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

[Zankoku]

And so we hit on why Brawl is competitive. Just as Halo 1, 2, and 3 are all competitive, they simply have variant levels of technical skill, just as 64, Melee, and Brawl are all competitive, they just have variant levels of technical skill.

I'm not denying any of that. >_>

As I've said before, I play the game, I just don't get as much fun from it right now. Nothing to do with competition.

 

[Aesir]

You're 100% correct. I never played Melee at anywhere close to tournament level. I learned wavedashing and called it good. I didn't particularly want to invest the extra time it would take to learn the more advanced techniques.

I don't think you should be arguing anything in regards to melee then, if you didn't even play at a tournament level.

I'm not claiming that Melee lacked a requirement for skill in operating your character. Quite the opposite. However, because a lot of the metagame techniques were removed in Brawl, the focus is almost completely on that aspect.

Those Techs helped further the metagame in melee, so I don't understand what you're trying to get at.

Brawl lost many of those aspects. Gained some new ones but ultimately it did lose something.

I have a few friends who perfected their advanced techniques on Melee, and became almost unbeatable. When, these techniques were removed in Brawl they had to go back to square one. They weren't as good as they used to be. This does not mean Brawl is inherently less competitive. It means it requires a different skill set that will take time to learn.

sounds like your friends were just mindless tech skill junkies.

The good players in melee still win in brawl, because no matter how different the smash game is the goal is still the same.

Knock them off and keep them off. The only thing thats changed is the way you do it now.

 

[CervPurp63]

can someone please read my first post a few pages back and tell me if my thinking is rational? thanks.

 

[Scar]

There is no true ceiling of skill because a player's success is limited by other players also trying to win/improve.

And so we hit on why Brawl is competitive. Just as Halo 1, 2, and 3 are all competitive, they simply have variant levels of technical skill, just as 64, Melee, and Brawl are all competitive, they just have variant levels of technical skill.

I disagree with the first quoted post, so AZ I disagree with your post since it's more/less in consequence. Go back to rock paper scissors, yeah sure "your success is limited by other players also trying to win/improve," but like... that doesn't make it anywhere near as competitive as SSBM.

I concede in my OP that every game is inherently competitive, so saying that something is or is not competitive is more/less a worthless statement. What is meaningful is a statement about relative competitiveness. Brawl is relatively less competitive IMO than most 2D fighters out there, and most FPS games, and most definitely SSBM.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

Depth in a game =/= technical skill. Technical skill is, as Ankoku stated before, just a ceiling that everyone can reach (and is expected to at the higher levels of play).

Depth in a game = options available in the game. If you want to argue which game has more options, then by all means do so. But technical skill does not factor into the potential competitiveness (i.e. the overall depth) of a game. It factors into other things, like the learning curve or the separation between beginners and advanced players or even your own personal enjoyment of the game itself.

In fact, Sirlin wrote on the topic of technical skill, and his thoughts exactly mirror what AZ has been saying. But I don't feel like wasting my time to find that post.

 

[Scar]

Right well I agree that tech skill doesn't make a game deep, definitely. I never disagreed with that.

One of the things I was thinking about today was the point we keep making about creativity.

Well Melee at least seems to have infinitely more options available than Brawl... so many more that sifting through one's options and choosing one that works definitely requires creativity, since it is impossible to do conventional combos vs players with excellent DI. But excellent players still manage to make these combos work. It's because the game and their characters have the freedom to do so many things that one of them ends up working.

I just have yet to see anything like this in Brawl.

This has nothing to do with technical skill, the lack of tech skill required in Brawl is just a bit frustrating, but Brawl combos nearly never are a result of creativity. Earlier I distinguished between innovation and creativity.

New things are being invented all the time, but once all the innovation is out of the way I don't see Brawl involving that much actual creativity. Spacing, yes, prediction, yes, technical skill, no, reaction speed, no.

 

[Zankoku]

The options available are indeed the determining factor of depth and by extension the competitiveness of the game.

Seeing as how you still need to think to not lose in Tic-Tac-Toe, Checkers, and Chess, but the depth is gradually increasing among those; in Tic-Tac-Toe, it literally becomes impossible to lose among people who can think about two moves ahead because every single outcome can be predicted pretty easily, due to lack of options; Checkers has significantly more depth, to the extent that there's probably nobody who knows the perfect move at all times, but not nothing - Chinook is the perfect Checkers computer and playing a perfect game against it will invariably result in a tie... essentially, Tic-Tac-Toe, but with about 3,000,000,000 times as many variable endings, but still solvable and solved; Chess's depth is still being explored due to the ridiculous amount of options given in it.

By the same token, moving from 64 to Melee was a clear addition to depth - players were given more defensive options to not get automatically combo'd to death on a single hit-confirm against Isai. There's a lot of things a player on the defensive can do, and a lot of things for the offensive player to consider which may or may not counter the defender's actions.

