one.

If you like Melee, play Melee. If you like Brawl, play Brawl. If you like both, play both. Simple as that, no need to bring stupid arguments and bash other people for being different. It's just a matter of controlling emotions and keeping **** to oneself.

I argued that competitive play does not detract from casual play and that competition is an essential part of almost any multiplayer game just because of how people are wired. It's not a great argument to be sure, but we all do what we can with what little intelligence we have.

Playing a multiplayer game is a simple process: grab the controllers, play the game, enjoy the time spent. Sometimes we lose, sometimes we win. Life's a game. For every good thing, there's a bad thing, and vice versa. Know what I mean?

And yes, people do take video games or sports seriously. It's a great thing that people can be passionate about something, pursue it with great endeavor, and talk about it at great length. Usually, taking a subject matter seriously involves personal growth, lengthy discussions, and social interaction with fellow community members.

Being passionate =/= taking things seriously

I like video games (and I mean a lot), but I don't take such things so seriously. It's not worth my patience.

I may discuss strategies from time to time, but I never make it serious business, like some people do.

But when people get all heated up discussing things like games, it simply bugs me and makes me wonder why would people waste much of their patience in such trivialities.

I know I sound a little judgemental, but I just had to express my views.

 

[Luco]

I will agree with ziodyne here that I think it doesn't matter what it is; if you're passionate about it, then arguments on this are as valid as any other field out there. Taking that argument to another level, it's like saying everyone should pursue x career because y careers are trivial. But... they're not, they're as valid as x career when you think about it, in most cases. For instance, people might like to think that entertainment is pretty stupid compared to the sciences but with a mother who is an anthropologist and someone who has been out in the field myself, I know for a fact that entertainment is part of culture and society and culture and society is incredibly important, especially considering as it helps establish cultural identity or even identity in general, which is super super important.

 

[El Duderino]

Surprisingly, people don't care that much about winning and losing in a video game. They want to play and enjoy themselves.

That enjoyment comes from playing to win. Why? Because competition is fun. Everyone that plays smash is engaged in competition on some level, yes even people that prefer high items with all pokeballs.

If you prefer dilly daddling instead of engaging in a match to win, that's fine. I get it, it's like with tennis, sometimes you just want to rally. It's certainly more accessible than developing the large amount of skill required to serve and strategically place the ball, but it's also far less rewarding. Now I hope Smash 4 is rewarding to play, but further dropping the competitive elements is a one way road to disappointment that extends well beyond the tournament scene.

 

[Frostwraith]

I will agree with ziodyne here that I think it doesn't matter what it is; if you're passionate about it, then arguments on this are as valid as any other field out there. Taking that argument to another level, it's like saying everyone should pursue x career because y careers are trivial. But... they're not, they're as valid as x career when you think about it, in most cases. For instance, people might like to think that entertainment is pretty stupid compared to the sciences but with a mother who is an anthropologist and someone who has been out in the field myself, I know for a fact that entertainment is part of culture and society and culture and society is incredibly important, especially considering as it helps establish cultural identity or even identity in general, which is super super important.

Perhaps, it may be for the majority of people... but not for me. Call me anti-social or whatever, but since very young, I never held society in high regard, preferring to be alone (I do have friends, don't misunderstand that!) and forming my own view of the world and think on things with as less influence from other people as possible.

Perhaps, that's why I somewhat despise people debating so seriously about video games or other "trivialities", as I call. But still, that doesn't give me the right to shove my views into others, but to merely express them, which other people may or may not agree. In that sense, I respect the others' points of view, provided they respect mine and others (meaning: not fundamentalist).

That enjoyment comes from playing to win. Why? Because competition is fun. Everyone that plays smash is engaged in competition on some level, yes even people that prefer high items with all pokeballs.

The concept of fun is subjective. For me, the fact that I am playing the game is already enjoyable by itself, but that doesn't stop me from giving my best. If I win, good. If I lose, better luck next time, at least someone else experienced the joy of winning, which is a good thing.

 

[Ziodyne]

Well, you're always given the option to just never get involved with the debate in the first place. Personally, I like the discussion (to a certain degree, anyway).
And yes, many things are subjective, but discussion is a very critical part in solidifying your own views, becoming more aware of other views around, and displaying what views you have to people who may be interested.

 

[SmashShadow]

There's not much point in arguing about competitiveness taking away from a game. Smash is a multi-player game meaning there will always be competition. We all start at the same level.There will always be a gap between the great and the mediocre in the gaming world and there will always be room for improvement as well. If it's possible for one person to totally destroy you in a game than it's possible for you to get just as good. Those who can't handle losing shouldn't play with people better than them. But that's the only way you're gonna get better.

