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

[veloS]

No problem with you proffering Brawl over Melee, but calling Melee sterile is false.

LOL

It's not 'false', it's an opinion. Learn the difference. Your opinion doesn't mean anything more than mine.

And, really you said your self that, Melee is more competitive then Brawl.

Yeah, but I don't see how 'competitive' excludes it being 'sterile'. Don't tie two different things together.

If it’s more competitive then, it’s better for the competitive players (Tournament goers, adv.tech users, frame scholars, etc.).

Not necessarily, especially not if you still want a game to be fun and exciting, even IF you're a competitive smasher. Smash has never been chess.

Since you liked Brawl more then Melee and, said that Melee is more competitive then Brawl, then it’s safe to assume you are a casual?

No. But since Smash isn't my dayjob, I'll gladly choose some variables over deeper competitiveness. Especially since Brawl is still competitive in itself and I still play videogames for the fun, even IF I can win something by being good at it.

You have to explain this, and a lot. The game doesn’t matter that much any more?

It's like when people get good at something, they forget why they do it in the first place. The Pro's I played with weren't having fun with it anymore, they only cared about getting down those combos, etc.

It says something about someone when they turn off elements of the game that are a ****load of fun, purely for the sake of 'more competitiveness'. I didn't want to be part of that anymore. Brawl is the perfect balance for me.

Better control means, you have more options available to you.

This, is absolute bull****, my friend.

"Better controls" is subjective, and therefore, one could have perfect controls with no extra options at all. IMHO, 'better controls' mean 'more intuitive controls', for instance.

What does floatyness have to do with control?

Are you thick?

You’re right, anecdotal evidence isn't evidence.

Which makes it so funny that you rely on it as well.

You may not camp, but, that doesn’t mean it’s the best tactic in Brawl.

My point exactly!

You said that Melee has become sterile (stopped growing), and, I’m saying that’s not true. If anything, Melee may still have more to offer after 7 years then, Brawl does only after 2 months.

Yet you still keep clinging on opinions and provide no proof whatsoever, even after calling me out on using anecdotal evidence. For me, Melee has stopped being fun and offering me something new, Brawl has. Besides that, because of certain simplifications and a shift of focus towards other parts of the game, I also think Brawl has the potential to be more interesting that Melee in the long run.

This is all very similar to the SF2 vs Third Strike discussion. It all boils down to preference.

After we get a solid banned stage list and, solidify the no items rule, it'll be the same way.
It'll just be even more routine because in brawl, there's less options open to players.

Again, LOL. You lack the wisdom to see that depth does not come forth out of quantity of options, but quality.

I prefer less options, as long as the options are GOOD. The amount has NOTHING to do with it.

Sorry to rain on your parade man, but there's a LOT of support for a unified standard item list, and everything scientific so far promotes the point that items actually prevent stale play in Brawl. I'm all for a 1v1 no item match every now and then, but we all really need to stop being so stubborn with our mindsets and try new gameplay options, considering Brawl is a new/different game and all.

Amen, man. Amen.

 

[Wind Owl]

For the longest time, fighting games (in general) have rewarded one thing in particular: combos. As was mentioned either in this thread or Scar's thread, the humble beginnings of what we consider the competitive fighting scene today really started with a mistake; during the development cycle for Street Fighter 2, the programmers discovered that it was possible to 'cancel' moves into other moves, allowing for a continuous steam of uninterruptible moves (once the first hit of the 'combo' was landed, of course). Ever since, the concept of the 'combo' has been the cornerstone of every fighting game. Speed, control, 'mindgames'... whatever technical skill or property any given game allows or exudes, the properties can always be reduced to 'does it allow for a combo?',

OK.

For as long as I remember, fighting games have showcased this kind and only this kind of skill. If you could think (and move) quickly enough to input a series of particular commands, you were skilled enough to win.

