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

[Jafar]

Jack Kieser, you say there are two different types of competition in Brawl and Melee. What are those two types of competition? They are both fighting games where the goal is to hit your opponent off the stage and keep them off. They are very similar, the only big difference is that brawl has a really bad engine that removes a ton of options and slows the game down.

Point and case, Brawl and Melee are similar and have the same type of competition. Melee just has more options and a better engine, giving the game more depth. It is **** near impossible to say Brawl is just as good of a competitive game as Melee and know what you are talking about. Brawl was not made to be played competitively, it was made for kids to play with their family and have everybody feel good no matter what. Melee was made with the same idea in mind, but Sakurai made it amazing on accident.

Really though, I shouldn't have close games against Joe Scrub and M2K shouldn't have close games with me. In Melee I'd **** the scrub and get ***** by m2k. In brawl I beat the scrub and go just about even with people who know way more about Brawl than me. Why? Because there's a skill cap in brawl and it isn't hard to reach.

Why would m2k and you be any diffrent. Because he was good at melee that he should automatically know more about you in brawl. its a fresh start. Everything he knows from melee does not apply in brawl as its a new game.

more options. So playing one of the top 5 tier characters is more option to the various characters you can pick in brawl?

 

[Aesir]

What is more competitive hockey or basketball, football or soccer, baseball or cricket?

This argument seems pretty solid, until you actually think about it in which case it falls like a castle made of dust.

those games are all not related to each other in the sense they don't have the same goal in mind and they're all played with completely different rules of the game.

Brawl and Melee while run on different engines the rules of the game have not changed. The basics of smash still exist. Knock them off and keep them off, reguardless on how you play smash no matter which game it is you do this.

Your comparing an old game to a new game.

I know, captain obvious.

One game can not be more competitive then another. They both strive for the same outcome. Win the tournament/game.

Read Skler's post.

Anyone who says that something is more competitive or less competitive just comes of as an idiot.

No this is wrong, because there are different levels of competition which makes a game more competitive. More options available in a game what have you.

 

[Brookman]

Skler, Brawl =/= melee. Right?

 

[Jafar]

This argument seems pretty solid, until you actually think about it in which case it falls like a castle made of dust.

those games are all not related to each other in the sense they don't have the same goal in mind and they're all played with completely different rules of the game.

Whats more competative hockey or lacrosse (there rules are very similar the VERY.

Whats more competative between football and rugby, cricket and baseball. they are a little bit less similar then hockey and lacrosse.

But yes hockey and lacrosse the rules are almost identical so whats the differance in competition?

Brawl and Melee while run on different engines the rules of the game have not changed. The basics of smash still exist. Knock them off and keep them off, reguardless on how you play smash no matter which game it is you do this.


I know, captain obvious.


Read Skler's post.

No this is wrong, because there are different levels of competition which makes a game more competitive. More options available in a game what have you.

Picking 5 characters is not more options.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Skler, I will gladly answer your question.

'Competition', in and of itself, is a very simple concept that refers to, ultimately, the fight. If there are two people fighting, there is competition. That definition, however, is usually to broad and all-encompassing for us to use, so we (people) make distinctions to specify what we mean by 'competition', and here is where the definition splits.

One group, the people who have played Melee for the past ~7 years (however many of which in the tournament style), have specified that, to them, you cannot have competition without a certain set of qualities. These include (but aren't limited to) speed in gameplay, technical mastery, a reduction (to 0) of luck-based elements, and, most importantly, having the better (or more skilled) player always win. This group has based this definition off of the mentality brought forth by other fighting games, as is evident in trying (and succeeding) to make Melee into a more traditional fighter (more like, for instance, a Street Fighter or Soul Caliber-esque game).

The second group, however, defines 'competition' differently. At the core, the philosophy remains the same: there must be people fighting and the better player must always win. The shift is, as you would expect, in the specifics. These people don't put such a heavy emphasis on technical skill or on the reduction-to-0 of luck. This philosophy is not built from the backs of the traditional fighting game, and is instead built based on the inherent qualities of the Smash franchise in general and Brawl in particular; as a result, this philosophy would rather bend the playing style to match the game than try to bend the game to match a certain playing style.

These two ideologies are built off of two antithetical philosophies: the first group will sacrifice elements of a game to match what they perceive to be a 'panultimate playstyle', while the second group will allow their playstyle to be dictated by the game. Neither way is more right (or wrong) than the other, but they are (and will be) always at odds with each other. They represent two differing mindsets that cannot be reconciled with each other.

