Scar on the Melee vs Brawl debate: What does competitive really mean?

[arrowhead]

And the reality of the matter is that we don't know how many dead ends we've met, and how many new dots there are to discover. In fact, the number of dots and possible pathways that can be seen are different for person to person this early in the game. It wasn't too long ago that my friends were talking about how impossible it was to punish DeDeDe's recovery, and now everyone recognizes how easy it is to hit him out of it (which is what I said since the beginning).

i'm not arguing anything against this, i just misunderstood your original intent

 

[Scar]

hey no need to attack me like that all i did was answer ur question with a quote. and also its about the quality not quantity

Very true. Hostility isn't terribly welcome here.

 

[Crizthakidd]

i just saw the m2k vs azen match and it took 7 mins for like 3 stocks. now why would anyone want to do that.

competitive or now thers not too much u can do to get better then that. and if there was is it worth it? being a pro in melee was something. here im not sure many people would want to compete for top ranks. and that is what makes the fall of good games. which is what brawl is. a good game. not too epic

 

[Scar]

i just saw the m2k vs azen match and it took 7 mins for like 3 stocks. now why would anyone want to do that.

competitive or now thers not too much u can do to get better then that. and if there was is it worth it? being a pro in melee was something. here im not sure many people would want to compete for top ranks. and that is what makes the fall of good games. which is what brawl is. a good game. not too epic

>.>

I agree completely.

 

[Vaul]

Yea, that was a bit harsh wasn't it. I apologize.

Very true. Hostility isn't terribly welcome here.

Updates:
-At this point I'm through the first paragraph or so and it seems like he's being a presumptuous jack***.
-lmao he just said "it's just a video game." Wow. Thx dad.
-Hypocritical at least, I find this entire post to be ignorant so far, and offensive and preachy and worthless at that.

Your post so far has been a gigantic waste of time because you just don't even know what's going on.

.......

 

[Ban3]

Yea, that was a bit harsh wasn't it. I apologize.

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

ten characters

 

[FeArTeHsMaSh]

Very true. Hostility isn't terribly welcome here.

Ah but doses of it are dished out by the second (Yuna).

Unjustified hostility not welcomed, maybe?

 

[Demon Kirby]

Ah but doses of it are dished out by the second (Yuna).

Unjustified hostility not welcomed, maybe?

Hostility is never really justified. You can correct an asshat without being an asshat yourself.

 

[Pink Reaper]

First off, let me commend you for a post well written right there. Potential depth is indeed determined by number of options, but you can't just give options and hope a game is competitive. There is a difference between options given and options that are viable. The balance of these options plays a large factor into the depth of the game. A game that provides you with 100 options but only has 1 viable option is no doubt a shallow game at heart. If in chess there was clearly one best option available to you from start until finish, it wouldn't matter how many options you're given throughout the game, there is truly only one option. A truly deep game provides you with 100 options, with many of those options viable and equal in balance, at nearly every point throughout the start and finish of the game. Thus allowing participants to actually have a unique style.

Its like playing a game of connect the dots from one side of a paper to the other side. I could go straight up or I could go in a zig-zag pattern through the middle taking my time. Both of these methods reach the end of the paper and each produce a unique line when they finally reach the end. In this game, each of those dots represents a different option to the person connecting them. The fewer dots there are, the fewer options available to reach the end, and the more similar your line will look to everyone else's lines. Now imagine that in this game of connect the dots, some of these dots are somehow actually dead ends when you connect your line to them. Every time you hit a dead end, you erase the dot before you start again. Over time you will end up with fewer dots you than you started with, until you eventually end up with game of connect the dots that only has dots that bring you to the end. That is the final product that we are dealing with, and that is what determines the depth of any given game.

So, to apply this analogy back to the subject at hand, the first measure of defining the depth of a game is to first look at the number of "dots" available. Now you can start connecting some dots from one end to the other and discover these dead ends. But discovering some of these dead ends is a much harder processes in the real world. Some dots are only dead ends when connected from a specific dot, or some dots may be "alternative" pathways to the end, but only if your opponent is taking a certain pathway. It will take a significant amount of time before you can truly erase some of the dots. In the end, determining the final number of these dots is not something that can be done quickly or simply, and many times you will actually end up discovering more dots as you play. The evolution of a competitive game is this process of discovering the dots and erasing the dead ends. After you finish this evolution, if you are left with the potential to have hundreds or thousands of unique lines when you finish a round, then you are dealing with a truly deep game.