The move from Melee to Brawl is.... debatable. Players were given a few extra defensive options, but it feels like the number of offensive options are more restricted. Sure, it's possible to play aggressive, but how many different approaches and follow-ups are you given? Are you really playing a unique style and artfully jumping through the defensive player's hoops, or are you just picking the BEST option because there's a clear BEST option at all times?

Blah. I'm not even going to touch "future metagame" and "camping" bull**** because everyone's just going to jump on that with "nuh-uh!! I have vidz!!!!" and it'll go in a circle again.

 

[Scar]

Are you really playing a unique style and artfully jumping through the defensive player's hoops, or are you just picking the BEST option because there's a clear BEST option at all times?

Wow, that really made me think. I mean I'm debating that yes, there is almost always a clear best option in
Brawl and that's why it sucks. (imo, the game doesn't actually suck, I just think it does)

Lots of smart points, I'm starting to think that maybe competitiveness is all about options and possibilities... but I'm not sold on it yet.

 

[AlphaZealot]

Its definately an extension of it, its mainly that these options give you an extension of your own thought process.

Are you really playing a unique style and artfully jumping through the defensive player's hoops, or are you just picking the BEST option because there's a clear BEST option at all times?

Its the same in Melee, heck, I've heard Mew2King talk about how in x situation there are two good attacks to use that have similar outcomes, but one attack does 2% extra damage, so that is the attack he uses (in Melee).

 

[Jack Kieser]

Yeah, you know, along with the rest of the items that encourage camping/farming.

Smooth Criminal

Actually, most items don't encourage camping/farming at all. That's a major misconception because most high-level players don't even consider playing with items on. We just held a 1v1 items tourney on the 24th with the latest 'ISP' rules that vent incredibly well, all things considering. We had a 35-person turnout, including incredible players from Houston. We had a lot of people who used to refuse to play with items on in the past come up to me and say that after the experience they had at our tournament they actually like item play and say it adds a lot to the game, including stifling camping and projectile spamming.

I know that people here like to say stuff like 'vids or it didn't happen'... so here you go. I'm not done uploading the videos yet (we'd have more, but our camera's batteries died ), but I should be soon.

So, yeah. Just thought I'd let you know that the more info we get, the more it seems that items aren't as bad as everyone is making them out to be.

 

[Scar]

Its the same in Melee, heck, I've heard Mew2King talk about how in x situation there are two good attacks to use that have similar outcomes, but one attack does 2% extra damage, so that is the attack he uses (in Melee).

M2K plays differently than everyone else, he has explored the game in the amount of detail that will allow for him to know most outcomes, and also these are only in certain situations. He is a VERY creative player when it comes down to it.

There are aspects of every game, and you can play any game in any kind of way, that doesn't make Melee less deep. I fail to see your point. Or rather I see the point you are trying to make, but it hasn't been demonstrated to the point where I would agree.

I'm trying to say that it's NOT the same in Melee at all. It took years and years of studying daily for M2K to get to where he is, honestly. He doesn't even practice Brawl right now and he feels that he knows the best options in most situations already. That is a direct consequence of the shallow gameplay Brawl offers.

 

[Zankoku]

Its the same in Melee, heck, I've heard Mew2King talk about how in x situation there are two good attacks to use that have similar outcomes, but one attack does 2% extra damage, so that is the attack he uses (in Melee).

I think Mew2King has more or less solved everything combo-wise about the Marth vs Fox/Falco matchup. Though there are several options, the BEST one is there almost regardless of who's playing the Fox or Falco.

It seems the options are significantly less clear against Jigglypuff, though. : j

 

[gantrain05]

well i dont generally like to get into these but, saying brawl takes no technical skill is pretty overexaggerated, just because u cant wavedash and L-cancel doesnt mean it takes no technical skill, i mean even in soul calibur there were absolutely zero of these "advanced techs" it was a giant rock/paper/scissors game, opponent attacks high, you block high, low/block low, and that game is considerted very competative and very techinical, so why is brawl any different? opponent attacks, you dodge, it was all the same in melee, its all the same in any fighting game, its all a giant game of rock/paper/scissors. and dont get me wrong, i love melee, i also love brawl, im just saying these debates are getting old.

 

[Zankoku]

well i dont generally like to get into these but, saying brawl takes no technical skill is pretty overexaggerated, just because u cant wavedash and L-cancel doesnt mean it takes no technical skill

It isn't just removal of L-Cancel and altering of air-dodge. Everything else was also made MUCH easier to do. Shorthop? You have all the time in the world to release jump and get it now. JC usmash? Yeah, just press up on the C-Stick now.

The technical portion of SoulCalibur is not high/low mixups, though that is a good example of offensive options and using them in smart play >_>

 

[GofG]

gantrain05:

Also, Soul Calibur is not considered a very competitive and very technical game.

 

[AlphaZealot]

Actually, I do want to point one thing out, with the removal of wavedashing, short hopping has become one of my primary spacing techniques, I find my control stick execution is much more technical than it was in Melee/needed than it was in Melee.

