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

[Zankoku]

If it was just the teams that played and no one watched then it wouldn't be less competative.

Yes it would. If nobody watched, then the stadiums get no money, meaning no reason for anybody to sponsor or host the teams, meaning absolutely no reason to play the sport competitively if the reward is nothing and setting it all up is more trouble than it's worth.

 

[metalmonstar]

Yes it would. If nobody watched, then the stadiums get no money, meaning no reason for anybody to sponsor or host the teams, meaning absolutely no reason to play the sport competitively if the reward is nothing and setting it all up is more trouble than it's worth.

If the professional league was not around people would still play football. There would still be local competitive games. Competition would still be around but it would not be as competitive as it was with the organized league.

However I fail to see what any of that has to do with the definition of competitiveness as defined by scar.

The best obviously won't be winning because they won't be playing since there is no money in it. Thus the competitiveness will be reduced harshly what is left is a casual game that is played on low levels of competition.

If anyone and everyone could have perfect physique then even at a casual level the game would still hold some competitiveness because we now have the best rising above.

Then again though the definition seems to be a little loose if all the pros quit then that just means that the best is some casual team. If they consecutively win then football is still highly competitive. If my understanding is correct.

Now that I have gone through that I fail to see how this relates to brawl or melee. If everyone quits melee then that would cause it to be a less competitive game? If the pros quit brawl would that make brawl any less competitive. If brawl is a simple as the opposition says it is then in no time new players will take the place of the pros in which they themselves will become the new pros. In conclusion Brawl will still have a degree of competitiveness.

 

[Corigames]

Remember, this is my opinion, and since you can't really use statistics in a debate like this, nor do "facts" really work because everyone prefers different things, these are the reasons why I believe Brawl is better than Melee.

then don't respond to other people's opinions if you want me to keep in mind that you are now going to put out yours and don't want to be flamed for it.

It's easier to get into, but of course, on Smash Boards, that just means n00b friendly, my mistake. I mean, all the n00bz are winning in Brawl because of it. I'm sorry, but if you are seriously being beaten by some smash-spamming Ike, or an arrow spamming Pit, you have a lot of room for improvement.

Mostly, I agree with this. However, I have been in circumstances where someone has picked up metaknight and given me an *** load of problems because they were just mashing buttons, clanking with my moves and then hitting me quickly afterward because he has little startup on swings, he has a good recovery, he can juggle people off the stage, his tornado is seemingly unstoppable and only avoidable, and many other things. Is he broken? No, but when you have to be able to predict their next move and they don't even know what it is...

In Melee, it seems to me, has one way to get good. The best players use generally, not exactly, but generally the same framework to win matches. Brawl seems to use much more mind work and improvisation than does Melee. As far as I have experienced, the end all be all of the high level Melee match is to combo somebody to death. Dodges here and there, look for the openings, smack off a few hits, OPENING! Combo!!!!!----->Death.

Who the **** were you playing? There are not two professional people that I can look to that play exactly the same. there are commonalities between people who play the same character because they know which moves are good and the best way to use them. The reason you don't see a lot of pros using Fox's Up B as an attack is because it is very punishable and predictable. Stuff like that makes it obvious why people use the same moves, but they do not, ever, play the same way.

On another note, what do you mean Brawl takes more improvisation? I play my Pit EXACTLY the same in every matchup because it works. I don't have to improvise nearly as much as I did in Melee, and it is evident when you watch tournament videos. There are people using the same tactic in ever single match and the person with the better pre-programmed fighting style seems to win.

And what 0 to death combos were there that were impossible to break out of? None. If you ever started to get Ken comboed, you COULD break out of it. And, even if you could not break out, you could still smash DI your way toward the stage and edge tech the edge. Have you seen anyone do it in Brawl, because I haven't. If you get spiked in Brawl, you might as well start psyching yourself up for the next stock.

People say the gameplay seems deeper in Melee, but I don't see depth beyond learning the ATs, maneuvers, and combos. Once you've learned everything, you just have to apply it, and whoever is better at pulling off button combinations wins.

