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

[Jack Kieser]

This is madness, though. People who say "the way you play isn't competitive, because X, Y, and Z" are no different than those who say "the way you play isn't fun, because you refuse to play with items on New Port City."

These words alredy have established meanings. No group of players has a monopoly on either competition or fun, because different players get these things in different ways. If Scar wanted to argue "Brawl does not reward skill as much as Melee" he should have said that. As it stands, I suspect he wanted to create some drama.

You want to know what I was told? That every community in the world has 'jargon', and as such, these people have the right to take any word they want and make it mean anything they want. It doesn't matter if they use a word incorrectly and/or butcher its meaning because that's their right as a member of an exclusionary group (i.e., a group that has a selective member base).

You and I know that's a load of crap, but they don't, and trust me, it's not worth your time trying to make them realize that they are butchering the English language.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Ok, these double posts are starting to make me mad.

 

[RDK]

Ok, these double posts are starting to make me mad.

Welcome to Smashboards

 

[Jack Kieser]

Welcome to Smashboards

[dripping_sarcasm]Always great to be here... [/dripping_sarcasm]

 

[Winston]

You want to know what I was told? That every community in the world has 'jargon', and as such, these people have the right to take any word they want and make it mean anything they want. It doesn't matter if they use a word incorrectly and/or butcher its meaning because that's their right as a member of an exclusionary group (i.e., a group that has a selective member base).

You and I know that's a load of crap, but they don't, and trust me, it's not worth your time trying to make them realize that they are butchering the English language.

This is far more elitist than anything I've seen posted by the likes of MookieRah and Yuna.

I'm almost sure you're talking about the debate over the word "competitive", so here goes. Even if you're not, the example should be relevant.

What the hell is wrong with using a word to represent a meaning that's specific, relevant, and important to the smash community?

If we want to preserve the sanctity of merriam-webster's definitions, and we DON'T use the word "competitive" to describe "skill-testing, nonrandom, and deep", what are we supposed to say to mean that?

If "not butchering the english language" is your priority, why would you use the word "smash" to describe a video game? Or, let's pick some other arbitrary community such as sailing; would you go over to them and tell them not to use Port, Starboard, Tack, whatever because that's not what they're supposed to mean?

Not allowing specialized communities to use jargon to communicate is ridiculous. BECAUSE the community is specialized, there WILL be key concepts that will be discussed often that DON'T have representatives in the universally used english language. It only makes sense to give it a word.

Finally, even with whatever definition of "competitive" that you're brandishing, would you really feel right describing the pokemon trading card game (which there are championships for) and chess as "equally competitive"?

 

[Jack Kieser]

@ Gustav:

No, we wouldn't compare a TCG like Pokemon to Chess, and we never have, nor will. I didn't specify anything because I don't feel its right to dredge up the past, but since you're so willing to, I'll elaborate.

You're right in that I don't want to butcher the English language. I was taught that there are two tenants to good writing and communication: to be concise and to be accurate. Accuracy in conveying thought, however, is always priority #1. If you need an extra sentence (or word, or whatever part of speech) to more accurately convey that though, then you better take it. In that nice, long, and ultimately pointless 'discussion', I put forth my arguments as well as more accurate possibilities for describing tournament play. And what happened?

I was branded a 'scrub idiot', was called infantile names repeatedly, and was treated with utmost disrespect. All for presenting a theory and an alternate (and more accurate) word. All over a god-****ed word. I wasn't elitist by a longshot. But someone else was. I'll let you guess who.

As for YOUR argument just now... I can tell you're new to this whole 'debate' thing. 'Smash' describes a video game because it is a proper noun. A name, in other words. It's like trying to assign a 'definition' to 'Mike' or 'Bob'. In this context, anyway. (Context is always important, by the way) Port and Starboard are both, guess what, sailing terms. The words were created expressly for sailing. You can't possibly compare creating a new word to taking a word with an already well-established meaning and simply changing it for your own needs. Creating words and changing definitions are NOT the same thing.

And, by the way: jargon is fine. 'Wavedash' is a made up word, last time I checked. Calling a 'wavedash' a 'momentum slide' would have been just fine, too. Calling a 'wavedash' a 'standstill', however, would not be fine. That's what we're arguing against: taking a word and changing the definition into something far removed from the original meaning.