 

[Scar]

lmao Good post GofG. I'm putting Sam Jackson in the OP if you don't mind.

 

[Aesir]

gantrain05:

Also, Soul Calibur is not considered a very competitive and very technical game.

It was a pretty competitive game at least 2 was 3 was a joke.

But in 2 it was mostly stepG'ing and punishing, even when they were "going at it" they were still using safe blows and the like.


SC2 had a lot of things going for it. it may not have been the most technical game but in terms of depth? it was a pretty deep game.

 

[thumbswayup]

I loved sc2. My friends and I played each other all the time. That game was deep. Then 3 came out. Yeah, I'm going to play melee now.

 

[BIG C]

[16:42] sliq1337: darkk09 (5:38:33 PM): thats why melee is so good
darkk09 (5:38:36 PM): simple on the surface
darkk09 (5:38:47 PM): but layers of depth and complexity
Sliq1337 (5:38:50 PM): just like a ******
darkk09 (5:38:53 PM): word

thats all there is to it anyone who likes brawl over melee officially doesn't like va jay jay

 

[Vaul]

This argument is about $$$$

DISCLAIMER: Please ignore the '2008 join date', as most hopefully this post will be an exception to the common rule. Because I happened to join this year, I (along with other intelligent new members) are first and foremost seen as being 'noob status' and therefore are(usually with good reason) stereotyped for being nubbish and with little to contribute. I feel I have to be more vocal and controversial with my arguments simply to get any attention at all; even I often skim/skip over long posts with a 2008 join date attached to it.

You're going to read this because it's a reasonable argument which accounts for both parties and meets at a middle ground from a perspective you've most likely haven't heard before. And it's an enjoyable, highly controversial read at that. If you're the TL;DR type, then by all means continue on to posts regarding the petty arguments of who said what that just go back and forth with no progress whatsoever. I apologize I haven't paraphrased my arguments into a tiny, easily digested sound bite. Should this apply to you, I understand you don't like reading. That said, just relax, sit back, grab a beverage of your choosing, turn on some light jazz or some Big L to set the mood, and enjoy a good read.


Question: How many of you actually made an income playing Melee?

I'm not talking about the inconsistent upper placement that was able to pay for gas and a sandwich. I'm not even talking about the 1st place finishes that helped pay for any tournament-traveling hotel expenses you've had during the past 5 years, the big wins which payed for your summer vacation plans, etc. That's all just ****s and giggles. That's enjoying Smash as a past time, as a hobby, or god forbid, as a means of developing a rep that you probably couldn't get any other way. I want to know who are the real Smashers, the supposed pros, who's actual future hangs in the balance. Don't interpret that to mean I have sympathy for them; I don't, they're really ****ing good. I am simply searching for the select few who can actually be described as being "professional" Smashers. Now before you either blindly answer this question, or tell your few 'pro' acquaintances to post here to make it appear that this argument actually matters, think for a good 5 to 10 seconds, take a deep breath, and reply with your argument if you truly care. In short, when you money match someone, is the money itself the primary initiative to win, or does it serve mainly as a veil to compete, an added boost, used as a certificate of legitimacy while your main intentions are to experience tremendous pleasure when you beat an opponent at their best? That stated, let us now look at the two possible answers:

If you answered NO: Hopefully this is the majority of you, whether you choose to respond or not. This ranges from being the party game enthusiast to the experienced, articulate Smash Boards member who is highly esteemed for their arguments and contributions....but still don't place well at major tournaments (with 'well' being defined as actually making good money). I use money as a means of OFFICIAL competitive legitimacy for a few reasons, most notably because a player can win every single tournament they happen to attend, but it only means so much when the tournaments they went to were small and their per tournament earnings were never over $100 (that's just a guesstimate, definitely not the defining threshold). If you fall anywhere within these stated extremes, please ask yourself the following question:

Why am I so concerned with the Brawl v. Melee debate?

I'm sure the most common retort I'll hear would be somewhere along the lines of "Because I have played smash for years and its competitive nature has been a major hobby/part of my life. Just because I don't make a lot of money doing it doesn't mean it isn't important to me." Or, perhaps it could be "As a 2008 join date member, you (Vaul) cannot possibly understand what this community is all about. We've spent YEARS turning the Smash metagame into what its become today and have developed a common bond amongst one another that even transcends the actual game of Smash itself. Just because it doesn't mean much to you, it doesn't automatically determine that it doesn't mean much to us."

These are really, really sweet and heartfelt. Srysly. I can't argue with that. But, I can address them.

