The Death of Competitive Gaming -- The Average Gamer?

[ranmaru]

You're right, nowadays game makers don't really make games with the intention of competition. The casual gaming market is much larger and easier to reach. Not to mention it takes a lot less effort to make a game like that.

Competitive games will show up purely by accident, much like what happened with Melee. I wouldn't call it the death of competitive gaming, but definitely a huge bump in the road.

edit: Look at how nintendo operates now, everything is for casual gamers. There was actually an interview with the head of Nintendo of America a few years ago that I watched and he actually said that the hardcore audience had Mario Galaxy to look forward to.

This shows where their minds are at.

Ugh, god.... I love mario of all characters... But I was NEVER looking forward to that game at all. I don't really like the direction they were taking.

X1-12 is right. It is all about money. We should be glad we even HAVE MELEE.

Only thing I can look forward to with Nintendo now is:

Zelda (I don't even know what is up with it), Nintendo DS, Wii (virtual console is the sole reason why), and that is it.

You would think that I'd only play Nintendo games in some sort of skewed display of honor, and I tried that.

But one has to try all the videogame companies to get what they need. Nintendo has kiddy games... Microsoft has shooters... Sony has... Rpg's? Basically, each company has their own style. But I can't be satisfied with one.

Although I really do like challenges.

 

[Black Mantis]

u madddddddd?

lol

but seriously the competitive community can be douchebags

ever been on xbox live and been called the n word, c word, f word, and any other word you can think that I can't type because it will get censored? These people are the "pros".

Do we see that in the smash community? Unfortunately, its in every community and its not a problem that will disappear over night. The craziest thing from the smash community I can remember is somebody making a blatant death to Sakurai over Brawl (look it up if you don't believe me)

The average gamer can be a problem, but the competitive players aren't perfect either. I just try to help people whenever I can.

 

[jugfingers]

video games are still a young phenomenon, of course there are going to be games created to numb and mindlessly entertain the masses, but at some point after people grow out of the graphic novelty they are going to want to experience more control and movement, which will trigger production of games which satisfies the urge to fully control the characters in video games as though they were fused with our own nervous system.

and when this point comes, real competitive gaming will emerge.

 

[ranmaru]

video games are still a young phenomenon, of course there are going to be games created to numb and mindlessly entertain the masses, but at some point after people grow out of the graphic novelty they are going to want to experience more control and movement, which will trigger production of games which satisfies the urge to fully control the characters in video games as though they were fused with our own nervous system.

and when this point comes, real competitive gaming will emerge.

But when will this happen. ;[

 

[rathy Aro]

im a programmer. If you know a dozen or so more programmers, a half dozen artists, a dozen modelers, and a group of people who can design manage and produce the game, then sure

U don't need that many. Unless you need to come out with the game in less than a year.1 programmer, 1 3D artist, 1 designer, and maybe a graphic artist is all you need as long as they know what they're doing.

on topic: l-cancel is gay.

 

[Kanelol]

on topic: l-cancel is gay.

this

/10thises

 

[INSANE CARZY GUY]

L-canceling kills brawl just listen http://www.youtube.com/profile?user...notation_751741&feature=iv#p/u/64/rliFHvrRwB0

 

[wowoduend]

stuff stuff

 

[Pi]

on topic: l-cancel is gay.

this

/10thises

What?
How can you even...
It's so easy to...
What?

Hard to press L, R, or Z?

 

[SpaceFalcon]

What is and what is not competitive is arguable in my opinion. People saying Melee is more competitive than Brawl because it requires more tech skill is purely subjective. The emphasis on spacing, good judgement and mind games is so much greater in Brawl that is adds a dimension of depth that Melee doesn't have(I'm not saying Brawl is the deeper game). Being able to do 0 to deth combos with Falco simply because I can press L when I land doesn't increase the competitive value of melee. Of course this dimension of depth is somewhat ruined by the existence of meta knight.

Those 0 to death comboes with Falco also only work because of the existence of good spacing, good judgement and mindgames. With how much easier it is to die in Melee as compared to Brawl, I'd argue Melee requires a bigger dose of all 3.

this this this

Merkuri go bang your head on a wall some more.

 

[Geist]

Meh I really don't see why L cancelling is getting hated on. If you want to argue that it's a redundant button press and there isn't any concievable situation where not L cancelling can be favorable, then fine, I can understand where that argument is coming from.
But I see L cancelling on the same boat as headshots in fps games. There's no concievable situation where not getting a headshot would be favorable, but who wants to play a shooter without headshots?
Maybe L cancelling isn't on as big a scale as headshots, but it's a mechanic that helps separate the skill levels of players.