(Edited for Clarity)

 

[Zink]

Jack, seriously, it's really dumb to argue the semantics of "competitive". Is it so hard to accept that fighting games have a specific application of this word? Is it that hard to argue your case that you resort to such semantics and avoid the point? Because in every thread you debate in, this is always one of your main points, and it's always empty of merit.

 

[Dark Sonic]

@Jack. You do realize that language itself is just assigning words to describe concepts. And that the meanings of those words are simply what the majority agrees for them to mean. It's not uncommon for words to have multiple meanings, and what's most intresting is that these multiple meanings were just applications of the word in a different context, and then that meaning was eventually agreed upon. Ask any established fighting game or FPS community what "competative" means and you'll get a similar definition, because that is what we have universally accepted it to mean. That is the very nature of words, and one of the reasons that it's nearly impossible to argue semantics. We take it to mean something...so that is what it means to us.

Now, if you had some other arguement that this was relating to then it's best for you to make a case for that arguement, as debating the meaning of "competative" only serves to weaken your arguement by hurting the credibility of your logic. The longer you stay on this topic, the more critical and devensive people will be when it comes time to listen to what you actually have to say.

 

[SKnickers03]

"competitive" and its supposed meaning was used by the author of this thread to prove his point...it was a KEY term, or more so, a key element to his entire argument...so any support he receives or counter-arguments he receives regarding any issues pertaining to the idea of "competitive" is significant...besides...the title of the thread called for INTELLIGENT POSTS...so why not delve into this issue considering this whole debate over melee vs. brawl seems to revolve around the notion of what constitutes COMPETITIVE value

 

[Embrio]

Although I do believe Melee is a lot better then Brawl, this argument is starting to suck my passion for the series lol. I thought games were supposed to be fun and a enjoyable experience....somehow the "fun" in all this just went away.

 

[arrowhead]

we've been waiting too patiently for too long to have a smash64 2.0 waiting for us

 

[-sonny-]

LOL this thread is hilarious with the april fools joke. :D

sonic brawl

 

[Wiseguy]

You want to know what I was told? That every community in the world has 'jargon', and as such, these people have the right to take any word they want and make it mean anything they want. It doesn't matter if they use a word incorrectly and/or butcher its meaning because that's their right as a member of an exclusionary group (i.e., a group that has a selective member base).

You and I know that's a load of crap, but they don't, and trust me, it's not worth your time trying to make them realize that they are butchering the English language.

Your probably right. But I think I'll give it one more shot...

@Jack. You do realize that language itself is just assigning words to describe concepts. And that the meanings of those words are simply what the majority agrees for them to mean. It's not uncommon for words to have multiple meanings, and what's most intresting is that these multiple meanings were just applications of the word in a different context, and then that meaning was eventually agreed upon. Ask any established fighting game or FPS community what "competative" means and you'll get a similar definition, because that is what we have universally accepted it to mean. That is the very nature of words, and one of the reasons that it's nearly impossible to argue semantics. We take it to mean something...so that is what it means to us.

Now, if you had some other arguement that this was relating to then it's best for you to make a case for that arguement, as debating the meaning of "competative" only serves to weaken your arguement by hurting the credibility of your logic. The longer you stay on this topic, the more critical and devensive people will be when it comes time to listen to what you actually have to say.

Okey doke. So let's say someone made a thread saying "tourament players hate fun" and went onto explain that the definition of "fun" is "playing without caring who wins". They could go onto "prove" this fact by pointing to the hatred that tourney players have for items and crazy stages. I suspect there are enough people who would believe them that they could make their own meaning for the word, right? Then there you have it: tourament players hate fun.

If I wanted to use the word "pea soup" to refer to all food, that's my right. But I shouldn't be surprised when others think I'm talking about soup... with peas in it.

EDIT: Awesome April Fools, mods!

"I, Wiseguy, LOVE both Melee and Brawl. Both incredible games in their own way. Let's all just play the one we prefer, and let the community move on."

 

[Pink Reaper]

Your probably right. But I think I'll give it one more shot...



Okey doke. So let's say someone made a thread saying "tourament players hate fun" and went onto explain that the definition of "fun" is "playing without caring who wins". They could go onto "prove" this fact by pointing to the hatred that tourney players have for items and crazy stages. I suspect there are enough people who would believe them that they could make their own meaning for the word, right? Then there you have it: tourament players hate fun.

If I wanted to use the word "pea soup" to refer to all food, that's my right. But I shouldn't be surprised when others think I'm talking about soup... with peas in it.