Sorry if that didn't make much sense. This analogy made perfect sense in my head but I don't know if I was able to convey the concept well or not. *sigh* But now its time to go back to studying.

Im still a little confused on this post. I mean, I understand the analogy and all but Im still not sure what your trying to say. I understand that there are obviously certain paths that we can take in game, some of them will work, some of them wont. The problem is that we know what to look for, we know how to find things that work and things that don't. Thats how after only a few DAYS into the game we found DDD's chain grab, after a few weeks we found mortar sliding and have already figured out ways to use it in combat. We found the IC's chain grab(and so far we haven't found a way to stop it so it seems like its an infinite) we know how the game works and there really a "Best option" in Brawl and that is to play as defensive as humanly possible with all but a few specific characters(MK, Diddy and Wario) You abuse what works and what works is camping, thats the dot at the end that we were looking for, it really isn't going to get much deeper than that unless we manage to actually break the game.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

competitive or now thers not too much u can do to get better then that.

Do you honestly believe we're already as good as we can possibly become in 4 months time? I can't understand how you could seriously say something so silly. Or worse, believe something so incredibly wrong. 4 months isn't enough time to judge the future of the game. Hell, the SBR still hasn't finished making the first official ruleset yet.

Sad as it is, many other people are jumping (more like leaping) to the same conclusion. But whatever, no sweat off my back. I don't really care. But in 2 years time, if you try picking up Brawl again, I guarantee you won't be able to keep up.



EDIT: I didn't see PR's post till now. Here is my response:

The problem is that we know what to look for

Do we? I made a different analogy earlier (might have been a different thread), but the summary of it is this: The RTS genre has people infinitely more experienced, better at making strategies, and better at breaking their games than we are. But RTS games are everchanging. New strategies that people think are overpowered come up every other week, and are subsequently beaten the next week. In the end, we know where to start looking in Brawl, but that doesn't mean we know where we'll end up.

we know how to find things that work and things that don't.

And people thought wavedashing was a useless discovery until Ken used it. (Serves me right for not looking that up myself. But it doesn't change the rest of the point :D)

Given, we know better now, but how much better? Maybe there was some silly little discovery that all of us wrote off as being stupid, but someone will take and refine it to something we could have never imagined. We, as a community, are still very much so stuck in old ways of thinking. Half of the new "AT"s that are discovered end up being slapped with "wave" in front of their names. We know how to find things that work or don't work to make us play like we used to. We don't know how to find things that work to make us play in totally new ways.

Thats how after only a few DAYS into the game we found DDD's chain grab, after a few weeks we found mortar sliding and have already figured out ways to use it in combat.

Note: SWF didn't find either of those. Japan did. And btw, if you watch their videos, they are keeping up (if not better right now) with us now despite not being very good at Melee. Most of our community is too busy telling everyone how bad Brawl is. Many of the things SWF has found was something posted by a new user, like 07/08s. How are we, the experienced ones, not finding anything out? Because most of us have our heads stuck in the sand and refuse to look outside the box.

we know how the game works and there really a "Best option" in Brawl and that is to play as defensive as humanly possible with all but a few specific characters(MK, Diddy and Wario) You abuse what works and what works is camping, thats the dot at the end that we were looking for, it really isn't going to get much deeper than that unless we manage to actually break the game.

I disagree with that in so many ways that it isn't even funny. That is incredibly far from the truth, but that doesn't matter. You've convinced yourself of it, so without a long and strong argument, you won't change your mind. I'll leave it to someone else (prolly AZ) to deal with that.


EDIT2: You know what? In all honesty, I seriously can't believe that so many people can be so incredibly short-sighted. In fact, I think the reason so many people argue against Brawl is because they want to justify to themselves why they aren't playing the new Smash with the rest of the community. They aren't content with telling themselves the truth, that its simply a matter of preference and they enjoy Melee's playstyle more, so they have to argue and prove it to everyone else. By doing that, they can feel justified for turning their back on the new game and sticking to Melee. I'm not saying that everyone who argues for Melee is like that, but it sure seems like it describes many of them.