Haha, no. Combos are certainly powerful, but if you're easy to read, you'll only get hit and never be able to start your combo. Also, looking for a combo in every given situation is difficult and requires creativity. The best fighting game players can get a combo from any hit, which requires more than just muscle memory.

Watch any recording of any 'pro' match in any fighting game since SF2 and you will see each player has patterns that will inevitably emerge, combos and series of moves that seem to work every time and that are used almost reflexively. That is the core of what fighting games reward nowadays: muscle memory.

This just isn't true. While muscle memory is important, mindgames and the ability react and adapt are far more important. I don't know if you've heard of the Guilty Gear series, but it's a 2D fighter that is very combo-heavy. I have a friend that can pick up my main and own me with him, using only 3-hit, poorly constructed combos where I have my complex, 12ish-hit combos. Why? Because he reads me like a book. His little 3-hit combos add up to more than the one 12-hit combo I can get on him. In Melee, combos weren't even muscle-memorized. Your opponent could DI in several ways after each hit, and you would have to react accordingly.

Mindgames, what is considered to be the cousin of the combo, in many ways, is usually only necessary up until that first hit is landed, but after that if you know what moves to use in which order and at what time, you are basically golden. After all, that's what a 'combo' is: a series of inescapable and uninterruptible moves.

You act as if combo = death, which is very rarely the case (except in like, SSB64). Combos shorten matches, making them more fast-paced and exciting, and increasing the risk for making a mistake many times over, forcing you to think about EVERY decision, because you CAN'T afford to get hit a couple more times. In Brawl, if you get hit, you can regroup immediately, and make another attack (in slow motion, I might add).

We, as a competitive gaming community, have taken this to heart. We have decided that the combo is still king, and that the most skilled player is basically the one with the best reflexes. That is fine... to a degree. But, as Thomas Jefferson is oft misquoted to say (although this detracts from the truth of the statement in no way), 'Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.'

Again, this is false. You could have the same technical skill as, say Mew2King, but if you don't have any mindgames you'll get destroyed.

Ever since Brawl came out (and honestly, probably before then), certain gamers have shared the sentiment that skill does not only come from sheer speed and memorization skills, but also from wit and control. It seems that this is what Brawl will reward in the long run: not players who memorize complex series of moves and commit to muscle memory the movements to perform them, but players who think well on their feet and can deal with (and capitalize on) many different circumstances.

Again, Melee required this too, the only difference is that now you get more time to think and matches take longer because more mistakes have to be made in order to lose.

The question I pose to the community is this. For so long, we have convinced ourselves that the 'combo is king', and that the only skill worth rewarding is the ability to commit these combos to memory and to speedily use them when possible. Why can we not reward wit and quick thinking instead, or even as well? Why must we dismiss Brawl simply because we can't combo? After all, every other skill we seem to reward (such as 'mindgames') are simply a means to an end, skills that lead to the same place, to the combo. Why must we discredit and discount Brawl because it rewards a different kind of skill, as though that skill (and thus the game that rewards it) is inherently 'less skillful'? Why can't 'different' be 'equal'?

You're just using the same misguided logic over and over. Combos ≠ winning. Combos will HELP you win, and they make the game more exciting, but they will not win you games alone. This "wit and quick thinking" is absolutely required in ANY fighting game, including Melee. In fact, the quick thinking required by Brawl is a good deal less quick, thanks to the floatiness and slowed gameplay.

Why can't we view Brawl as it is, a chance to shift the competitive paradigm in a way that hasn't been done since SF2? A chance to change (or even just supplement) our thinking with a dissenting view that is separate, but just as equal?

In my opinion, it is not equal. It's slower, boring to watch, and creates less of a gap between pros and casuals (a gap I believe should exist).

@Wind Owl: Hey, I remember reading that post! Remember in mine where I talk about a shift in thinking? Yeah, that means not accepting that post as gospel truth and instead seeing it at face value: as a single system in a world of possible systems, no one more valid than the other. But thanks for looking out for me.

I really wonder if you did read that post I linked to. It basically counters your entire argument, so I would expect you to respond with more than, "fight the power."

