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

[NoVaLombardia]

DAYUMN

say it with me

DAYUMN

 

[FalconPunch]

Cactuar 4 stocked this thread.

 

[Demon Kirby]

Cactuar 4 stocked this thread.

I thought threads only had 1 stock?

Edit: and, appaently, are all light enough to be sent offscreen by a single Bowser fsmash.

 

[metalmonstar]

So I was doing a bit of thinking on this subject and I think I have come up with pretty good examples of competitive games that have incredibly low levels of competitiveness and incredibly high levels of it. My example for low level of competitiveness is animal races. It takes a lot of work and skill to train the animal but once you let them loose on their own the winner seems to be random at best. Sorry Folks firebolt isn't going to win all the time so you can stop putting your money on him. My example for highly competitive games would be such things as Tennis and Golf. Federer and Woods seem to do win fairly consistently. In fact I believe that when sports lean towards the individual then the best is easily recognizable and wins often. Sports like this would be tennis, golf, track, field sports, and so on. Track although highly competitive doesn't seem to have that much depth. You train your body to obtain max speeds you learn a few techniques that help you go faster. Anyone can learn the technical aspects of racing in a short amount of time, however not anyone can win. The fastest person should win and does win thus allowing track to have incredibly high level of competitiveness.

Also I though we determined from the very beginning that depth does not equal to higher competitiveness of a game. It just adds to the likelihood of a game having what it takes to have competitiveness. In theory we could have a game that is really deep yet no one plays it with anyone competition in mind. No one competes in the game, just by the fact that game is not competitive means that it can't have any level of competitiveness. Or we could have a game that is deep but at its highest level of depth the game is reduced to random chance. On the other end we could have a shallow game that is competitive and has high levels of competitiveness because the best players always win.

Interesting little story Scar, it seems to me though that the best player was first of all cactaur for winning and secondly the metalknight kid for coming up with a winning strategy. Although the person lost it seems that if they were willing to pursue brawl and get better then that person would do quite well against others. In less words, that person to me has the most potential.

I fail to see how though how lame tactics add or subtract from the competitiveness of a game. No where in your definition does it state that it is the innate property of a game that allows the best and most interesting player to win. Unless the definition has changed over some 200 pages.

To me camping/spamming/Defensive/turtling/whatever you want to call it, is a perfectly viable tactic. It just seems obvious to me that a low risk high reward strategy would be the best and effectively utilized. With Brawl' punishment system it seems like an even better strategy.


I see three very viable strategies in Brawl, Turtling (always playing it safe), Spamming (using the same move over and over again), and of course being able to read your opponent.

Brawl still has other strategies such as an aggressive game or a mixed game but they seem to be less useable than the previously mentioned ones.

The way I see it these main strategies will lead to one of two things 1) People learn these strategies and get good at them until they become the best at them or 2) Someone finds a way to beat these strategies. Thus I believe that all this is part of the natural progression of a game.


In relation to the debate i think the main point here is that camping and spamming are easy to pick and that it doesn't allow room for the best players to win. I can't really say for sure who is the best at brawl or whether or not they are winning, however I have noticed that from many of the stories given in this thread that there are degrees to how good one is at camping. Hugs I believe stated he won that match against the metaknight. Scar also stated he won. So it seemed that even though camping may be easy to pick up there is still room for people to be better at it than others. If there is someone better than everyone else they are the best. If they are the best than they win. If they win consecutively than the game satisfies the conditions as defined by scar's definition of competitiveness.

Another thing mentioned several times is the randomness tripping. It seems to me though that if you play defensively tripping should be limited incredibly since tipping tends to punish the attacker.

Then there is the fact that Brawl lacks a heavy punishment system. Which means that even after getting a string going your opponent can break out in which you will be put at a disadvantage and that at any given point the tables could be turned. I am not sure if this is even a point anymore or it ever was one. It has been stated that with camping the tide will hardly ever turn in your favor once you get behind. Thus it seems it has been refuted.

Finally is the mention that even Brawls progression of the fight is random, relying on a rock paper scissors format after every move. Which means the winner is up to random chance or simply luck. However smash is a game of weighted rock paper scissors in which certain actions are more likely than others because they are just overall better options. Next is the fact the human isn't random, or even pseudo random and that patterns will form and your opponent will become predictable.