 

[Zankoku]

And people thought wavedashing was a useless discovery until Ken used it.

Wait, what?

 

[LavisFiend]

Vaul's post is longer than my goober. =(

But I read it though.

All I have to say is that you made it really intense and completely passionate and a post like that would have been GREAT....a month or two ago when it was REALLY bad.

But a resolution has already been made I am afraid.

Still though, good read.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

Wait, what?

Wasn't it Ken? I don't know the actual details, but I read it somewhere else (not some random person, but someone I trust). Well, even if I'm wrong (I probably am) it doesn't change the point, which was that there could easily be some things discovered soon that we may think of as worthless, but in reality aren't.

My bad if I got it wrong though.

 

[LavisFiend]

Wasn't it Ken? I don't know the actual details, but I read it somewhere else (not some random person, but someone I trust). Well, even if I'm wrong (I probably am) it doesn't change the point, which was that there could easily be some things discovered soon that we may think of as worthless, but in reality aren't.

My bad if I got it wrong though.

To my knowledge, Ken has not wavedashed EVER.

I think that's what puzzled Ankoku.

 

[Zankoku]

From what I remember, wavedashing was discovered and seen as a good way to get items while still moving, especially with Luigi. I'm not sure who found its use for spacing, but Ken was definitely one of the people who felt wavedashing wasn't particularly necessary to his Marth's style and rarely used it except for basic things like wavedash edgehogging or doing something flashy between stocks.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

*shrug* I must've misunderstood what he told me then. My bad. I recall what he said going something along the lines of "People knew about wavedashing for awhile, but it wasn't until ____ used it in ____ that people realized its applications." Apparently the first blank wasn't Ken :D

I'll edit the post.

 

[Zankoku]

Actually, I have a great idea. Let's all read this post and be informed with the history of Melee, so we can all make informed posts : )

http://smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=1084815&postcount=6

 

[metalmonstar]

Didn't Ken help move Marth up on the tier list by showcasing his strong aerial game? Maybe that is what you are thinking of SamuraiPanda.

Brawl has its tricks but most are considered marginally useful maybe one day someone will showcase how important they can be and that will change how we play brawl.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

Actually, I have a great idea. Let's all read this post and be informed with the history of Melee, so we can all make informed posts : )

http://smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=1084815&postcount=6

I'm not too bad on most of Melee's history. I jumped into the wave of popularity after WD'ing was established, so thats why my knowledge of "the beginnings" isn't as strong as the later years. But good post nonetheless. A bit old, but a very interesting read.

 

[LOL_Master]

what is that old post of history going to do???

 

[Mr.Victory07]

That was a good read, and Melees begginings didnt look radically different from Brawl today

 

[metalmonstar]

what is that old post of history going to do???

It is just proves that Melee is greater than brawl by an unimaginable margin.

 

[FeArTeHsMaSh]

It is just proves that Melee is greater than brawl by an unimaginable margin.

No fool.

All it really proves is that Melee was just like Brawl in its early stages. Shield grabbing being the main dominant strat (turtling), Shiek being god (Snake), Fox being top (Metaknight), Falco being . . . . . Falco, etc.

Also the game was very slow paced (Brawl pace) until Ken's dash dancing.

Brawls history is still young. Who knows what will happen.

 

[LOL_Master]

hahaha, i don't agree with that at all, none whatsoever

 

[Pink Reaper]

Isn't the whole idea of "They're two different games" mean your not allowed to compare their respective competitive beginnings?

 

[doodmahn]

Isn't the whole idea of "They're two different games" mean your not allowed to compare their respective competitive beginnings?

No, because you can do that with a lot of different games.