Well, this would be wrong because of this: The word "competitive" used in the context of "competitive S.mash" doesn't matter OUTSIDE of the competitive community(the community that uses said definition) As such, if every single person OUTSIDE of the competitive community said that competitive players hate fun, it wouldn't matter as fun's definition would change once you entered the competitive community. Just like there are people who think competitive s.mash is t.ime matches with all items on high with all stages on, it doesn't change the competitive definition of the word.

 

[LouisLeGros]

Oh god, are we getting back into semantics?

I've already gone in great depth on this piss poor tangent. I know I used a lot of big words and that Scar didn't link the discussion on the first page, but really?

Are you really getting upset by the connotation with which a word is being used in the confines of this community/debate/thread?


Yes if we had come to an understanding that within the context of a discussion about competitive players having fun and the agreed upon definition of fun being not caring about winning you could pretty much say competitive players do not have fun. Having an mutual agreement on said definition of fun would be a whole different matter (yes I know, word filter).

If you could come up with a compelling reason for why Scar's definition is not suitable for the confines of the discussion (ie what defines skill) then that would be suitable for discussion. However, when a discussion gets down to semantics it usually is at a dead end and we have already gone down this road.

so ya pretty much,
*facepalm.jpg*

and no, I'm not a Pink Reaper clone or puppet. I wouldn't be caught dead maining Kirby

 

[Rhubarbo]

You people defending brawl never make good points you know that? he is trying to explain how the learning curve for brawl is so easy compared to melee's, so easy that its actually worth fighting about. We are trying to explain that brawl has no future, no matter how hard you try you wont make brawl even close to melee. This isnt a basketball game with a bigger hoop, this is a basket ball game with hoops on the ground the size of half the field, you can only walk, and you play with beach balls. Anyways Brawls is easy to learn and very communist game. People complaining about brawl are usually the better players, so stop saying we arent skilled people.

You're not un-skilled, I'm just saying that Melee requires more practise and more hard work to master. Brawl isn't "different" it's just Melee made easier and has things removed. To "me" Brawl is more boring, not just less competitive. Most of the fun I had in Melee was struggling to get back to the stage or trying to string a combo. In Brawl, 9/10 times I'll either recover or just go flying off the screen. In Brawl, combos usually consist of only three hits and that is also rare.

Let's put things in perspective, if Brawl had the same graphics, same characters, heck even the same music and menus as Melee, which woul you choose? Honestly, Brawl to Melee is like comparing checkers to chess.

EDIT: Darn, I just flamed you for supporting Melee! My bad the April fool's joke got me. Your post didn't make sense the first time I read it <_<!

 

[Wiseguy]

Well, this would be wrong because of this: The word "competitive" used in the context of "competitive S.mash" doesn't matter OUTSIDE of the competitive community(the community that uses said definition) As such, if every single person OUTSIDE of the competitive community said that competitive players hate fun, it wouldn't matter as fun's definition would change once you entered the competitive community. Just like there are people who think competitive s.mash is t.ime matches with all items on high with all stages on, it doesn't change the competitive definition of the word.

See, here's my problem. Everyone who plays Sma$h is a competitive player, if they are engaded in a competition of any sort. Everyone who plays Sma$h loves fun, if they enjoy what they are doing.

What is the point in dividing our community into different camps? What's the point of saying "this player/game is not competitive/fun-loving?"Answer: to exclude and belittle people/gameplay you don't like. That's all this is about.

Oh god, are we getting back into semantics?

I've already gone in great depth on this piss poor tangent. I know I used a lot of big words and that Scar didn't link the discussion on the first page, but really?

Are you really getting upset by the connotation with which a word is being used in the confines of this community/debate/thread?


Yes if we had come to an understanding that within the context of a discussion about competitive players having fun and the agreed upon definition of fun being not caring about winning you could pretty much say competitive players do not have fun. Having an mutual agreement on said definition of fun would be a whole different matter (yes I know, word filter).

If you could come up with a compelling reason for why Scar's definition is not suitable for the confines of the discussion (ie what defines skill) then that would be suitable for discussion. However, when a discussion gets down to semantics it usually is at a dead end and we have already gone down this road.

so ya pretty much,
*facepalm.jpg*

and no, I'm not a Pink Reaper clone or puppet. I wouldn't be caught dead maining Kirby

"If you could come up with a compelling reason for why Scar's definition is not suitable for the confines of the discussion (ie what defines skill) then that would be suitable for discussion. However, when a discussion gets down to semantics it usually is at a dead end and we have already gone down this road."