Yeah, and the only difference between Brawl and Melee is that they took out the ATs, maneuvers, and combos. What does that leave Brawl with? Nothing. What did they add in? Toadstool jumps and tripping? Sweet.

I like Brawl better because it seems to me to have multiple pathways to get better. In Melee, faster characters were the better characters. Most people used them. In Brawl, not so much. The journey to become a high level player is much more varied. You don't need to master all the ATs, and combos, and stuff. You can find your own method of playing, and still be good.

Yeah, good with all your friends, but not on a tournament/professional level. The only way to get better is to look at your weaknesses and character ability. In melee, most people played dcompletely different from other people, because of the match ups they face. I was very good at taking out Foxes with my Samus because I played one all of the time. So, when it came time to hit the scene, I didn't have trouble at all with it. I bet I can go right now and find 3 different DeDeDe players and you couldn't tell the difference between them while I go and find 3 Jigglypuff players from melee and show you how unique they played him.

Another thing, if you don't need to master all of the ATs, then you aren't playing the right people. If you aren't improving yourself and beating everyone around you constantly, that says more about them than it does about you.

And, BTW, if speed had everything to do with how well a character did in Melee, where was pichu on the list?

Melee was an extremely offensive game, focusing on speed to overwhelm the opponent. Brawl has lowered that offensiveness and raised the defensiveness.

Eliminating offensiveness would be more correct than "lowering" it.

People used to the offensive game don't want to or can't get used to the slower, differently focused offense/defense wise game. Nothing wrong with that. Melee is the better game for you. That DOESN'T make Melee better than Brawl, or even more competitive at that. Now, I have absolutely nothing at the moment to back this statement, but Brawl seems to be much more balanced character wise.

Exactly, that is an ungrounded, biased opinion. The day that I'm beaten by a Yoshi in a 1 v 1 fight at a tournament is the day I concede to everyone who says the characters are more balanced. THEY ARE NOT. No one will be great people at this game with bad characters. They are not balanced. They are MORE unbalanced. Without the inclusion of ATs, it makes it very hard for a low tiered character to face a high or top in this game even if the person is less "skilled" than they are. There is no way to increase your characters ability yet. You just have to pick a good character if you want to win.

*Flame Shield*

Sorry, I have a 99% chance to penetrate shields of flame protection. Plus, I think I critted.

Also, Brawl has Ike and Snake.

I just wish it had Samus again.

 

[falcon_for_life_and_for_smash]

do you speak greek?

 

[Koga]

Yes it would. If nobody watched, then the stadiums get no money, meaning no reason for anybody to sponsor or host the teams, meaning absolutely no reason to play the sport competitively if the reward is nothing and setting it all up is more trouble than it's worth.

No it wouldn't. The depth of the strugle between the two teams wouldn't be any less.

This is considring they play with no one watching with the same intensity.

Now would it last, No, because you need money to pay for things. But the game itself remains unchanged.

 

[bovineblitzkrieg]

Great post corey. You covered every one of my thoughts on e105beta's post... so I won't spam the thread with lots of paragraphs ripping into his noob logic. Especially how Brawl takes "more improvisation"... laughable.

pwned.

 

[thumbswayup]

The same morons from the other thread are in this one too. You'd think after them getting ***** in arguements so many times they would learn. Wishful thinking.

 

[Zankoku]

No it wouldn't. The depth of the strugle between the two teams wouldn't be any less.

This is considring they play with no one watching with the same intensity.

Why would they play with the same intensity if there's absolutely no incentive to even try?

 

[Koga]

Why would they play with the same intensity if there's absolutely no incentive to even try?

THat's not the question. You're talking about the Players I'm Talking about The game

The game still has deep competative qualities even if they players are unispiried to take part in it.

 

[Zankoku]

THat's not the question. You're talking about the Players I'm Talking about The game

The game still has deep competative qualities even if they players are unispiried to take part in it.

If the players are unwilling to take the game to the limit, the supposed depth of the game will never actually be explored.

 

[NES n00b]

If the players are unwilling to take the game to the limit, the supposed depth of the game will never actually be explored.

