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

[Zankoku]

To be honest, I watched the entirety of M2K's set against Azen pretty attentively. I'm far more interested in how things get set up rather than what happens, so two people spamming LET'S ATTACK EACH OTHER LOL all the time actually manages to bore me more than M2K chaingrabbing Azen across the stage and Azen doing his thing with Lucario.

And you make it sound like I'm a supporter of camping and turtling. I'm actually more interested in getting replays, meaning ending my games in under 3 minutes.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-dBC6H8ctRg

 

[thumbswayup]

Not to mention Azen beating Metaknights left and right with Lucario.

Because Japanese people play with honor, not like dirty American smashers. Ha ha.

Come to the MD/VA area, you'd die. Every other person here uses Metaknight. I'm sick of this bull****. Everytime I make progress in a tourny, I run into a Metaknight. At Critical Hit 2 I was sent into the loser's bracket by Forte's MK (thought I came close to winning), and then I was knocked out by another random MK.

It's not fun playing him, not at all. In fact, I'd rather go against the world's best Snake with Sonic than face a scrubby MK with Diddy.

 

[Jack Kieser]

To be honest, I watched the entirety of M2K's set against Azen pretty attentively. I'm far more interested in how things get set up rather than what happens, so two people spamming LET'S ATTACK EACH OTHER LOL all the time actually manages to bore me more than M2K chaingrabbing Azen across the stage and Azen doing his thing with Lucario.

Again, what does any of that matter? No one plays competitive Smash to give a 'good show', they play it because they enjoy it and/or it nets them cash money. You (or anyone else) being entertained by a match vid is irrelevant. What interests me is the metagame and they way people are playing, and that vid shows that Brawl can be played with a lot of intensity, which many people say is impossible. Straight up. Most people who come into any BvM argument/discussion say that Brawl physically cannot be played quickly, and that vid disproves that, plain and simple.

 

[Zankoku]

Again, vid. http://youtube.com/watch?v=-dBC6H8ctRg

It's not difficult to play Brawl aggressively, but succeeding at it in a tournament setting is another story. Like you said, nobody plays competitive Smash to give a "good show." So why should they? The video is playing Smash to give that "good show," and possibly win at some point; rather than win, and possibly give a good show.

 

[thumbswayup]

It sure as hell does matter. What if at the grand finals of a Brawl tournament no one was watching because they were playing friendlies or Melee off in a corner? Actually that happens all the time. When M2k and Azen were facing off at the last C3, barely anyone was watching the match. Most people were playing friendlies, and a group of about 8 people were playing Melee on the other side of the room. What the hell is the point of a game being competitive if it's not exciting? Do you think people will watch a more or less entertaining sport?

 

[EC_Joey]

Playing a boring match is still more fun than watching one.

 

[Jack Kieser]

@ Ankoku: I'm not exactly sure what that video was trying to prove, other than that guy plays a bad Ganon.

@thumbswayup: I think you're missing the point. So no one was watching the Grand Finals... why should anyone care, least of all M2K and Azen? Again, they aren't playing to impress anyone, they're playing because they are competing. Why does it matter if anyone is watching or not? 'Competition' is certainly not defined by the number of people who watch.

 

[Clai]

Can anybody explain me this:

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=HEm-rQHRtvQ&fmt=18

That is the most intense Brawl battle I've ever seen.

Why do these two guys fight quickly, without projectile camping/turtling? This is just the opposite of what is commonly accepted in this thread. It is like an AT-less Melee!

Could it be that japanese are actually playing competitively instead of arguing what game is better?

Not directed at anyone in particular but I thought this was an interesting combo video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fn1y4aPwEVk

Granted, Brawl is not more competitive than Melee. However, it does seem that it can have its competitive moments.

These two videos pretty much summarize every argument I ever had for Brawl in this thread and explain how Brawl can become a good-paced competitive game like Melee is (Note: I am not saying how competitive one can be compared to the other, I'm saying that they both can be competitive). Screw projectile spamming, this is the way we need to play this game.

