The competitive problem

[vorpal]

Except your missing out on many simple fundamental ideas.

I honestly feel that you need to take a step back so to speak, and try to rethink a lot of this. A lot of your ideas seem to stem from your personal experiences, then dictating that on a wide range of situations. There is nothing wrong with finding things out for yourself, and in a lot of cases it can give you a deeper understanding of a situation. But you need to realize that your personal experience is a very narrow way to learn. We already know that FFAs will never be "deep", you need to study the broad range of others to see some things.

Take this advice, it's quite good. I would have wrote this the other day, but I was too lazy. But seriously, take this advice.

You seem to be a nice dude, but you're stuck in this weird scrubish mentality. You need to broaden your views and really question your logic before you post. A lot of things you questioned had no line of reasoning to it at all. Make sure to look at each side as objectively as possible before putting your opinions down. Otherwise you make yourself look like a complete fool.

Also I think I read earlier that you only played competitive smash for 6 months. If that's true, you haven't even scratched the surface of competitive smash.

You also questioned why should we play smash competitively when the skills do not transfer over.

-First of all, it's more fun than playing casually (opinion).

-Second of all, smash has elements in a fighting game that transfers over to other fighting games primarily spacing, zoning, and mingames to a certain extent (fact).

-For an application to life, smash (or any fast paced strategy game) has you constantly analyze the situation at hand, forces you to look at all your options, and then make the best decisions that you can. Analyzing the situation and making a decision is something you do all the time in your life. Granted the situation are vastly different, but it's still a skill that transfer over. (fact)

I also believe you stated that competitive smash is just memorization of a series of buttons.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

Please do not spout such nonsense. While knowing the ins and outs of your moves and how to execute them are a key element to any competitve game, you're once again forgetting the control aspect of the game as MajinSweet pointed out.

Also are you telling me when you play casually, all you do is button mash? Because even in casual play, you have to remember a series of button presses.

Anyways, that was just my two cents. Felt like I needed to get that off my chest.

 

[Zenthewanderer]

Why do anything? Because it is fun for those that do it. Case closed.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

You're all right, I need to stop arguing for the sake of arguing and stick to the one thing that applies only on a case-by-case basis.

When I went competitive, I became obsessed. That was bad, and I had to revert back to unobsessed. When I start hearing frame-data, I worry of an even deeper obsession than the one that eventually made me hate competitive smash. This frame-rate data and character ranking list could only be made by people significantly more obsessed or interested in smash than I ever was, and because I recognize the severity of my own faults, this make me worry for them.

(Incidently, I love (multiplayer FFA) survival games, ones that reward players for living and dodging pain. Competitive poker is the closest thing to that I've heard of, but I don't "love" it because luck is such a significant factor. It's weird that competitive smash has become so centralized on the "fighting" aspects of the game, while completely ignoring, or in many cases outright disdaining, the "survival" elements. With the survival focus, smash could be completely different than any other competitive community out there.)

Spoiler

And that would be AWESOME!

@ below

Well, once again, it is because of my worry about obsession. Recreational activities tend to become obsessions a lot faster than jobs do; it is perfectly natural for a Star Trek writer to know the episodes by number, but it would be obsessive for a fan. So if value can be attributed to the activity other than recreation, the activity could be passed off as "healthy" or "work," which means that the activity could be done in significantly greater abundance without being obsessive.

Hence, even if one were just as obsessed with playing tennis as another person was with playing smash, the tennis player (assuming like the smash player he goes to local tournaments) would be physically healthy from the activity in addition to all the benefits smash players find it tournaments, and thus the gravity of the obsession would be slightly less.

Likewise, with acting, writing, and singing, each of those has significant additional values attached. You can be just as obsessed with those as with smash, but an acting or singing obsession could lead to being a member of the community theater or chorus (as long as you recognize your place), and writing can and does bring new ideas into the world. Some of these activities have more real-world value than others, and as such, a person can be obsessed but making his community a better place for it or himself more healthy through it, and thus, the gravity of the obsession is lessened by the good of the act.

Obsession is always bad though, no matter how good the act. It makes you blind to certain realities in favor of the world you find around the obsession. Moderation is the best way to be happy.

 

[talkingbeatles]

Why would it be anything else? It could be tennis, Street Fighter, chess, knitting, acting, writing, or singing. Or it could be smash. I don't see what you're doing with the question that you're asking. Please to explain it.