Then again though we have spamming which is pretty predictable but not necessarily punishable. With camping this format seems pretty useless since you aren't really playing rock paper scissors for hits but rather you start with rock and your opponent has scissors. The options left to your opponent is to switch to rock also or to work and try to find a way to use paper.

Now we can sit here and theorize about what gives brawl the ability to reward the best players. We can theorize as to whether or not this property is greater or lesser than that of its predecessor. However it seems that a clear cut answer with little room for debate is available.

What we do is simply find the best player in brawl and the best player in Melee. Then we decide what we will use to measure the property . Then we compile the data. We compare them to each other and make a decision on which one have a significantly greater property for allowing the best to win.

Now I have a few questions

How do we define the best?

Do we need a stable game in order to truly measure its competitiveness?

 

[thesage]

Also I though we determined from the very beginning that depth does not equal to higher competitiveness of a game. It just adds to the likelihood of a game having what it takes to have competitiveness. In theory we could have a game that is really deep yet no one plays it with anyone competition in mind. No one competes in the game, just by the fact that game is not competitive means that it can't have any level of competitiveness. Or we could have a game that is deep but at its highest level of depth the game is reduced to random chance. On the other end we could have a shallow game that is competitive and has high levels of competitiveness because the best players always win.

The problem with your argument is that we're not in that situation. People want to move from brawl to melee as they have more fun playing it.

Interesting little story Scar, it seems to me though that the best player was first of all cactaur for winning and secondly the metalknight kid for coming up with a winning strategy. Although the person lost it seems that if they were willing to pursue brawl and get better then that person would do quite well against others. In less words, that person to me has the most potential.

Scar's story was to point out the fact that he hardly plays brawl and got that far in a tourney. The person he lost to was using extremely easy to learn and gay tactics. I know what he means by a gay *** mk cuz I play one. Honestly he's gayer than sheik in melee cuz all you have to do is learn neutral b, use side b occasionally, and up-b/glide. My friends are close to banning me from using that move cuz it's just that gay lol.

I fail to see how though how lame tactics add or subtract from the competitiveness of a game. No where in your definition does it state that it is the innate property of a game that allows the best and most interesting player to win. Unless the definition has changed over some 200 pages.

Because people prefer playing a game that doesn't have lame tactics and takes skill lol. I've been to a tournament where everyone said they liked melee better, but they want to give brawl a try. That tournament had 50+ people. I tried to watch the finals matches, but like everyone else, I walked away out of boredom and tried to get some friendlies in.

To me camping/spamming/Defensive/turtling/whatever you want to call it, is a perfectly viable tactic. It just seems obvious to me that a low risk high reward strategy would be the best and effectively utilized. With Brawl' punishment system it seems like an even better strategy.


I see three very viable strategies in Brawl, Turtling (always playing it safe), Spamming (using the same move over and over again), and of course being able to read your opponent

Ere'body knows those are viable tactics in brawl. The only problem is those are the only tactics in brawl. In melee you could do those and other things as well.

Brawl still has other strategies such as an aggressive game or a mixed game but they seem to be less useable than the previously mentioned ones.

The way I see it these main strategies will lead to one of two things 1) People learn these strategies and get good at them until they become the best at them or 2) Someone finds a way to beat these strategies. Thus I believe that all this is part of the natural progression of a game.

The problem is that nobody can find anything that can end this cycle, unlike in melee. For instance takes MK's neutral b. While it diminishes to 8 damage eventually, does that matter? Just spam it over and over again and the damage racks up. All your others moves won't be stale so u have a plethora of kill moves. The only solution to mk's neutral b spam is to find a character that can outrange and outprioritize it, handle his air game, and edgeguard him somehow. I can only think of a few characters that can do it. Since this strategy is way too easy to pick up, it eliminates over half the cast. Now all you have to do is learn a handful of character matchups for your character and when your opponent picks somebody who is ***** by mk, pick him.

In relation to the debate i think the main point here is that camping and spamming are easy to pick and that it doesn't allow room for the best players to win. I can't really say for sure who is the best at brawl or whether or not they are winning, however I have noticed that from many of the stories given in this thread that there are degrees to how good one is at camping. Hugs I believe stated he won that match against the metaknight. Scar also stated he won. So it seemed that even though camping may be easy to pick up there is still room for people to be better at it than others. If there is someone better than everyone else they are the best. If they are the best than they win. If they win consecutively than the game satisfies the conditions as defined by scar's definition of competitiveness.

