I mean, you think it's not difficult to learn, that's good for you, yet I know many who feel wave-dashing is advanced and avoid using it because it's difficult for them to not only learn to do it clean but apply it well.
The fact that they avoid doing it
and coincidentally can't do it is marvelously intriguing. This needs to be investigated further, clearly.
There are people who are willing to practice to achieve what they want, and there are people who don't want much. It's one thing to question whether or not my assessment of what is and isn't difficult to learn is correct, or even valid, but I feel it's depressing I need to point out the irony here.
Your experience cannot be extrapolated on to everyone's experience. Maybe the issue here is you're generalizing through an incredibly narrow mindset (an elitist one). If you aren't learning the applications of the Wave-dash in tandem, then it doesn't matter how easily you learned to do the actual button input. It's about executing it in a match precisely. Otherwise it's just another random collection of buttons that do nothing beneficial to you.
Yes, it does matter if you learned it easily. Because if you learn the sequence easily, it becomes committed to muscle memory, meaning you don't have to cognitively think about how to
do wavedashing and instead can focus on when and how to apply it. You're acting like it happens at the same time, but sequentially this isn't the case with most people. You don't start thinking about how to pop a wheely on your BMX and do tricks with it before your body even knows how to ride a bike without falling over on it.
Why don't we skip the part where you assume you know my understanding or lack thereof, because I know exactly what you're trying to say, it's just not true.
I don't need to assume anything; you're responding to me in plain english. Unless I can't read properly, I'm pretty sure what you're talking about is incorrect, or at the very least articulated poorly.
Wut? You specifically cited Brawl as removing depth because it abolished a few technical mechanics only present in melee. Brawl added features that force you to cognitively apply new techniques as a result of those added features. They removed some from melee, but added a few with Brawl, but just because what they added wasn't your fancy doesn't mean they didn't add anything in return for what they took away.
I'm not arguing that Brawl didn't add features or mechanics that added depth. I'm speaking for Brawls accumulative depth total, because you ignorantly claimed that it has the same cognitive depth total as Melee, which is absurd.
When it comes down to it, removing technical mechanics doesn't always even mean the game becomes less exciting or fun to play, which is the whole dang point of a game. It makes things less fun for people who believe precise and twitch-reflex inputs with rewarding results are the key to a fun game, but there are plenty who don't care for that sort of thing. I will let you toil over which camp is in the majority, but either way, it's not a 1 - 1 = 0 equation. Technical mechanics add flavor of a certain kind, but they are not decisively necessary to make a game fun, competitive, nor in-depth.
You're ruining the semantics of this conversation.
First of all, "exciting" and "fun to play" are extremely subjective terms that aren't worth talking about. You can't jump from talking about the cognitive depth of a game as it pertains to in game choices, then suddenly switch trains and start talking about "fun" in video games.
Secondly, I'm talking about
mechanics, not specifically execution. There's a difference, and you're blurring the two and making your perspective hard to identify and reason with.
L-Cancelling is only the most obvious tech barrier, because there's literally no benefit to not doing it and it simply makes things quicker on aerial > ground stalls. Wave dashing is often left out of that criticism only because it falls in to this grey area that is seen as a "cool" movement technique, so people leave it alone.
No, people leave it alone because like nearly every other mechanic in Smash, or Melee, there's an associated choice between using it and not using it in the same instance. You're ignoring this fact for the sake of your own convenience and pretending its other peoples bias that's colouring the issue.
The fact is, it's no different than L-cancelling. If you don't do it, you're at a disadvantage, because your mobility will pale in comparison to your opponent.
Again,
we're not talking about mechanics as a necessity to use to play. We're talking about mechanics and the depth they cover when you do and do not use them while you play. Your logic doesn't follow because it applies to
everything.
You can't
not fast fall because if you don't you're at a disadvantage.
You can't
not use your shield because if you don't you're at a disadvantage.
You can't
not double jump because if you don't you're at a disadvantage.
See where your logic doesn't make sense?
Now if you're arguing you should
always be wavedashing, well, you're blatantly wrong there too.
If you're going to seriously try to apply that logic to every move in smash (IE Well then attacking is a tech barrier too since you can't win without attacking!), then I don't think we're going to get anywhere.
And yet it is your logic I'm applying. You see my problem here?
It's quite simple. Smash doesn't need tech barriers. You think tech barriers (since you went ahead and just said everything is a tech barrier) increase depth because it forces cognitive application of those techniques at all times, which is more cognitive activity than not applying them.
I didn't say everything is a tech barrier, I exemplified how your reasoning doesn't follow logic, and you're now assuming that's my opinion, which it isn't...because I was showing you how that opinion is wrong.
Smash "needing" tech barriers is a matter
of designer intent, perspective, and opinion. We can argue that Street Fighter doesn't need tech barriers either. Neither of us would be correct because its all a matter of which direction you, or the development team, chooses to take the franchise.
And no, I'm not implying tech barriers increase depth, since that would be incorrect and you're either putting words in my mouth or just misusing context again. Either way, that's not my argument.
I think it's a waste of effort and takes away from the experience in a way that isn't fun. So I approve of wavedashing going buh-bye. I approve of L-cancelling going buh-bye. I think the easier the game is for new players to maneuver their characters the quicker they can get in and get hooked to the game without feeling shut out or like their effort is pointless because they'll never have the play time to achieve the kind of mastery pros do. It makes a part of the game seem exclusionary in nature, and that's just not what Smash is about.
Well you are entitled to your subjective opinion.
It's not circular logic, but I fully expect your response to be something along the lines of "Read what I said again" or "You don't make sense" or some other non-constructive retort.
Yep. I didn't disappoint. If you want to me to say it again, I'm assuming you just need to keep posting.
