My opinion on it all for what it's worth comes from what Wes said in that post of his in another thread. Chess doesn't have L canceling either.
It was something like that anyways. The way i look at it is just because these things aren't present (which i would argue at top level play get negated none the less as all the top players are capable of doing everything) the game CAN BE still very much competitive.
No L canceling simply just means the L cancel is automatically happening. It is essentially boasting everyone to a slightly higher level of play than they would begin with in melee. That is not to say that the game is void of competition because of it.
From a player who has been around for a long time and at one time done pretty well now and then - i've NEVER had any tech skill. I've always struggled to do the most basic of ****. And yeah i've done pretty well. On the other hand theres people, stadium players for example, who are insanely good technically but that is a farcry from saying they are good at competitive versus play. Both ideas negate the reliability on tech skill for a competitive scene.
I talked to old gfox on msn.... pretty long.
P|³ says:
oh man i could spend an hour argueing with the post you just made
P|³ says:
but im not
Ryan says:
XD feel free if you want
Ryan says:
its just my opinion on it from my view as ive never been technically good
P|³ says:
its not the same things as the point i was making
P|³ says:
but from what youve said ill say this
P|³ says:
how far is your lack of tech skill going to get you now, not even very far as far as the uk metagame is concerned
P|³ says:
when l cancelling is removed a level of skill is removed that was requireed in melee, it removes depth from the game
Ryan says:
yeah i get what your saying
P|³ says:
the chess analgy doesnt make sense
Ryan says:
the technical ability of the player gives a certain level of what the player is capable of applying in the game
Ryan says:
the higher the tech skill the more they can do
Ryan says:
but, it is independant of their capability in mind games - thats where the chess analogy comes into it
Ryan says:
if everyone was completely capable of everything technically then it would be like chess
Ryan says:
technical ability in other words is a side product of ability that allows or rather doesnt allow you to apply what you want to do
Ryan says:
like in the chess analogy someone technically capable playing against someone with little tech skill would be someone in chess playing someone else with less pieces to begin with
P|³ says:
but when you are talking about the game as a whole and the depth available in it then you include all the pieces that are there, no-one in chess starts with less pieces. The depth in smash that allows for soo many mindgames is in the fact that melee was an incredobly techie game
P|³ says:
you play smash with less pieces and thats your choice it doesnt get you very far and you know that but we are talking the game as a whole here
P|³ says:
when you are removing all the technical nuances of melee you are removing a lot of mindgames too
P|³ says:
making a less deep game
Ryan says:
yeah your right about that, it removes depth but what im trying to say is that it doesnt nessesarily make it not a competitive game
P|³ says:
im not saying its not competitive
P|³ says:
theres always winners and losers in every game
Ryan says:
it does without a doubt remove a division of skill and thus depth but what i mean is that technical ability is just your own limit of how capable you are of doing what you want to do in the game
Ryan says:
top level smash everyone is technically faultless, so it is starting everyone at that basis and basing the placing of skill purely on the application of strategy and mind games, the intelligance and application of the player
Ryan says:
that is of course less deep than having a technical ability variable but it is what i prefer and see it as a more applying competitive game. thats why id liken it to chess
Ryan says:
anyone can pick up a piece of wood and move it
P|³ says:
your slightly bias in the fact that you choose to be as lazy as possible and not be technical, im not sure exactly what it is you are trying to say though but when something as basic as crouch cancelling is removed then the game becomes a lot less deep even on a basic playing level, the removal of these kind of techniques drastically reduces the level of gameplay envolved
Ryan says:
aye im being bias lol no getting away from that but what my main point is that if the technical variable is removed (which does remove depth) it still makes it more of a basis on the mind games of the player. it starts everyone at the top and the only way to rate a player is by their inteligance in the game. removing a variable and yet, for me, making it a more pure analysis of the skill of the player
P|³ says:
but you see its much harder to sepereate players in skill because there are far less variables in the game to serperate 2 players. The game is always based on mindgames no matter what level you are playing at and when you remove a huge chunk of the techniques that make them the mindgames go deeper then you have a game that is simpler and quite possibly not as fun
Ryan says:
yeah the only thing that worries me is removing the posibilities of the player removes the opertunity for mind games. my point on the removal for tech skill only comes in that all the players now arent limited by their fingers
P|³ says:
basically you are agreeing with me and saying that it makes it easier for less technically able people
Ryan says:
yeah
Ryan says:
but i think that adds depth in the best way i can describe it start everyone with the same number of chess pieces
Ryan says:
not depth thats a bad word
Ryan says:
but a higher level of competitive play
P|³ says:
it doesnt add any depth
Ryan says:
no it reduces depth
P|³ says:
the difference between us is that you see less depth being a good thing
Ryan says:
yeah i guess thats it
P|³ says:
right well i guess that saves me posting again
Ryan says:
XDXD
**** it, ive posted this anyway.