First off, lies are intentional.
From dictionary.com
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
Learn the English language.
Oh, I'm
sorry for having English as my 3rd language! I made
one lingual mistake! Woe is me! You were
spreading falsehoods then!
And you didn't even own up to it! Just admit you were
making **** up and/or
spreading falsehoods instead of arguing semantics.
I know Yuna's arguments are stronger than mine.
I still did refute other points.
I did however get stopped by Eyada...
You got "stopped" by
Eyada?
No, I don't reply to your entire posts because I get exhausted just reading a single one. Your aggressive, offensive, long-winded style of argumentation is off-putting and is not condusive to a debate with a positive outcome (regardless of what it actually is).
Aggresive, yes. Offensive, only to those of a faint heart. And if you don't want to read people's posts in their entirety (or at least more than 1 sence here and there),
don't reply to them.
You are
cherry-picking/randomly picking what to reply to. Thus, hypocrisy.
None of what you've even said matters. Fighting game history doesn't matter. Brawl is not a fighting game in the traditional sense and characters are not sacred no matter how much you keep spouting on about them. Even if they were, it's appeal to tradition. Look that up, buddy. Tournament results are in the pro-ban argument's favor.
I just told you why it matters. Because we have precedence that proves that the doomsday scenario your side loves to paint up will not occur.
Every time you start posting, you say the same ****. "That's not good enough." Well, I think it is good enough. The whole argument is opinion. There's no fact here. There's no definitive answer. We're going back and forth over how we think a situation in the game should be handled.
I used several facts in the post you just replied to. You used zero facts in this post I'm currently replying to. Hypocrisy, much?
Cold, hard reality (and I mean, non-idealist, no-bull**** reality) is this: Meta Knight is ****ing ridiculous and it's not going away. There's not going to be some hero character or AT discovered in the next year or two years or five years that magically makes MK less prominent, less important, less absurdly centralizing. It isn't going to decrease the sense that not picking up MK as a secondary at the very least makes you less competitive. Nothing is going to be discovered that makes competitive players less inclined to do what makes them win. You don't have a problem with that? You don't care that most people are playing one character? You think that's just the way figilhting games are? Are you really going to claim to be the most logical person here and ****ing appeal to tradition in the same breath, you *******?
Most Competitive video games have a character like MK, a character that's a great counterpick or main. We've already showed you why this isn't enough for a ban, especially since
people are winning with characters other than MK.
You're the one who wants an idealist BS world where at least half the cast is viable or some such BS.
Guess what, the MK gone, the number of viable characters will increase by one: Marth. Yay!
Well, *******, I do have a problem with it and as of right now, at least 48.70% of the people who voted in this poll do, as well as at least half the SBR.
And you know this since when? You're not in the SBR. Are you making stuff up as usual?
Even more of them are waiting for the Apex and Genesis results if you were standing next to me, you couldn't look me in the eye and tell me what you thought the results were going to be without there being at least six MK mains and secondaries in the top 10.
Yes, and? Whoopitty doo. How horrible! Six MK mains and secondaries (oh noes, secondaries!) in the Top 10!
Apex isn't even over yet.
That is reality. Get your head out of the god ****ed sand.
I know fully well what the reality of things are. And I'm asking: So what? Get
your head out of your tuchas. This isn't Super La La Brothers Happy Genki Brawl. If MK takes 6 Top 10s at Apex, so be it. Who cares? That's the reality of Competitive fighting games.
Only someone who has never played any game other than Smash Competitively would whine about something such as that. Other scenes suffer far worse **** in the results (most notably 3rd Strike) but they don't care. And their scenes are flourishing better than Brawl's.
EDIT: LOL at Yuna probably quoting my post line by line and responding to every single one with an aggressive, substanceless argument that no one has time or energy to reply to.
This is rich coming from someone who has yet to provide a single fact or piece of evidence to substantiate his arguments other than subjective analysis of cherry-picked tournament results (and assumed such results of Apex).
Hypocrisy yet again!
Meta Knight is banworthy because it would be that much better a game without him
BS argument. Why don't we ban all of S and Top Tier? Because the game would be much more diverse and thus, better, without them.
We don't ban to maximize subjective notions such as "fun".
It doesn't matter because they aren't playing this game. Even so, MK is a unique situation. Old Sagat is the closest one we've got and he had even match-ups, Meta Knight doesn't. It's true that MK isn't Akuma, but MK also is not Sagat.
This proves just much you've followed the discussion.
Yun (3S)
has zero disadvantageous match-ups, zero even match-up (one is 55:45-ish)
and the rest are 60-40 to ****-0.
Yun wasn't banned either.
But none of that matters, because Brawl's not Street Fighter. They are different games, both with long, complex unique histories that don't benefit from side-by-side comparison.
It is way, way more complicated than MK hard-countering a character. MK makes it more difficult, for say, Diddy, to win tourneys. Not much harder, but Diddy is a really great character.
A lot of character make it more difficult for X character(s) to win tournaments.
Removing MK makes Diddy more likely to win tourneys, in addition to certain other characters. These characters are counter-picked by other characters. In the case of Diddy Kong, Peach is a good CP against Diddy, thus making her more viable than she was before, even though Meta Knight might not be her biggest problem. There are plenty of other examples and you're probably smart enough that I dont' need to spell out every single one.
Just because certain characters are
slightly more probable to win tournaments if we ban MK does mean such a ban would be warranted. What ridiculous reasoning.
MK is played by nearly everyone who wants to win and doesn't have an underdog complex.
Funny, then why isn't MK winning all tournaments? How come there are so many players out there who do not play MK? Also, that does not matter!
You still have the choice to play as several other characters and still stand a pretty darn good chance of winning major tournaments. As long as that choice exists, MK should not be banned.
The others are playing characters with close-to-even matchups vs Meta Knight like Snake or Wario (neither of who are truly even and get beaten at the highest level, assuming equal skill).
At your service.
Great. Hopefully Yuna will ignore me next and I won't have to reply to either of you.
Every single argument you just brought up are a year old and have all been refuted already.
So true.