The problem is when the good people start picking mk instead of favorites. We'll end up with a situation similar to melee except that the low-bottom tiers will actually be unplayable, even at lower tournament levels.

Another thing mentioned several times is the randomness tripping. It seems to me though that if you play defensively tripping should be limited incredibly since tipping tends to punish the attacker.

Then there is the fact that Brawl lacks a heavy punishment system. Which means that even after getting a string going your opponent can break out in which you will be put at a disadvantage and that at any given point the tables could be turned. I am not sure if this is even a point anymore or it ever was one. It has been stated that with camping the tide will hardly ever turn in your favor once you get behind. Thus it seems it has been refuted.

I disagree with people on this. I believe brawl does have a punishment system, but its not as effective, but still there. You have to pick a character that can camp and punish at the same time.

Finally is the mention that even Brawls progression of the fight is random, relying on a rock paper scissors format after every move. Which means the winner is up to random chance or simply luck. However smash is a game of weighted rock paper scissors in which certain actions are more likely than others because they are just overall better options. Next is the fact the human isn't random, or even pseudo random and that patterns will form and your opponent will become predictable.

Then again though we have spamming which is pretty predictable but not necessarily punishable. With camping this format seems pretty useless since you aren't really playing rock paper scissors for hits but rather you start with rock and your opponent has scissors. The options left to your opponent is to switch to rock also or to work and try to find a way to use paper.

It's more of a situation where scissors beats paper, paper randomly wins against rock, and rock beats scissors.

Now we can sit here and theorize about what gives brawl the ability to reward the best players. We can theorize as to whether or not this property is greater or lesser than that of its predecessor. However it seems that a clear cut answer with little room for debate is available.

What we do is simply find the best player in brawl and the best player in Melee. Then we decide what we will use to measure the property . Then we compile the data. We compare them to each other and make a decision on which one have a significantly greater property for allowing the best to win.

Now I have a few questions

How do we define the best?

Do we need a stable game in order to truly measure its competitiveness?

Out of the top 5 melee players: 1 likes brawl, 1 is going to go in the direction the community goes regardless, 2 hate brawl but play it to make money, and 1 is retiring.

There hasn't been a general consensus on whot he best brawl player is.

 

[thumbswayup]

Good **** cactuar.

 

[SiegKnight]

@Sieg: Yeah, I noticed several posts back that your tone in argument had shifted from combative to conversational, so I also shifted mine. I do make every attempt to legitimately discuss the pros and cons of the game and how the actual systems work at this point in time and how they will work in the future.

The way Scar has put it as far as the two qualities a player needs to be able to contribute this way to these discussions is unfortunately very true, and even more unfortunate is the lack of players who fulfill those requirements to the extent that I do.

I completely understand where you are coming from as far as keeping it a friendly non-competitive game. The issue in that is that I have no interest in non-competitive games for the most part as I consider my time somewhat valuable. Sure, if I am hanging out with friends and they happen to be playing, I will join in. I just have no expectation to really be interested in investing money when the odds of seeing a return on that is largely randomized and diluted because of mechanisms in the game, purposefully inserted to spread the odds of winning out so that low level players would have more "fun".

And I'm completely fine with that. Thing is, I don't know if to specifically agree with you and let it be done with, or find you arrogant and bullheaded in lieu of Scars addition to your views that you aren't neccesarily disagreeing or inclining towards.

He said your efforts were largely fruitless and that this is a drain on your patience; nonsense, I've listened to you and regardless of my love for Brawl came out understanding Melee as the better game; you certainly add way more than needed to convince me for it to seem like a drain on your patience, to me, too.

I'm really not sure on if to just take your posts as they come on their own individually or accept scars imput to them, in which case I think Smash community is a group of undeserving, close minded individuals that don't deserve their game to have improved upon itself in the way Capcom likes to please its fans by improving installment after installment competetively.

See Marshall, I respect your opinion, I really do, you just have to understand your enviroment. And for the record, I did read the thread and quite a few pages of its discussion.

At Smashboards, for the most part people will agree with your opinion in that those with most respect/credibility are the members that have been there longer, which are also most likely the people to want Melee 1.5 as they're calling it. People who disagree, whether in an idiotic manner such as mangodurban, or an intelligent manner as those two other people I can't remember, well be belittled, whether purposefully or not.