 

[Xengri]

Sorry to rain on your parade man, but there's a LOT of support for a unified standard item list, and everything scientific so far promotes the point that items actually prevent stale play in Brawl. I'm all for a 1v1 no item match every now and then, but we all really need to stop being so stubborn with our mindsets and try new gameplay options, considering Brawl is a new/different game and all.

Did you forget, I support your causal competitve league?
That's why I used the word "solidify".
We may not solidify the no Item rule, who knows.

But, my point still stands with items or no items.
They are saying that their Melee opponents became to predictable and boring.
After Playing Brawl for a time, the same thing will happen.
Items or no Items, if you keep playing the same people with a standard rule set, it'll get stale if none of you change up your playstyle.
That doesn't mean that the game has nothing else to offer, it just means you have to stop playing the same person.
Kind of like how no one seriously practices on a lv 9 computer because, it's to predictable after a while.

@ veloS
This quickly became unproductive.
Aside, from your irrelevant rambling, you’re just saying you like Brawl better because it’s “new”.
Fine with me, I couldn’t care less.

Stating that Melee has become sterile is not a opinion, you stated it as fact.
Saying, that players have no way of becoming any better now, which isn’t true. There’s still a lot for any Melee player to learn and room for them to improve. Ask any competitive Melee player, they’ll tell you the same. No one has reached perfection in Melee yet, not even close.

Obviously what you meant to say was, Melee has become boring to you, which is fine. That’s a opinion, so I can’t argue about that. But, saying that Melee is sterile and, that “pro’s stop getting better after they can beat other pros in less then ten seconds (seriously, Wtf are you talking about?)” is false.

Massive “LOL” indeed.

 

[Aesir]

Lol Wow Items are in no way fit for competitive play, they create a random aspect that is hard to take into account.

go back to srk >_>

 

[Adi]

The lack of combos inherently lends itself to a lack of incentive to initiate an approach and as a result both players are forced to play the defensive game. That is the problem in Brawl, where the offensive capabilities are completely outweighed by defensive ones. It is competitive, true, but I suppose Candy Land can also be competitive; is it as competitive as Chess? No way in hell.

 

[Wind Owl]

Competitive Candy Land lmao

 

[Zankoku]

A lot of stuff.. You can't argue with OPINION!

Don't fall back on that, please. Throwing out a lot of opinions and saying "and that's why Brawl is better" just so you can claim people can't validly argue against you isn't exactly being open. And yes, we can argue with opinions, when they're based on facts that are not true.

 

[goateeguy]

Yeah, but unlike him, I don't state my opinions as facts and insinuate that the other person's a gullible idiot.

he wasn't stating them as facts. he was saying how he felt. you can't exactly expect everyone to say imo every time they try to respond.

You tell me! How can I love spaghetti? How can I dislike hiphop? I just do!

it's not just like that. removing everything cut into the competitiveness of the game. you said yourself that you worked hard in melee to get better and become as competitive as possible, so i don't see how you can just say 'oh, all those years of hard work were wasted' and move on.

Dude, now YOU're making stupid assumptions. Read my post; I never said advanced techs didn't add depth.

if you think advanced techs improve depth and that depth is good, you must realize what a detriment nintendo made by removing them.

My point is that I just didn't enjoy a lot of them (anymore). Then Brawl came along, spicing things up again.

removing them is spicing it up? more like forcing you to compensate for their loss

Just for the record, I know how to wavedash, do some insane combos, etc., etc. But that doesn't mean I have to praise Melee for it over Brawl.

then why did you learn the combos? if you liked it so much as to become that good at it then why are you so happy all that experience is worthless now?

 

[veloS]

Lol Wow Items are in no way fit for competitive play, they create a random aspect that is hard to take into account.

Which is exactly what makes a battle exciting, and don't forget that it takes TRUE skill to take random aspects to your advantage, by adapting to the situation like a pro.