@Ankoku: No offense, but that Ganondorf you were playing was not very good.

 

[Brookman]

Hey guys, no johns about MK please. Step it up.

 

[Zankoku]

So, wait, what was your point again? That Brawl can be played with intensity (though not at the top levels of play, currently), or that it doesn't matter that Brawl won't be played intensely at the higher levels of competition?

What I'm saying is I am not saying Brawl is impossible to play aggressively; rather, that playing aggressively is playing aggressively is going to make you lose in a big tournament.

EDIT: Screw this debate. It's the same thing again; people pointing out what they don't like in Brawl, others giving some example of something to the contrary, the first group giving a more relevant example to the contrary, the second group saying "but how fun it is and how many people are watching doesn't matter!" Woot woot. I'd rather tell people why they're wrong when they use the term "autocancel" for an aerial that ends in the air.

 

[thumbswayup]

If it was M2k and Azen squaring off in Melee, you can bet that the entire room would gather around them to watch in dead silence. While competition may not be defined by the number of people who watch, it certainly makes for a better and more exciting competitive scene. You think sports would be as exciting if no one was watching? I can guarantee that the pros in every sport play for their fans as well as themselves. They play for the glory, and that entails viewers, which does add to the value of competition.

 

[thumbswayup]

Hey guys, no johns about MK please. Step it up.

Ever play Plank's MK? He'll make you hate brawl even more.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Maybe aggressive is bad for an entire match, but switching between super-aggressive and a complete turtle/camper is actually an extremely effective and off-balancing mindgame in Brawl. Brawl's developers seem to have made an attempt to balance offence and defence, which makes the game a lot slower than one where offence is greatly rewarded.

 

[Egret]

Maybe aggressive is bad for an entire match, but switching between super-aggressive and a complete turtle/camper is actually an extremely effective and off-balancing mindgame in Brawl. Brawl's developers seem to have made an attempt to balance offence and defence, which makes the game a lot slower than one where offence is greatly rewarded.

that would be nice...

 

[Reaver197]

Maybe aggressive is bad for an entire match, but switching between super-aggressive and a complete turtle/camper is actually an extremely effective and off-balancing mindgame in Brawl. Brawl's developers seem to have made an attempt to balance offence and defence, which makes the game a lot slower than one where offence is greatly rewarded.

Brawl's developers didn't do anything intentional to balance offense and defense, they simply made Brawl have an online aspect, lol. That seems to have thrown off everything.

But, yeah, about that very fast-paced, aggressive match Japanese video, replicating it would necessitate a sort of gentleman's agreement of sorts to constantly be trying to attack, but at a tournament, who would risk losing due to a unspoken, informal agreement?

 

[EC_Joey]

Maybe aggressive is bad for an entire match, but switching between super-aggressive and a complete turtle/camper is actually an extremely effective and off-balancing mindgame in Brawl. Brawl's developers seem to have made an attempt to balance offence and defence, which makes the game a lot slower than one where offence is greatly rewarded.

No, defense takes priority in Brawl. Hitstun lasting more than a couple frames is rare, so you get punished often for being aggressive and offensive. This is more unbalanced in Brawl than the balance between offense and defense in Melee.

Edit: That Falco player in the vid needed more lasers. I thought I asked Halloween Captain to stop talking about Melee or making comparisons between Brawl and Melee?

 

[Zankoku]

Ever play Plank's MK? He'll make you hate brawl even more.

LOL, what are you talking about? I love watching this ****.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ubdBaKaysiI

 

[EC_Joey]

LOL, what are you talking about? I love watching this ****.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ubdBaKaysiI

Here's a good one.

Edit: Oops, is that a Melee video I linked to? Sorry guys, I had no idea...

 

[thumbswayup]

LOL, what are you talking about? I love watching this ****.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ubdBaKaysiI

Ah, can't watch it now because youtube is blocked on my work comp. I will have to wait until later to see which match you are refering to.