I hate to quote myself, but I'm still curious.
Please answer OP.

 

[BEHR]

First of all, you have to learn how to appreciate every game. Even if you own the **** out of your best friends, learn how to make it about the time your spending with them, not about the game. Talk during the match, joke around. Hell, cut loose and turn items on. A lot of the best players use a lot of these methods to keep the game fun when playing worse people.

It's an odd thing that I think has been particularly prevalent with the onset of Brawl: a lot of people who are new to the scene forget about the fun bits. They see these people who are very good playing the game a certain way, and think they must always play it this way, and they go to the other extreme. They don't realize that these people who are very good are still people, and they like to bust up occasionally, too. They think they have to be serious like the people who play at a high level, and they forget to be silly.

I think the thing that made me realize how wrongheaded it is to always be serious about this game was the series of FC3 Bowser Challenge vids. Honestly, those things are pretty uncompetitive.

Take note, too: at HERB, two guys didn't really care about the outcome of their matches, so they went FSes on high in a CF ditto. They had more spectators than the winners finals which were happening at the same time. So competitive smashers (at least in NC) know how to have a good time with this game, still.

p00t talking about me and stingers so much fun. x3

 

[flyinfilipino]

So basically, Halloween Captain, you just think that Smash isn't as worthwhile an activity as others. Naturally, you're bound to have people

Spoiler

everyone

on this Smash forum disagree with you.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

So basically, Halloween Captain, you just think that Smash isn't as worthwhile an activity as others. Naturally, you're bound to have people

Spoiler

everyone

on this Smash forum disagree with you.

Once again, it's not necesarily that it's not worthwhile, it's that there is a high probability that any given poster at a competitive smash website is obsessed with smash. I'm seeing quite a few people with more involvement in analyzing and researching the metagame than I ever had, and because I was already at an unhealthy level of interest within my own circumstances, I kinda want to point it out.

Although I'm not surprised if a lot of people disagree. After all, I didn't believe mom when she told me I was being rediculous, and only in looking back now do I think she was right.

 

[Zankoku]

Hey, when I pick up a game, I like to get the most I can out of it. I learn a lot about Smash but it's probably one of the games I go less-in-depth into relative to other games, just because I get lazy when it comes to the means of finding stuff out.

I think you're just even lazier than I am.

 

[Meese]

You say the skills are to waste after the next smash game comes out, however, people still play competitive melee.

 

[flyinfilipino]

Once again, it's not necesarily that it's not worthwhile, it's that there is a high probability that any given poster at a competitive smash website is obsessed with smash. I'm seeing quite a few people with more involvement in analyzing and researching the metagame than I ever had, and because I was already at an unhealthy level of interest within my own circumstances, I kinda want to point it out.

I guess you just have a lower tolerance. You might think it's "unhealthy" for you, but it doesn't have to be for other people. You might be able to "justify" an obsession for every other activity besides Smash, but I'm sure people here with a higher "tolerance" can do that. You do keep switching your "main point" around to keep the argument going, though.

 

[Remzi]

When I got into this game competitively I had much less fun with it. Some people just like intensity, tracking of progress, and test of skill.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Hey, when I pick up a game, I like to get the most I can out of it. I learn a lot about Smash but it's probably one of the games I go less-in-depth into relative to other games, just because I get lazy when it comes to the means of finding stuff out.

I think you're just even lazier than I am.

Your not lazy at all, in fact, you are one of the most dedicated people on this site when it comes to updating numbers. Didn't you create the character ranking system with weighted tournaments from scratch?

Incidently, why did you do that?

(EDIT: (At below) Cool.)

I guess you just have a lower tolerance. You might think it's "unhealthy" for you, but it doesn't have to be for other people. You might be able to "justify" an obsession for every other activity besides Smash, but I'm sure people here with a higher "tolerance" can do that. You do keep switching your "main point" around to keep the argument going, though.

Oh, I'm not going to justify obsession any more. An obsession is an obsession reguardless of activity, and I recognize that at the end of the post I made on the topic. And I know I keep switching my main point around. I apologize for letting my personality get between me and the point at hand - which is that by the very nature of this being a smash site, many (but not all) of you may have an unhealthy obsession with smash.

 

[Zankoku]

Your not lazy at all, in fact, you are one of the most dedicated people on this site when it comes to updating numbers. Didn't you create the character ranking system with weighted tournaments from scratch?