Here at Smogon, we think the opposite, as while most of us have been brawling since melee, and I'm sure many like myself since 64, we still enjoy Brawl more for a variety of reasons. I don't know how often you brawl online, but I do know that I can not recall ever seeing your name in the brawl related threads until now. Perhaps a few months/weeks ago, but certainly not in recent memory when Brawling has gotten to its fever pitch here.

I feel my post has been one long delayed read until this point. For the most part, Smogon brawlers don't and probably never will agree with you on this issue. General opinion here, at Smogon, where us Smogon regular brawlers bother to discuss Brawl, nearly demands it. Don't think I'm trying to belittle you though, as that was not my intention, just attempting to save you time in arguing what I know is your losing battle. As such, I'll leave you with my favorite of quips.

Have a nice day.
__________________

This is a quote I purposely extracted from smogon for the sake of reading here, and it applies to a great deal of people I've spoken to from here sans arguably Alpha Zealot, Jack Keiser, but more specifically excluding Cactuar as neither of the former two recognised Brawls flaws while trying to crawl up it.

Ignoring the arrogance of Scars post, Cactuar, I don't think we're neccesarily disagreeing anymore as you shifted the tone of your voice, as stated, and I totally understand your feelings regarding Brawl. I still like defensive and psychologically obsessed games though, and I've never really been good at all out offense; even if its a broken defensive game, I'm probably always going to have more fun with it than any offensive game. If it turns out **** on all serious levels I'll likely get frustrated enough to not really bother, as that is the way of things.

I bring Scars post into this not neccesarily to outpin him as a bad guy - you won't manage that in such a close minded and tightknit community, heaven forbid whatever they do to deserve it - but more because I'm entirely confused on if we're viewed as people clashing swords or just two people intelligently conversing, what with all the posts surrounding yours.

If its really a drain on your patience to explain a few pivotal flaws of Brawls that others haven't really put in such clear context I'd urge you to not bother. I'm sure if the game is that dissatisfying it'll render itself useless to me in the long run. If you're doing it out of your own nature and free time, then I appreciate the enlightenment and welcome it entirely, as thats the only way humans will grow stronger - adapting.

 

[Plairnkk]

i like how everyone on the WC was initially all for brawl and now its just going downhill

wait, did i say WC? i meant everywhere

brawl sucks

 

[Cactuar]

Scar and I are somewhat autonomous of one another as far as forming our own opinions and crafting our arguments. Anything we say supporting one another is not necessarily part of the other's argument but will often support it. Scar's fuse, regarding how far he is willing to go when dealing with repeatedly trying to explain his own argument, is far shorter than mine and I do not really have a problem explaining my own given that the person I am talking to is reasonable. There are certain individuals out there that will repeatedly make completely unsupported statements and attempt to use those as fact when arguing with us and that tends to be where we lose any desire to continue applying ourselves.

That aside, I am ridiculously elitist and incredibly arrogant. I am a complete **** to people until they prove themselves to deserve otherwise. I find there to be no reason for me to listen to someone who has not at least put some time into proving themselves as being somewhat intelligent in both conversation and smash. This is a case of guilty until proven innocent, but it is also a defense mechanism that has built itself into the way I deal with the endless waves of socially unacceptable children that browse these forums and post in response to me, thinking that they have something to contribute when in fact they, at any given point in time, will have nothing constructive to add to the argument.


As I had stated earlier, I specialize in analysis. It does not drain my patience because I often enjoy doing that more than playing the game. Most of the theories and concepts that I have put out into the community were crafted top to bottom from my own thoughts without ever really discussing them with others prior to my releasing them. I prefer my arguments being purely my own brainchild and having as little influence from others as possible at that point in time. I make no revisions to those first posts because I feel that the progress of an idea should be given a timeline and kept track of. The evolution of my ideas fueled by the discussion and influence of others is something I enjoy watching, in the same way that I enjoy watching the progress of the other smashers I play and seeing how quickly they get better (combination of their own natural talent/learning curve and their dedication to the game).

I fully support people who choose to play Brawl and would never make any argument against that. In keeping track with the point of this thread, at the very center of my arguments, I am usually keeping in mind that my purpose is only to debate the competitive viability of Brawl versus that of Melee, and I have done that repeatedly and adapted the methods of doing so according to the individuals that choose to attempt that feat against me.

Scar's point in the "draining" comment is more that we have exhausted ourselves in actual debate with some of the people on this forum. Intelligent conversation is always welcome as it is refreshing to me and tends to fortify my arguments further than they will be during a heated argument.