If the first probable retort is most like yours: Do what you want. I know this argument has been reiterated countless times by those partaking in Brawlphilia, but really, please think about it. To briefly state the obvious (I swear my arguments will become more original), no one is stopping you from playing S64, Melee, or Brawl. You and your flock of birds of feather can fly together (zing). If your claims don't go beyond your personal and subjective views on the superiority of Melee or the promise of Brawl, then what's your point? By bi'tchin and whining at each other, what are you trying to accomplish? Do you feel that you're being attacked and must defend yourself? Are you trying to be as vocal as possible so Nintendo just might possibly hear you? Are you trying to convince the community to not fall into the fad and stick with Melee/to adjust smoothly into Brawl and embrace it since Brawl is the future and Melee is dead? More specifically, by saying Brawl is inferior....what the **** are you trying to prove aside from whats been stated above? If you're trying to pursue one of the said goals....good luck buddy. If you're doing it just because you feel the need to vent and whine about your "complete disappointment with looking forward to Brawl for, like, YEARSS", then I am truly, truly sorry for your loss. Unfortunately, there's nothing we here at the Community can do regarding Brawl's gameplay. That, and we really don't care about your personal complaints and immaturity regarding a video game. The same applies to your opinion of me. If you don't give a ****, don't respond.

If the second retort is more probable in your case (sorry this is going a bit slow, by the way), then yea, I can sympathize. But I can't empathize with those who are seriously worried about the division of the Smash community and who believe that a community which plays two different games can't possibly work/would be the near equivalent of Smash Armageddon. I know people often forget this sometimes, so I'm going to do a favor to all of those with their panties up in a bunch and tell them this: No matter how much you've let Smash consume your life and no matter how much perspective you may have loss......Smash is a video game. Let me say that again. Smash is a ****ing video game. This isn't a decision between whether to continue to use petroleum or invest in renewable energy, to allow women to vote or not, to legalize more drugs or enforce laws further. This is Melee vs. Brawl. A video game vs a video game, or more like which video game we should choose to play with eachother. You thrust your arguments and spew your data and facts for why one is superior to the other, but how many of you actually vote? And for the inevitable responses of 'these big picture arguments have no place in a video game forum", then perhaps, but that still won't change the fact of how unbelievably ignorant you are.
But staying to the topic, would two separate communities really dismay you that greatly? This isn't your father fighting against you in a civil war, this is a friend who likes one video game designed for parties more than the other video game designed for parties. If this s*** keeps on going any longer, then perhaps that will be the best course to pursue, because as Samurai Panda said, this argument is deterring new players from the Smash scene in general. If you don't care about a large group base, all the more power to you. If you do care that your community supporting a better video game is dying for no real logical reason, then, not to come off as condescending or anything, but boo****inghoo. This eventually happens to all video game communities; complaining and whining can't stop it. I'm not saying you should stop playing Melee, by no means absolutely no. You can still enjoy its gameplay forever and always. But if you're trying to resist the tide that is change and bring others to your cause...you're pretty screwed. Plus in no way will Melee disappear from the community scene for years to come. Compared to my involvement with the Populous: The Beginning community (never even heard of it have you?), you guys are pretty well off.

To sum up those who answered No, many of the more vocal and polarized debaters are being excessively melodramatic. Don't barrage me with your petty tears and how much Smash means to you. You are most likely only part of the competitive scene because you want to prove/test yourself at how good you are doing what you like best. Did Overswarm win anything from that first huge Wi-Fi tournament which was actually useful and tangible? He quotes himself saying how bad he felt losing in Melee and won't be 'that person' in Brawl. Okay. Great. Insecurities aside, are you playing Smash for a reason other than you enjoy Smash and want a good rep? If you aren't, then I have no problem with that and you are certainly succeeding with that stated policy. But if it doesn't extend anything beyond the sensation one derives from 'competition' itself, then what does this whole argument matter for? (I'm only using Overswarm as an example because of the quote; I have nothing against him and do not mean this to sound hurtful in any way).

This same question applies to the other side of the debate: If your livelihood and general well being doesn't rely on whether Brawl or Melee is used, why are you arguing with a one-track mind for Melee over Brawl? If it's because you find Melee more rewarding and it makes you all happy and tingily inside, no one is taking that away from you. It may SEEM that you're once happy go lucky lifestyle is now under siege by Brawl and the Noob Army, but please, be realistic. Ignore how defensive Brawl is. Dismiss its legitimacy as a fighting game because "there aren't any REAL combos, they can easily be airdodged and DI'ed out of. There's no skill and I'm Yuna so its true" ('Seriously, how many competitive Smash players can there really be in ****ing STOCKHOLM?? I guess there's enough to allow your self-esteem to ride on it' - Vaul 2008). If you're truly rational, you should not give that much of a **** about Brawl and stick to your guns. For you, Melee is here to stay and always will be. And as I stated earlier, I wouldn't worry about losing a Melee fanbase anytime soon. Populous the Beginning. Enough said.


If you answered YES: All personal preferences and opinions aside, your stances on the issue are the only ones which truly matter in determining whether Melee or Brawl is OFFICIALLY used for competitive play in large tournaments. This is your skill we're talking about, your money, and your life. You alone can decide what professionals will do. Anyone else who argues that even though their not pro but still find good competition to be very important to them, then let them do whatever the hell they want. They're concerns about losing players for tournament play are understandable, but really, they are merely complaining about giving up something they're worked so hard to attain. Perhaps they have not truly experienced disappointment in their actual lives. Yet no matter, for they are just playing for fun and making a name for themselves; this is truly what it all boils down to.