(EDIT: This is regardless of depth, which is a separate topic on its own. Regarding your hypothetical on you v. Joe Blow v. M2K, as far as I know, this only happens in purist Brawl. Deactivate certain items, change the play format, and deactivate certain stages, and in my experience the outcome is MUCH closer to an accurate test of skill. This is in 1v1 as well as 2v2. The skills required to win a match in Brawl, however, are different than the skills required to win a match in Melee, however, and in this another problem arises. We can discuss that later, if you wish.)

 

[thumbswayup]

This argument seems pretty solid, until you actually think about it in which case it falls like a castle made of dust.

lol, i had to quote this. hilarious.

Jafar get out of this thread.

 

[Brookman]

The Goal In Any Competition Is Simply To Win.

 

[Aesir]

Whats more competative hockey or lacrosse (there rules are very similar the VERY.



Whats the diffrence between football and rugby, cricket and baseball. they are a little bit less similar.

It still doesn't work as the designers didn't didn't take say hockey and build lacrosse off of it or vise versa.

Picking 5 characters is not more options.

And this my friend is how I know you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Jafar]

lol, i had to quote this. hilarious.

Jafar get out of this thread.

His reasoning doesnt stand...

 

[Brookman]

And this my friend is how I know you don't know what you're talking about.

Yea, it's closer to two.

-----------------------

No it isn't

New people are trying to redefine it because they don't understand competitive play like yourself. The fact still remains that brawl is less competitive then melee, you haven't brought anything reasonable to the table as a rebuttle to this. You've actually resorted to the argument "it's a different kind of competitive"

Lol? Yeah and the looser is still a winner. Seriously have you ever played a competitive game before in your life? ever been to a tourney? I high doubt it.

So explain how is brawl just as competitive as melee?

the community is a competitively driven community, sure casuals can come in here and look for answers to questions. But the fact remains this is swfs main purpose to help organize tourneys and generally bring smash players together.

you're basically trying to say a site thats been a competitive haven for smash players for the past 6 years isn't that. thats just wrong and stupid.

How is Brawl any less competitive than melee? You didn't support yourself at all.

I think we can agree that a competition is a contest of skill between individuals or a group for a prize of some sort (money, pride, whatever).

Based on that definition, by saying brawl is less competitive than melee means that 'skill' is less important in Brawl than in Melee.

Now we must figure out what skill is. What is skill?

I will define skill in any competitive video game as, strictly, THE ABILITY TO WIN.

In melee people talked a lot about technical skill. As many experienced players know, technical skill was not the basis for true skill in a tournament setting (see: THE ABILITY TO WIN). Many, MANY, players could l cancel, wavedash, edeg hop, shdl, etc, yet the same players were, more or less, placing in the top 1-2-3-4-5 spots (roughly).

This brings me to my next point, WHAT MAKES BRAWL LESS COMPETITIVE THAN MELEE? I am forced to say nothing, at this point. Despite what many people will say, it really is the players that define how competitive a game is, and not the game itself (so long as there are no game breaking characters/strats. See Akuma)

People have said that Brawl is worse because 'the best player won't consistently win,' yadda yadda. However, using my definition of skill, the winner is the winner regardless of predefined notions of 'good, better, best.' It is for this reason that I feel Brawl may be MORE COMPETITIVE than Melee.

That's right; I said it. Now, please, reattach your jaws and continue reading.

You see, if the same players are consistently winning, how competitive is the game. In truth? Not very. Perhaps there weren't enough players taking the game seriously, or perhaps the top players had an innate understanding of how to win. Either way, when, in a community of ~200*, competition is limited to ~8 players how can it be called competitive?

If you and all your friends are sitting in a tournament lolling it up at how good you are and joe shmoe comes in and beats you all, what are you going to do?! Cry about how uncompetitive and stupid the game is or go get better?

<---brain farts here


http://www.outie.net/forums/viewthread.php?tid=19605
Found this when I searched for that jaw drop picture earlier, thought I'd share

(maybe?)

 

[Jafar]

It still doesn't work as the designers didn't didn't take say hockey and build lacrosse off of it or vise versa.





And this my friend is how I know you don't know what you're talking about.