As for that Smogon, specifically the bolded, text...

Generally, only the frustrated and unintelligent will resort to insults in making their arguments as they really have nothing else to say. Insults and mockery are the tools of the mentally weak. I have called one person an idiot in this thread, and that was purely in response to his blatantly ignorant behavior despite several people proving him wrong. I feel that some people deserve to be labelled, but to just throw around that kind of language is juvenile and makes any valid opinion you may provide at another time less meaningful.

My apologies for the scattered layout of the points in this post, I just woke up from a late party.

 

[SiegKnight]

Generally, I believe reffering to all players as that way in a guilty till proven innocent way is a blanket statement in a certain sense, and I believe its unbecoming of someone adept at the mental tools a fighting game gives you to quickly cut to the heart of each persons individual style and come out victorious. Don't think that sort of person would need to make a blanket belief to protect themselves, as much as he'd judge each person individually.

But then I guess thats also why you bothered giving me an explanation; I'm at least not on the level of Koga and Mangodurban, right? We're not even arguing by this point, but I do have to say; am I the epitome of someone who won't listen and who renders your efforts to reason 'fruitless?'

I just wish he'd have read the progression of my mentality in relevance to listening to your points better, rather than judging so quick. He probably understands my view better now or would do so if he chose to read, but then I can also imagine why the ignorant masses would blind your eyes to seeing people as individuals.

I'm fine with elitism, the only problem it has is when it steeps into unreasonability, and thats something you've not practiced so far, so it doesn't really carry the negative connotation elitism generally does to most people, in your case.

Sidenote, I played melee earlier and I like its combat system more. It was a fun trip back in time, especially now I know all them facts and things the smash community has put into the game to give it more depth, like wd, l cancel, etc, though the latter was part of the game anyway. The main difference I like is that my combo count on training doesn't keep repeatedly being set back to 1 frustratingly, haha. I'd practice it more if my favourite characters aside from Marth were in it...

Am I blind or, aside from the backgrounds, do the characters and animation seem smoother in melee more than brawl? Completely abitrary observation but its amusing. When playing it on a wii it seems so ridicolously crisp. And the speed took me away especially, though I couldn't enjoy it much due to the awful AI and no one to play, though I was encouraged to enjoy practicing the game regardless of a lack of c stick in training mode because said training mode recorded combo counts as if it was encouraged in melee to make them.

the only thing I don't like so far is that dashdancing takes a little bit more effort and you can't just recklessly rapidly wiggle to do it, but it also takes more skill because of that, and Samus is much cooler in Melee with her ice skate style wd and L cancel for her aerial projectiles.

But pointless self indulgent speculation of Melee aside - and I know I'm an amatuer regardless of the game actually encouraging my play confidence as opposed to tiring me out like Brawl - I do have to say I'm happy you spent the time explaining and analyzing gameplay with me, it helped me realize the optimal style to play Brawl and enlightened me to realizing its not the best game out there, even if I love it in a 'marvel vs capcom' way concerning the balancing. As in, fun, but broken gameplay. I'm also glad you don't belittle Brawl regulars despite your distain for the game.

Though I certainly respect the talents and well crafted views of the other members, I am a little put off by their lack of open mindedness in comparison to your own; trust me when I say I'm not trying to one up them or earn any respect on your part, but its how I feel of this place. By a little, I mean very.

Though I could see myself easily loving the game had I been born in america and had I liked melee enough to play it often, I'd likely be a snake and disliked by the community since such arrogance is kinda unwarranted, such as Scar blindly thinking me even liking Brawl was enough to justify me as one of the people that makes you lose effort in applying your speculation.

Because, see... Contrary to many noobs, I do listen, and I love analyzing every game I come across in a frame by frame way, and climbing the ladder as much as my competition allows.

But thats just it. Where would I go to play Melee once Brawl wears out on me as a broken game and just reduces to broken fun akin to playing one of them old vs series games on Kaillera despite knowing full well its a shoddy game? The scene is dying, and in the UK, the main host of the melee tournaments and the upcoming first brawl tourney told me that it needs Brawl to survive.

I really don't have an option, and it doesn't help that sakurai decided to increase the character count - thus giving the game a very enticing factor for me - over melee drastically.