Now don't get me wrong, I ****in love video games. I probably enjoy Smash just as much as you do. I too find great pleasure in beating a good Pikachu to a bloody, yellow pulp using DK's merciless fists. Competition is fun AND its good for keeping the game going for an extended period of time. That said, do what you want to do. But don't preach to others and flame them if they don't happen to share your views. It's not constructive, it's whining. For those who answered yes, just remember that Brawl currently has the larger and fastest growing fanbase, hence this game will be where the money ends up despite the lack of technical skill and intensity. Im not qualified to claim which is better for official competitive play (this is a competitive web site afterall, those seeking competition should just pursue where the competition actually is). Since you are most likely the ones who have defined competitive Smash as we know it, developing the game on an individual scale in the endless pursuit to overwhelm the competition for the greatness that is victory, truly you are the best (if only) qualified personnel to make an official decision. Everyone else can do what they want and STILL find the initiative, namely money and competition, to encourage them to continue playing their video game.



10char

 

[SamuraiPanda]

The options available are indeed the determining factor of depth and by extension the competitiveness of the game.

Seeing as how you still need to think to not lose in Tic-Tac-Toe, Checkers, and Chess, but the depth is gradually increasing among those; in Tic-Tac-Toe, it literally becomes impossible to lose among people who can think about two moves ahead because every single outcome can be predicted pretty easily, due to lack of options; Checkers has significantly more depth, to the extent that there's probably nobody who knows the perfect move at all times, but not nothing - Chinook is the perfect Checkers computer and playing a perfect game against it will invariably result in a tie... essentially, Tic-Tac-Toe, but with about 3,000,000,000 times as many variable endings, but still solvable and solved; Chess's depth is still being explored due to the ridiculous amount of options given in it.

...

Are you really playing a unique style and artfully jumping through the defensive player's hoops, or are you just picking the BEST option because there's a clear BEST option at all times?

First off, let me commend you for a post well written right there. Potential depth is indeed determined by number of options, but you can't just give options and hope a game is competitive. There is a difference between options given and options that are viable. The balance of these options plays a large factor into the depth of the game. A game that provides you with 100 options but only has 1 viable option is no doubt a shallow game at heart. If in chess there was clearly one best option available to you from start until finish, it wouldn't matter how many options you're given throughout the game, there is truly only one option. A truly deep game provides you with 100 options, with many of those options viable and equal in balance, at nearly every point throughout the start and finish of the game. Thus allowing participants to actually have a unique style.

Its like playing a game of connect the dots from one side of a paper to the other side. I could go straight up or I could go in a zig-zag pattern through the middle taking my time. Both of these methods reach the end of the paper and each produce a unique line when they finally reach the end. In this game, each of those dots represents a different option to the person connecting them. The fewer dots there are, the fewer options available to reach the end, and the more similar your line will look to everyone else's lines. Now imagine that in this game of connect the dots, some of these dots are somehow actually dead ends when you connect your line to them. Every time you hit a dead end, you erase the dot before you start again. Over time you will end up with fewer dots you than you started with, until you eventually end up with game of connect the dots that only has dots that bring you to the end. That is the final product that we are dealing with, and that is what determines the depth of any given game.

So, to apply this analogy back to the subject at hand, the first measure of defining the depth of a game is to first look at the number of "dots" available. Now you can start connecting some dots from one end to the other and discover these dead ends. But discovering some of these dead ends is a much harder processes in the real world. Some dots are only dead ends when connected from a specific dot, or some dots may be "alternative" pathways to the end, but only if your opponent is taking a certain pathway. It will take a significant amount of time before you can truly erase some of the dots. In the end, determining the final number of these dots is not something that can be done quickly or simply, and many times you will actually end up discovering more dots as you play. The evolution of a competitive game is this process of discovering the dots and erasing the dead ends. After you finish this evolution, if you are left with the potential to have hundreds or thousands of unique lines when you finish a round, then you are dealing with a truly deep game.


Sorry if that didn't make much sense. This analogy made perfect sense in my head but I don't know if I was able to convey the concept well or not. *sigh* But now its time to go back to studying.

 

[Ban3]

i understood it...sorta lol

 

[TheGlitchMaster]

These HUGE arguments over which game is better is Blasphemy to Brawl and Melee AND 64! Just play the one you like, stay in your respective corners of the site and don't rag on the one that "has less style" or "no comboing"

 

[Ban3]

These HUGE arguments over which game is better is Blasphemy to Brawl and Melee AND 64! Just play the one you like, stay in your respective corners of the site and don't rag on the one that "has less style" or "no comboing"

u obviosly did not read the opening postlol

 

[Zankoku]

Sorry if that didn't make much sense. This analogy made perfect sense in my head but I don't know if I was able to convey the concept well or not. *sigh* But now its time to go back to studying.