Though I'm not criticizing your method of fun. If you don't want to play the game to get better but rather just to win than that's your business. The important thing is that you have fun playing the game.

 

[Signia]

Perhaps, it may be for the majority of people... but not for me. Call me anti-social or whatever, but since very young, I never held society in high regard, preferring to be alone (I do have friends, don't misunderstand that!) and forming my own view of the world and think on things with as less influence from other people as possible.

Perhaps, that's why I somewhat despise people debating so seriously about video games or other "trivialities", as I call. But still, that doesn't give me the right to shove my views into others, but to merely express them, which other people may or may not agree. In that sense, I respect the others' points of view, provided they respect mine and others (meaning: not fundamentalist).


The concept of fun is subjective. For me, the fact that I am playing the game is already enjoyable by itself, but that doesn't stop me from giving my best. If I win, good. If I lose, better luck next time, at least someone else experienced the joy of winning, which is a good thing.

I don't see how the concepts argued here are trivial, or how this is so serious. Nobody's really getting emotional here unless some argument betrays a belief about something that isn't trivial. I could go on and say this carebear bull**** about casuals is just like various problems in our society, but nobody's going there.

And if you're saying entertainment in general doesn't matter, well it does matter, because we like it and want more of it, and it's important that we agree on what it is so we can find it. Is it essential to survival? No, but we already have that covered. If you need to discuss with your village leaders about your water supply running out, you go do take care of that ****.

We're beyond such trivialities.

See, games are a social experience. Like anything we humans do, they are for interaction. The problem here was the social aspect went away and it became solely about winning. The reason people hate competitive gaming is because winning for winnings sake isn't fun. It's nice to win, but if you can only derive enjoyment from winning, the game loses meaning.

*sigh* I really don't want to bother with this, a philosophical discussion on smashboards is just not worth my time.... Just reconsider the fact that anything humans do is for "interaction." To summarize the ****storm I would have brought upon that statement, humans do things to feel powerful, by either actually being powerful or pretending they are, and social interaction is just one mean to that end--another mean being stomping kids in a game, being better than people at things, and the like. Games are not only social experiences but are power fantasies.

That last statement there makes me think we'll never come to an understanding. You say the game loses meaning when it's about winning, but I think the complete opposite. To resolve this we'd have to get into what "meaning" is. That's kind of a pain....

The WoW problem was that the game no longer became a past time to play with others but a Pavlovian exercise. The guy just wanted some people to play a game with, but everyone else wanted to win and picked players on stats alone. Not to mention EVERYONE on the server was ignoring him. Doesn't sound like fun which, funny enough, is the whole point of a game.

Ok, that point can be made about WoW and MMOs. A lot of players are in it for the social aspect. The thing is, there are also in-game goals that players want to achieve and this horrible player severely hindered the achievement of goals for players on that server. Can you really blame them for not wanting to play with him? I guess something can be said when the pursuit of in-game achievement starts to trump personal etiquette, but that's the real world for you, and the WoW community is just another thing in it.

When people got upset with Melee and the competitive community, this is why. Surprisingly, people don't care that much about winning and losing in a video game. They want to play and enjoy themselves. Things like Wavedashing or even Snaking (in MKDS) take the fun out because it becomes about winning for winnings sake.

Those techniques can be seen as the same any other thing you do to improve your chances of winning. I've heard the same argument made for throwing and even blocking in fighting games and using good guns in FPSes. It's a result of false perception of the game's design. They see design as someone's intent instead of seeing design as what it actually is. We can only speculate on intent and debate whether we should respect that intent, but if we take it for what it is we can all agree.

Since the mentality is "get better or shut up" most people tend to leave.

It's more like "get better or stop complaining" since who like complainers who just want to win for free? I don't want to play with them D:

The evidence tells us that games with strong competitive focus tend to do worse than games that don't. Smash is the best example, but you can also see it in Dota and LoL. The reason for this is because the design of the game is not to enjoy the game or to be a social experience (which is what WoW was built on) but simply, winning for winning's sake. That might explain better what I'm getting at Ziodyne.

They may tend to "do worse" in the shareholders eyes but **** the shareholders. How a game "does" is how good the game is, how long players will be playing it, and how seriously they'll be willing to take it, and sales numbers only mostly reflect how well it was marketed. Ah well it's a fair point since this is the topic after all.

Sorry to insult you in this last paragraph, but there really wasn't another way to say it.

I called you out personally in my previous post so this is fair game as far as I'm concerned.

However all this fundamentalism and arrogance from either side is just childish. Smash is a game in which you can customize your ways to play, so if you want to play with items on, go ahead, if you don't want items, go ahead and turn'em off.