What could I do about all them factors when piled up? I'd gladly learn melee on the side if I had a steady influx of constant competition, and when I have other games to learn, its really, really hard for me. I don't like being an amatuer either, I'd like to analyze many playstyles and play tons of people at a time. They don't particularly have to be very challenging, but knowing different playstyles from my experience is the only way to get great at any given game, as patterns get you destroyed in any fighter.

I honestly have no choice.

Also, don't group me as a generic public resider of smashboards, I post where I want. I have plenty of 0 post accounts everywhere. I promise I won't use lack of fact to promote like of a game.

I think alot of what makes this hard on smash community is hype and the fact the two Smash Bros games look very aesthetically similar, and have tons of known faces in them so people are obliged to switch games even if the underlying framework is utter bull.

Is it me or is Brawl like a trojan horse? haha. Its feels painful to refer to a sequel to a good game like that, but it feels more like a trojan horse since it on surface level appears polished, nigh on perfect and absolutely diverse in terms of skill and what characters you have access to. Yet, underneath it, theres alot to put most people off...

It feels like it was a time bomb Sakurai snuck in.

 

[Zankoku]

There's always a choice. The better one is likely playing Brawl, though. The alternative of not playing anything at all doesn't seem particularly attractive in comparison.

Over here, Brawl is generally the preferred game in the tournament scene. I play Melee because I find it more fun; and I play Brawl because it's the more relevant, and I try to have some fun with it in the process.

 

[RDK]

Ultimately, you have to ask yourself why you play the game. This will most likely help you decide which one you're going to stick with.

I myself prefer Melee, but it's quite obvious the community as a whole is making a shift over to Brawl, so one has to cut his losses. If I hope to continue with the tournament scene and make money (which I do), then sticking with Brawl is the better choice, albeit a bitter one.

 

[bovineblitzkrieg]

There's always a choice. The better one is likely playing Brawl, though. The alternative of not playing anything at all doesn't seem particularly attractive in comparison.

Over here, Brawl is generally the preferred game in the tournament scene. I play Melee because I find it more fun; and I play Brawl because it's the more relevant, and I try to have some fun with it in the process.

Wouldn't the better choice be playing Melee?

edit: And personally, if the community decides to go with brawl (and thus basically disband), then I'm just retiring. "Progressing" in Brawl feels like treading water, and I get no sense of accomplishment. Plus, I don't even find the game fun, it just makes me frustrated... avoiding projectiles to get close enough to hopefully add 12% isn't too exciting. And neither is spamming in return. The strategy just so static.

One of my favorite things about Melee was picking the supposed worst characters and making them into 'powerhouses' (M2, pichu). That's dead in Brawl.

So... long edit, kind of a rant... but unless there's enough people behind Melee, the scene is going to die.

 

[Zankoku]

Melee is no fun if you play it by yourself. Unless you have some sort of obsession with practicing technical skill, or something. I personally don't.

 

[Cactuar]

As Ankoku said, it is really a decision of relevance over preferance. I have chosen not to play Brawl. Where I currently am in life, I should really be moving on. It was fun while it lasted. I came in a little more than two years ago and since became a widely recognized player in melee. I had the opportunity to travel the country and play people from pretty much every region, which is, for a player like me, wonderful because I could analyze the different styles of those regions and piece together my own from the things that I had learned.

A person entering Melee at this point in time would not have that same opportunity unless the community really reaches out and makes an effort to keep Melee above Brawl. There is no driving force really pushing melee, and our population will only decrease as players new to the series will play the newest game, making the decision based on the age of the game rather than the quality. It is unfortunate, but that is the nature of cyber-athleticism.


I think you have proven yourself as competent in this conversation. Scar does not have any vendetta against you. Historically, any person who has tried to argue with me on any issue has either been overwhelmed or converted. Generally, Scar and I do agree on these issues, so it is not uncommon to see him enter the argument with slightly more aggressive tones than my own. Ignoring his presentation in those situations, he does make valid points about the topic at hand. It is easy for the person receiving those kinds of approaches to the argument as hostile and become defensive and ignore the post as a whole because of that style. It is important to keep open regardless of his methods and understand the concepts behind his writing rather than be distracted the few areas of aggression.

 

[SiegKnight]

I could probably play melee all day now I have a thing for the technical side after learning to wd perfectly and chuckling in a sigh of relief - as if I was in a desert stranded and found water - when I found Sheiks ftilt could juggle for 6 hits in training mode as opposed to it being set back to 1 like alot of combos in Brawl, haha.