Hockey and lacrosse have pretty much the same rules. Box lacrosse is created because of hockey.

So box lacrosse was made based on hockeys popularity. What makes one or the other more competative.

And the 2nd part is just a exageration but admit it.

how many tourneys had non

Ice climbers, jigglypuff, falco, shiek, marth, falcon, peach winners.

Side question. Do you think the NFL is more competative then college football.

 

[Resident_Smash_Genius]

Melee = Better Fighting Game The mechanics worked better, it was fast paced, kept pace with other fighting games in competition and was widely known as one of the greatest fighting games of all time.

Brawl = Better Party Game More characters, lots of crazy items, a slower pace and an easy-to-get-good-at system that evens the playing field and is a blast to play for everyone.

My competitive side screams melee is number one but... brawl is so much fun to play with lots of people.

 

[pockyD]

how can you name half the cast and then ask for exceptions?

fox, samus, luigi, and dk have all had a fair amount of success

 

[Jafar]

how can you name half the cast and then ask for exceptions?

fox, samus, luigi, and dk have all had a fair amount of success

I meant to add fox i just forgot him.

But care to answer

Is the nfl more competative then college football?

 

[thumbswayup]

don't forget gimpyfish's bowser.

 

[pockyD]

I meant to add fox i just forgot him.

But care to answer

Is the nfl more competative then college football?

based on the definition presented in this thread, then no it's not (in my opinion)

that's the beauty of actually giving your definition in the first post - you have a basis for comparison instead of just "oh you can't compare them"

 

[Aesir]

How is Brawl any less competitive than melee? You didn't support yourself at all.

I think we can agree that a competition is a contest of skill between individuals or a group for a prize of some sort (money, pride, whatever).

Based on that definition, by saying brawl is less competitive than melee means that 'skill' is less important in Brawl than in Melee.

Now we must figure out what skill is. What is skill?

I will define skill in any competitive video game as, strictly, THE ABILITY TO WIN.

In melee people talked a lot about technical skill. As many experienced players know, technical skill was not the basis for true skill in a tournament setting (see: THE ABILITY TO WIN). Many, MANY, players could l cancel, wavedash, edeg hop, shdl, etc, yet the same players were, more or less, placing in the top 1-2-3-4-5 spots (roughly).

This brings me to my next point, WHAT MAKES BRAWL LESS COMPETITIVE THAN MELEE? I am forced to say nothing, at this point. Despite what many people will say, it really is the players that define how competitive a game is, and not the game itself (so long as there are no game breaking characters/strats. See Akuma)

People have said that Brawl is worse because 'the best player won't consistently win,' yadda yadda. However, using my definition of skill, the winner is the winner regardless of predefined notions of 'good, better, best.' It is for this reason that I feel Brawl may be MORE COMPETITIVE than Melee.

That's right; I said it. Now, please, reattach your jaws and continue reading.

You see, if the same players are consistently winning, how competitive is the game. In truth? Not very. Perhaps there weren't enough players taking the game seriously, or perhaps the top players had an innate understanding of how to win. Either way, when, in a community of ~200*, competition is limited to ~8 players how can it be called competitive?

If you and all your friends are sitting in a tournament lolling it up at how good you are and joe shmoe comes in and beats you all, what are you going to do?! Cry about how uncompetitive and stupid the game is or go get better?

<---brain farts here


http://www.outie.net/forums/viewthread.php?tid=19605
Found this when I searched for that jaw drop picture earlier, thought I'd share

(maybe?)

Brookman, Hi.

You define competitive as being able to win, while it's a good mindset it doesn't work. A competitive game a good one should have depth, brawl lacks in this department compared to melee. (note: I'll say it now I don't think brawl has no depth I'm saying it lacks the depth melee offered.)

Having more options will always help create a more competitive environment, lack of options won't do this obviously. Brawl is focused on defensive options essentially any character that excels in these defensive options are going to be viable tournament characters. So with the increased emphasis on defensive options don't you think that would set the community back? "just sit around with your thumb up your *** and throw ****"

I had more to say but I lost it, you covered way to many things in your post lol, IM me or something if I missed something you think is important. >_>

Hockey and lacrosse have pretty much the same rules. Box lacrosse is created because of hockey.

So box lacrosse was made based on hockeys popularity. What makes one or the other more competative.

And the 2nd part is just a exageration but admit it.

how many tourneys had non

Ice climbers, jigglypuff, falco, shiek, marth, falcon, peach winners.