Incidently, why did you do that?

The character rankings list was less an obsession over Smash and more an obsession over numbers. I did it because I was interested in an old project someone made in an attempt to mathematically build a tier list for Melee.

 

[Eyada]

Oh, I'm not going to justify obsession any more. An obsession is an obsession reguardless of activity, and I recognize that at the end of the post I made on the topic. And I know I keep switching my main point around. I apologize for letting my personality get between me and the point at hand - which is that by the very nature of this being a smash site, many (but not all) of you may have an unhealthy obsession with smash.

Interesting. You are claiming:

-Many of the people here have an unhealthy obsession with playing Smash competitively.

I assume this is based on your belief that:

--Many people here devote an unhealthy amount of time and energy to competitive Smash.

Correct?

If so, I have two questions, the answers to which will allow me to effectively respond to your argument:

1.) What differentiates the word 'healthy' from the word 'unhealthy', as you are using it in your argument? What are the necessary, defining characteristics that make something 'unhealthy'? I do not want you to list off traits of playing Smash that you think are unhealthy --rather, I want to know what criteria you use to decide if something is unhealthy in general.

and,

2.) How do you decide if someone has an obsession, as you use the word in your arguments? What are the necessary, defining characteristics of an obsession? What criteria do you use to judge something as an obsession?

Edit: And I use the word "you" very literally here. I want to know how you, The Halloween Captain, define those words. I don't care what the dictionary says, I want to know what you mean when you say them.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Interesting. You are claiming:

-Many of the people here have an unhealthy obsession with playing Smash competitively.

I assume this is based on your belief that:

--Many people here devote an unhealthy amount of time and energy to competitive Smash.

Correct?

If so, I have two questions, the answers to which will allow me to effectively respond to your argument:

1.) What differentiates the word 'healthy' from the word 'unhealthy', as you are using it in your argument? What are the necessary, defining characteristics that make something 'unhealthy'? I do not want you to list off traits of playing Smash that you think are unhealthy --rather, I want to know what criteria you use to decide if something is unhealthy in general.

and,

2.) How do you decide if someone has an obsession, as you use the word in your arguments? What are the necessary, defining characteristics of an obsession? What criteria do you use to judge something as an obsession?

Edit: And I use the word "you" very literally here. I want to know how you, The Halloween Captain, define those words. I don't care what the dictionary says, I want to know what you mean when you say them.

For me I define an obsession as the inability to refrain from doing an activity repetitively, to the extent where it interferes with other areas of one's life in a manner detrimental to their well-being; academic, physical, social, or otherwise. Hence an obsession must be unhealthy by definition.

Please excuse the imprecision of wording (if such imprecision exists here). I often use one word when I mean a similar, either more specific or more general one.

Finally, I assume a large number of people here devote an "unhealthy" amount of time on smash because this is the location people with an obsession about smash recieve their information. While not all people who post here are obsessed, all the most obsessed people post here because their obsession compels them.

And finally, I'm not here to judge you. Why would I? It won't help much because an obsessed person does not view him or herself as such, as he believes the obsession to be an important part of his life, not something that can be tossed away easily. Rather, I would be happy if some of the people who are here would start considering the possibility that they have a problem, so that the beginning of the end of the obsession may occur. Thus, I don't plan on saying "you have an obsession" to anyone; they have to figure that out on their own.

 

[Eyada]

Please excuse the imprecision of wording (if such imprecision exists here). I often use one word when I mean a similar, either more specific or more general one.

I just wanted to have a thorough understanding of your point of view. When circular, seemingly unresolvable arguments arise (as has been the case in this thread), the root problem is often that the people involved are suffering a misunderstanding due to word definitions. When one person says a particular phrase, it means something entirely different in their own mind than it does to the person who is responding to what they said. In reality, the disagreement doesn't stem from whatever topic they think they're arguing about --the real problem is a disagreement over word definitions.

This entire thread is swamped with such disagreements. Arguments over "fun", "unhealthy", "obsession", and so forth. Statements like "Competitive Smash is fun" have been refuted with "No, competitive Smash is not fun", simply because no one has stopped to acknowledge the fact that everyone involved is using a radically different definition for the word "fun". Such exchanges aren't even really about Smash anymore --it's a debate over the meaning of the word "fun".