Most people that claim themselves as "competitive" don't know the meaning of competitive as they are more on the definition of fundamentalism.

To think that people take trivial things such as video games or sports so seriously... a sane person must wonder what kind of wretched species we are. Oh well.

Lol, what is this "fundamentalism" you speak of? 1552 posts on this forum? How wretched are you to take this forum seriously! Whoa damn, our whole species insane? Too real man, too real.

 

[Signia]

However all this fundamentalism and arrogance from either side is just childish. Smash is a game in which you can customize your ways to play, so if you want to play with items on, go ahead, if you don't want items, go ahead and turn'em off.

Most people that claim themselves as "competitive" don't know the meaning of competitive as they are more on the definition of fundamentalism.

To think that people take trivial things such as video games or sports so seriously... a sane person must wonder what kind of wretched species we are. Oh well.

Lol, what is this "fundamentalism" you speak of? 1552 posts on this forum? How wretched are you to take this forum seriously! Whoa damn, our whole species insane? Too real man, too real.

 

[FalKoopa]

I'm thinking that this discussion should be moved to the debate hall. Just a joke.

 

[Frostwraith]

Ooh, it seems that His Excellency Signia is enraged... I must have pinched a nerve on him for expressing an opinion differing from his point of view! Methinks that, perhaps, Sir Signia doth protest at little too much at differing points of view... such a tragedy...

That said, I hope you do understand if I leave this thread for good. I am absolutely sure that you will all be amused by the discussion of a such exquisite subject.

Now, if you will excuse me...

 

[SmashChu]

If casual players didn't care about winning/losing in the slightest, why would competitive players be bothered in the slightest?
You have constructed a strange caricature of competitive players in your head that doesn't resemble anything remotely close to the truth.

Competitive players understand the difference between competition and casual play. When they go to a competition, they enter the competitive mindset and play to win. When they play among friends, they play among friends. Surprisingly, competitive players actually have FUN with the game they play.

See, the reason why I still can't agree with what you're saying is that you haven't distinguished at all between competitive and casual games even though anything that has competition does so. Look even at competitive games as a whole (chess, football, basketball, etc.), and you'll see how people distinguish between when they're playing with friends or they're playing a competitive match: playing with friends means MUTUALLY AGREEING to play for fun or semi-seriously or whatever, playing a competitive match means MUTUALLY AGREEING to play to win.

The claim that competitive gaming detracts from the social aspect of games is one of the biggest loads of hogwash I've heard in my life. Competitions encourage gamers to go out and meet other gamers who are also passionate about the same game. Competitive players come together to discuss strategies, metagame changes, the really cool combo video that came out last week, and above all, to play the game that they all agreed was fun and fit for competitive play.

Ultimately, I feel like competitive gaming in general is something that is downright unavoidable as long as it is a game that can test the skills between two players because in general, life is competitive. If it takes more than one player to play, at some point one person will want to know who's the better player. This happens in casual AND competitive play, there will always be people with a competitive or elitist mindset regardless of whether they're in the competitive community or not. Any multiplayer game will have this type of competitive interaction between people because it's a large part of social interaction in general: even in real life, people will judge you by your merits and skills. Therefore, it seems the only solution to me for this problem you claim to have with competitive games is to get rid of all multiplayer games, but even then, people will probably still compete for speed runs of single-player games.

Maybe we shouldn't even have games. Those are competitive.

tl;dr Competition and fun have never been mutually exclusive.

Large rant aside, I still see no inverse correlation between competitive success and popularity.

The idea that competitiveness hurts games is not one that came out of thin air. It came from looking at the evidence. The reason you can't see it is you not paying enough attention. We've seen one example in World of Warcraft (WoW). We can look at MOBAs and see the same thing. The two big games are Dota 2 and League of Legend (LoL). Dora 2 has far and beyond more depth and even competitive LoL players will agree. However, guess which one is more popular? Lol is. LoL is a lot more forgiving. A friend put it best: If your doing bad in LoL you'll have a few items. If you doing bad in Dota 2, you'll have boots and a ward. LoL have more more players as well as stream views. It has cornered the market. Note that this is an example. The analysis comes after. What I said in the previous post is because I was trying to make a judgement on the WoW instance. If you can't see why games that focus on competitive play do worse, it's because your not looking at the evidence first. Your too busy focusing on my reason. I come up with the reasons to try and explain what the evidence tells us.