Side question. Do you think the NFL is more competative then college football.

Sports =/= Video Games.

the argument doesn't work

It isn't about who wins tourneys it's about what characters were viable for competitive play which is more so then 5.

 

[ErciChewman]

Skler, I will gladly answer your question.

'Competition', in and of itself, is a very simple concept that refers to, ultimately, the fight. If there are two people fighting, there is competition. That definition, however, is usually to broad and all-encompassing for us to use, so we (people) make distinctions to specify what we mean by 'competition', and here is where the definition splits.

One group, the people who have played Melee for the past ~7 years (however many of which in the tournament style), have specified that, to them, you cannot have competition without a certain set of qualities. These include (but aren't limited to) speed in gameplay, technical mastery, a reduction (to 0) of luck-based elements, and, most importantly, having the better (or more skilled) player always win. This group has based this definition off of the mentality brought forth by other fighting games, as is evident in trying (and succeeding) to make Melee into a more traditional fighter (more like, for instance, a Street Fighter or Soul Caliber-esque game).

The second group, however, defines 'competition' differently. At the core, the philosophy remains the same: there must be people fighting and the better player must always win. The shift is, as you would expect, in the specifics. These people don't put such a heavy emphasis on technical skill or on the reduction-to-0 of luck. This philosophy is not built from the backs of the traditional fighting game, and is instead built based on the inherent qualities of the Smash franchise in general and Brawl in particular; as a result, this philosophy would rather bend the playing style to match the game than try to bend the game to match a certain playing style.

These two ideologies are built off of two antithetical philosophies: the first group will sacrifice elements of a game to match what they perceive to be a 'panultimate playstyle', while the second group will allow their playstyle to be dictated by the game. Neither way is more right (or wrong) than the other, but they are (and will be) always at odds with each other. They represent two differing mindsets that cannot be reconciled with each other.

So let me get this staight. You're saying there is two definitions of competition. And since two different groups of people have come up with these definitions, that makes them viable? So basically you're saying that if a group of professional gamers determine what makes a certain game competitive, that's just their "opinion". And as long as you have enough scrubs and noobs saying something different, their opinion suddenly matters just as much.

 

[pockyD]

don't forget gimpyfish's bowser.

really, what tournament did he win?

 

[Jack Kieser]

So let me get this staight. You're saying there is two definitions of competition. And since two different groups of people have come up with these definitions, that makes them viable? So basically you're saying that if a group of professional gamers determine what makes a certain game competitive, that's just their "opinion". And as long as you have enough scrubs and noobs saying something different, their opinion suddenly matters just as much.

What I'm saying is that is a video game and anyone who is taking the decision over which one should be played this seriously has priority issues. There are two differing ideologies. Only a supremely conceded person would say that his opinion matters more than someone else's because he's better than them at a VIDEO GAME, even if the topic of discussion is the game itself.

 

[thumbswayup]

really, what tournament did he win?

he placed 5th in some 70 person big tourny event somewhere. sorry i can't remember but i saw several pros commending him on this in some thread a while back.

the point is he mained BOWSER in melee and could probably beat each of us, or at least put up a good fight.

 

[pockyD]

What I'm saying is that is a video game and anyone who is taking the decision over which one should be played this seriously has priority issues. There are two differing ideologies. Only a supremely conceded person would say that his opinion matters more than someone else's because he's better than them at a VIDEO GAME, even if the topic of discussion is the game itself.

so you are saying that a person who's been in the smash competitive scene for 4 years might not be more knowledgeable about the differences between brawl and melee than someone who's been playing for 2 months?

 

[ErciChewman]

What I'm saying is that is a video game and anyone who is taking the decision over which one should be played this seriously has priority issues. There are two differing ideologies. Only a supremely conceded person would say that his opinion matters more than someone else's because he's better than them at a VIDEO GAME, even if the topic of discussion is the game itself.

It's conceited, not conceded.

And you're wrong. You're wrong because you missed the point. There is nothing "conceded" about being more experienced and educated in a particular field than someone else. That's like saying Einstein would be conceited if he argued the theory of relativity with a tenth grader(or anyone for that matter). Who's opinion has more value? I'm gonna go with Einstein. On the internet, everyone's a critic, they actually think their opinion matters as if they're an expert in these things. People, in general, have bad taste, thus explaining why movies like Epic Movie can make millions at the box office, or nSync being a number one band. But the reality of it is, there is a higher class, a refined and more intelligent "opinion" in all of these things. Basically it's what should be, but the mass amounts of idiots keep it from being so. This is why you have two "definitions" of competitive.