It's not suitable for one reason: it confuses people. It attracts people like me, who think competitivene$s means what it has always meant. If Scar wanted to avoid a senamtic discussion, he should have used plain English: "Brawl does not reward skill as much as Melee." The downside, of course, is that being specific doesn't stir up controversy. Which is what he wanted to do.

If everyone had a mutual agreement on "competitiveness" meaning "skill measurement" then whatever. But this discussion proves that we don't.

 

[LavisFiend]

Although I do believe Melee is a lot better then Brawl, this argument is starting to suck my passion for the series lol. I thought games were supposed to be fun and a enjoyable experience....somehow the "fun" in all this just went away.

Meh, just do what I do and go into special Brawl and throw all kinds of crazy crap in the mix and go buck wild.

Your displeasure caused from this site will diminish. =P

 

[LouisLeGros]

I will yield Scar leaves room for confusion when he says (I just copied his text, so it should filter back to original)

What we are arguing is that Melee is less competitive game than Brawl. A big reason for why this debate gets nowhere is because we have failed to define the word "competitive."

Competitive vs Competition

If you look it up in a dictionary, you will find a very different definition. SomeStocks the dictionary is not the place to go. Words are clumsy tools we use to try to convey thoughts. We must define the word on our own.

The definition of competitive that has received the most support is the innate property of a game allowing better players to win consistently. This yields my mantra, that which I repeat over and over to prove my point.

Where he says

we have failed to define the word "competitive."

is where I think a lot of this confusion arises. Scar is trying to get both sides of the debate on a same level of understanding about this focal point.

When you see him say that "we have failed to define the word "competitive."" you may think that it is a foolish statement. Competitive is fairly simple word with a fairly simple definition with applications that most English speakers easily understand.

However, with the Merriam-Webster definition there really is no point for this thread, that definition doesn't allow for any of the discussion that Scar wanted to bring up. Scar made this thread to create an alternative definition for the confines of the discussion. This was to better facilitate the discussion and not require every post to go on into detail about what Scar's definition of competitive is. He pretty much says all of this in his post,

As seen in Scar's original post you can see the mention of confusion over the definition. Before this thread people were trying to use the word competitive in a similar manner in which Scar is trying to have it be interpreted as in the confines of the discussion.

However, like he said there was confusion over the use of the word and thus the dialogue shifted towards semantics.

The way I see it right now we are sort of going off to some unrelated subject that this thread was intended to prevent.

 

[Ciel~Image]

You're not un-skilled, I'm just saying that Melee requires more practise and more hard work to master. Brawl isn't "different" it's just Melee made easier and has things removed. To "me" Brawl is more boring, not just less competitive. Most of the fun I had in Melee was struggling to get back to the stage or trying to string a combo. In Brawl, 9/10 times I'll either recover or just go flying off the screen. In Brawl, combos usually consist of only three hits and that is also rare.

Let's put things in perspective, if Brawl had the same graphics, same characters, heck even the same music and menus as Melee, which woul you choose? Honestly, Brawl to Melee is like comparing checkers to chess.

EDIT: Darn, I just flamed you for supporting Melee! My bad the April fool's joke got me. Your post didn't make sense the first time I read it <_<!

Yeah, the wordfilters are not really funny or original. It just makes it a pain in the *** to read the forum. Every forum on the internet is doing wordfilters for April Fool's, it's pretty lame.

 

[Witchking_of_Angmar]

Why is this turning into a discussion over the word competitive again?

Last time I checked, a word has no meaning other than the way it is commonly used by the majority of people.

If a community uses a word to describe a complex idea while still knowing its use and definition outside the community, I don't see the problem. The only meaning of the word "gay" used to be pretty much "happy." I suppose it started being used in certain circles to describe homosexuality, and since it's a much more convenient and short word, why not use it?

The thing is, the meaning of competitive is so deeply rooted into this community that there's no point in trying to rip it apart. It would be like telling nearly every country that doesn't speak english to take the word "computer" out of their vocabulary and go back to saying "ordinateur" or "Rechner" or whatever they say. Or like trying to rip anglicisms out of every other language.