You say "People here have an obsession", which is refuted by "No, we're pretty sure we don't have an obsession". That isn't a logical or productive exchange at all. The only way to resolve this is to clearly define what everyone means by "obsession", and then proceed to argue over whether or not people here meet the criteria of that mutually-agreed-upon definition.

Otherwise, it's just mindless semantic bickering.

So, before we try to address whether people here have an unhealthy obsession, I need to know what you mean by "unhealthy". You've already clearly defined obsession, but we need both parts if we're going to get anywhere.

For me I define an obsession as the inability to refrain from doing an activity repetitively, to the extent where it interferes with other areas of one's life in a manner detrimental to their well-being; academic, physical, social, or otherwise. Hence an obsession must be unhealthy by definition.

Looks great. Now we just need the other half and we can finish things.

 

[talkingbeatles]

Oh, I'm not going to justify obsession any more. An obsession is an obsession reguardless of activity, and I recognize that at the end of the post I made on the topic. And I know I keep switching my main point around. I apologize for letting my personality get between me and the point at hand - which is that by the very nature of this being a smash site, many (but not all) of you may have an unhealthy obsession with smash.

And you might have an unhealthy obsession with candy. But I don't want to jump to that conclusion. You're making broad conclusions based on even broader evidence.

...and you never answered my question back on page... I forget, 10 or 11, or possibly 9. Anyway, I thought it was pretty important, and the fact that it went unanswered has led me to believe you don't have one. Which is bad for your argument.

 

[Crizthakidd]

why do you care what people are obssesed with. surely u want to point it out hey were playing the game to much and researching , ect but not all we have learned/ experianced is wasted. people play for fun, getting better and want to reach of goal of palcing in money where all the hard work is paying off. sure they could be doing it in something u consider healthy like joining a sport team but htats not for everyone. people chose this game and how intesnsive they go into it. its good all the points you have made but u cant try to change someones opinoin because ur not having as much fun.

u want things to be easy and people not take the game as serious. but u cant tell them that. why do they camp u and make it boring and unfun? why do we play neuturals no items?

no one is asking you to. its a choice we all want/agree. if this is not for you or fun then simply choose another game type of gameplay but for most. especially members ALREADY on this site know this is whats for them lol in your eyes what smash researchers, data/fram analysts are wasting their time but many of the mind games, prediction, study efforts will carry on to other things.

the one thing u are right about is this being just a hobby/ pasttime and should not engulf your life to the unhealthy point in whihc unhealthy means physically/socially msising out on life

 

[The Halloween Captain]

And you might have an unhealthy obsession with candy. But I don't want to jump to that conclusion. You're making broad conclusions based on even broader evidence.

...and you never answered my question back on page... I forget, 10 or 11, or possibly 9. Anyway, I thought it was pretty important, and the fact that it went unanswered has led me to believe you don't have one. Which is bad for your argument.

My answer:

@ below

Well, once again, it is because of my worry about obsession. Recreational activities tend to become obsessions a lot faster than jobs do; it is perfectly natural for a Star Trek writer to know the episodes by number, but it would be obsessive for a fan. So if value can be attributed to the activity other than recreation, the activity could be passed off as "healthy" or "work," which means that the activity could be done in significantly greater abundance without being obsessive.

Hence, even if one were just as obsessed with playing tennis as another person was with playing smash, the tennis player (assuming like the smash player he goes to local tournaments) would be physically healthy from the activity in addition to all the benefits smash players find it tournaments, and thus the gravity of the obsession would be slightly less.

Likewise, with acting, writing, and singing, each of those has significant additional values attached. You can be just as obsessed with those as with smash, but an acting or singing obsession could lead to being a member of the community theater or chorus (as long as you recognize your place), and writing can and does bring new ideas into the world. Some of these activities have more real-world value than others, and as such, a person can be obsessed but making his community a better place for it or himself more healthy through it, and thus, the gravity of the obsession is lessened by the good of the act.

Obsession is always bad though, no matter how good the act. It makes you blind to certain realities in favor of the world you find around the obsession. Moderation is the best way to be happy.

I just wanted to have a thorough understanding of your point of view. When circular, seemingly unresolvable arguments arise (as has been the case in this thread), the root problem is often that the people involved are suffering a misunderstanding due to word definitions. When one person says a particular phrase, it means something entirely different in their own mind than it does to the person who is responding to what they said. In reality, the disagreement doesn't stem from whatever topic they think they're arguing about --the real problem is a disagreement over word definitions.