 

[Pi]

Oh wut?
I can press L when I land
Maybe I should main falco and be the best easily :D
Or maybe I should main DeDeDe and CG to victory
Or maybe I should play metaknight and B to victory
Or maybe I should play snake and throw **** everywhere to victory
Or maybe I should simplify, generalize, and overall just make an *** of myself to victory.

 

[Lovage]

l canceling is pretty hard with a fastfaller if you consider the millions and millions of scar fans situations that make it harder like clever shielding, stage hazards (brinstar) and ice climbers

 

[Dark Sonic]

I think what you're doing is awesome anyway, but having been involved in fan made modifications before, it's very easy for them to become tainted or heavily altered by other people after you relinquish final control.

Well, it's a little more complicated in this case. The "standard" in this case is the set created by and supported by the WBR. As long as the WBR maintains some sort of respect (they're mostly okay players, but they've worked very hard on this project for a very long time), then the majority will continue to use their "final" codeset.

In addition...coding is hard. A random player with coding knowledge altering the set would have no impact on the scene because his set would be ignored. Most of the high level players will likely not even have much coding knowledge (and those who do are the ones who helped make the set <_<), so if they do have complaints it will probably just go to the WBR anyway (which they will then point to their pre scheduled evaluation date and say "tell us if it's still a problem 6 months from now.")

At this point, brawl+ is pretty stable. Whether or not you think the game has competitive value is a different issue (most players do find it fun though at the very least.)




Oh...and don't badmouth brawl-. Brawl- was designed to be absolutely hilarious and fun on the CASUAL level. It is designed to be a goof off game, and it accomplished that wonderfully.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

And Sveet (since we and Jam Stunna are the only ones posting anything worthwhile) there is more than a single good release a year. What sort of games do you like? Super Street Fighter 4 came out two days ago. Certainly that's a competitive game.

I like many sorts of games, but classic style 2D fighters are definitely not my thing. I enjoy watching them, but i don't have the patience or desire to memorize 32+ different base moves as well as ~8 character specific combos when i could play melee which is more intellectually satisfying in the way that a series of logic puzzles will be more intellectually satisfying than copying the answers from your partner.

Don't take that as me bashing the genre, because i have massive respect for it, its just not my style.

I've tried the battlefield and CoD series, but found them mediocre. They seem to focus on maximizing the graphics and "realism" while copy pasting whats been done in every other FPS since halo1. I'd rather just play halo.

 

[AlcyoNite]

not wuite sure where this thread went but i agree with the op

more games of this phenomenon:
blazblue
sf4
mario party (not that it was ever competitive)
some say t6, but i disagree

in response to the op's sc2 quote and indirectly alphazealot, learning to keep up with micro and macro in a game like sc makes it really hard to pick up, but that's part of the skill set needed to play the game and lends itself to being an overall good, competitive game. The problem with whoever said that is he doesnt realize that the "mashing buttons" part that he sees is just a maximization of time efficiency on the part of players to keep everything that needs to be managed under control. To play the game, you dont need to be able to do that, but u will eventually develop that skill as u solidify other more fundamental aspects of the game and realize that, compared to the other stuff uve learned, its eventually not that hard.

Its really similar to melee. people looking in just see (and hear) button clicking and see fox and falcon running around the screen at blazing speeds and somehow the opponent dies 4 times without the watcher even being able to keep track of what person used what moves. In the minds of the players, however, the tech skill is just second nature and most of it is for momentum maintenance..

which is similar to adding extra steps to a ddr song. it keeps u in rhythm and maintains ur mental focus on the mechanics of the game.

there are just too many reasons why a game like melee/sf3/guilty gear is naturally better on a competitive scale than brawl/sf4/blazblue w/e

(for some reason i can never agree with anything alphazealot says)

 

[n1000]

There's very little innovation in FPS' presently, I hate it. I mean we have Quake Live which is a solid revamp of the DM FPS (in fact it's just a variant on Q3 arena). CS 1.6 is trucking along and offers interesting team play and strategies, but it's tough to get on a team if you haven't been playing forever and public servers are garbage.

Yeah in the fps genre there are fun new games but they're definitely casual (L4D, TF2, CoD...) if you want competition you might just stick to Quake/UT2k4...that's the best I got.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

L4D2 is pretty fun, me and the guys did a 4 player LAN earlier in the week. Definitely fun against the AI, but i've seen the multiplayer and it looks pretty boring

 

[KAOSTAR]

This is just like movies, music, everything


Things become easier to make, cheaper to produce, and require less labor.