 

[Wiseguy]

I will yield Scar leaves room for confusion when he says (I just copied his text, so it should filter back to original)


Where he says

we have failed to define the word "competitive."

is where I think a lot of this confusion arises. Scar is trying to get both sides of the debate on a same level of understanding about this focal point.

When you see him say that "we have failed to define the word "competitive." you may think that it is a foolish statement. Competitive is fairly simple word with a fairly simple definition with applications that most English speakers easily understand.

However, with the Merriam-Webster definition there really is no point for this thread, that definition doesn't allow for any of the discussion that Scar wanted to bring up. Scar made this thread to create an alternative definition for the confines of the discussion. This was to better facilitate the discussion and not require every post to go on into detail about what Scar's definition of competitive is. He pretty much says all of this in his post,

As seen in Scar's original post you can see the mention of confusion over the definition. Before this thread people were trying to use the word competitive in a similar manner in which Scar is trying to have it be interpreted as in the confines of the discussion.

However, like he said there was confusion over the use of the word and thus the dialogue shifted towards semantics.

The way I see it right now we are sort of going off to some unrelated subject that this thread was intended to prevent.

I don't see why its necessary to bring this into this particular debate, though. Scar had some legitimate points about Br@wl rewarding skill less. Just let people debate that, without bringing "competitivene$s"into the equation.

Because, as everyone knows, ACTUAL competitivene$s is about more than measuring skill. And therefore, people are going to get defensive about claims that Br@wl is "less competitive."

 

[Crimson)S(hadow]

how come everything i read doesnt make sense and confuses me, but if i replace the words brawl with melee and melee with brawl, everything makes sense?

eg.

"Brawl: Brawl revolved around outsmarting your opponent on an approach, always by making them think you were going to do one thing (attacking, dashing, rolling), then doing another. The speed of the game, along with the variety of approach options (wavedashing, dashdancing,, triangle jumping, dash attacking, shffling, wavelanding, retreating, rolling, dodging) made this the single most competitive aspect of Brawl. You'll never see pros standing still in the game. Note that there are many, many more approach options beyond what I listed, especially when you get into character specifics.

Melee: Melee has very, very few approach options. Each one is incredibly predictable and easily punishable. You can dash, dash attack, aerial attack, air dodge, or roll. Each one is visible from a mile away. Because of this, approaching is no longer the most viable strategy. Rather, the best strategy is to sit across the stage and lob projectiles all match."


in the post i quoted above, switch brawl with melee and it makes sense
for brawl do we mean ssbb? because brawl does not have wavelanding/wave dashing shffling last time i heard.

 

[Crimson)S(hadow]

oh. lol. now i get it. the words brawl and melee are automatically switched when i post. some april fools joke or something?

 

[Crimson)S(hadow]

**** you smashboards community.... a bit longer i would have been tricked into buying a wii by reading this thread

 

[Cookiez]

Nice triple post Crimson... Edit ftw .

 

[lonelytraveler8]

Frankly, this game is slowly beginning to sicken me. I've been fine with it up until recently. I haven't played Melee* or watched a video of it in well over a year. I was able to pick up this game, and within a few short days, I had a character that fit me and I was doing well. My Olimar and Meta Knight are clearly better than my friends most of the time, yet it doesn't appear that way.

The point has already been made, but the better player should win consistently. When I catch my friend's Falco in a grab and then dash into an uair to continue the punishment, he shoudn't be able to air dodge or illusion immediately, thereby dodging or hitting me out of an excellent setup.

I made the mistake of watching a Melee* combo video and I've spoiled myself again. I can deal with the toned down speed. I can deal with the floatiness. What I can't stand is not being able to follow up. What I can't stand is being able to lose to someone who is less skilled because they choose to camp and do almost nothing until you approach.

My brother didn't believe me that this lack of combo ability and the excess camping ability was a big deal. So I decided to show him. I played campy in the next match and easily three stocked him (out of three stocks). The problem? Playing that way pissed me off more than playing against someone who uses that strategy.

If in a competitive scene, camping was non-existant, this game would not be that bad. Sure you wouldn't be able to combo, so then the game would go to who could predict and trick better. The top of the future tier list would consist of characters like Fox who can KO with blazing fast attacks below 100%, characters like Meta Knight who can follow off stage and gimp 75% of the characters with easy at extremely low percentages. But at least the matches would be more interesting to play and to watch.