This entire thread is swamped with such disagreements. Arguments over "fun", "unhealthy", "obsession", and so forth. Statements like "Competitive Smash is fun" have been refuted with "No, competitive Smash is not fun", simply because no one has stopped to acknowledge the fact that everyone involved is using a radically different definition for the word "fun". Such exchanges aren't even really about Smash anymore --it's a debate over the meaning of the word "fun".

You say "People here have an obsession", which is refuted by "No, we're pretty sure we don't have an obsession". That isn't a logical or productive exchange at all. The only way to resolve this is to clearly define what everyone means by "obsession", and then proceed to argue over whether or not people here meet the criteria of that mutually-agreed-upon definition.

Otherwise, it's just mindless semantic bickering.

So, before we try to address whether people here have an unhealthy obsession, I need to know what you mean by "unhealthy". You've already clearly defined obsession, but we need both parts if we're going to get anywhere.



Looks great. Now we just need the other half and we can finish things.

I did have a long, detailed answer, but smashboards deleted it when I tried to post it.

Basically, unhealthy, in terms of obsession, means to do something until you feel physical side-effects, such as the headache from watching a screen for to long, or to neglect to do actions which are detrimental to yourself to neglect, such as neglecting to eat on the extreme, and neglecting to appreciate great liturature on the small scale. Way too general and imprecise, but if it's unclear what my meaning is I'll fix it.

EDIT: Actually, Talking Beatles, my answer to you specifically was the quote I placed directly underneath your request for an answer. I posted my answer by editing the post immediately before one of your requests.

The art aspects of Brawl are mostly in the single player mode - that's what contains the story elements, quite a bit of well imagined art, bosses with complex hidden meanings, etc. The multiplayer aspects might as well be an advertisement for Nintendo games - a pretty advertisement that everyone likes, but an advertisement which derives all its materials through copying and marginally updating previous ideas all the same.

There are three types of art - beauty, emotion, and depth (I might be wrong in that I am too narrow in my definition, I am recalling an old art text book rather poorly). A work can have any combination of these qualities and still be art. Brawl multiplayer has beauty, but not such strong emotion or depth - mind you, this type of depth is not complex gameplay, but complex symbolism from which a great amount can be learned.

The effect of beauty wears off, and if viewed enough, the emotional response to a work can be dulled. However, the depth of the work lives on. But Brawl has little artistic depth in the competitive sphere (that I can name). Thus, Brawl stops being art for it's players once the "magic" wears off.

Not at all related to obsession though, as many things that are not art are still amazing (arguably chess isn't an art), and a person can easily be obsessed with the arts.

 

[talkingbeatles]

I did have a long, detailed answer, but smashboards deleted it when I tried to post it.

Basically, unhealthy, in terms of obsession, means to do something until you feel physical side-effects, such as the headache from watching a screen for to long, or to neglect to do actions which are detrimental to yourself to neglect, such as neglecting to eat on the extreme, and neglecting to appreciate great liturature on the small scale. Way too general and imprecise, but if it's unclear what my meaning is I'll fix it.

I understand. Being obsessed with any one thing is unhealthy. Everything in moderation. There is a discourse to SSB series though, and there are finer points to the game. In competitive 1v1 no items, and friendly FFA matches.

I'm not saying the texts (the SSB series) are as deep and textured as that of film, theater, or literature, but they still are texts within the growing medium and art form that is the video game. And they're **** good ones at that.

 

[=)@MePlz]

Do you know what's REALLY fun?

4 Players (Random).

1 stock.

ALL items.

Random Stage.

Or for tourney tards...

NO ITEMS! FOX ONLY! FINAL DESTINATION!

lol

 

[Samuelson]

Competitive smash provides challenges. Overcoming challenges is lots of fun.

 

[Eyada]

I did have a long, detailed answer, but smashboards deleted it when I tried to post it.

Basically, unhealthy, in terms of obsession, means to do something until you feel physical side-effects, such as the headache from watching a screen for to long, or to neglect to do actions which are detrimental to yourself to neglect, such as neglecting to eat on the extreme, and neglecting to appreciate great liturature on the small scale. Way too general and imprecise, but if it's unclear what my meaning is I'll fix it.

Yeah, forum software sucks sometimes. I'm to the point now where I just periodically hit Ctrl+A->Ctrl+C while I'm typing up posts so I can just paste everything again if the board decides to be stupid.