It makes pretty good sense, and I only skimmed it : P

Basically you're saying that the depth is in the combination of options, viable options, and how far ahead you're required to look/think to determine which options are viable/optimal.

 

[Scar]

Vaul screwed up basically every "Your vs You're" possible.

Updates:
-His overuse of the word petty is sort of irritating too.
-At this point I'm through the first paragraph or so and it seems like he's being a presumptuous jack***. We'll see if it turns around.
-lmao he just said "it's just a video game." Wow. Thx dad.
-Wow did you really just call me ignorant? So since I'm not at the forefront of every political issue on the planet I should just treat EVERYTHING in life with that same apathy? Get off your high horse, these things are important to people whether you find them important or not. Hypocritical at least, I find this entire post to be ignorant so far, and offensive and preachy and worthless at that.
-Ok so the rest of the "No" segment, and basically this guy thinks there's some kind of war going on?

Man, this whole argument is different people expressing their views and opinions. No one is urging anyone to stop playing either game. All of us by now have accepted that we're either going to play Melee, Brawl, or both, and we're fine with that.

At this point we're just talking about their differences, it just so happens that there is a lot of evidence to support the claim that Melee is a harder game to get better at even after mastering it technically. So the Melee guys say that the Brawl guys are playing a kid's game, and the Brawl guys are saying that Melee guys refuse to move on. It's natural human responses to a situation that happens all the time.

Your post so far has been a gigantic waste of time because you just don't even know what's going on.

Finally, there is no official decision to be made. Now that that's cleared up maybe you can just edit the whole post and say "Oh wait, this isn't a debate over which official decision to make? Oh, my bad."

Both Melee and Brawl tournaments are being held all around the country with two things: less attendance, but participants from farther distances. MLG and EVO will probably not pick up Melee ever again, and they may pick up Brawl, but honestly that comes down to the money and what EVO and MLG care about, not the community.

Also glitch master definitely didn't read anything either. nub.

Edit: Yes I'm going to give my commentary on Vaul's post.

 

[TheGlitchMaster]

I didn't and i'm to lazy to!

 

[arrowhead]

the dots analogy makes sense, but what were we supposed to get out of it? to not reject brawl just yet because it may have lots of potential? how do we even know how many dead ends we've met and how many more connections there are? the rate of change in the metagame is the only thing we can use to estimate that, and even then it's not completely reliable.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Vaul, I hate to say it but you're probably going to be ripped a new one. Suffice it to say, I only come to threads like these now for some quick entertainment during work (which may or may not be a good idea considering I associate with dumb people all day IRL, and then read about other dumb people online), but I can safely say that you made a few main errors in judgement.

1 ) You bashed Yuna. Yuna is well respected here (even though he is incredibly harsh and hard-headed), and people are probably going to bash you because you bashed him, even if they agree with the majority of your post. It's dumb, but it's true.

2 ) You said someone was wrong, and it wasn't the Brawl players. Most people can probably agree that, at the end of the day, no one is wrong in this discussion, but at the same time it is a kind of unspoken agreement that Melee is better than Brawl and to think otherwise (or even that one isn't inherently better than the other) is high treason against Smashdom. Some people may say they don't think like that, but the majority of the people here act as though that's the case anyway. Actions speak louder than words, and a lot of people here forget that (which sucks considering how much 'theory fighter' is played on SWF).

3 ) You said that the opinion of the majority of the people in this discussion ultimately doesn't matter. For the record, I agree with you. I don't run MLG or make a$$tons of money playing this game, so I don't think that my opinion matters much, in the long run. But most Smashers do think that their opinion means the world just because A ) they have a non-recent join date, B ) they have a high post count, or C ) they have been to a lot of (or even just one major) Smash tournaments. Tell them otherwise, and you're just asking to be cyber-reamed. Most people on message boards have a massive superiority complex, and you have to be careful about that.

So, I agree with your assessment of the situation (mainly, that there is a lot of needless and unwarranted whining going on in SWF)... but prepare for the flame-storm.

 

[Scar]

So, I agree with your assessment of the situation (mainly, that there is a lot of needless and unwarranted whining going on in SWF)... but prepare for the flame-storm.

Ok sure, if there was whining, then your posts are great.. but it's not whining. It's discussion.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Ok sure, if there was whining, then your posts are great.. but it's not whining. It's discussion.

I'm sorry, but you're deluding yourself if you think that the majority of your 264-page thread (on default viewing settings) wasn't whining. YOU don't whine; the intelligent posters don't whine. But many people, the majority of the posters on SWF (pro-Melee AND pro-Brawl) DO whine, and whine a lot.