The thing your not seeing is that "playing to win" becomes the sole directive, not "playing for fun." When your playing a game like, say, basketball, you play because it's fun. You are NOT SPECIFICALLY playing to win. The issue in the "elite" players is they play solely to win and not to enjoy what they are doing. That is the difference. You enjoy basketball if you lose if you enjoy playing baseketball. Most competitive players wont enjoy it if they can't win. A real life example: we have a party with a few friends and play some Street Fighter 4. There was a player there who went to tournaments and the rest of use never really played. That person brought with him the competitive mindset. He wouldn't let go the stick because no one could beat him. So it was everyone getting stomped and not really enjoying themselves. The same is true in other things we do with him. We introduced him to Disc Golf. The problem was he made everything a competition. While I have a friend that is just better than him, he doesn't like to play with him because he removes the fun of it. It becomes stressful because the other friend has to win to beat the competitive player (or he gets smug). This is not one person but being competitive in general. When the main directive is winning for winnings sake, it loses it's fun. You might have a relative that is super competitive in a game, and it's not fun to play with them. It's because no longer is the enjoyment from playing the game; the enjoyment is winning. Your trying to see types of play but not player interaction which is what I'm discussing. Most competitive players bring this mindset with them when they are not playing competitively. They will likely use the same trick and try to win. The issue here is simple: when you play to win, it removes the fun of playing.

EDIT: I read Frostwraith's post in Hade's voice.

 

[FalKoopa]

Felt like replying to SmashChu's post.

The thing your not seeing is that "playing to win" becomes the sole directive, not "playing for fun." When your playing a game like, say, basketball, you play because it's fun. You are NOT SPECIFICALLY playing to win.

Yeah, but a good player should atleast TRY to win. If you lose all the time, it will take out the fun of any game.

The issue in the "elite" players is they play solely to win and not to enjoy what they are doing. That is the difference. You enjoy basketball if you lose if you enjoy playing baseketball. Most competitive players wont enjoy it if they can't win. A real life example: we have a party with a few friends and play some Street Fighter 4. There was a player there who went to tournaments and the rest of use never really played. That person brought with him the competitive mindset. He wouldn't let go the stick because no one could beat him. So it was everyone getting stomped and not really enjoying themselves.

I don't see that as a fault of a "competitive mindset". Infact, it seems more like a case of over-confidence and being unnecessarily proud.

The same is true in other things we do with him. We introduced him to Disc Golf. The problem was he made everything a competition. While I have a friend that is just better than him, he doesn't like to play with him because he removes the fun of it. It becomes stressful because the other friend has to win to beat the competitive player (or he gets smug). This is not one person but being competitive in general.

It really IS the fault of the player.

When the main directive is winning for winnings sake, it loses it's fun. You might have a relative that is super competitive in a game, and it's not fun to play with them. It's because no longer is the enjoyment from playing the game; the enjoyment is winning. Your trying to see types of play but not player interaction which is what I'm discussing.

I'll agree on this one. If someone cares only about winning, then I disapprove of such a person.

Most competitive players bring this mindset with them when they are not playing competitively. They will likely use the same trick and try to win. The issue here is simple: when you play to win, it removes the fun of playing.

Now tell me, why should they not use that trick if it helps them to win? They're not cheating... If anything, the opponent should try find away to counter the trick. And that is where the heart of Competitive gaming lies - to make yourself better than the opponent.

I think you are mixing the two things: Caring only about winning and playing to win.

In a game, everyone tries to win. That is what makes the game interesting and fun, because everyone tries their best. But if they lose they should accept defeat gracefully.
I know, losing is bound to make you feel bad, and winning will make you happy.
But that doesn't mean a person should get devastated on losing or brag when he wins.
If someone cares only about winning, that is wrong and against the spirit of sportsmanship.

 

[Big-Cat]

You know, Frostwraith, your point of view would be seen as more valid if you stopped being so condescending.

 

[SmashChu]

Kind of reluctant to reply to this one. FYI, I'm not a big fan of quote soup. Better to try and look at a who paragraph rather than sentence by sentence.

Yeah, but a good player should atleast TRY to win. If you lose all the time, it will take out the fun of any game.

The idea isn't that winning for winnings sake is bad. Winning is nice, but the problem is that it gets replaced for what actually made the game fun. When games focus on the competitive community, this tends to happen.

I don't see that as a fault of a "competitive mindset". Infact, it seems more like a case of over-confidence and being unnecessarily proud.

This is what competitive communities breed and it's true of the Smash community as well. "Play to win" is the mindset that only winning is important. You see, the games aren't as important to this person (who I will name Rick). The act of winning is. It's true of other games (we had another argument in Taboo other something like this). When you are part of the competitive community, you get into this mindset where you have to win. I've seen this in Starcraft 2 with it's ladder system. It's gotten so bad that there is ladder anxiety because people fear losing. In that agme, you are very much judged on your rank. So, as you see, rank and winning becomes VERY important. The same is true here even if Smash doesn't have a ladder.