Anyhow,

That definition is indeed fairly general, but let's see what we can do with it. I'll break it into two parts and address them separately since your definition has an -or- clause in it.

-To do something until you feel physical side-effects, such as the headache from watching a screen for to long.

Considered as is, it's flawed. By this criteria, for example, climbing a long flight of stairs when the elevator is out of order is "unhealthy"; or undergoing chemotherapy to avoid dying from cancer is "unhealthy".

The second clause:
-To neglect to do actions which are detrimental to yourself to neglect, such as neglecting to eat on the extreme, and neglecting to appreciate great liturature on the small scale.

This is much closer to a good definition, I think. In fact, stripping off the first, flawed clause and just using this one leads to a pretty solid definition.

Looking back, the definitions can be combined and simplified into:

Obsession: The inability to refrain from doing an activity repetitively, to the extent where it interferes with other areas of one's life by resulting in a neglect to do actions which are detrimental to oneself to neglect.

Which is basically what you said earlier.

This makes things easier. We no longer need to worry about the phrase "unhealthy obsession", because it is redundant, as obsession's are always unhealthy.

Is that an acceptable definition? Or do you think it needs modification?

 

[Stratford]

Sucking at a game is kind of fun, but being decent has its advantages.

 

[Doggalina]

Competitive smash provides challenges. Overcoming challenges is lots of fun.

This pretty much sums it up perfectly. Nothing beats beating a real person WITHOUT the aid of chance (items, WarioWare, etc)

Spoiler

AGH. I just posted on the Brawl boards for the first time since I quit Brawl and started Melee again.

 

[Melomaniacal]

Spoiler

AGH. I just posted on the Brawl boards for the first time since I quit Brawl and started Melee again.

COOOOOL DOOOD!


...

 

[Doggalina]

It was just an observation.

 

[talkingbeatles]

Yeah, forum software sucks sometimes. I'm to the point now where I just periodically hit Ctrl+A->Ctrl+C while I'm typing up posts so I can just paste everything again if the board decides to be stupid.

Anyhow,

That definition is indeed fairly general, but let's see what we can do with it. I'll break it into two parts and address them separately since your definition has an -or- clause in it.

-To do something until you feel physical side-effects, such as the headache from watching a screen for to long.

Considered as is, it's flawed. By this criteria, for example, climbing a long flight of stairs when the elevator is out of order is "unhealthy"; or undergoing chemotherapy to avoid dying from cancer is "unhealthy".

The second clause:
-To neglect to do actions which are detrimental to yourself to neglect, such as neglecting to eat on the extreme, and neglecting to appreciate great liturature on the small scale.

This is much closer to a good definition, I think. In fact, stripping off the first, flawed clause and just using this one leads to a pretty solid definition.

Looking back, the definitions can be combined and simplified into:

Obsession: The inability to refrain from doing an activity repetitively, to the extent where it interferes with other areas of one's life by resulting in a neglect to do actions which are detrimental to oneself to neglect.

Which is basically what you said earlier.

This makes things easier. We no longer need to worry about the phrase "unhealthy obsession", because it is redundant, as obsession's are always unhealthy.

Is that an acceptable definition? Or do you think it needs modification?

This is super smart and correct.
Everybody read this.

 

[Yuna]

Are you, in fact, saying that Competitive gaming does not make sense unless it's a stand-alone game with no future planned sequels, ever? Because, clearly, this applies to any Competitive video-/computer game in history that has or will have a sequel.

 

[Ulevo]

Are you, in fact, saying that Competitive gaming does not make sense unless it's a stand-alone game with no future planned sequels, ever? Because, clearly, this applies to any Competitive video-/computer game in history that has or will have a sequel.

Even if you remove the potential possibility for a sequel, that basically writes down any and all competitive games out right now, save for a few. Smash Bros., Street Fighter, Soul Calibur, Mortal Kombat, Guilty Gear/BlazBlue, Tekken, King Of Fighters, Naruto, Killer Instinct, Clayfighters... The list continues.

Even so, the entire idea of this thread is rather absurd. I just wanted to make mention of this.

 

[Dark.Pch]

They away I see it, This should not even be an issue. This game (and melee) was not made to be competitive. Melee was a mistake. They was it started out and got created was not suppose to happen. Brawl, People decided to play it just like melee.