Pro's like you act like you're afraid of anything you don't have immediate control over.

I say, STOP being a *****, and just take control over it! Welcome random acts, and use them to your advantage before your opponent can. So what if your opponent gets lucky because a pokeball drops before his feet? Show you're better than him and make him miss! Or even better, catch that pokeball and turn the situation around.

 

[veloS]

Don't fall back on that, please.

I prefer falling back on that rather than have to swallow opinions like "MOAR IS BETTAR! ACCEPT IT OR YOUR A NOOB!"

Screw that.

is it as competitive as Chess? No way in hell.

Neither is Melee, so what's your point?

That Brawl's too defensive?

 

[Mew2King]

not to sound elitist but ..... with minimal hitstun and extreme broken defensive (and very easy to do) options, melee's much better of a competitive game. Brawl's just so popular cuz everyone has a better chance even if they don't DESERVE TO, it's ridiculously easy to play at "high level" compared to melee's high level, and it's new and hyped up. Being fun can be an opinion, but trying to argue that brawl is equal to melee competitively is like trying to argue that the Halo 1 Needler is as good as it's Pistol.

Edit - Campaign mode doesn't count!!! Needler is too **** vs mindless drones!

Combos are exciting, Camping is not!!!! The better I get at Melee the more and more I believe this, I don't want a game that encourages boring lameness, I doubt anyone else wants it either

 

[Jack Kieser]

Hey, still your tongue about Candy Land, Adi. ^_^

@Wind Owl: Believe it or not, I agree with a lot of what you said; the problem is that we can't escape using anecdotal evidence in this argument because what it boils down to is, essentially, an opinion. Both sides are, yours and mine. You see matches that are one way, and I see matches that are another, simply because they are different matches; ultimately, we are guaranteed to NOT see the same thing. As for the power of combos, though, I do think you're wrong. Combos are the bread and butter of every fighting game since SF2, and if you can't combo, you're screwed.

I know Guilty Gear well (I've gotten owned in it many a time ), but what I don't think you saw is that you proved my argument exactly; your friend may not have been getting 12-hit combos, sure, but a combo is a combo, and a three-hit combo is still a combo, too. He combo-ed you to death. The fact that you couldn't land the first hit to YOUR 12-hit combo is solely YOUR fault, and doesn't change the fact that if you HAD hit with the first hit of those combos, you'd have won. Remember, I said that 'all roads lead to the combo', including mindgames; that means that mindgames are a means to an end, the end being the landing of the first hit of a combo.

And, I'm sorry, but DI wasn't powerful enough (compared to Brawl) to say that you still needed a large amount of wit to continue a combo in Melee. My Melee main, Link, can't combo for crap, but when I learned Doc about 5 months ago (who actually HAS combo potential) and learned where his moves sent opponents, I was able to successfully combo even very skilled opponents because of the fact that DI just wasn't enough to help them (remember the whole 'unavoidable and uninteruptible' thing?). I know, man, we just can't get away from the anecdotes, can we?

Oh, and Xengri, I remember you support us. But you had said 'After we get...', which infers that you are sure it will happen. I must have misinterpreted you, from the sounds of it, but that's the meaning you conveyed with what you said.

EDIT @M2K: I fail to see how anything in Brawl (aside from Tripping) gives a lesser skilled opponent an undeserved advantage. Floaty-ness doesn't do that inherently (you just control your character differently), and hitstun length certainly doesn't (if you can anticipate when the hitstun wears off, then you can do... who knows, no one's really trying to prove anything right now).

 

[veloS]

it's not just like that. removing everything cut into the competitiveness of the game.

Which I don't believe to be that bad a thing. Like I've said before 'competitiveness =/= fun'.

you said yourself that you worked hard in melee to get better and become as competitive as possible, so i don't see how you can just say 'oh, all those years of hard work were wasted' and move on.