You just T-Pain a game together and make millions.

 

[AlcyoNite]

the T-Pain method

i like it

 

[Jam Stunna]

I have to say, the Freaknik special on Adult Swim totally changed my opinion of T-Pain.

He's the modern day Peter Frampton

 

[Brightside6382]

I actually agree with the SC2 post. If lowering the technical ability of a game by a third more then doubles the prospective audience then I would also even argue the game is MORE competitive.

You need to keep in mind that fact that a game can only be pushed as far as the number of people playing it can push it, and the more people you have, the further and quicker you can push a game to higher levels of competition.

1,000,000 people playing checkers will be more competitive then 100,000 people playing chess.

Actually... whoever Sveet quoted in the OP sounded like he didn't know anything about competitive SC to begin with. He was making completely over-generalized statement about BW and completely neglected all of SC2's shortcomings. The "Constant mashing of H and A while clicking madly" is what made BW balanced and made multiple strategies and units viable. Look at SC2 now. By taking away a lot of the micro mechanics strategies simply devolve into scouting for roaches/immortals/rauders and A-moving army balls into each other.

 

[AlcyoNite]

Actually... whoever Sveet quoted in the OP sounded like he didn't know anything about competitive SC to begin with. He was making completely over-generalized statement about BW and completely neglected all of SC2's shortcomings. The "Constant mashing of H and A while clicking madly" is what made BW balanced and made multiple strategies and units viable. Look at SC2 now. By taking away a lot of the micro mechanics strategies simply devolve into scouting for roaches/immortals/rauders and A-moving army balls into each other.

i mean

most arguments that place shallower games above the obviously superior iterations of the series are rooted in devolved conceptions of competitive play mechanics

the metagames of the greatest games for the most part have served to make the games that much better

just...****ing look at melee

 

[Pink Reaper]

I'd just like to point out there's absolutely nothing wrong with the OP quote or the way that person thinks. There's a very common misconception that making a game easier or less technically demanding suddenly makes it worse and while the two arent necessarily mutually exclusive they definitely not mutually inclusive.

Halo 2 to Halo 3 is a very good example. as someone who used to play halo 2 competitvely there were certain things i always did. bxr, bxb, double shots, bullet stretching etc, i learned them and did them them every single time it i had the chance. when H3 came out i was one of those dbags who *****ed about everything they took out, but once i stopped to think about it(2 years later after i had already stoped playing) i realized why they did it. BXR/double shot, these werent useful techniques, these were necessary techniques. There was never a time when a normal melee attack was a better option than a bxr/bxb there was never a reason to shoot 3 bullets when i could shoot 6. These werent techniques that opened new options, they were the ONLY options. Put in perspective, in tournament matches, against a team who was legitimately just as good as our team, who's teamwork was just as much on point as ours, but didnt use these techs we would always win, because at the end of the day, we could put six shots in them at the same speed they put 3 in us. Thats really bad. That meant to become good at this game you HAD to learn these techs and use them 100% of the time. This is what pocky meant when he brought up l-canceling. to play melee competitively you HAVE to learn it and HAVE to do it every single time. Thats an unnecessary extra barrier that only makes it more difficult for new players to pick up the game.

there's more to be said but im on my phone and there's a character limit to what i can type :/

 

[AlcyoNite]

I'd just like to point out there's absolutely nothing wrong with the OP quote or the way that person thinks. There's a very common misconception that making a game easier or less technically demanding suddenly makes it worse and while the two arent necessarily mutually exclusive they definitely not mutually inclusive.

Halo 2 to Halo 3 is a very good example. as someone who used to play halo 2 competitvely there were certain things i always did. bxr, bxb, double shots, bullet stretching etc, i learned them and did them them every single time it i had the chance. when H3 came out i was one of those dbags who *****ed about everything they took out, but once i stopped to think about it(2 years later after i had already stoped playing) i realized why they did it. BXR/double shot, these werent useful techniques, these were necessary techniques. There was never a time when a normal melee attack was a better option than a bxr/bxb there was never a reason to shoot 3 bullets when i could shoot 6. These werent techniques that opened new options, they were the ONLY options. Put in perspective, in tournament matches, against a team who was legitimately just as good as our team, who's teamwork was just as much on point as ours, but didnt use these techs we would always win, because at the end of the day, we could put six shots in them at the same speed they put 3 in us. Thats really bad. That meant to become good at this game you HAD to learn these techs and use them 100% of the time. This is what pocky meant when he brought up l-canceling. to play melee competitively you HAVE to learn it and HAVE to do it every single time. Thats an unnecessary extra barrier that only makes it more difficult for new players to pick up the game.