But its as ankoku said. I like Brawl alot as a videogame; I mean alot. But it doesn't really feel like a fighter to me. I find it a chore to play seriously. If I'm having a laugh and using basic, well, videogame strategy - keep away from norfair lava, throw people into port towns cars, spam moves over and over - then sure, Brawls great at that. But what if I want to use fighting game strategy for my competetive fun?

I honestly don't think Brawl feels like a fighting game in comparison to what I experienced of Melee. The strategy in Brawl is hilariously alot like what saves your hide in oldschool side scroller beat em ups or games like Radiant Silvergun. Turtle alot, spam moves a ton, grab items when you see them (edit - this is assuming they're on. I'm not stupid, so I know they're usually off in competetive brawl, haha, I was just typing as words came to mind), react as fast as lightning and be adept at platforming know how.

Thats great, but how do you get psychologically and competetively good at a game like that? I'm not sure if I'll even get too far with Brawl as its a chore to keep your endurance up during a match... Melee really excited me.

But like ankoku said, players are dying for Brawl. I guess I can't go back in time now; its sad, if I was more smarter about competetive games when younger I'd have had such a good time too. So Brawl it is, or so it seems...

 

[Brookman]

just...


"its sad, if I was more smarter"

 

[gunterrsmash01]

I think the question is can we find a technique in Brawl that lived up to the insaneness that was Wavedashing....

 

[SiegKnight]

I was stupid when young, what can I say?

 

[Zankoku]

He's pointing out the hilarity of the incorrect grammar in the phrase "more smarter."

 

[Fletch]

I think the question is can we find a technique in Brawl that lived up to the insaneness that was Wavedashing....

Wavedashing really wasn't that "insane" in Melee, it was a technique that really took about a half hour or so to learn, and wasn't really as helpful as techniques such as dash-dancing and SHFFLing. Bottom line, the worst feature of Brawl is the new hit-stun and floatiness, and there is going to be nothing found to fix that.

 

[Paskan]

Who gives a **** about proving which of the two is more competitive than the other anyways? I don't give jack two cents worth. People will decide for themselves which one they find to ultimately be more fun and people will polarize themselves to what they enjoy, and that's that. I'm going to continue doing my own thing and leave the worrying about which game's better to the egotists who need to prove themselves to a small slice of the world on some forum for "opening minds" or whatever crap they think makes them feel better about wasting their breath.

 

[Zankoku]

Who gives a **** about proving which of the two is more competitive than the other anyways? I don't give jack two cents worth. People will decide for themselves which one they find to ultimately be more fun and people will polarize themselves to what they enjoy, and that's that. I'm going to continue doing my own thing and leave the worrying about which game's better to the egotists who need to prove themselves to a small slice of the world on some forum for "opening minds" or whatever crap they think makes them feel better about wasting their breath.

It's rather amazing to see someone join and spend his first post bashing people for posting threads containing opinions on a message board just because he doesn't happen to care about the subject. Kinda makes me wonder why he would join a message board in the first place.

 

[Pink Reaper]

It's rather amazing to see someone join and spend his first post bashing people for posting threads containing opinions on a message board just because he doesn't happen to care about the subject. Kinda makes me wonder why he would join a message board in the first place.

To give his opinion on how much he hates people giving opinions. Come on, its not that hard to follow

 

[Paskan]

I didn't say I hate no one or that I don't like people giving opinions. I think making a debate to try and prove an opinion is kid's stuff. Men make an example of their lives by what they do, not what they say. I don't need to prove to no one that I'm right. I've got an opinion and that's that.

 

[Dark Sonic]

^^I'm pretty sure Lawyers make an example of their lives by what they say.

STFU

 

[Zankoku]

And one day people will learn that if they don't care about a subject, they can simply not click on the thread link.

 

[SiegKnight]

I figured the bad grammar later ;_; I kinda laughed at myself when I realized

MOAR SMARTERZZZZ

I love my grammar

Guys, seriously, beware of paskan, he's incredibly fearsome and he's going to prove to you the truth, I actually am pretty scared of this guy. He doesn't give a crap about which is more competitive, he's got an opinion and thats that. Its useless doing anything in retaliation because his opinion will vaporize you with egyption lazer beams by being there if you attempt to contradict him. He's almost holy. Watch your ****, he's a real man and he's going to make an example of his life by what he does. He doesn't need to prove no one that he's right, BECAUSE HE IS!!!1 He thinks a debate about opinions is kids stuff, so we're kids, and he's a man. He's incredibly powerful. He isn't afraid of anything. I mean, he couldn't give two cents worth.