How can you NOT see why? Are you that closed-minded? If something's not fun anymore, why continue? Going on because I have the illusion that I would lose all the 'hard work' I put in a frigging VIDEOGAME... now THAT would be a waste of time! If something comes along that's better and/or more fun, I'll happily move along, even if I *sob* lose 'my' combos.

if you think advanced techs improve depth and that depth is good, you must realize what a detriment nintendo made by removing them.

I DO believe depth is good, however, I also believe fun, excitement and diversity should never be sacrificed for it.

removing them is spicing it up?

Yeah, because removing some advanced techs is the ONLY thing that Brawl changed. *rolls eyes*

then why did you learn the combos? if you liked it so much as to become that good at it then why are you so happy all that experience is worthless now?

Because unlike some people, I am not a robot. Something I enjoy the first moment, I can dislike later on. I learned those combos hoping they would help me enjoy the game more. They only did for a short time.

 

[Aesir]

April fools a bit early don't you think?

Which is exactly what makes a battle exciting, and don't forget that it takes TRUE skill to take random aspects to your advantage, by adapting to the situation like a pro.

No it doesn't all items do is create an imbalanced environment where luck plays a more crucial role then actual skill.

Pro's like you act like you're afraid of anything you don't have immediate control over.

Lack of control = bad competition.

I say, STOP being a *****, and just take control over it! Welcome random acts, and use them to your advantage before your opponent can. So what if your opponent gets lucky because a pokeball drops before his feet? Show you're better than him and make him miss! Or even better, catch that pokeball and turn the situation around.

Lol wow, I don't know what I should say, if I should explain how random advantages that you don't have to work for are bad for competition. Or if I should just laugh.

You weren't very good in melee were you?

 

[veloS]

trying to argue that brawl is equal to melee competitively is like trying to argue that the Halo 1 Needler is as good as it's Pistol.

The funny thing is, that the Needler CAN be better than the Pistol (which I dearly miss) depending on the situation (corner-work, for instance).

You lose.

 

[Jack Kieser]

The funny thing is, that the Needler CAN be better than the Pistol (which I dearly miss) depending on the situation (corner-work, for instance).

You lose.

Amen to situational uses, man. A-friggin'-men.

 

[veloS]

No it doesn't all items do is create an imbalanced environment where luck plays a more crucial role then actual kill.

It plays a role, but not a 'more crucial' role. Especially when great skill can greatly diminish the amount of luck.

Lack of control = bad competition.

Notice my use of the word 'immediate'.

Lol wow, I don't know what I should say, if I should explain how random advantages that you don't have to work for are bad for competition.

That's because you apparently suck at reading, and keep missing the point. Sure, it might be 'bad' for competition, but it's sure as hell a lot more exciting and fun!

Besides, all players will have equal amounts of luck, AND they will have to show their expertise on handling uncontrollable situations as well.... which, imho, is a true sign of good skill (especially in videogames and fighting). So, in some ways, things like random items ARE good ways of showing true competitive skill.

Can you bring up the intelligence and open-mindedness to comprehend that?

You weren't very good in melee were you?

I think you'd be pleasently surprised to see what my Marth and Ganondorf are capable of.

 

[Aesir]

It plays a role, but not a 'more crucial' role. Especially when great skill can greatly diminish the amount of luck.

No it can't, the fact that a lesser player can squeeze out a win from a greater player because of the randomness of items should really speak volumes about their role in competitive player.

They rarely produce valid results, or even consistent ones it's a gigantic cluster ****.

That's because you apparently suck at reading, and keep missing the point. Sure, it might be 'bad' for competition, but it's sure as hell a lot more exciting and fun!

Besides, all players will have equal amounts of luck, AND they will have to show their expertise on handling uncontrollable situations as well.... which, imho, is a true sign of good skill (especially in videogames and fighting). So, in some ways, things like random items ARE good ways of showing true competitive skill.

Once you again you prove that you have no idea what you're talking about.

They don't show true competitive skill, you're ignoring a pretty simple concept that random = bad competition. It doesn't create a more deep game it detracts from the goal of the competition.