It really IS the fault of the player.

Let me explain this story better. My friend, let's call him Rob, is better at Disc Golf than Rick. However, Rick is very compeititive. It has gotten to the point where Rob has to keep winning or else this guy gets a big head. But overall, they play it just for fun. Rob doesn't like the constant competition. He is better, but he doesn't want the game to become about winning and losing.

I'll agree on this one. If someone cares only about winning, then I disapprove of such a person.

Sadly, this is most of competitive gaming. Play to win is the mentality and I'll discuss it below.

Now tell me, why should they not use that trick if it helps them to win? They're not cheating... If anything, the opponent should try find away to counter the trick. And that is where the heart of Competitive gaming lies - to make yourself better than the opponent.

(didn't want to split this one, but I kind of had to)
The issue if that most people don't want too. The reason people hate Wavedashing and Snaking is because they don't want to spend the time having to learn it just to play. Again, most people don't dedicate themselves to any game because games are a hobby. So they don't want to take the time to learn these. They don't want to increase their skill in these games because, really, what's the point. There are more important things in life than getting good at video games. So most people do that. It shows as most competitive players are not the cream of the crop of society. Have you ever met a compeititive player who was a lawyer or engineer (not computer). I know I never meet another accountant here. Have you meet a millionaire who was a competitive gamer? Getting good at a game has little use, so when faced with get better or get stomped, most people stop playing. When this becomes a choice, the game falls apart. This is the reason why competitive games do worse than their counter parts.

I think you are mixing the two things: Caring only about winning and playing to win.

In a game, everyone tries to win. That is what makes the game interesting and fun, because everyone tries their best. But if they lose they should accept defeat gracefully.
I know, losing is bound to make you feel bad, and winning will make you happy.
But that doesn't mean a person should get devastated on losing or brag when he wins.
If someone cares only about winning, that is wrong and against the spirit of sportsmanship.

I never said winning is bad, but winning for winning's sake is. The latter becomes less fun and more stressful. The point of these games is to relax, so when you always have to do you best and try to get to the top, it becomes pointless to many people. When your in competitive gaming, it's winning for winning's sake because 1-3 will win a prize. Everyone else tries for the same prize. To do that, you HAVE to win at any cost. So the goal is not to enjoy what your doing but to get the prize: to win.

 

[Frostwraith]

You know, Frostwraith, your point of view would be seen as more valid if you stopped being so condescending.

I'm well aware of that. However, I can't stand elitist people who can't simply respect the others' point of view, hence my sarcastic and snide responses.

Responding to FalKoopa's and SmashChu's arguments, I agree with their points.

The problem with competitiveness is that people become obsessed with winning. It's this sort of behavior that bothers me greatly.

Of course that any game or sport is about becoming better, but thinking well, it's a natural thing bound to happen, no matter how competitive you are. I don't have anything against overcoming one's own skills and such. It's good. It's satisfying.

However, winning is not everything. Losing is part of the experience and shouldn't be considered as bad. Sure, it may be frustrating sometimes, but that's how life is, with its up and downs.

Winning without bragging and accepting a loss gracefully is what defines a true player. Being obsessed with winning and forgetting about what's important defines elitism and arrogance, not a player.

 

[Big-Cat]

You're making a very generalized statement about competitiveness. How people are when it comes to competition will vary from personality to personality. I consider myself competitive within the realm of my capabilities - i.e. I can't leave town for tournaments without paying a lot of money. I always try to win, but I treat most of my losses as learning opportunities and/or simply being outplayed. The only ones I don't count are the ones where lag was involved (i.e. I blocked, but the lag prevented it). Of course, there are plenty of times when I'm being experimental, like trying for more movement, pokes, experimenting with approaching, etc.

Again, when it comes to competition and elitism (especially on both sides), it's entirely up to the individual. You could be Akuma, or you could be Sakura, or someone else altogether. You don't see me trashing on casual players except when I know for a fact that they don't know what they're talking about.

 

[Ziodyne]

I have heard lol is less competitively oriented than dota is (lower skill cap), but I've also heard dota is just downright unforgiving even in the basic mechanics (which could explain its lower popularity).

Lol is less competitively oriented, but id argue its still a very competitive game and I'm guessing the competitive community is even larger than dotas just because lol has become much more popular on a grand scale.