 

[thumbswayup]

Epic Movie didn't even come close to making as much as Scary Movie. It was largely seen as a failure at the box office (especially domestically) even though it turned a profit. That's mostly because that genre was hot at the time and it should have made much more money, but it didn't because it was terrible. Just thought I'd point that out.

edit: The fact that it was made in the first place proves your point.

 

[Jack Kieser]

It's conceited, not conceded.

And you're wrong. You're wrong because you missed the point. There is nothing "conceded" about being more experienced and educated in a particular field than someone else. That's like saying Einstein would be conceited if he argued the theory of relativity with a tenth grader(or anyone for that matter). Who's opinion has more value? I'm gonna go with Einstein. On the internet, everyone's a critic, they actually think their opinion matters as if they're an expert in these things. People, in general, have bad taste, thus explaining why movies like Epic Movie can make millions at the box office, or nSync being a number one band. But the reality of it is, there is a higher class, a refined and more intelligent "opinion" in all of these things. Basically it's what should be, but the mass amounts of idiots keep it from being so. This is why you have two "definitions" of competitive.

Thanks for catching that 'conceited' thing; the spellchecker didn't say anything, and I had a feeling something was off.

Oh, and Einstein would be arguing science and mathematics, ostensibly something with singular and provable answers. Music, movies, and yes, even video games are entertainment. Ultimately, everything having to do with them is an opinion, so yes, someone with lesser experience CAN argue with someone whit more experience simply because neither of them can ever be 100% right. It's not a function of experience, it's a matter of opinion.

And you bring up another point: yes, this is THE INTERNET. Since when has ANYTHING on the internet mattered? The fact that someone thinks their 'uber pwnage' of someone on an internet message board means anything in relation to real life is the ultimate proof that humanity will one day blow themselves up.

 

[Jack Kieser]

This will probably be a double post, but I'm assuming that someone else will post something by the time I'm done writing this.

Here's so food for thought. So, I have played Pokemon 'competitively' (to stomp the living **** out of everyone else's Pokemon) ever since the RBY days. Needless to say, after countless battles, I'm a Pokemon Master. I know so much about that series' metagame, it scares me.

But, as the Greek philosophers once said, "The more I know, the more I know I know nothing."

I've had less experienced people talk with me about Pkmn. I've had less experienced people talk with me about Smash. I've had less experienced people discuss Resident Evil's plot holes. The point is, I always try to be humble enough so that I don't let my previous achievements get in the way of possibly learning something from someone with a perspective I don't have, because I never know when I'll learn something new, nor do I know who will teach me it. I always try to keep an open mind. You so-called 'experienced players' never seem to do that. You cite your experience and tournament wins not as a way to foster debate, but to shut it down, and THAT is what I find deplorable. I never see anyone on these boards who claims to be such a 'skilled pro' have the modesty to take a lesser skilled player seriously.

That is called, as the philosophers would say, immaturity.

(EDIT: ****, it was a double post. Why'd you guys stop posting? )

 

[pockyD]

wow dude, why'd you have to bash n sync

and i'd rather hear an nfl player talk about the differences between the nfl and ncaa football than some other random dude

 

[Brookman]

"This reminds me of the story about a university professor went to visit a famous Zen master. While the master quietly served tea, the professor talked about wanting to learn Zen. The master poured the visitor's cup to the brim, and then kept pouring. The professor watched the overflowing cup until he could no longer restrain himself. "It's overfill! No more will go in!" the professor blurted. "You are like this cup," said the master."

 

[Jack Kieser]

"This reminds me of the story about a university professor went to visit a famous Zen master. While the master quietly served tea, the professor talked about wanting to learn Zen. The master poured the visitor's cup to the brim, and then kept pouring. The professor watched the overflowing cup until he could no longer restrain himself. "It's overfill! No more will go in!" the professor blurted. "You are like this cup," said the master."