 

[Samochan]

To add to Jack Kieser's (3) post... if majority of people's opinions did not matter even if they came from intellectual and experienced individuals, what would be the point of discussing this on forums if only the utmost elite people who are professional gamers were allowed to voice their opinions? <_> It would ultimately get very quiet here.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

the dots analogy makes sense, but what were we supposed to get out of it? to not reject brawl just yet because it may have lots of potential? how do we even know how many dead ends we've met and how many more connections there are? the rate of change in the metagame is the only thing we can use to estimate that, and even then it's not completely reliable.

In the context of this argument? Well, I merely wanted to define the words "depth" and "competitive" as they underly every single argument made on either side of the debate. I made it moreso to just convey my personal view on what makes a game deep, but I guess it could also serve to put people on the same page to an extent.

And the reality of the matter is that we don't know how many dead ends we've met, and how many new dots there are to discover. In fact, the number of dots and possible pathways that can be seen are different for person to person this early in the game. It wasn't too long ago that my friends were talking about how impossible it was to punish DeDeDe's recovery, and now everyone recognizes how easy it is to hit him out of it (which is what I said since the beginning).

Urg, I'll finish this later tonight. I got a phone call.

 

[Vaul]

Vaul screwed up basically every "Your vs You're" possible.

I corrected the 7 grammatical errors you mentioned. I did not know grammar was that relevant here (although the 'you're game, you're lives' part was pretty ********). And I used 'petty' like what...twice maybe?

Updates:
-His overuse of the word petty is sort of irritating too.
-At this point I'm through the first paragraph or so and it seems like he's being a presumptuous jack***. We'll see if it turns around.
-lmao he just said "it's just a video game." Wow. Thx dad.
-Wow did you really just call me ignorant? So since I'm not at the forefront of every political issue on the planet I should just treat EVERYTHING in life with that same apathy? Get off your high horse, these things are important to people whether you find them important or not. Hypocritical at least, I find this entire post to be ignorant so far, and offensive and preachy and worthless at that.
-Ok so the rest of the "No" segment, and basically this guy thinks there's some kind of war going on?

.

When did I call you ignorant? I surprised your that personally offended. I suppose I could have done what the past hundreds of posts have done and directly address the specific physics of what make Melee more competitive than Brawl, but really, the arguments are getting old and redundant, nothing is progressing, etc. I'm merely stating my opinion; if I am the ******* and ignorant idiot you claim I am, then why are you so offended? It sounds like you read my post with a closed-mind/already taking a side before you hear the issue. By immediately taking a claim as personal and as though you're being attacked, there's no possible way for you to logically reflect on my argument with an open mind. It is one thing to point and laugh, but you sound like a worried mother over violent video games. Oh, and SP was the one who told me to specifically post it here. If you have issue with that you can take it up with him.

Note that the perspective aspect of my argument was just for that...remind you to keep things in perspective. It's a checkup is all, I'm not assuming you don't have other passions in life, I'm sure you do. When did I say you should apply your apathy towards one field and must apply it to all others? Once again, I think your hostility (although that is partially my fault for purposely making it controversial) is making you see my views as something they're not. It's also meant to provoke people into continue reading, in which it has succeeded.

Man, this whole argument is different people expressing their views and opinions. No one is urging anyone to stop playing either game. All of us by now have accepted that we're either going to play Melee, Brawl, or both, and we're fine with that. At this point we're just talking about their differences, it just so happens that there is a lot of evidence to support the claim that Melee is a harder game to get better at even after mastering it technically. So the Melee guys say that the Brawl guys are playing a kid's game, and the Brawl guys are saying that Melee guys refuse to move on. It's natural human responses to a situation that happens all the time.

I completely agree. Let people do what they want, that's exactly what I'm saying. If you actually believe what you say though (i.e. Melee takes more skill than Brawl, we're not preaching, etc.), then why did you make this thread in the first place? If the competitive vs. competition idea is so apparent and generally accepted, then what's your point? Not to mention half these posts don't directly address competitive vs competition in the first place. So why are you so offended?

Your post so far has been a gigantic waste of time because you just don't even know what's going on.

Finally, there is no official decision to be made. Now that that's cleared up maybe you can just edit the whole post and say "Oh wait, this isn't a debate over which official decision to make? Oh, my bad."

Ah yes this is true, I have no idea what I'm talking about merely because I didn't directly address your supposed 'argument' which so many have done before me. You said yourself this is a thread about posting opinions (as I stated, of which roughly half don't address competitive vs competition), so why are you so up tight about someone who doesn't share your views? If I'm that clueless and ignorant, why did you further waste your time (and will do so again with your response) by replying to me? You probably should have taken an open minded stance when reading it (the beginning is intentionally provocative to draw readers in, as you have) and looked at it as objectively as possible despite my clamor. I apologize that it offended you, I honestly didn't think people (except Yuna and Overswarm, ofcourse) would take it nearly as personal as you have. If you weren't so offended, you would have shot down my argument with good reasoning, but instead you labeled and flamed me without using good reason, expressing only your disapproval and how offended you are. How legitimate do you think I really can view your arguments through my perspective?