 

[EC_Joey]

Ah, can't watch it now because youtube is blocked on my work comp. I will have to wait until later to see which match you are refering to.

Ah, too bad. I'm at work also, but as far as I know no websites are blocked at my company.

Edit: Post #200, what a milestone.

 

[Zankoku]

Here's a good one.

Edit: Oops, is that a Melee video I linked to? Sorry guys, I had no idea...

You obviously didn't see the video. Or maybe you did and thought I was serious. Omni vs Plank is probably the most hilarious way of seeing where Meta Knight's game has evolved to.

 

[thumbswayup]

OH you linked one of the matches I uploaded LOL. Omni and Plank haha

 

[Proverbs]

My post was meant to be humorous.

I knew he wasn't being seriously, I'm not brain dead like half the people who post on swf.

Ah, I didn't realize you were being humorous either. Well, it seemed that you were attempting to be humorous, but in a much more sarcastic and biting way.

It is good to see, however, that it was not as critical as I had originally thought.

 

[Reaver197]

Here's a good one.

Edit: Oops, is that a Melee video I linked to? Sorry guys, I had no idea...

Why does the announcer always make me laugh?

 

[EC_Joey]

Why does the announcer always make me laugh?

OH MAN! OH MAN! WHACK! WHACK! SOMEONE CALL KING KOOPA!

 

[Zankoku]

THIS IS WHY THEY CALL HIM KING!!!

 

[EC_Joey]

I wonder if he really started playing Melee after that.

 

[thumbswayup]

THIS IS WHY THEY CALL HIM KING!!!

I'm going to guess based on this that the link was to M2k vs PC chris at pound 2. The match where it's Marth Fox on Yoshi's Island?

 

[EC_Joey]

I'm going to guess based on this that the link was to M2k vs PC chris at pound 2. The match where it's Marth Fox on Yoshi's Island?

Nope, Evo East Finals. Same players though.

 

[thumbswayup]

Ah, I got them mixed up then lol

 

[LOL_Master]

uptilt to spike for mass lols!

 

[arrowhead]

Here's a good one.

Edit: Oops, is that a Melee video I linked to? Sorry guys, I had no idea...

OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!

brawl is never gonna be like this

 

[SlickSlicer]

The definition of competitive that has received the most support is the innate property of a game allowing better players to win consistently.

IMO, part of why this definition fails is because of the word "better." What does "better" mean? Is a person who spams din's fire a lot to win better than a person who loses more often but uses a larger variety of moves? Some would say yes, some would say no. There are lots of other questions you could ask about the subjectivity of the word better.

And yes, I read the whole first post.

However, there is no definite test to prove how good players are. It would be hard to come up with a perfect ranking system that showed you exactly who was the best Brawl player and who was the worst. This is especially true since the word better is subjective. It's even harder to find statistics to prove absolutely, without a doubt, that 50% of the time the "better" player in a Brawl match loses and 50% of the time the "better" player wins. Without evidence like this, without proof, these claims about Melee being more competitive than Brawl cannot truly be verified.

 

[RDK]

IMO, part of why this definition fails is because of the word "better." What does "better" mean? Is a person who spams din's fire a lot to win better than a person who loses more often but uses a larger variety of moves? Some would say yes, some would say no. There are lots of other questions you could ask about the subjectivity of the word better.

And yes, I read the whole first post.

However, there is no definite test to prove how good players are. It would be hard to come up with a perfect ranking system that showed you exactly who was the best Brawl player and who was the worst. This is especially true since the word better is subjective. It's even harder to find statistics to prove absolutely, without a doubt, that 50% of the time the "better" player in a Brawl match loses and 50% of the time the "better" player wins. Without evidence like this, without proof, these claims about Melee being more competitive than Brawl cannot truly be verified.

Of course there's an easier and better way to tell who's the better player. It's called Melee.