That's actually a really cool story. I'm going to remember that. I was looking on a philosophy website, and I found something that applies to all of us that I think you guys would enjoy as much as I did:

"Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jacka**es. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself." --H.L. Mencken

 

[Aesir]

Being humble can be seen as being a ******* too.

regardless you're going to be called a *******.

edit: Philosophers usually tend to be full of themselfs anyway. Aristotle ring a bell? lol

 

[Jack Kieser]

You did not just bad-mouth one of the philosophers who made Western civilization possible.

...you, sir, are a villainous curr. And, you're right. Almost anything in the world can be interpreted in any number of ways; that's why 'interpretation ' /=/ 'fact'.

 

[pockyD]

please, aristotle was nowhere near as competitive as plato

 

[LavisFiend]

FREUD IS COOLER CUZ HE WAS ALL LIKE, "I'm a psychologist lol."

Debate THAT >=D

Jack, that post at the top belonging to you was awesome.

 

[thumbswayup]

please, aristotle was nowhere near as competitive as plato

socrates would run them both into the ground.

 

[Dark Sonic]

Oh, and Einstein would be arguing science and mathematics, ostensibly something with singular and provable answers. Music, movies, and yes, even video games are entertainment. Ultimately, everything having to do with them is an opinion, so yes, someone with lesser experience CAN argue with someone whit more experience simply because neither of them can ever be 100% right. It's not a function of experience, it's a matter of opinion.

I'm sorry, but I can't let this thing go. To have the audacity to ridicule us for diving deeper into what is one of our greatest hobbies for most of us is just something I can't ignore.

First of all, you mention that music, movies, and video games are entertainment. That much is true. But then you say that everything having to do with them is opinion and that somehow the words of someone with far more experience in the matter should not matter any more than an newcommer's words. A trumpet player who's been playing at a high level for 20 years obviously knows more about playing the trumpet than someone who picked up the trumpet one year ago. Should their words carry the same weight? A gamer who has been playing melee at a high level would obviously know more about it than someone who's been playing it for two weeks. Should their words carry the same weight?

It is indeed a function of experience, because the experienced player has more than likely not only tried your suggestions, but also found their flaws first hand. Even if they haven't actually tried these theories in practice, they've played the game for so long that they naturally notice counters for these theories that you and your friends wouldn't discover until much later. To disregard their experience in their own field and assert yourself as just as good is to undermine all of their hard work. You say that taking a video game seriously is somehow a bad thing, but it's no different than indulging in a personal hobby. It's no different than playing in a band, or joining a sports team, with hope that one day you'll be able to shine as one of the best. As such you'll learn everything there is to know about your hobby in an attempt to catch up to those who already have not only learned what you are learning, but have applied it and disproved parts of it on many different levels.

Yes you can contribute even when you are a lesser player, but know that the person you are contributing to will most likely have already seen that scenerio before. The most help you can possibly give him is to bring his attention to an area that he may not have focused on before, but he can take over from there as anything further is old news. I've made contributions in this manner myself, and it didn't take long to realize that although I did help a little by bringing it up, everything I said from there (things that had taken me hours to work through in my head) were either almost immediately refuted or improved upon by a much larger degree than I would've accomplished had I kept thinking about it.

I realize that my advice in the subject of competative gaming is not always as good as those who have been here longer. I respect their words and evaluate them under the general assumtion that they are more knowlegable on the subject than I am, and that they'd likely catch any minor flaws I find. If their advice didn't help, then I go back and ask if I've done it wrong, not if the concept itself was flawed. Only after I've confirmed that I'm taking their advice in the way that they've intended do I bring up any qualms with them.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Ok, so it seems I've been misinterpreted. I never said that the opinion of someone with 20 years of trumpet experience = the opinion of someone with less experience (if you'll allow me to use your metaphor, Dark Sonic). I said that it's wrong for the more experienced person to cite his own experience as a just reason to ignore a lesser experienced person. The basic argument here is that people who have been playing tournament Melee for X amount of time can disregard what anyone with lesser experience says, which I find to be wrong. Experience alone isn't enough because there is such a thing as 'bad experience'.

I mean, you're asking that the people with lesser experience always ask themselves whether they have enough insight, but aren't asking that the more experienced players ask themselves if all of their experience is 'bad'. We ask if Brawl is a 'competitive' game, telling all of the so-called 'lesser players' to show the 'pros' humility, but we don't ask the 'pros' to wonder if the past ~7 years with Melee were based off of an invalid assumption that there is only one way to be competitive. This is a VERY hard concept to convey in text without being able to have live exchange, so I can understand if this particular post isn't understood.