A player can and often will get an advantage just by being at the right place at the right time. How is that good competition? It isn't it just creates shallow game play.

Can you bring up the intelligence and open-mindedness to comprehend that?


I think you'd be pleasently surprised to see what my Marth and Ganondorf are capable of.

It doesn't take any kind of intelligence to comprehend what you're saying only a scrubs mentality would agree with you.

Lol @ last statement.

 

[veloS]

No it can't, the fact that a lesser player can squeeze out a win from a greater player because of the randomness of items

Yes, that can happen. The contrary can happen as well, btw.

They don't show true competitive skill, you're ignoring a pretty simple concept that random = bad competition.

That completely depends on the nature and effect of the random variable. Like I've said before, YOU're ignoring that knowing how to cope with certain random effects, will show true mastery and competitiveness like no other.

A player can and often will get an advantage just by being at the right place at the right time. How is that good competition?

You really are a shallow, closed-minded guy, aren't you?

First of all, being near an item does not mean that you'll also get an advantage; being at the right place at the right time is merely the start, not the end. You still have to be smart enough to use the item properly.

This is extremely clear when using item against a good Mario player. It's like even pro's forget he has the cape. Oh, the memories... *laughs*

Lol @ last statement.

LOL all you want. I sure as hell did when I won a year worth of videogames with my 'Dorf at a tourney, and all the Fox players were leaving with a "WTF just happened" look on their face.

 

[D20]

LOL all you want. I sure as hell did when I won a year worth of videogames with my 'Dorf at a tourney, and all the Fox players were leaving with a "WTF just happened" look on their face.

Cool, let's see a bracket or a link to a results thread.

 

[Aesir]

Yes, that can happen. The contrary can happen as well, btw.

Yes but the outcome isn't because of skill it's because of luck and random crap.

The better player should always be the winner, not the luck of the draw as what you're prescribing.

That completely depends on the nature and effect of the random variable. Like I've said before, YOU're ignoring that knowing how to cope with certain random effects, will show true mastery and competitiveness like no other.

you're just ignoring that an effect that makes the better player less viable as the winner isn't competitive it's just stupid.

You really are a shallow, closed-minded guy, aren't you?

Lolz

First of all, being near an item does not mean that you'll also get an advantage; being at the right place at the right time is merely the start, not the end. You still have to be smart enough to use the item properly.

Yeah becaues it takes a whole lot of skill to know what to do with a pokeball or an assist trophy lol

I just thought about it, OW my brain is really hurting from the amount of intelligence needed to use an item

This is extremely clear when using item against a good Mario player. It's like even pro's forget he has the cape. Oh, the memories... *laughs*

I really think you're trolling now. LOL

 

[-Darc-]

Omg I almost thought this thread was like 3 years old due to this items debate >_>

 

[Witchking_of_Angmar]

Jack Kieser: It's been discussed a lot before, but the basic gist of it is that you need punishment (aka combos) to have a balance between the push and pull game and the punishment game, which are basically "The" two aspects of fighting games. If you cannot punish a mistake, what is your reward for forcing your opponent into a bad position? A single hit. What is your reward for risking a lot to get that grab in? A single hit.

The whole game starts revolving just around poking, where each person just sneaks around, basically camping just outside the opponents control area, and attempting to land a few safe moves, after which you get 8% and repeat the process until a life has been finished. You do this for 5 minutes or however long it takes you (dependant on the time span between successful pokes, mostly), until the match is finished.

I don't know about you, but to me, that concept is pretty boring.

Also, Jack Kieser, you have to know, techskill isn't everything. Judging from some other posts you've made, you seem a bit bitter that you couldn't do well at Melee because you're not adept at learning techskill. Seriously, how much techskill does Shiek take? Also, everything can be learned. You just need the will to put enough effort into it.

Oh, and another thing: few of the combos in Melee were actually set. Most (the best and longest ones, anyway) were, to a large degree, improvised on the spot.