Great, now you opened the can of worms for "Brawl will be more competitive cause there will be more people playing it." =/ Even though it does take people to make the metagame for a game, just like Melee wasn't as deep or competitive as it was a couple years ago. Anyone around in the Melee scene today probably could have beaten most of the people in 2004.

 

[Zankoku]

Great, now you opened the can of worms for "Brawl will be more competitive cause there will be more people playing it." =/

Well, technically. It's more like "Brawl has the potential to become more competitive faster than Melee because there are more people playing to win in it." The depth of Brawl is and will be explored a lot faster than Melee ever was. This, however, will not affect Brawl's intrinsic depth at all - if we reach the limit, we reach the limit, no matter how many people are playing or looking. But that's something I'm not about to argue because I can't read fate that far ahead.

Even though it does take people to make the metagame for a game, just like Melee wasn't as deep or competitive as it was a couple years ago. Anyone around in the Melee scene today probably could have beaten most of the people in 2004.

Exactly.

 

[TRUXOFF]

Melee's depth as a fighter was in its complexity, Brawl's depth as a fighter is non-existant.

 

[Clai]

In Melee, it seems to me, has one way to get good. The best players use generally, not exactly, but generally the same framework to win matches. Brawl seems to use much more mind work and improvisation than does Melee. As far as I have experienced, the end all be all of the high level Melee match is to combo somebody to death. Dodges here and there, look for the openings, smack off a few hits, OPENING! Combo!!!!!----->Death.

Who the **** were you playing? There are not two professional people that I can look to that play exactly the same. there are commonalities between people who play the same character because they know which moves are good and the best way to use them. The reason you don't see a lot of pros using Fox's Up B as an attack is because it is very punishable and predictable. Stuff like that makes it obvious why people use the same moves, but they do not, ever, play the same way.

On another note, what do you mean Brawl takes more improvisation? I play my Pit EXACTLY the same in every matchup because it works. I don't have to improvise nearly as much as I did in Melee, and it is evident when you watch tournament videos. There are people using the same tactic in ever single match and the person with the better pre-programmed fighting style seems to win.

And what 0 to death combos were there that were impossible to break out of? None. If you ever started to get Ken comboed, you COULD break out of it. And, even if you could not break out, you could still smash DI your way toward the stage and edge tech the edge. Have you seen anyone do it in Brawl, because I haven't. If you get spiked in Brawl, you might as well start psyching yourself up for the next stock.

This question can be asked right back to you. If you can honestly say that you can beat anybody, any character by picking Pit and using the exact same strategies, you obviously are not playing good people. It's easier for your opponents to adapt to your strategies because of the slow playstyle, unlike in Melee, where you cannot find many ways to defeat a faster Fox because speed triumphs more in Melee than anything else (And when I say speed, I mean incorporating instant to near instant attack, a.k.a. the shine, and having a fast enough mind to know when to incorporate those attacks. I'll get to this later though).

You are right on the combos part. There are no inescapable 0-death combos in melee. However, good comboers are able to read the opponent's DI (because it may be the only possible DI that can survive the first combo) and just follow it up with another combo. Once you're in the air, DI'ing is all you can do, because the hit stun prevents you from at least trying to follow up and once you're off the stage, you can't air dodge because you won't be able to recover to the stage.

Smash DI'ing towards the stage and edge teching involves being close enough to the stage that teching is even possible. Last time I checked, slower gameplay means that DI is more important in Brawl. Yeah, there's no meteor canceling in Brawl, but edge teching works the exact same way when you're getting spiked. Oh yeah, in Brawl, you can actually air dodge to prevent yourself from getting spiked. You definately couldn't do that in Melee (assuming you're off the stage where you can't recover by air dodging)

Yeah, good with all your friends, but not on a tournament/professional level. The only way to get better is to look at your weaknesses and character ability. In melee, most people played dcompletely different from other people, because of the match ups they face. I was very good at taking out Foxes with my Samus because I played one all of the time. So, when it came time to hit the scene, I didn't have trouble at all with it. I bet I can go right now and find 3 different DeDeDe players and you couldn't tell the difference between them while I go and find 3 Jigglypuff players from melee and show you how unique they played him.