there's more to be said but im on my phone and there's a character limit to what i can type :/

its not that unnecesary complexity is directly proportional to the quality of a game, its that any game that's designed to be balanced and deep will lend itself to its following looking for any way to "play to win." When this happens, it's inevitable that exploits in a game will surface and the learning curve will increase; its the same in any competitive sport. If soccer were a ****ty game, people would likely not be nearly as good as they are today on a competitive scale, but because it's such a good game, people had fun improving at it and coming up with techniques that require practice to give them an upper edge on the playing field. That's just the mark of a good game

You introduce a problem when you decide to strip a game of such depth. What if the creators of soccer decided that it was too hard for people to learn how to handle the footwork and agility required of the game, so they decided to make the goals much closer and allow you to grab the ball every so often (unrealistic, but follow me). Because their intentions were to take away the depth and skill required, they sacrificed their former intentions of providing a balanced, fun game that their previous focus had them make. There's more to game design than amount of techniques required...its more about a learning curve that naturally develops for good quality games.

Whats sad is that games that are significantly worse sequels to quality games already have that following, so their learning curves increase despite the intentions of the creators. only now, since the game designers were less focused on providing a balanced, deep game, they ended up with a broken, shallow game with many flaws to exploit on a competitive "play to win" scale; its almost counterintuitive

do u understand what im trying to say? i know im kind of here and there with this argument. i really just think theres more to this than "unnecessary techniques/tech skill requirement"

 

[Jam Stunna]

If you really believe that harder is better, why are you playing Smash instead of Guilty Gear or Virtua Fighter?

I don't mean you specifically crystalnite, this is addressed to everyone who feels that way.

 

[AlcyoNite]

If you really believe that harder is better, why are you playing Smash instead of Guilty Gear or Virtua Fighter?

good lord

i feel like u must not have read anything i just posted

considering this is exactly the statement i was trying to refute

edit: read your edit; anyone who truly thinks like that is just as clueless as the guy in the op's quote

 

[Jam Stunna]

good lord

i feel like u must not have read anything i just posted

considering this is exactly the statement i was trying to refute

edit: read your edit; anyone who truly thinks like that is just as clueless as the guy in the op's quote

What if the creators of soccer decided that it was too hard for people to learn how to handle the footwork and agility required of the game, so they decided to make the goals much closer and allow you to grab the ball every so often (unrealistic, but follow me). Because their intentions were to take away the depth and skill required, they sacrificed their former intentions of providing a balanced, fun game that their previous focus had them make. There's more to game design than amount of techniques required...its more about a learning curve that naturally develops for good quality games.

I don't know how to read that other than "harder=better."

 

[AlcyoNite]

I don't know how to read that other than "harder=better."

a really hard game to learn is virtua fighter; but the following for that is pretty nonexistant. Also, that game is really hard not because of the metagame development, but because the game designers decided they would make the game really difficult

its not harder=better; its better-->harder, naturally over time

think of it in terms of geometry: all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares

all [really most] "good" games get harder over time, but not all hard games are "good"

am i more clear now?

edit: the problem with the op quote is that is says there is an unnecessary level of complexity with the difficulty of a game, and I am trying to say that that complexity is a package deal that comes with the best of games

honestly, (again with sports) can u imagine sports being popular if everyone could be air jordan on the court all day or shoot buckets from half court like kobe?

 

[Pink Reaper]

your post doesnt actually have any connection to my own. I never said that depth and complexity were bad, im saying unnecessary technical complexity and exploits that not only become mandatory to learn but also completely obsolete other options are not good.

Lets look at wavedashing in melee. its a movement based physics exploit. Before wavedashing, there was only walking/running. However AFTER wavedashing walking/running still exist and are still useful. Wavedashing opens up new options so obviously its worth learning but its NOT a necessary technique that you have to learn and have to utilize(that statement is true no matter how much someone wants to dispute it)

Your soccer analogy is also kind of off point. it would be more correct to say "what if soccer 2 were introduced with closer goals/picking up the ball etc etc" because, lest we forget, melee still exists, SC1, Halo 2, CS 1.6 all still exist and while in some instances the changes have in fact been for the worse(brawl/source) in the instances

 

[AlcyoNite]

your post doesnt actually have any connection to my own. I never said that depth and complexity were bad, im saying unnecessary technical complexity and exploits that not only become mandatory to learn but also completely obsolete other options are not good.