Instead, characters like TL, Pit and Falco will begin to take the top with their projectiles. I played Pit against my friends Snake last night and he literally could not approach me. When he tried to jump and arrow, it was simple to curve it into him. If he rolled to get in close, I was waiting there to hit him with various attacks...ftilt, fsmash, grab, dsmash. Guess what happened? It pissed him off and I got bored.


Bottom line: I love this game for free for alls. It's definitely better than Melee. And the items are better, too. But the best way to play anything competitive is boring as hell. And just as annoying.


Disclaimer: This was definitely a rant. As such, it should be taken that I know this. However, the complaining was with reason and I stated what those reasons are clearly. Also, I thoroughly enjoy playing this game with my friends. But I now plan to buy Melee and continue to play that just as religiously.

* Must be an April Fool's joke. Makes me sound stupid by making melee turn to brawl and vice versa when making a post.

 

[Rhubarbo]

You know what pisses me off, people that say if you are playing casually, Smash 2008 is more fun. No, because even when I play casually, I want to use skill to win. Smash 2008 requires less skill, and gives players less options. Cut the mind game **** please, Smash 2001 had just as much if not more mindgame than Smash 2008. If some artard comes to me now and says that combos are still in Smash 2008, I'd like to re-direct them to competitive videos of both games! And, if that artard says that Smash 2001 had combos because of wavedashing I will personally post a video that has no wavedashing, no l-canceling and no crouch cancelling to prove that wavedashing means squat!

Smash 2008 is a worse game because it removes:
-The option to combo
-The option to edgeguard
-The option to edgehog
-Usefulness of grabs

Smash 2008 clearly was made with noobs and button mashers in mind because spamming and camping will win you a match.

 

[bceagles]

lol, holy goodness! This thread's still going on??!?!? Last time I posted here (like 2 weeks ago), I made a nice long reasonable post like the ones above me (well more like the one that is 2 posts above me, by lonelytraveler8), and some guy yelled at me. I then left the forums and went to brawlcentral all po'd and made an account of the same name. I've been there, if you will, for the past 2 weeks, and I came back here yesterday, see this post today, and you know the rest. Sorry if this is totally off topic, but I needed to get this off of my mind. Its funny, he got mad at me for "getting this off my mind" as i just said. lolz

 

[LouisLeGros]

I don't see why its necessary to bring this into this particular debate, though. Scar had some legitimate points about Br@wl rewarding skill less. Just let people debate that, without bringing "competitivene$s"into the equation.

Because, as everyone knows, ACTUAL competitivene$s is about more than measuring skill. And therefore, people are going to get defensive about claims that Br@wl is "less competitive."

okay I tried to say this before, howeve I shall try to explain it more clearly this time.

Within this community the term competitive has taken on a meaning that is more then what Webster's says. A lot of people here understood what was meant when it was said that one game was more competitive then another.

However there were misunderstandings that hampered discussion. People like you did not have the understanding of what competitive meant within the confines of the discussion.

step forward and little bit and you get Scar making this thread to try to get what was meant with the use of competitive and how M elee is more "competitive" then B rawl with the usage of competitive

Because people were previously using the term in the way Scar has defined it, the post became necessary.

Now you still get confused by this. You don't get why there is a need to change what the word means. The problem is if people used the straight dictionary definition everyone would have to state something along the lines of

M elee is a better gauge of skill, the better player is going to win the majority of the time regardless of skill level difference, the game rewards more practice etc...

in every post. So instead of doing that, part of this community which had gradually sort of come to a common understanding of a larger definition of competitive, they used the word competitive.


We don't use the dictionary definition because it doesn't make sense in the confines of this discussion. Everything is competitive and nothing can be more or less competitive then anything else with the standard definition. However, like I stated before there had been a sort of general consensus that the word meant more then

relating to, characterized by, or based on competition

So this thread was meant to make that clear and thus allow for the discussion to be better facilitated with a clearer definition of competitive that has stemmed from this community.

So can we please get over this point? Everyone else understands what is meant when competitive or words that stem from it are used. the ACTUAL definitions don't matter.

I used to be a member of the Gamespot forums. There was a subforum there called System Wars. In System wars there was a very special vernacular.

Nintendo Fanboys = Sheep
Microsoft Fanboys = Lemings
Sony Fanboys = Cows
PC Fanboys = Hermits
and then if anyone actually were an Ngage fanboy I think they would be called a taco...