Another thing, if you don't need to master all of the ATs, then you aren't playing the right people. If you aren't improving yourself and beating everyone around you constantly, that says more about them than it does about you.

And, BTW, if speed had everything to do with how well a character did in Melee, where was pichu on the list?

Can you say the same for three Jigglypuff players in Brawl? Comparing apples to oranges does not support your argument. If you're finding that everyone plays a certain character the same way, that says more about the community than about you. What you need to do is to beat that strategy, force them to adapt to different gamestyles. If they can't do that, then they're simply not good players.

e105beta is correct on the second point. There are no AT's in Brawl that are so game-shattering that you need to learn them in order to be good at this game. Wavedashing and L-Cancelling were essential to any Melee player's game because they allowed you to space your character and play your character faster, respectively. Anything that we can do in Brawl is situational and marginally helps us at best. I'm certain that I can beat a standard player without having to use DLX cancels and hyphen smashes because they're just not necessary towards winning.

The speed of attacks and priority combine to make better characters. Fox's shine was so great because it came out in one frame and gave a steady knockback to prevent punishment. Priority (plus the fact that it was the lightest character and hurt itself with every electrical attack) was the reason why Pichu wasn't good. Same thing applies here. Metaknight is going to be top-tier because his attacks come out instantly while having good priority and knockback. Priority is also the reason why Sonic isn't going to get really good any time soon.

Exactly, that is an ungrounded, biased opinion. The day that I'm beaten by a Yoshi in a 1 v 1 fight at a tournament is the day I concede to everyone who says the characters are more balanced. THEY ARE NOT. No one will be great people at this game with bad characters. They are not balanced. They are MORE unbalanced. Without the inclusion of ATs, it makes it very hard for a low tiered character to face a high or top in this game even if the person is less "skilled" than they are. There is no way to increase your characters ability yet. You just have to pick a good character if you want to win.

How many Pichu players have beaten you in a tournament? I cannot stand people who say that people cannot be good with bad characters just because they can't exploit game physics with AT's. You want to be good with a character? THINK! Know how useful your attacks are in certain situations, know which attacks are safe, know how much priority your attacks have, and use that knowledge to fight! In fact, knowing your character is MORE important in Brawl than in Melee because we don't have the essential techniques that we had in Melee that could allow us to exploit the physics and make our character faster. If a person chooses to be a low-tier character and face all the top-tier players, he will either spend the time knowing the exact style of his character and use it to his advantage while learning to beat those characters, or he will just give up and pick a top-tier character to counter and become worse off overall.

 

[bovineblitzkrieg]

I beat people in tourneys with pichu. And more often, with Mewtwo.

 

[Koga]

If the players are unwilling to take the game to the limit, the supposed depth of the game will never actually be explored.

So, It will still be there regardless. The intrisinct depth will be there regardless of how far its taken.

 

[bovineblitzkrieg]

Yes. The intrinsic depth... that of a kiddie pool... will be there, regardless of whether or not we can reach it.

 

[pockyD]

oh man this is still going on?

 

[Zankoku]

So, It will still be there regardless. The intrisinct depth will be there regardless of how far its taken.

Yet you can't claim there's more depth than has been found because nobody's discovered any. The game will be shallow because there was not enough interest in making it less shallow.

 

[LOL_Master]

whoever's posting on my name, stoppppp

 

[Corigames]

This question can be asked right back to you. If you can honestly say that you can beat anybody, any character by picking Pit and using the exact same strategies, you obviously are not playing good people.

Uh... no. I didn't say I could beat anybody, I did say that I have beat everyone I have played that way. Don't get confused. Also, I'm pretty sure most people here on this site haven't played "good people," because, mostly, they don't exist. The best players know how to play the character select screen.