Lets look at wavedashing in melee. its a movement based physics exploit. Before wavedashing, there was only walking/running. However AFTER wavedashing walking/running still exist and are still useful. Wavedashing opens up new options so obviously its worth learning but its NOT a necessary technique that you have to learn and have to utilize(that statement is true no matter how much someone wants to dispute it)

Your soccer analogy is also kind of off point. it would be more correct to say "what if soccer 2 were introduced with closer goals/picking up the ball etc etc" because, lest we forget, melee still exists, SC1, Halo 2, CS 1.6 all still exist and while in some instances the changes have in fact been for the worse(brawl/source) in the instances

Considering how you said there was nothing wrong with the op quote, I was responding to the logic that seemed inherent in that quote and not yours

Also, removing the usefulness of a technique/move/w.e is not enough grounds for saying the exploit is "broken" or simply "not good"; even without exploits, some moves are just not practical (sheik's chain, for example). Under that logic, if an exploit were to, say, remove the practicality of peach's turnips, for example, then that exploit might be considered "bad," but what if peach's turnips were never in the game to begin with? is that exploit still bad? Plus, its not alway the case that an obsolete technique is always obsolete: ken innovated the counter against lasers, even though that was traditionally considered unsafe for example.

That really supports my claim that a game with a large enough following will advance its metagame; exploits will increase or decrease in their utility along with things that arent exploits. eventually, people need to stop worrying about the things required to play a game well and just go with it. People still play melee and have a lot of fun improving at it; what im trying to argue is that it's natural

Also, your WD example supports what I stated above with my example of a technique that does not break a game; can you give any examples of a "bad" exploit that does ruin a game??

 

[Jam Stunna]

a really hard game to learn is virtua fighter; but the following for that is pretty nonexistant. Also, that game is really hard not because of the metagame development, but because the game designers decided they would make the game really difficult

its not harder=better; its better-->harder, naturally over time

think of it in terms of geometry: all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares

all [really most] "good" games get harder over time, but not all hard games are "good"

am i more clear now?

edit: the problem with the op quote is that is says there is an unnecessary level of complexity with the difficulty of a game, and I am trying to say that that complexity is a package deal that comes with the best of games

honestly, (again with sports) can u imagine sports being popular if everyone could be air jordan on the court all day or shoot buckets from half court like kobe?

Okay, I see what you mean. But I disagree with your statement.

I think that you're using "difficulty" as a synonym for "complexity," and while they might seem like interchangeable ideas, they're not. Games have gotten better over time, yes. But controllers have gotten more buttons too. Those buttons weren't added simply to make the games more difficult. They make the way we interact with games more precise and complex. Difficulty is a side-effect of games becoming more complex.


We're about to enter an interesting phase of gaming history, where thanks to the success of the Wii, games are going to get less complex. Does that mean they're going to get worse? We'll have to wait and see.

Put another way, I would make the argument that while Melee is more complex than Smash 64, it's easier, insofar as the punishment for a mistake in Melee is not a 0-death combo.

 

[rathy Aro]

What?
How can you even...
It's so easy to...
What?

Hard to press L, R, or Z?

trollin' so hard *****z can't even speak!

Based on the reviews I read for FFXIII it fits into what this thread is saying perfectly. Maybe the reviews I read exaggerated, but it seems like FFXIII completely removed any concept of skill from the game to make it a mindless, linear, button mashing action game disguised as an rpg.

On another topic. People should take note that before they realize that tech skill doesn't equal a better game, people who have learned the techniques almost ALWAYS think that way. There must be reason for this. Maybe people just LIKE LEARNING TECHS. Does it make the game more competitive? No. Does it deepen the metagame? If it's always the best choice, no. Is still fun to learn and add some replay value to the game. Hell yes! So basically harder=/=better, but harder=more fun (sometimes).

gaiz dun wurry. wen i maek vidgaymes im gonna maek dem sooo000 hard and SUPA competeteve!!!!

Spoiler

i'm being serious too. -.-

 

[INSANE CARZY GUY]

I liked your post above pink reaper about the 6 shooting thing(never played halo). I honesty can't think of a reason why you shouldn't double your shoots or a way to make it harder for your foe(like L-canceling in ssbm). Even as a guy who can barely go shooting 10 bullets without reloading that tech skill is agreeablely not important or counterable.