 

[Reaver197]

IMO, part of why this definition fails is because of the word "better." What does "better" mean? Is a person who spams din's fire a lot to win better than a person who loses more often but uses a larger variety of moves? Some would say yes, some would say no. There are lots of other questions you could ask about the subjectivity of the word better.

And yes, I read the whole first post.

However, there is no definite test to prove how good players are. It would be hard to come up with a perfect ranking system that showed you exactly who was the best Brawl player and who was the worst. This is especially true since the word better is subjective. It's even harder to find statistics to prove absolutely, without a doubt, that 50% of the time the "better" player in a Brawl match loses and 50% of the time the "better" player wins. Without evidence like this, without proof, these claims about Melee being more competitive than Brawl cannot truly be verified.

There are more (and better) reasons and statements as for why Melee is the better competitive game.

 

[SlickSlicer]

Ah, the infamous RDK.

Well then, is a person who's pro at using fox in melee better than a person who's pro at using mewtwo? Or does fox win a lot of the time just because he's a better character? Once again, the word better is hard to define. Moreover, my argument was geared towards Brawl, but applies to Melee as well. Is there anybody who has played Melee and won 100% of the time?

There are more (and better) reasons and statements as for why Melee is the better competitive game.

My statement was a response to a part of the first post. I was responding to the definition of competitive, which I think is largely subjective due to the word "better." If this criteria is being used to state that Melee is more competitive than Brawl, I think it somewhat fails. If you have other criteria though, a better argument in favor of Melee could probably be made.

I'm going to go for a swim now. I'll respond to replies to this post if any are made later.

 

[Yukiwarashi]

Here's a good one.

Edit: Oops, is that a Melee video I linked to? Sorry guys, I had no idea...

OH MAN, OH MAN, OH MAN, WHACK WHACK WHACK! I'M QUITTING MARVEL I'M PLAYIN' SMASH

Wow, those matches were amazing. I mean, I can't see myself going back to Melee but that was great to watch.

 

[bovineblitzkrieg]

Ah, the infamous RDK.

Well then, is a person who's pro at using fox in melee better than a person who's pro at using mewtwo?

What about someone who's pro at both? And it obviously depends.

Or does fox win a lot of the time just because he's a better character?

Uh, yeah he is a better character. I don't understand how comparing M2 and Fox relates to the argument... as a player who mains Fox and Mewtwo, I honestly think that if I can beat you with Fox most of the time, I probably can beat you with Mewtwo just as often (depending on certain character matchups... i.e. falco/fox vs. mewtwo is incredibly tough, but falco/fox vs fox is about even).

It's more important who's controlling the characters than what characters they are, unless one character is a great counterpick... but even then, the skill gap has to be quite small.

Once again, the word better is hard to define. Moreover, my argument was geared towards Brawl, but applies to Melee as well. Is there anybody who has played Melee and won 100% of the time?

My statement was a response to a part of the first post. I was responding to the definition of competitive, which I think is largely subjective due to the word "better." If this criteria is being used to state that Melee is more competitive than Brawl, I think it somewhat fails. If you have other criteria though, a better argument in favor of Melee could probably be made.

I'm going to go for a swim now. I'll respond to replies to this post if any are made later.

It is difficult to define competitive in the way that we mean it. One way you could put it is that it takes more skill to defeat a quality opponent in Melee than in Brawl. Another point is that there's more to learn in Melee. There's more options, thus more to think about. It requires a quicker mind and defter fingers. All these things lend to being more competitive at a higher level. That's not to say that these things don't help in Brawl, but Melee's requirements are higher.

The point about Melee being more competitive at a higher level of play may explain why Brawl supporters (hate that term) believe that Brawl is just as competitive. If you haven't climbed the mountain of Melee, you simply haven't seen the infinite possibilities in Melee. If you're not tourney level at Melee, but you play both games, then both will likely seem equally competitive. Once you have the higher level of play point of view, you can understand the competitive shortcomings of Brawl.