 

[veloS]

Cool, let's see a bracket or a link to a results thread.

Don't have that.

This is the only mention of it: http://www.powerweb.nl/artikel.jsp?rubriek=282730&id=950116

 

[curiousthoughtsbear]

"ELITISM

It will never, ever get you laid."


*sigh*

Anyway, phrases like "it's clearly not" and "debating this is futile" really shows how ignorant you really are. Opinions are never facts, no matter how passionately you believe in them or how many supporters you have.


I completely agree on JOHNNING and being a sorry loser, but you're missing the point.

Brawl having more high tier characters is just more FUN. Besides, it gives good player even more ways to be good with. We weren't blaming Melee for anything.

I dun really care if it'll get me laid. If that were my reasoning for being competitve and excelling at something in life then I really wouldn't try that hard, cuz there are various other means of getting laid.

The reason I use those phrases is not at all from an irrationally emotional standpoint. I'm lazy, like most of the rest of you and so I don't feel like detailing the many points in favor of melee and conversely against brawl. I made my statements with an aire of finality that probably led you to believe that it was purely an opinion. Yes in part it is an opinion, but I challenge you to make a case for Brawl as an improvement over melee with regards to what is valued in a competitve game. If you don't think we share the same values concerning competition then please do detail so that we may find some common ground.

That's fine and all, but I believe that more high-tier characters in brawl does not translate to a higher level of gameplay just a more even level across the range of characters. And by high-tier what do you mean exactly. High-tier can be defined as those characters that place consistently and moderately high in tournaments, as in top 3. If that's the case then Brawl is looking to be as hierarchical as Melee.

For reference, a fun video game is one that brings awe and challenge together. That's an opinion. Brawl awed me for maybe 20 minutes and while challenge does exist it not on the same level nor to the same degree as melee.

One other thing, I still don't understand how slower can be more competitive in the smash series of games. It's always been a "think on the fly" kinda game where you force your opponent's hand through a combination of baiting, taking away their time, and technique.

 

[Embrio]

As sad as it sounds, if any of u guys ever peaked in on SRK during the hype period of Brawl a lot of dudes on that site had the exact same opinion as veloS. Anyhow were getting of topic with the items thing, as it stands right now wat his the current opinion of Brawl from top players and tournament experts.

 

[orintemple]

Don't have that.

This is the only mention of it: http://www.powerweb.nl/artikel.jsp?rubriek=282730&id=950116

For those of you who can't read German or Swedish or whatever that was(it was similar to German anyway), it was a 4 player FFA Time matches tourney. lol. Grats on the win anyway though.


Also, this thread is 122 pages, HOLY ****!

 

[Embrio]

It kind of relates to the topic plus its LMAO funny, just a little insight to why SRK is the best site ever lol.

Originally Posted by margalis
" I remember another game that was all about camping, defense and using projectiles. The last time I was on #capcom, way back when:

"Beams ruin MVC2."

Anyone today want to argue that beams ruin MVC2? Anyone?

Let's just call out the elephant in the room here and put it plainly in view: Most Smash players don't understand fighting games. Period.

They think pressing L after every attack adds strategy. (Should I press L or not? Hmm...) They don't like games that are about space control. They don't like games that are about character-specific matchups. They believe every move should have the same risk. They believe that not constantly dashing towards the opponent is "camping" and that using good projectiles is "spamming."

They believe in the fiction of "neutral stages" even though "neutral stages" obviously favor certain characters and play styles. Hey geniuses, you know how Olimar has sucky recovery? Play on a stage without ledges/edges. Oh snap, Olimar just got better! You know how some characters are tall? Play on a stage with platforms. Oh hey look, they can stand underneath and still smash/tilt people on platforms above them.

The day the game comes out they are making lists of stages, characters, techniques and items to ban while fighting over names for "advanced techniques" like hitting a button then hitting it again. Anytime anyone discovers anything, like that Bowser can jump then jump again, it's "omg ban bowser" and "bowser for top tier!" Because he can jump...and then jump again! Killer!