Point it, you are not forced to play to win. You can play with items with your friends. You don't have to play brawl like the others. People made competitive brawl. People found stuff out about the game. So it is not something dealing with the game. But what people created out of the game. And playing like this is fun for people. And for many reasons That were probrably said already. And the same can be said for playing the game with items.

I play the guitar and the accordioen for Merengue Tipico (Look it up if you wanna know what it is all about on youtube) I just started the guitar and the accordieon I am really good at it. I could go pro with it. I could get some people and start a band. This is not hard to get people to do this. Or make money playing it solo. But I choose not to. I just wanna play it as a hobby and for fun. While people think I should go to the next level with it, I say no and just play it to play it.

Thats how I think you should see it.

 

[doom dragon 105]

Because its fun to be better than the avarge person. Competition is what drove the human race to . If there was no competition to go to the moon then no one really cared. That is an example of how winning brought new ideas and intelligence. I don't study smash I let others study for me. I'm decent and I don't count frames that is something I just won't do.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

Yeah, forum software sucks sometimes. I'm to the point now where I just periodically hit Ctrl+A->Ctrl+C while I'm typing up posts so I can just paste everything again if the board decides to be stupid.

Anyhow,

That definition is indeed fairly general, but let's see what we can do with it. I'll break it into two parts and address them separately since your definition has an -or- clause in it.

-To do something until you feel physical side-effects, such as the headache from watching a screen for to long.

Considered as is, it's flawed. By this criteria, for example, climbing a long flight of stairs when the elevator is out of order is "unhealthy"; or undergoing chemotherapy to avoid dying from cancer is "unhealthy".

The second clause:
-To neglect to do actions which are detrimental to yourself to neglect, such as neglecting to eat on the extreme, and neglecting to appreciate great liturature on the small scale.

This is much closer to a good definition, I think. In fact, stripping off the first, flawed clause and just using this one leads to a pretty solid definition.

Looking back, the definitions can be combined and simplified into:

Obsession: The inability to refrain from doing an activity repetitively, to the extent where it interferes with other areas of one's life by resulting in a neglect to do actions which are detrimental to oneself to neglect.

Which is basically what you said earlier.

This makes things easier. We no longer need to worry about the phrase "unhealthy obsession", because it is redundant, as obsession's are always unhealthy.

Is that an acceptable definition? Or do you think it needs modification?

I can agree with that. I would like to nitpick that there is a difference between making yourself hurt because you have to versus wanting to do an action that hurts, but there's not much point when we have a definition I find is perfectly acceptable for the continuation of this debate. And I do agree, that "unhealthy obsession" is redundant, but I tend to repeat myself too much so it doesn't seem all that redundant to me.

Are you, in fact, saying that Competitive gaming does not make sense unless it's a stand-alone game with no future planned sequels, ever? Because, clearly, this applies to any Competitive video-/computer game in history that has or will have a sequel.

I'm not sure what post you're refering to, but someone (most likely me) must have really scrubbed up tactical. You haven't been here in over a month!

Nah, sequels are great. I love having sequels. If I argue anything other than the obsession point, then I'm just arguing for the sake of arguement, and you should feel free to remind me to get back on focus.

Spoiler

However, from a competitive standpoint, sequels don't make much sense. They mess up all the previous ATs, change the mechanics (and often the entire gameplay system) with what appears at the typical level of play to be marginal improvements, and restarts the competitive community back to having no knowledge of a game that may or may not be more competitively viable than it's predecessor. So personally, I could totally see sequels being treated as stand-alone games by their competitive communities. In fact, we had that happen right here with smash, albeit only to a small extent.

 

[Zankoku]

All of the Capcom fighters have a similar control scheme. So no, you don't just treat them as standalone games. Though not all, many skills from one fighter will transfer to the next. And like most people, gamers like a fresh experience after a couple years with the same game, you know?

 

[1048576]

Do you know what's REALLY fun?

4 Players (Random).

1 stock.

ALL items.

Random Stage.

Or for tourney tards...

NO ITEMS! FOX ONLY! FINAL DESTINATION!

lol

You are aware that Fox hasn't won a major tournament in ages, right? Or that there are several neutral stages besides FD?

 

[LuLLo]

I really don't understand why this is STILL an issue...have people not learned anything?

People...that is you, me and everyone else on the boards...stop asking why people want to play casual or competitive, stop making comments/insults about casual/competitive, people-just-find-it-FUN-to-do what-they-like.