I think you missed the point of my sports example. Think professional basketball. Think of all those top players who would curb stomp any neighborhood basketball hero any day of the week. Think about how they're always doing what you consider wrong, playing to win consistently and vigorously at any cost they can afford. I suppose you could say they're out for money, but how much do they earn before they've earned a spot in the pro leagues? Probably not a lot at all. So why do it? Why gamble instead of opting for safer income?

Because they love their game. The people who play to win, the people who want to do better just love their game more than other people do. Of course, this is why they want to be good at it. And why are people hung up about losing? And hell, why do you assume everyone who takes winning seriously a member of the competitive community? Also, why is it such a problem that some people just end up being a lot better than everyone else? People have the option to play with who they want, I see no reason why competitive members need to ruin your random friendly get together.

The way I see it, whether or not someone ruins the fun is not about competitive or not, its about an individual person's character.

Dude, why are you asking how many competitive gamers we know have a stable job? Most of them are in college for crying out loud. Even then, how the hell do you know what a competitive gamer does for a living in the first place?
I'll try to keep my rebuttal of this topic short since it's an awful argument to be sure, but most of the competitive players i know are people in my school. Yes, one of them majors in bio-e. He kicks my ass 90% of the time we play. He's a pretty cool dude.

Going back to smash, why would Nintendo need to remove elements from the game in the first place? They don't need to cater to the competitive crowd, they could just leave and let alone which i should think would be fine for anyone. Also, i really don't see any way around the fact that one person will want to be better than everyone else as long as the game is multiplayer. In which case, why shun the competitive community which at least gives these hated competitive players, banes of your happy casual fun time play, a place to flock to and away from your apartment rooms and pub servers?

And yes, i can see your inferrence between competitive success and lack of popularity, i just don't see any direct correlation or anything conclusive that could really bring me to agree with you. You point out games, you point out some more competitive games are less popular. So? How do you prove it is a game's competitive merit that drives out sales?

 

[Signia]

Ooh, it seems that His Excellency Signia is enraged... /quote]

Actually no, I was just having some fun with your obvious false profundity and hypocrisy about taking something seriously. I guess in order for you to interpret that as rage you must have felt really hurt by that, since only someone who was enraged would hurt you that bad. Sorry D:

Now go back to doing important non-trivial things like counting to 200 bob-ombs on smashboards XD

 

[Frostwraith]

Actually no, I was just having some fun with your obvious false profundity and hypocrisy about taking something seriously. I guess in order for you to interpret that as rage you must have felt really hurt by that, since only someone who was enraged would hurt you that bad. Sorry D:

Now go back to doing important non-trivial things like counting to 200 bob-ombs on smashboards XD

Responding to my sarcastic response with more sarcasm. Commendable.

Look, I couldn't care less about your opinions, they won't change my points of view. I just post mine and leave it at that.

In that post you mentioned, I was just using a sarcastic and condescending tone to make fun of some elitist people that whine about everything and discuss games like it's serious business, usually insulting others that have differing opinions or that like other games. It's pitiful, childish and downright stupid.

Seriously, whining about something just because it doesn't fit your liking is childish behavior at its best.

 

[El Duderino]

I love how SmashChu is trying to compare two highly competitive and deep popular games, LOL and DOTA2, and conclude LOL, being the more accessible of the two, is proof that games focused on competition fail.

Clearly there is huge market for multiplayer competitive games with large learning curves. Yes, past a certain degree of complexity it can get convoluted and turn players off, but to anyone that thinks Smash is anywhere close to having that problem:

 

[SmashChu]

I love how SmashChu is trying to compare two highly competitive and deep popular games, LOL and DOTA2, and conclude LOL, being the more accessible of the two, is proof that games focused on competition fail.

Clearly there is huge market for multiplier competitive games with large learning curves. Yes, past a certain degree of complexity it can get convoluted and turn players off, but to anyone that thinks Smash is anywhere close to having that problem:

LoL is a lot easier than Dota 2. Anyone can see this. But you live in a fantasy land so that's why you don't.

Also, NCIS is a bad show. Not sure why you wanted time getting a gif of it.

 

[El Duderino]

Are you kidding me? I said LOL is the more accessible game of the 2 competitive tittles. Get your story straight.

(Also I really don't care where the gif came from)

 

[Vkrm]

LoL is a lot easier than Dota 2. Anyone can see this. But you live in a fantasy land so that's why you don't.

He doesnt disagree. With lol being easier that is. Or maybe one of us is misunderstanding his post. Also if we could hypothetically collect all the people that play lol and not dota and asked were to ask why dota isn't their main game, the most common reason will be that LoL is cheaper. Bet it.

 

[SmashChu]

Also if we could hypothetically collect all the people that play lol and not dota and asked were to ask why dota isn't their main game, the most common reason will be that LoL is cheaper. Bet it.