Paskan you're real hardcore ****. I've never seen someone as scary and intimidating on an internet forum as you. I just can't believe it. You're ridicolously smart. You're a real man, a true gangsta and I'm a kid. He's going to polarize himself to what he likes, like Brawl, and then show us how its done because we're stupid and can't play compared to him. He'll uncover the hidden depth, just you watch, because he likes it moar. He's very serious about a childrens game series and he's going to ****ing kill you all.

 

[Zankoku]

Great, now you're making me look twice at him. >_>

 

[Paskan]

Haha, that's true about lawyers.

You kids just love getting into fights don't you? You're all just running up to help and fan imaginary flames. Try something else.

Kids are dying in Somalia because they don't have enough food to eat, and somehow someone thinks they're making the world a better place by trying to prove brawl isn't as competitive as melee. BS. Put that energy to better use.

Yes, if I can get you kids to stop whining and make a difference in the world, my energy is being put to good use.

 

[Pink Reaper]

Haha, that's true about lawyers.

You kids just love getting into fights don't you? You're all just running up to help and fan imaginary flames. Try something else.

Kids are dying in Somalia because they don't have enough food to eat, and somehow someone thinks they're making the world a better place by trying to prove brawl isn't as competitive as melee. BS. Put that energy to better use.

Yes, if I can get you kids to stop whining and make a difference in the world, my energy is being put to good use.

Just for this post, im going to go buy large amounts of food from my local Vons then throw it in the trash just so I know that the starving children in Somalia cant ever get. And its all your fault.

 

[FalconPunch]

STFU and go save those Somalian kids, then ****

 

[Brookman]

lollio's .

 

[Dark Sonic]

Kids are dying in Somalia because they don't have enough food to eat, and somehow someone thinks they're making the world a better place by trying to prove brawl isn't as competitive as melee. BS. Put that energy to better use.

Me and my rice interns are all going to go to Sams club and by 4 50 pound bags of rice each so we can make a rice bag castle.

Man, I could go for 81 pounds of rice from Cosco right now.

 

[SiegKnight]

see? its as I told you. we're kids compared to him. HE'S A MAN

STFU and go save those Somalian kids, then ****

OMG STFU, I don't see how you can be so cruel. he's too busy being a man and voicing his opinion on an internet forum to rescue somalian kids

 

[Scar]

Well I'm glad to see this has been constructive...

 

[SiegKnight]

back a page or two. much less bad then. we had a perfectly awesome conversation that was entirely smart until he came in. now this thread is going to be locked someday and paskans going to be part of it

blarghhhhhhhhh

I feel I lost my virginity for a second time magically

 

[Dark Sonic]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=167005&title=criceis-in-the-u.s.

http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?episodeId=166450

For those of you who didn't get the rice jokes.

 

[SiegKnight]

aha... AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA

 

[TRUXOFF]

I figured the bad grammar later ;_; I kinda laughed at myself when I realized

MOAR SMARTERZZZZ

I love my grammar

Guys, seriously, beware of paskan, he's incredibly fearsome and he's going to prove to you the truth, I actually am pretty scared of this guy. He doesn't give a crap about which is more competitive, he's got an opinion and thats that. Its useless doing anything in retaliation because his opinion will vaporize you with egyption lazer beams by being there if you attempt to contradict him. He's almost holy. Watch your ****, he's a real man and he's going to make an example of his life by what he does. He doesn't need to prove no one that he's right, BECAUSE HE IS!!!1 He thinks a debate about opinions is kids stuff, so we're kids, and he's a man. He's incredibly powerful. He isn't afraid of anything. I mean, he couldn't give two cents worth.

Paskan you're real hardcore ****. I've never seen someone as scary and intimidating on an internet forum as you. I just can't believe it. You're ridicolously smart. You're a real man, a true gangsta and I'm a kid. He's going to polarize himself to what he likes, like Brawl, and then show us how its done because we're stupid and can't play compared to him. He'll uncover the hidden depth, just you watch, because he likes it moar. He's very serious about a childrens game series and he's going to ****ing kill you all.

You're basically the coolest person on the boards, and probably the best smasher ever. So my question for you is this, how can I be as cool as you? I'm willing to work hard, and I feel that if I put in my best effort, one day I may be as cool as you. So please tell me your secret to being so cool.