 

[Aesir]

You did not just bad-mouth one of the philosophers who made Western civilization possible.

...you, sir, are a villainous curr. And, you're right. Almost anything in the world can be interpreted in any number of ways; that's why 'interpretation ' /=/ 'fact'.

He stopped teaching Alexander the Great because Alexander disagreed with him. How is he not a prick?

 

[Cronofan]

I've read the first couple pages as well as the most recent ones and as an outsider, yet critical thinking individual I believe that Jack Kieser has made the most convincing points.

Discussion between Brawl and Melee's competitiveness boil down to the ideologies of the players who wish to play the games competitively. The core players of Melee latched onto it so deeply because of the extreme metagame intricacies that developed in it (wave dashing, l canceling etc), and explain why Melee has endured so long with these players. There are, however, people for whom this ideology was not theirs....

I am an individual who grew up with and loved Smash 64 and participated in a few local tournaments (though they were much rarer in that generation of hardware than they are now).However when Melee was released I didn't own a gamecube, and I desperately wanted to love Melee, but by the time I actually was able to play the game, I found that the stage was such that there was more involved in competitive play than I cared to dedicate myself to. When there exist people who play to such an extent that they count frames and pixels to perfect there play style, I find it is in a vein, a niveau, slightly higher than I was or currently am willing to dedicate myself to.

Now a new generation of Smash is upon us, a chance to start on an even playing field and as I've started playing this game I realize how good the future looks. The new mechanics and play style are now such that my ideology of what competition should be has returned, and I don't think I'm the only one who believes this. Some people who are arguing in favor of Brawl as the new competitive "better" game that I've spoken to share this ideal with me.

The reason that we believe it is better is because it isn't so focused on the technical aspect, all the intracacies that the hardcore, for lack of a better word, love so much. I want the game to be open to more than this niche of players that rely on twitch reflex and muscle memory. Melee devotees are in fact
correct, in the way that they define competitivity, Melee is the choice, the best option.
However these people wanted Brawl to support their view, and Sakurai and company clearly did not. They made a game for the rest of us, the gamers that had lost out on Melee, who loved competition yet found that the game had been convoluted with too much by those with a different ideology.

I feel like I'm repeating the same points over, so I'll leave it at that until I get a response. The last thing I want to say is that when it comes to competitive play I want video games in general to become more recognized as a viable entity. Unfortunately in order to make progress in this domain video games must become more accepted in the mainstream and making games like Brawl more accessible and less "hardcore" is a good avenue to start with.

Anyways, I expect to have my post torn to shreds in the near future but I'm really interested to see what you all have to say about my views and where I am coming from. Just know that I love video games, I have at least 20-30 Wii Titles, I've owned hundreds of PC games and have played competitive games for a long time and want only the best to come of our favorite electronic medium.

 

[Aesir]

The reason that we believe it is better is because it isn't so focused on the technical aspect, all the intracacies that the hardcore, for lack of a better word, love so much. I want the game to be open to more than this niche of players that rely on twitch reflex and muscle memory. Melee devotees are in fact
correct, in the way that they define competitivity, Melee is the choice, the best option.
However these people wanted Brawl to support their view, and Sakurai and company clearly did not. They made a game for the rest of us, the gamers that had lost out on Melee, who loved competition yet found that the game had been convoluted with too much by those with a different ideology.

Sounds like you're asking for apples but really you want oranges.


Protip: majority of competitive games will always have a learning curve and expect some degree of technique. I don't think theres a fighting game a live today that doesn't require you to have fast reflexes and good hand eye coronation.

Why should a game be dumbed down because some people don't want to put that extra work into it? It's like you want the competition but don't want to work to achieve it, we have a word for that it's called being lazy.

 

[Dark Sonic]

I mean, you're asking that the people with lesser experience always ask themselves whether they have enough insight, but aren't asking that the more experienced players ask themselves if all of their experience is 'bad'.

I don't personally believe that the 7 years of experience with melee is bad. I think that it's a valuable asset and an insight into the smash system in general, as would experience with SSB64. It allows you to get a deep understanding of whatever mechanics have transfered over, before you even start playing the game. Having this experience allows you to shift your focus to the new aspects without worrying about the old ones, since you already know them.