It's easier for your opponents to adapt to your strategies because of the slow playstyle, unlike in Melee, where you cannot find many ways to defeat a faster Fox because speed triumphs more in Melee than anything else (And when I say speed, I mean incorporating instant to near instant attack, a.k.a. the shine, and having a fast enough mind to know when to incorporate those attacks. I'll get to this later though).

Why does everyone say that about Fox. Fox wasn't this unstoppable, raging smash ****** machine. And you don't need to slow the game down to .03 speed just to think about what your enemy is doing. If you can't think on your toes, then you are going to get punished. You can find many ways, you just have to look while in the fight and by reflecting on your own experience.

Oh yeah, in Brawl, you can actually air dodge to prevent yourself from getting spiked. You definately couldn't do that in Melee (assuming you're off the stage where you can't recover by air dodging)

Uh... yeah, you could. As I said, I play Samus. I would air dodge people coming in for attacks and then grapple to the edge of the level. Woopdy doo. I lived, recovered, and edgehogged them.

Can you say the same for three Jigglypuff players in Brawl? Comparing apples to oranges does not support your argument. If you're finding that everyone plays a certain character the same way, that says more about the community than about you. What you need to do is to beat that strategy, force them to adapt to different gamestyles. If they can't do that, then they're simply not good players.

I can't say I've seen 3 jigglypuff players play in Brawl because no one is that stupid. they nerfed the hell out of her and now its not even fun to play her casually, let alone competitively. Even to that extent, you say I'm not allowed to compare playstyles of people playing the same character of one game and then doing the same in another? WTF? That's the entire basis for comparing something is looking at aspects of two games. YOU HAVE TO COMPARE APPLES AND ORANGES WHEN COMPARING APPLES AND ORANGES!!!!

e105beta is correct on the second point. There are no AT's in Brawl that are so game-shattering that you need to learn them in order to be good at this game. Wavedashing and L-Cancelling were essential to any Melee player's game because they allowed you to space your character and play your character faster, respectively. Anything that we can do in Brawl is situational and marginally helps us at best. I'm certain that I can beat a standard player without having to use DLX cancels and hyphen smashes because they're just not necessary towards winning.

Exactly, if you want to win you just have to know what character to pick and what move to spam. They can't do much special to stop it and you can't do anything else because that's what that character is good for. I don't go into a Falco fight expecting to not run into lazors (in either game), because that's how you play him. But, at least in melee, I could use advanced tactics to mix up the gameplay without using bad/poor moves from his moveset.

How many Pichu players have beaten you in a tournament?

When I first hit the competitive scene, Wobbles wiped out an entire tournament I was participating in AS pichu. So... 1. What about you? And what does that have to do with anything?

I cannot stand people who say that people cannot be good with bad characters just because they can't exploit game physics with AT's. You want to be good with a character? THINK! Know how useful your attacks are in certain situations, know which attacks are safe, know how much priority your attacks have, and use that knowledge to fight! In fact, knowing your character is MORE important in Brawl than in Melee because we don't have the essential techniques that we had in Melee that could allow us to exploit the physics and make our character faster.

So, because we have less things to learn, we have more to learn? What kind of backwards thinking is that? That's alike all the people saying because the game is slower, it's more about thinking and mindgames more than melee ever was. No, just because you have less of one thing doesn't mean you necessarily have more of another to fill its place. In melee, you HAD to know your spacing, timing, knockback, and ALL OF THOSE FOR YOUR ENEMY OR YOU would GET PUNISHED.

And in order to be great with that Pichu, Wobbles had to use a lot of fast movements and quick attacks by using those ATs. Without them, it would have been impossible for him to beat even half the people there (no offense to him). Everything that you said make Brawl better was in melee and in more abundance, so what does that mean about Brawl?

If a person chooses to be a low-tier character and face all the top-tier players, he will either spend the time knowing the exact style of his character and use it to his advantage while learning to beat those characters, or he will just give up and pick a top-tier character to counter and become worse off overall.

How does playing a character that counters your main's counter make you worse off? That means you know your characters weaknesses, accept them, and are trying to get around them. That's why people have main characters and secondaries, for when they get counter picked. That's playing smart, not conceding to failure.