 

[Anther]

Wow, I just want to say a lot of arguments against brawl are frivolous and result from you guys trying to play it too much like melee and assuming that people are going to be good at every matchup a month after the game comes out. A lot of recoveries are in fact not as safe as they seem and edgehogging can be just as possible. It's not as easy as it was in melee as most recoveries are definitely not as punishable, the timing's more strict with getting an edgehog. I feel like the tech skill "difficulty" of melee was put way too high on this pedestal of greatness when it really shouldn't have been. I get so many people telling me everything in brawl is easy and I wonder why half the time they can't even perform it consistently or at the right times, yet still are claiming that their brawl playing is even close to the level they played melee.

Aggression wasn't especially hard or tricky in melee in general, and everything's technically tricky against a skilled opponent. In Melee usually involved a preset knowledge based on experimented set-ups that worked very well. Once you got close to someone in melee and had an advantageous position, you threw out a quick mix-up of moves that would usually break through their defense, and it'd usually because they'd whiff something easily counterable. And even thenso, a lot of chars have a possibility of a short range mix up poke into grab or stronger attack game in brawl. A minor difference is that when being aggressive you have to be able to predict an attack as they use it more often than punishing the lag afterwards. (Maybe...)

I remember when people were saying that we're as good as we're getting at the game about a month ago, and even with relative constant playing I finally feel like I'm moving somewhat gracefully in the game.

I wanna type more so I may read more than the last 5 pages and reply to actual people XD. I wish I typed that up better and more sensical but I'm running late for something XD.

 

[LOL_Master]

yur just getting used to the game and learning all of the hitboxes/moves of all the characters and stages...

 

[Scar]

Anther I agree about moving with grace, I don't think anyone is used to the universal buffer system (IIRC that's what it's called) yet, but I'm sure people will get there. When we say that everything's easy it just means that it isn't hard to master, if we put time into it I mean come on, you know we'd get it faster than we got wavedashing down.

 

[LOL_Master]

that's exactly what i said, but it's hard for me to type that much, so scar's a good piece of beef jerky.

 

[BIG C]

Anther it's not fair to say that about edge hogging if you can still do the up b trix you did in melee with pika.

 

[battousai555]

Also the game was very slow paced (Brawl pace) until Ken's dash dancing.

Everyone thank Ken for making the game so fast with his dash-dancing! /sarcasm
What are you talking about?

 

[Anther]

Ah ok. I think the argument overall is about the competitiveness of the game. My main reason for bringing up the movement thing was go against why why overly campy strategies work so well against most. But I could just be wrong and playing overly defensive is indeed too good in this game.

I can't really argue over which game is more competitive because truthfully I have a harder time winning in general because brawl forces you to be on similar technical levels. I personally believe it takes more consistent thought on how to counter your opponent in general in Brawl than in Melee. But the technical consistency you'd have to play with in Melee and the fact that it's no slouch either in out smarting your opponents playstyle is also really great =]. It doesn't make Brawl any better or worse competitively in my mind though...

It kinda looks to me like the debate in this thread is very circular but I just wanna close my thoughts with that I think Brawl probably holds a bit more potential than a lot of competitive melee players want to give it credit for for, but its core is a bit different so it's understandable why people like Melee style more than Brawl style. Dunno, I have no absolute argument though =].

 

[thumbswayup]

Anther, your brawl pikachu is amazing.

 

[Sephiroth27]

There really shouldn't be any type of debate between Melee and Brawl whatsoever. Any game can have competitiveness. The only thing you really need is a community. The rest of the factors just naturally follow after.

Both games are competitive. Both games take skill. Both games are great. End.

Check the sig for further details on just what makes Brawl so good.

 

[FeArTeHsMaSh]

Everyone thank Ken for making the game so fast with his dash-dancing! /sarcasm
What are you talking about?

That's almost a direct quote taken from the "History of Smash" article. That's what I'm talking about.

I personally think shffling is what made Melee truly fast paced.

 

[Anther]

I think Melee is what made melee fast paced =P. No Johns.

 

[bovineblitzkrieg]

FearTehSmash, i dig your sig


Who is Masahiro Sakurai?

 

[FeArTeHsMaSh]

FearTehSmash, i dig your sig


Who is Masahiro Sakurai?

Lol, Apparently, he is a looter for not modeling Smash according to the ideal players (Melee pros).

A is A. Melee is Melee. Brawl is Brawl.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

I think Melee is what made melee fast paced =P. No Johns.

Anther wins the thread.