We ask if Brawl is a 'competitive' game, telling all of the so-called 'lesser players' to show the 'pros' humility, but we don't ask the 'pros' to wonder if the past ~7 years with Melee were based off of an invalid assumption that there is only one way to be competitive

I have to disagree with you here. There are many respectable members who play multiple games competatively and not just smash. A game will be competative if the scene supports it, but the scene is divided now because we not everyone believes there is benefit in supporting this game. Sakurai specifically designed this game to be a non-competative party game, and if we chose to make it a competative game anyway then we've got quite a bit of work cut out for us.

Discussion between Brawl and Melee's competitiveness boil down to the ideologies of the players who wish to play the games competitively. The core players of Melee latched onto it so deeply because of the extreme metagame intricacies that developed in it (wave dashing, l canceling etc), and explain why Melee has endured so long with these players. There are, however, people for whom this ideology was not theirs....

But you see it's not the advance techniques that we cling onto. I frankly don't care if L-canceling never existed, provided that the characters were just as fast. I miss wavedashing and dash dancing, not because these things to practice to perform, but because of the movement options they presented. We are hurt because Sakurai purposefully took that kind of control away from the players for the sake of "Letting everybody win."

When there exist people who play to such an extent that they count frames and pixels to perfect there play style, I find it is in a vein, a niveau, slightly higher than I was or currently am willing to dedicate myself to.

In case you didn't notice, I didn't start playing melee competatively until 2006! People counted frames because the data was there (nobody counted Pixels btw), and because we just wanted to perfect our game. Are you saying that it's wrong to try to be the best you can be at what is one of your favorite hobbies. You accuse us of taking the game to seriously, but what we precisely are trying to prove is that we should be taken seriously. We proved that melee could be taken seriously, we proved that a game can be both a hardcore fighter and a party game at the same time, and you want to say that our dedication to the game was bad?

Now a new generation of Smash is upon us, a chance to start on an even playing field and as I've started playing this game I realize how good the future looks. The new mechanics and play style are now such that my ideology of what competition should be has returned, and I don't think I'm the only one who believes this

What exactly is your ideology of competition? Was your ideology not present in melee as well? Is this even playing field you speak of simply the lack of advance techniques. Well let me just say that no matter what your ideology is for a competative game, that more options that a player can do on offense and defense (provided that those options balance each other) is always a good thing. There was no gain in taking out dashdancing, no gain in taking out crouch canceling, no gain in taking out ASDI, no gain in adding tripping. There was only restriction. These things were only methods of restricting movements and restricting the players by forcing them to conform to your vision. This is not how a community and the games developers should interact.

The reason that we believe it is better is because it isn't so focused on the technical aspect, all the intracacies that the hardcore, for lack of a better word, love so much.

This is a very large misconception. Melee was not focused on the technical aspect. The technical aspect was only there to enable you to do what your mind wanted to do. If you wanted to dash in and quickly move back out, the option was there. If you wanted to stop you dash immediately and have all the options you would have while standing, that option was there. If there was litterally a wavedash button, I'd be happy.

They made a game for the rest of us, the gamers that had lost out on Melee, who loved competition yet found that the game had been convoluted with too much by those with a different ideology.

Sakurai did not make the game for those who love competition. He specifically tried to discourage the ideas of winning and losing, the idea that one can become better at a game if he tries more, the very principles on which competition is based. He specifically took options away from the players, options that had been present in the demo might I add. He doesn't hate us, but he does not believe in the spirit of competition.

The last thing I want to say is that when it comes to competitive play I want video games in general to become more recognized as a viable entity. Unfortunately in order to make progress in this domain video games must become more accepted in the mainstream and making games like Brawl more accessible and less "hardcore" is a good avenue to start with.

Melee was not geared to the hardcore players, simply he left the options in there should we want to explore this game. Nobody was ever forced to play melee as more than a party game, but he did not want to deny us the competative experience should we seek it. That mentality changed between melee and brawl. He feels that the competative players put the focus on winning and losing too much, when that is exactly how competition works. We enjoy winning, but we enjoy losing too, because we can use it as a learning experience, which will help us win.

I too want videogames to be recognized as a viable entity. But I feel that to make progress in this domain videogames must show reward for time spent in them, and that in turn will make them more accepted. They don't need to be easier, they need to be more rewarding to those who actually put time into them. If it is easier with the same amount of reward, then it is better. If it is just as hard but with more reward, then it is better. But if the reward goes down at all, then it is worse.