This thread was primarily made to stop people from saying exactly what you said right here. "What does competitive really mean?" It is my opinion that what you're talking about is the amount of competition available in both Brawl and Melee. This debate, however, centers around which game is more competitive.
At what point did this debate change to which game is more competitive. The opening post clearly uses the word, "competitiveness." Then you go on to define what you believe the word to mean, “The innate property that allows the best to win.” Now this leads to confusion as your title topic uses the word competitive and throughout this debate the two are thrown around.
Smash has always been a game that pits two or more players against each other. Thus each player competes to win. Since players are competing the game has competitive value. Now even brawl has competitions which means there are probably competitive players which also lends to the fact that people are competing and the game has competitive value.
Now competitiveness as defined by you is the innate property that allows the best to win. It is really quite simple. In fact we could possibly come up with ways to measure this. In fact if this is the topic then there have been arguments made by both sides as to why Brawl has or doesn't have competitiveness.
1. Brawl is to random
2. Good people are losing to of lesser skilled players due to broken tactics
3. Brawl doesn't punish poor play
4 Brawl punishes the aggressive and leaves us with a single lame tactic.
1, Randomness isn't that serious of an issue. Randomness doesn't affect the supposed optimum strategy.
2 Who is to say they were good in the first place. The best player no matter which strategy he/she utilized will not lose to a lesser player. The best will either perfect the best strategy or learn to beat it.
3. Brawl simply has a different punishment system. Enough mistakes where forced or accidental will still result in a loss.
4. It is a perfectly legit tactic that the best will learn to utilize and perfect. Thus they will continue winning.
So if this truly is about which game is more competitive or which will be more competitive then the whole debate is slightly different. Now we have to define competitive this is stated in the title. "What does competitive really mean?"
Well what does it really mean? If we aren't debating on the same meaning then we can't progress towards finding the answer.
Now I would like to point out that "competitive" is a adjective. With many adjectives, point of view and opinions can effect each person’s decision on the subject.
Now the dictionary gives a definition of competitive as “Of, involving, or determined by competition." Now I am not fond of any definition that uses another form of itself to describe itself. Also as stated earlier words are just combinations of letters in which we assign definition to depending on the situation. It would be ideal to create our own definition that we can all agree and will apply. I also believe that the already established definition will make a nice starting point in which to build.
So we continue on to find the mean of competition. We are given two helpful definition for competition.
1. The act of competing, as for profit or a prize (again we have to define another word in order to find what we are looking for).
2. A test of skill or ability; a contest:
Now I think both definition of competition are usable in this discussion however the second seems to be more relevant.
Finally we define to compete, to strive to outdo another for acknowledgment, a prize, supremacy, profit, etc.; engage in a contest.
There we have our foundation. Now the true question remains what does competitive really mean? Which game is more competitive if we can even find an answer for this.
Now several members have already kicked around some ideas that may aid in developing a clear definition.
1. A competitive game is one that has two or more people competing at it.
2. “Competitive value depends on how many people want to prove themselves in a certain area by competing.” XERAMPELINAE
3. Competitive value depends on the natural depth of the game.
4. Competitive value depends on the games ability to reward skill
5. Competitive value depends on fun
6 Competitive value depends on which game is better
7 Competitive value depends on balance
8 Competitive value depends on variety
9 Competitive value depends on options
10 Competitive value depends on punishment
Now some of those listed may seem silly but I didn’t want to exclude anything no matter how silly it seemed. So what is competitive and how would you define it?
I mean, how hard it's to play both games when they can be played on same console? >_>
Don't apply your opinion as an absolute definition of what determines competitive for Smash Brothers. People who argue in favor of Brawl as a competitive game will obviesly not grasp on your personal opinion/definition of "competitive."