I've stayed silent for a while. Read their boards. Read the discussions here. Tried to understand where they were coming from. But the conclusion is inevitable: the majority of smash players are totally clueless, including many of the "competitive" players. At a fundamental level they simply don't understand fighting games at all."

I lost faith in mankind.

 

[pockyD]

multiquotes just beg not to be read, so i didn't read them

but once again, READ THE FIRST POST!!

this isn't a thread to debate whether or not brawl is fun or not - it IS a place to debate whether or not it is competitive

do people need to start every sentence with "I think that" for you to realize that almost anything stated here is an opinion? "your opinion is false" is a valid opinion, and i saw no indication that it was an inherent fact - merely that he disagreed with you

in general, when people start arguing about semantics like fact/opinion, it's pretty much conceding that they have lost the argument and have nothing more relevant to say, so take that for what it's worth

 

[curiousthoughtsbear]

Eh I cited something wrongly

 

[-Hoggle-]

Omg I almost thought this thread was like 3 years old due to this items debate >_>

Thats because with Brawl, the community is taking a step backwards.

 

[Embrio]

Hey I dont agree with that dude by any means, I was simply posting that post from SRK to illustrate the ignorance of a lot of gamers whom are regulars on SRK and on this site as well. As far as I know, the argument over"Melee vs brawl" is usless since almost every major player or anyone that matters agrees melee is the better.

 

[fkacyan]

multiquotes just beg not to be read, so i didn't read them

but once again, READ THE FIRST POST!!

this isn't a thread to debate whether or not brawl is fun or not - it IS a place to debate whether or not it is competitive

do people need to start every sentence with "I think that" for you to realize that almost anything stated here is an opinion? "your opinion is false" is a valid opinion, and i saw no indication that it was an inherent fact - merely that he disagreed with you

in general, when people start arguing about semantics like fact/opinion, it's pretty much conceding that they have lost the argument and have nothing more relevant to say, so take that for what it's worth

Semantics:
1. Linguistics.
a. the study of meaning.
b. the study of linguistic development by classifying and examining changes in meaning and form.

Yeah, fact and opinion are what arguments are based on, so that's kind of what you have to debate.

For the love of all that is great don't mutilate the language, please.

 

[curiousthoughtsbear]

Aight man, my bad. I jumped the gun there !

I'll edit it up.

 

[pockyD]

when you fail to use quotes correctly, people get confused

 

[pockyD]

Semantics:
1. Linguistics.
a. the study of meaning.
b. the study of linguistic development by classifying and examining changes in meaning and form.

Yeah, fact and opinion are what arguments are based on, so that's kind of what you have to debate.

For the love of all that is great don't mutilate the language, please.

quote your source

looks like you snipped one little portion out of a large definition because the rest of it defines what i was using semantics to mean and your brain only knew this defintion

 

[curiousthoughtsbear]

He likely means the semantics of fact and opinion. And what we find ourselves divided about is opinion. Going back to one of my previous posts I said that my statements were not purely opinion. In reality, my statements were. This is because everything is defined as one perceives it. However, my opinion is supported by substantial evidence posted over and over again in various similar posts by a number of veteran smashers. Can or have any veteran smashers made a suitable case for brawl ...............

I don't really care for 90% of your opinions but i find it entertaining to argue with the inflated ego of what has become a fanboiiiiieeeee nation of smashers.

 

[Embrio]

Sorry in the future I will remember to quote correctly, althought U guys should check out that SRK thread though...its painful indeed.

 

[RDK]

Sorry in the future I will remember to quote correctly, althought U guys should check out that SRK thread though...its painful indeed.

Anyone have a link to it? I feel like getting my brain melted by anything SRK has to say.

 

[thumbswayup]

SCAR! Did you hear? Chudat is quiting brawl and holding MELEE ONLY BIWEEKLIES FROM NOW ON! The next one is scheduled for April 26th. Melee is back!!!