Look, I'm tired of responding to giant blocks of text, especially when people think they are awesome and need to change the font/color. From now on, I'm just going to give small responses.

 

[bovineblitzkrieg]

^ pwned again!

I'm baffled by the people that say that Brawl is more about mindgames and prediction because it's slower... if it's slower and there's less options, it's easier to predict what your opponent is going to do, and you have less options yourself... which means that there's less to think about.

What is the counter argument to my above statement? That you have to think "harder" about your two or three options or "work harder" to get better spacing??? I honestly can't think of a logical justification.

The pro-Brawl argument on this top seems to be that less options somehow lead to more mental depth. W-what the ****???

When you've perfected the spacing of your chosen character's spammable attack (or proj spam), you don't really have to outthink the opponent anymore.

I highly, highly doubt anyone can defeat this argument without noob logic.

 

[RDK]

oh man this is still going on?

My sentiments exactly.

 

[Pink Reaper]

^ pwned again!

I'm baffled by the people that say that Brawl is more about mindgames and prediction because it's slower... if it's slower and there's less options, it's easier to predict what your opponent is going to do, and you have less options yourself... which means that there's less to think about.

What is the counter argument to my above statement? That you have to think "harder" about your two or three options or "work harder" to get better spacing??? I honestly can't think of a logical justification.

The pro-Brawl argument on this top seems to be that less options somehow lead to more mental depth. W-what the ****???

When you've perfected the spacing of your chosen character's spammable attack (or proj spam), you don't really have to outthink the opponent anymore.

I highly, highly doubt anyone can defeat this argument without noob logic.

Checkers. More mindgames than Chess.

 

[Corigames]

Jump rope, more mindgames than checkers.

 

[Zankoku]

Checkers. More mindgames than Chess.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1144079?ijkey=jVmVcXy2/NTnY&keytype=ref&siteid=sci

Checkers, it's Tic-Tac-Toe v2.0

 

[LoyalSoldier]

Yes it would. If nobody watched, then the stadiums get no money, meaning no reason for anybody to sponsor or host the teams, meaning absolutely no reason to play the sport competitively if the reward is nothing and setting it all up is more trouble than it's worth.

You forget how pro sports got started in the first place. Heck back in the early days of the NFL the players had to have jobs in addition to playing because there was close to no money. They played it because they loved it.

 

[robosteven]

Jump rope, more mindgames than checkers.

YOU. WIN. MONEY.

 

[Koga]

Yet you can't claim there's more depth than has been found because nobody's discovered any. The game will be shallow because there was not enough interest in making it less shallow.

That's no excuse to give up. I am beginning to think that most anti-brawlers don't really play brawl that much. It seems like they picked it up, played for about an hour or so and decided they wouldn't like it no matter what.


seriously, your argument is "its not deep now so it can't be"

that's flawed. Opposing brawl at this point is flawed logic.

 

[Zankoku]

That's no excuse to give up. I am beginning to think that most anti-brawlers don't really play brawl that much. It seems like they picked it up, played for about an hour or so and decided they wouldn't like it no matter what.


seriously, your argument is "its not deep now so it can't be"

that's flawed. Opposing brawl at this point is flawed logic.

No, YOUR argument is "you hate Brawl."

That's flawed. I'm not anti-Brawl at all. I'm merely pointing out errors in your logic.

 

[TRUXOFF]

Checkers. More mindgames than Chess.

Checkers has a solution, all the Nash Equilibria have been found, and thus playing checkers is basically a waste of time. Chess on the other hand we will likely never know if it has a solution or not, since there are more combinations of moves in Chess than there are electrons in the known universe. So no, no it doesn't.

 

[Koga]

No, YOUR argument is "you hate Brawl."

That's flawed. I'm not anti-Brawl at all. I'm merely pointing out errors in your logic.

Your language seems like you're anti brawl. There is no flaw in my logic, honestly i think we were trying to say the same thing but differently.

Yes, if there are no players the depth will never be discovered, that doesn't mean it wasn't there.