I don't mean to be condescending, and I know some people who argue for Brawl do have a good 'view from above'... but the thing is most of them acknowledge that Brawl just isn't as competitive while still enjoying the game.

Personally, I didn't have to play Brawl for very long to see the problems in it. My complaints from the first week I owned it still stand, and I've followed the ATs that come out. Nothing is game breaking enough to raise the skill ceiling to a point where a higher level of play does not consist of (IMO) obnoxious, boring, slow, repetitive matches.

I'm just gonna stop here so I don't go on forever Hope I communicated my point well.

 

[Jack Kieser]

@BB: I don't think your last few paragraphs are really that accurate. I've played Melee for years, and at least 2-3 of those years were at tournament-level (not finalist level, mind you, but I could probably get past R1 or 2... if there were a lot of entrants ). I appreciate Melee for all it is, but I don't like Brawl less because of it. Brawl isn't worse, it's just different (as far as I'm concerned). I like both almost the same (Melee more because I've known it for longer), so my love for Melee certainly doesn't diminish my love for Brawl.

 

[SlickSlicer]

What about someone who's pro at both? And it obviously depends.

Compare them in a match, is what I mean. It's not that easy to figure out which one's "better" because fox/falco are just pro counterpicks vs. mewtwo.

Uh, yeah he is a better character. I don't understand how comparing M2 and Fox relates to the argument... as a player who mains Fox and Mewtwo, I honestly think that if I can beat you with Fox most of the time, I probably can beat you with Mewtwo just as often (depending on certain character matchups... i.e. falco/fox vs. mewtwo is incredibly tough, but falco/fox vs fox is about even).

It's more important who's controlling the characters than what characters they are, unless one character is a great counterpick... but even then, the skill gap has to be quite small.

The reason it does is because it gives an example of how the term 'better' is difficult to define. As you yourself stated, sometimes there are counterpick characters that are a factor in the game in addition to player skill. Because of this, according to the definition the first poster used, there are some anti-competitive elements in Melee, for example character counterpicks and certain characters being more godly than others as a general rule.

It is difficult to define competitive in the way that we mean it. One way you could put it is that it takes more skill to defeat a quality opponent in Melee than in Brawl. Another point is that there's more to learn in Melee. There's more options, thus more to think about. It requires a quicker mind and defter fingers. All these things lend to being more competitive at a higher level. That's not to say that these things don't help in Brawl, but Melee's requirements are higher.

The point about Melee being more competitive at a higher level of play may explain why Brawl supporters (hate that term) believe that Brawl is just as competitive. If you haven't climbed the mountain of Melee, you simply haven't seen the infinite possibilities in Melee. If you're not tourney level at Melee, but you play both games, then both will likely seem equally competitive. Once you have the higher level of play point of view, you can understand the competitive shortcomings of Brawl.

I don't mean to be condescending, and I know some people who argue for Brawl do have a good 'view from above'... but the thing is most of them acknowledge that Brawl just isn't as competitive while still enjoying the game.

Personally, I didn't have to play Brawl for very long to see the problems in it. My complaints from the first week I owned it still stand, and I've followed the ATs that come out. Nothing is game breaking enough to raise the skill ceiling to a point where a higher level of play does not consist of (IMO) obnoxious, boring, slow, repetitive matches.

I'm just gonna stop here so I don't go on forever Hope I communicated my point well.

Yeah you did. You gave a better argument than Melee being more competitive than Brawl just because the 'better' person wins more often. It's true that there are more moves to master in melee, and your other points are good too.

Another thing is, more competitive does not necessarily mean more fun. I have more fun playing Brawl, personally. I like the characters better, and I think there are less broken ones. Melee was too much about falco/fox/marth/shiek. I played falco in Melee a lot. In Brawl I play Mr. Game and Watch, Peach, Ike and often other characters too, and have more fun playing them. In fact, I think there is more potential in Brawl to be pretty great with nearly every character, whereas in Melee I thought that was harder to do.