Ummmm, both are free.

 

[Vkrm]

You win the bettttt!!!!! Seriously though, my bad. I misread dota as something else.

 

[El Duderino]

There is also another reason this LoL comparison to Smash doesn't work in Smashchu's favor.

By sponsoring tournaments and addressing the end game, Riot has made it very clear they view LoL as a competitive MOBA. Still don't believe me? Go here and read the first sentence. If competition, according to Smaschu, is such a deterrent for the masses, how is it possible 32 million people registered to play LoL, with a record peak of 11+ million active users online?

 

[Kink-Link5]

If casual players didn't care about winning/losing in the slightest, why would competitive players be bothered in the slightest?
You have constructed a strange caricature of competitive players in your head that doesn't resemble anything remotely close to the truth.

Welcome to SmashChu.

 

[Luco]

I will say, smashchu, that asking which gamers you know in careers sounds pretty stereotypical of the world's view of competitive gamers lol. It's not like we spend our lives doing nothing but training in gaming and even if we did, it's no different than an athlete training every day for an upcoming race.

But I digress (and NCIS is awesome stop bashing it you guys! ). I'm only gonna put this in terms of how I feel it: Compeitive gaming never took the fun out of smash for me and it increased my love for it. That said, I get the feel that competitive smash, or competitive -insert game here- might not be the thing for some people and may cause them to dislike the game, especially if it makes their life stressful or has an attachment to stress (easy example of this: Do you hate the ringtone that wakes you up in the morning?).

Anyway, that's still off point. My situation is, i'm a competitive gamer and yes, sometimes I find it frustrating to lose. But the common mistake to make is saying this is simply because I want to win. It's not as simple as that, although that obviously comes in to it and is a goal. It's the feeling that after so long, you feel like you haven't improved. I can take losing to someone knowing i've improved and that makes me incredibly happy.

Lets make it even more basic than that: I don't find it frustrating to lose in many cases because I found the events of the game far more enjoyable than the outcome. This happens to me all the time and I know it happens to other people, even competitive gamers. A good example of this is one of the tournaments I've been to. At this tournament were two people that my brother and I are especially fond of. Their tag names are 'Moxie' (in game she calls herself 'rockn') and 'Enemy' (in game he calls himself 'rolln'). These two are really good friends in RL and both play pikachu. They team in doubles. My brother and I love playing them because in game the experience is so much more fun than the outcome. The whole game is made up of jokes and witty remarks and cute little outbursts of 'Noooo!' or 'Mwahahaha!' or things like that. These are two really nice people who play competitively and want to get better but have a heck of a load of fun whether they win or lose.

To add to this, we've played them both in friendlies and in tournament and the result is exactly the same: We make jokes, we laugh, we talk about our strategies, it's like we're just playing another friendly! Playing these two especially is one of my favourite parts of tournaments (as well as the friend that introduced me to them, invisi, who I love versing and consider a 'rival' of mine! ).

Basically, what i'm trying to say is, it's possible to play competitively and enjoy it and the inverse is also true. I don't think you can generalize a competitive gamer in this regard because we're all different and we all have different experiences. It's like talking about people and eating. Some love the exercise and find the love in taste but there are people out there who find it more of a chore than anything else. You just can't generalize on it.

Also Frostwraith, I will admit you're coming off a little harsh there. I know you and I know you're a nice guy, so I know you're just trying to highlight what you think is a pretty silly argument. But if the people are interested in it, I think let them be interested and move on. It won't do any harm and it will probably do more good. :D

But look it's up to you and i'm not gonna tell you what to do or anything, you're an intelligent guy and you make good use of english for a second language, especially when you claim to use google translate for some of it!

Oh, one other thing at signia: I am gonna totally reject that everything we do is just a means to gain power, especially social interaction. If anything, social interaction puts us in place and underlines the fact that we're just one part in a series of things that lead to any significant change. I've never fully explored it but I think love and compassion are different from power in the regard that i think you're using it in. Feeling 'powerful' through social interaction sounds like the 'power' of being loved and feeling like you fit in and have a place amongst people.

Care to elaborate on what you mean? The more I think on it the more i'm confused. But basically I don't consider everything I do as a means to make myself more powerful. That sounds like taking selflessness out of the equation.

 

[Frostwraith]

Also Frostwraith, I will admit you're coming off a little harsh there. I know you and I know you're a nice guy, so I know you're just trying to highlight what you think is a pretty silly argument. But if the people are interested in it, I think let them be interested and move on. It won't do any harm and it will probably do more good. :D

But look it's up to you and i'm not gonna tell you what to do or anything, you're an intelligent guy and you make good use of english for a second language, especially when you claim to use google translate for some of it!