If you were using the dictionary definitions in that forum your head would explode.

Now I'm going to compare the usage of words there to the usage of words here.

When we say Competitive we mean gauge of skill, winner should win etc etc.
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but you say why not just say the parts about more skill and etc instead of using competitive, its actual definition is means something different from that and thus this usage causes confusion.

In system wars when they say sheep they mean nintendo fan, etc etc...
Now going along similar logic to what you are using in this discussion why not just say nintendo fanboy or microsoft fanboy because the actual definitions of lemming and sheep is waaay different then that.

The thing is, in their community over at system wars they have an understanding of what the terms mean and they don't need to say nintendo fanboy.
Here we have a similar situation where we don't need to say the better player should win etc etc.

People aren't going to change the way they are using the word because you won't accept their usage which isn't the dictionary definition.

 

[Jack Kieser]

...for the record, I was TOTALLY the one who said not to bring up semantics again. I'd have stopped it when it got started up again had it not been for my internet connection dying / Smashboards failing when my internet started working again.

 

[Wiseguy]

Now you still get confused by this. You don't get why there is a need to change what the word means. The problem is if people used the straight dictionary definition everyone would have to state something along the lines of

M elee is a better gauge of skill, the better player is going to win the majority of the time regardless of skill level difference, the game rewards more practice etc...

in every post. So instead of doing that, part of this community which had gradually sort of come to a common understanding of a larger definition of competitive, they used the word competitive.

Would it be so bad if people had to say exactly what they meant when endaging in a debate like this? You summed up your point in clear, precise language there... and how long did it take? A second? Two? It never hurts to ask people to put thought into their posts.

So can we please get over this point? Everyone else understands what is meant when competitive or words that stem from it are used. the ACTUAL definitions don't matter.

Some people might have known what you were saying. But looking back on all the people who have posted in this thread, its clear that quite a few were as mistaken as I was. And with so many new people joining SWF daily, confusion is bound to continue and even increase.

Even if you needed one word to use when describing skill measurement (see? that's only two words) why competitive? It's a word every English speaking person already uses outside of the context you describe. Why highjack a word with an established meaning, that every single Sm@sh Bros fan already holds dear?

I used to be a member of the Gamespot forums. There was a subforum there called System Wars. In System wars there was a very special vernacular.

Nintendo Fanboys = Sheep
Microsoft Fanboys = Lemings
Sony Fanboys = Cows
PC Fanboys = Hermits
and then if anyone actually were an Ngage fanboy I think they would be called a taco...

If you were using the dictionary definitions in that forum your head would explode.

Now I'm going to compare the usage of words there to the usage of words here.

When we say Competitive we mean gauge of skill, winner should win etc etc.
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but you say why not just say the parts about more skill and etc instead of using competitive, its actual definition is means something different from that and thus this usage causes confusion.

In system wars when they say sheep they mean nintendo fan, etc etc...
Now going along similar logic to what you are using in this discussion why not just say nintendo fanboy or microsoft fanboy because the actual definitions of lemming and sheep is waaay different then that.

The thing is, in their community over at system wars they have an understanding of what the terms mean and they don't need to say nintendo fanboy.
Here we have a similar situation where we don't need to say the better player should win etc etc.

People aren't going to change the way they are using the word because you won't accept their usage which isn't the dictionary definition.

URGH... no offense inteded, but the System Wars at Gamespot disgust me. It's a place of constant flame wars, pointless "my game console is better than yours" arguments and general pettine$s. The fact that fanboyism is so entrenched that people feel the need to divide themselves into different categories named after barnyard animals should tell you something.

I don't want the Smashboards to be a place of constant flamewars. I don't want the community divided along simplistic and false casual/competitive lines. And this is what I fear is happening.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Wiseguy... that happened a LONG time ago. This board is going to be divided until the freaking Rapture because no one knows how to accept someone else's viewpoint as valid without having to adopt it as their own.

 

[Wiseguy]

Wiseguy... that happened a LONG time ago. This board is going to be divided until the freaking Rapture because no one knows how to accept someone else's viewpoint as valid without having to adopt it as their own.

Your right, of course. But that doesn't make it any better. It doesn't have to be this way.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Your right, of course. But that doesn't make it any better. It doesn't have to be this way.

I know, Wiseguy... I know... *ominous thunder and lightning*

 

[Winston]

...for the record, I was TOTALLY the one who said not to bring up semantics again. I'd have stopped it when it got started up again had it not been for my internet connection dying / Smashboards failing when my internet started working again.