I'm sorry if there was any confusion regarding my genuine arguments and what was meant to be merely provocative/ironic. Perhaps I should remove all humor and sardonicism for the sake of clarity, but I rather have guaranteed readability.

And what's to keep you open-minded when you commented after reading a segment? Because my writing isn't one-track minded, you assumed everything stated in the first 2 paragraphs represented everything I was writing; no one can change that mentality midway.

Last note, I'm assuming/considering the SBR to be the official in this case. Although they have no actual control over what tournaments decide to do, it's generally accepted that what they say will be eagerly accepted by anyone with a Smashboards account. If you have any objections or alternatives to this, by all means please say so.

Vaul, I hate to say it but you're probably going to be ripped a new one. Suffice it to say, I only come to threads like these now for some quick entertainment during work (which may or may not be a good idea considering I associate with dumb people all day IRL, and then read about other dumb people online), but I can safely say that you made a few main errors in judgement.

1 ) You bashed Yuna. Yuna is well respected here (even though he is incredibly harsh and hard-headed), and people are probably going to bash you because you bashed him, even if they agree with the majority of your post. It's dumb, but it's true.

Oh I am fully aware of the flaming I invited; I'm not trying to hide behind some bubble and claim I'm holier-than-thou. Only the hardcore anti-Brawlers will not see how over the top I am at times and be offended.

And yea, I give Yuna a little jab. If Yuna doesn't find the humor behind it, so be it. I (and I'm sure Yuna) couldn't really care less.

2 ) You said someone was wrong, and it wasn't the Brawl players. Most people can probably agree that, at the end of the day, no one is wrong in this discussion, but at the same time it is a kind of unspoken agreement that Melee is better than Brawl and to think otherwise (or even that one isn't inherently better than the other) is high treason against Smashdom. Some people may say they don't think like that, but the majority of the people here act as though that's the case anyway. Actions speak louder than words, and a lot of people here forget that (which sucks considering how much 'theory fighter' is played on SWF).

I completely agree. I never said that Brawl was just as technical/took as much skill as Melee. That would be terribly idiotic. I share the same views you just described.

3 ) You said that the opinion of the majority of the people in this discussion ultimately doesn't matter. For the record, I agree with you. I don't run MLG or make a$$tons of money playing this game, so I don't think that my opinion matters much, in the long run. But most Smashers do think that their opinion means the world just because A ) they have a non-recent join date, B ) they have a high post count, or C ) they have been to a lot of (or even just one major) Smash tournaments. Tell them otherwise, and you're just asking to be cyber-reamed. Most people on message boards have a massive superiority complex, and you have to be careful about that.

Well as Scar said, this thread is about posting opinions and responding to them. I've posted mine and will respond in kind no matter what form their responses may take. My opinion doesn't mean anything more or less than theirs (with the SBR/'pro' exception). And of course they believe their opinion is the world. What else can they believe in?

So, I agree with your assessment of the situation (mainly, that there is a lot of needless and unwarranted whining going on in SWF)... but prepare for the flame-storm.

I'm glad you read my post, saw through the intentional hypocrisy and irony, and accepted the argument for what it was. Now it's only a matter if others fail to do the same.

 

[Ban3]

then why did you make this thread in the first place? If the competitive vs. competition idea is so apparent and generally accepted, then what's your point?

As you know or will soon find out, I firmly believe that Melee is a more competitive game than Brawl. Also better competitive, but that's neither here nor there. This thread is not here to argue that point (though I will do that from time to time). My main goal is to focus on the reasons for why opposing sides can't seem to agree on anything ever.

ten characters

 

[bovineblitzkrieg]

Actually, I do want to point one thing out, with the removal of wavedashing, short hopping has become one of my primary spacing techniques, I find my control stick execution is much more technical than it was in Melee/needed than it was in Melee.

I find that shffl'd waveshine waveshine waveshinegrab uthrow uair uair uair with DI chasing requires far more control stick precision than anything in Brawl.

Even just using triangle jumping to space is more precise.

But, to each his own.

 

[Scar]

thx Ban3. Another reason I made the thread was that before this thread, the idea wasn't generally accepted. People were actually using both words interchangeably. I hope that at this point it is generally accepted and if it is then I'd certainly take some credit for it, but I'm pretty sure we're not there yet.

I'll respond to the rest later.

Edit: And @ Bovineblitzkrieg, that's exactly what I wanted to say to AZ. I don't understand how anything in Brawl can even be compared with technical skill in Melee. At all.

 

[Vaul]

@Ban:

The point of this thread is mainly to further the discussion of which game is more competitive, Brawl or Melee.

From the OP. So which is it? And I actually DO address competitiveness in regards to both games....

This coming from someone who, minus 'for fun' lists, hasn't posted anything over 3 lines long, god forbid an actual argument he defends. Quoting and snickering is a great way to not actually make yourself vulnerable and still feel good about yourself.

 

[Ban3]

hey no need to attack me like that all i did was answer ur question with a quote. and also its about the quality not quantity