I know I sounded harsh, but I can be a little aggressive when defending my opinions.

But I want to say that I'm not criticizing competitive play, but rather these petty arguments between Melee elitists and Brawl elitists. Both are great games, but they are what they are: different games, with different gameplay and different content to offer. Failure to understand that is recipe for disaster.

If you don't like one of them, all you have to do is not play it. It couldn't be more simple.

I have tried games that I didn't like before, but I didn't go to the Internet to whine about it.

I question why are people so "desperate" for a Melee 2.0 to the point of hacking Brawl to make it (which by the way, I sort of admire such dedication).
Is Melee a game so perfect it must be recreated through all Smash Bros. releases? I don't think so.

Sure, Brawl wasn't perfect. But neither was Melee. Both are good games with their positive and negative points.
All we have to do is to choose the game we like most, for our own reasons, and respect the others' choices, even if we don't agree with them.

It's just that I am tired of seeing people whining over this matter, when they could simply shut up and play the game they want, instead of bashing the other game nonstop. Every franchise has its ups and downs, but that's the way things are.

(@Luco: I only use Google Translate when I forget a word or another (basically as a last resort). Besides that, I don't need it. )

 

[ToiseOfChoice]

Did we ever learn if Chu's first language wasn't English? I feel like that was a thing that got answered once.

 

[volbound1700]

I usually take the side of the casuals but after reading responses, I tend to agree with the competitive community. I did like Brawl overall as a better game then Melee but there are things about Brawl that are just plain frustrating. I have a friend that plays as Lucas and I know he can beat most of you on this board because he camps and gets the Smash Balls which are easy to get. I am very competitive with him when I play as Lucas or a couple of other characters that get Smash ball easily but it annoys me overtime not being able to play with diverse roster.

Brawl also has many annoying ways to die, capsules, tripping, random explosions sometimes caused by random spawns in a middle of a fight! It gets frustrating to be in a match and random chance decides your fate. Melee had less of these issues.

Pokeballs don't bother me as much because you can usually dodge the attacks, even the overpowered one. Lyn (although sometimes you can dodge here easy), Andross, and hammers (especially when a bunch spawn) are annoying to me and put game into random chance. It is refreshing sometimes to play a no item game not so that you can win but so that the win can be fair. I hope there is more of an attempt to let the player's skill decide matches, even with items, than to have the items decide matches.

 

[SmashChu]

I will say, smashchu, that asking which gamers you know in careers sounds pretty stereotypical of the world's view of competitive gamers lol. It's not like we spend our lives doing nothing but training in gaming and even if we did, it's no different than an athlete training every day for an upcoming race.

It is actually kind of important. People who are successful in life tend to be very busy. Accountants and Lawyers work a ton. People who want to increase their wealth work very hard to do this. Most people don't have time to sit there and learn a video game. They don't have the time to become like our competitive gaming friends and practice a video game. Basically, if you have the time to go to tournaments and try to get good at a game, you likely aren't successful. "Playing well at a game shows a life wasted."

This is also why accessible games do better. If you don't have much time to play video games, you will gravitate to those that are easy to play. This is why World of Warcraft is successful. It was built to not be as demanding as other MMO. Smash, likewise, is designed to be less demanding than other fighting games.

Did we ever learn if Chu's first language wasn't English? I feel like that was a thing that got answered once.

English is my first language.

Also, hey Toise.

 

[Ziodyne]

Bro, competitive gamers have their competitive phases in the prime years of their youth: when they're NOT trying to become accountants or lawyers. You also seem to think that competitive players are some financially ignorant people who don't realize they're wasting their time trying to make money off of a game. No bro, that's not how they think. I was okay with you trying to make the argument that competitive games somehow sell less (in which case, I expected a lot more concrete evidence--evidence which really needed no explanation), but now you're just going off and belittling competitive players.

We know we're not gonna make a living off this ****. We get it, there are real jobs out there if we want to have a successful future. That's not the goddamn point of competitive gaming. Competitive gaming is pretty much the same is "man, this is like my favorite game ever! I'll spend more time playing this game than any other game and meet/play a lot of other people who think the same. "

Of course, there are those who seemingly devote countless hours to the task, but people like this exist everywhere. Maybe I'm speaking too much from personal experience, but all my "practice" from playing smash comes from chilling in someone's room and hanging out with buddies, except this time my buddies are all relatively adept at a particular video game.

I mean ****, isn't that what you people are always advocating? Play for fun? If it's that important for someone to have fun when they play, why the hell do you have to question the way we have fun?