You weren't the one to explicitly bring up semantics.

However, you were the one to insult everyone's intelligence who was on the other side of the issue. As you are wont to do.

Something along the lines of "You and I (referring to wiseguy) know that their position is total bs, but we'll never enlighten them because they're close-minded competitive players who don't understand concepts like language". I'm interested to see how you'll try to put what you said in a light that doesn't make you seem elitist.

Something like that posted is very provocative. In this case, it provoked me into bringing up "the word" again.

Thanks for insulting my reasoning skills, also, and trying to demonstrate your superior reasoning skills by substituting trivial technical objections for real support for your position. I may not be experienced in formal debate, but I wouldn't say those aspects of your response were the most skillful, either.

Starboard is a word created for sailing, true, but I don't believe that even you deny that "port" and "tack" both have well-defined primary meanings outside of sailing.

Anyway, which of these facts do you deny?

1). The concept of "skill-testing, deep, and nonrandom" is very important in discussions in the video gaming community.
2). It is unreasonable to type such a phrase repeatedly when it is important enough to merit its own word.
3). The word "competitive" is COMMONLY ACCEPTED to mean the concept stated in #1 among the established gaming community, INCLUDING smashers.
4). facts 1-3 therefore make that definition of competitive perfectly valid.
5). Scar didn't make up this definition of the word just for his own thread.

The question I posed about pokemon cards vs chess in terms of competitiveness was aimed at uncovering whether your definition of "competitive" has any real meaning. Pokemon cards has skill involved and is played against other people, and yet it is significantly less deep and more random than chess. If your definition of competitive is one that would make no distinction between pokemon cards and chess, then it essentially has no descriptive power and I don't see why you'd push for the use of the word.

 

[Pink Reaper]

ATTENTION EVERYONE!!!!!!






Stop being ********, we have the definition of competitive we're going to use, if you don't like it, **** off. Jesus this is getting annoying.

 

[Jack Kieser]

...you'd think after I've been on the internet for so long, I'd learn to Sarcasm-tag all of my dry humor. I'm so sorry I let one of my dry jokes slip through the cracks. Oh, and I'm not going to continue the discussion, either (my own way to help make it come to an end), but I will say this: the fastest way to win an argument is to have your opponent accept your own measuring rod. 'Deep' is subjective (non-quantifiable) and 'non-random' is an opinion (I think mastery of random factors is as skillful as you can get). So... yes, I will always clarify when it comes to certain words expressly because I don't agree with your made-up (read: not dictionary-sanctioned) definition, and because if I do act as though I agree with it, I undermine every logical statement I make from that point forward.

EDIT: I did look up Port, which has a majority of its possibly definitions (wait for it...) having to do with sailing. Because the (overwhelming) majority of its possibly uses are nautical in nature, that is what you assume (context clues notwithstanding) it means when you see it.

 

[Dark Sonic]

^^I like that Gustav Wind. We need more people like him posting. Wiseguy is a great debater too, I'm just not on his side for this particular issue. Gustav Wind summed up the semantics issue quite nicely.

 

[Winston]

...you'd think after I've been on the internet for so long, I'd learn to Sarcasm-tag all of my dry humor. I'm so sorry I let one of my dry jokes slip through the cracks. Oh, and I'm not going to continue the discussion, either (my own way to help make it come to an end), but I will say this: the fastest way to win an argument is to have your opponent accept your own measuring rod. 'Deep' is subjective (non-quantifiable) and 'non-random' is an opinion (I think mastery of random factors is as skillful as you can get). So... yes, I will always clarify when it comes to certain words expressly because I don't agree with your made-up (read: not dictionary-sanctioned) definition, and because if I do act as though I agree with it, I undermine every logical statement I make from that point forward.

If you mean "dry" as in "completely devoid of humor"...

>.>

In all seriousness, it wasn't much of a joke.

Non-random isn't an opinion also >.> perhaps you might say that the relationship between skill and randomness is an opinion (though that would lead to yet another semantics debate)... but whether something is random is definitely not an opinion.

Sometimes I get the feeling that you go against all of the established meanings of words used by the community on purpose.

Also, lolz @ mastery of random factors. It would probably derail the topic even more, so if you feel like explaining/debating that statement pm me. I'm up for it....