But in melee I don't believe there is any truely poinless tech skill like that. That is 100% all the time. Other than JC grabbing as some people. because as some people it's always better.

 

[HaileyM]

I like watching a lot of people spout wrong opinions >_>

Agree with a lot of PockyD's points and will get to this later

-KevinM

 

[AlcyoNite]

Okay, I see what you mean. But I disagree with your statement.

I think that you're using "difficulty" as a synonym for "complexity," and while they might seem like interchangeable ideas, they're not. Games have gotten better over time, yes. But controllers have gotten more buttons too. Those buttons weren't added simply to make the games more difficult. They make the way we interact with games more precise and complex. Difficulty is a side-effect of games becoming more complex.


We're about to enter an interesting phase of gaming history, where thanks to the success of the Wii, games are going to get less complex. Does that mean they're going to get worse? We'll have to wait and see.

Put another way, I would make the argument that while Melee is more complex than Smash 64, it's easier, insofar as the punishment for a mistake in Melee is not a 0-death combo.

well it doesnt sound like u disagree with what i said, u just disagree that about my word choice, so just edit everything i said with ur word choice (which I agree with), and then we understand eachother, right?

trollin' so hard *****z can't even speak!

Based on the reviews I read for FFXIII it fits into what this thread is saying perfectly. Maybe the reviews I read exaggerated, but it seems like FFXIII completely removed any concept of skill from the game to make it a mindless, linear, button mashing action game disguised as an rpg.

On another topic. People should take note that before they realize that tech skill doesn't equal a better game, people who have learned the techniques almost ALWAYS think that way. There must be reason for this. Maybe people just LIKE LEARNING TECHS. Does it make the game more competitive? No. Does it deepen the metagame? If it's always the best choice, no. Is still fun to learn and add some replay value to the game. Hell yes! So basically harder=/=better, but harder=more fun (sometimes).

gaiz dun wurry. wen i maek vidgaymes im gonna maek dem sooo000 hard and SUPA competeteve!!!!

Spoiler

i'm being serious too. -.-

umm, i just addressed this point, so read everything i have posted and stuff will make more sense, k?

 

[EPsilon933]

When you double shot in Halo 2, aren't you reloading right after the shot without the reload animation? As in you can't do another double shot right after? (I don't know everything about Halo (2), so feel free to correct me). I've seen some MLG Halo 2 games and double shotting seems rare.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Well, I still don't agree with you Crystalnite, I just think that your point is stronger if you argue it in terms of complexity instead of difficulty.

I feel like a game's worth, competitive or otherwise, isn't tied to complexity or difficulty. I think Guilty Gear would be a better game without FRC; like pocky's point with l-canceling, it seems pretty silly to impose such a strict technical barrier for it's own sake. And conversely, my problem with BlazBlue isn't that it's easier, it's that it's not as precise as Guilty Gear (anyone who's been hit by Ragna's dp knows exactly what I mean).

Complexity and difficulty have to serve game design. I stopped playing Madden when QB Vision was introduced, because that level of complexity ruined the game for me. Some people got off on being able to work it into their gameplay, but I wasn't one of them.

 

[Pink Reaper]

Crystal, youre thinking too hard about this. Im not talking about techs breaking a game im talking about unnecessary barriers that in the long run hurt a game competitvely. You want a tech that breaks a game, the IC's freeze glitch. Legitimately breaks the game. But the real point is removing techs that overcentralize the way a game is played is not inherintly wrong. Brawl removing l-canceling was not a bad thing, l-canceling is an unnecessary hurdle that can and does keep new players from attempting to get good at melee. We always tell people, "the first thing to learn is l-canceling" because ou legitimately cannot become good without it but once again its not something that opens up options its a "do it or else" kind of thing.

Edit: @epsilon, you could get around the reload by switching weapons, so you could double tap y(fast enough that the BR wouldnt even leave your hands) and be free to shoot again.

 

[INSANE CARZY GUY]

L-canceling isn't totally unneeded pink reaper. You have to admit unlike the 6 shoot it isn't 100% always needed. You can sometimes autocancel(other times you have to L-cancel) there are ways to make L-canceling harder ice climbers ligh sheild comes to mind. Sometimes them about to L-cancel ruins their tech.

another good case is pikachu's(most likly pichu's) bair if you hit marth's sheild when L-canceling you would get grabed. However of you missed it during the lag pikachu is much lowerso marth can't reach him, makeing it so 100% isn't always needed. Maybe if we miss an L-cancel we could also bait someone. not as likly but when you say 100% you mean 100% wNEVER a case or possible against it.