I just dislike people who try to pass judgement on brawl right now just because the community is bigger. We can't say how brawl is until we explore everything. And honestly, anyone who keeps having problems with camping which is such a predictable strategy, is not trying hard enough to explore brawl.

 

[Corigames]

Opposing brawl at this point is flawed logic.

Yeah, because we all know that a game has to be released for years before we can decide to like it or not. Hey, let me go get you the latest copy of a Mary-Kate and Ashley game and force you to play it for a year before you decide whether it is good or not. Then tell me it is not ok to say you don't like a game after playing it for an hour, let alone 3 months.

there are more combinations of moves in Chess than there are electrons in the known universe.

I highly, highly doubt that.

 

[Zankoku]

I'm not passing judgment on Brawl. I'm providing the things I find not to my liking in Brawl. There were things in Melee I didn't like. There were things in Smash 64 I didn't like. Their being good games had nothing to do with my right to point out what was wrong with them.

 

[Koga]

Yeah, because we all know that a game has to be released for years before we can decide to like it or not. He, let me go get you the latest copy of a Mary-Kate and Ashley game and force you to play it for a year before you decide whether it is good or not. Then tell me it is not ok to say you don't like a game after playing it for an hour, let alone 3 months.

Not liking=/= Bad tourney game for others.

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it a bad game for tournaments. If you don't like Brawl, that is fine and you can play melee, However don't go around saying that people who prefer brawl are somehow noobs because your prefrences are more correct.

I acctually like the initial campy-ness of brawl because it keeps people who are unwilling to think and try new things away from the competative scene.

See, Something you may think a negative i see as a positive. But you're more right because you are.

 

[TRUXOFF]

I highly, highly doubt that.

Unless the author of my Game Theory book is a liar, then sorry but it's true.

Edit: Just checked again to make sure and it's, ~10^120 distinct possible games vs ~10^80 elementary particles. So yeah it's true.

 

[Zankoku]

I acctually like the initial campy-ness of brawl because it keeps people who are unwilling to think and try new things away from the competative scene.

See: Mew2King, who prefers Melee to Brawl, is winning Brawl tournaments with Dedede. His strategy largely consists of spot-dodging, rolling, grabbing, and edgeguarding you. He seems pretty comfortable not willing to try new things but still winning.

 

[Corigames]

Unless the author of my Game Theory book is a liar, then sorry but it's true.

Edit: Just checked again to make sure and it's, ~10^120 distinct possible games vs ~10^80 elementary particles. So yeah it's true.

Isn't the "known universe" expanding everyday as we search deeper and deeper into space. And, on top of that, there are Trillions of electrons in the keyboard on your computer, so how many does that make for earth, something hundreds of billions of times bigger? Unless you can prove that that many electrons exist in the universe, I'm going to believe that more.

I acctually like the initial campy-ness of brawl because it keeps people who are unwilling to think and try new things away from the competative scene.

What I got out of that was, "I like Brawl because it is a bad game and I get to play it in tournaments because people recognize it as such."

 

[TRUXOFF]

Isn't the "known universe" expanding everyday as we search deeper and deeper into space. And, on top of that, there are Trillions of electrons in the keyboard on your computer, so how many does that make for earth, something hundreds of billions of times bigger? Unless you can prove that that many electrons exist in the universe, I'm going to believe that more.
"

"astronomers put the number of particles in the universe at somewhere between 10^72 and 10^87, while the age of the universe is estimated at a mere 10 to 20 billion years."

http://www.strangehorizons.com/2001/20010402/biggest_numbers.shtml

There is the source.

Sorry, you are wrong.

 

[Corigames]

"astronomers put the number of particles in the universe at somewhere between 10^72 and 10^87, while the age of the universe is estimated at a mere 10 to 20 billion years."

http://www.strangehorizons.com/2001/20010402/biggest_numbers.shtml

There is the source.

Sorry, you are wrong.

Did I say you were wrong you pretentious *** bucket? No, I just said I doubt you. I didn't say you were wrong or I was right, just that I was suspicious of such a statement. Go get your professor to cram your *** and give you an A+!