The Death of Competitive Gaming -- The Average Gamer?

[MegaFEAR]

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.

right here ^^^^
10,000,000 wins...

 

[rathy Aro]

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

No, its unreasonable for me to reread a 5 page thread that I've already read most of to find your one point. Instead of trying to patronize me you could just quote or summarize your point... and still patronize me (i don't mind ).

@Jam Stunna: You have to understand that many people play a game for the sake of a challenge (not all, but many) and so having an arbitrary technical barrier may not deepen the game, but it does add another challenge in the game that, once overcome, rewards you nicely by letting you crush noobs. To those who don't want the additional challenge (not to say they don't like challenge, but the challenge may be more than they would like) the added complexity will be a turn off as they have no intention of mastering the technique and thus can only be hindered by it when used by others.

Its really give and take. more challenge or more accessibility. Personally I prefer challenge and think l-cancel in melee is fun and that the myriad techniques in gunz are amazing (though those techs definitely add depth).

 

[AlcyoNite]

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.

Do you also consider it silly to demand that basketball players be able to dribble the ball? I feel like there needs to be a more tangible qualification for over-centralization of a game's mechanics than "it seems silly." My points have been made solidly, but there still seems to be a disconnect...

Quality game design might produce a lasting, balanced product even though the metagame might take a game to a level or place unforeseen by the developers; i just think that a game can only be balanced and deep if a developer originally intended it to, and if the developer intentionally stripped the game of depth, then it is impossible to have a good balanced, deep game. That's really the only relevance i wanted to draw to the game designers themselves.

How is a game's worth not tied to its difficulty when most if not all quality games follow my model?? Again, keep in mind that I did not say that a game is better because of its difficulty; rather, quality games are difficult because of their quality.

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.

The term "break" wasnt really what i meant to use. i meant to just refer to a move that "centralizes gameplay mechanics too much." But there has yet to be provided an example of such a technique that overall subtracted from the quality of a game.

People have only been able to name L-Cancelling, to which I respond with "Anyone who considers L-Cancelling to be difficult needs a reality check"

I would actually argue that L-Cancelling contributes to the game's balance. Imagine Falco being able to pillar someone's shield without havin to learn the L-Cancel timing. As broken as that **** already is (my bias against falco ), to be able to do that would be just dumb.

Also, it is such that you need to L-Cancel because it adds to the effectiveness of your gameplay. If you can L-Cancel, but cant follow up from your aerials, then what good has it done you?

Moreover, Z-Cancelling was in 64; I doubt the game developers had a stigma with it in the first place. (not that original intent is all that relevant to how a game "should be played"; IMO, Sirlin is absolutely right in his "Playing to Win" article)

tl; dr: No one has provided a counterexample to the model and numerous examples that I have provided, though you all insist on disagreeing with me -_-"

Edit:

No, its unreasonable for me to reread a 5 page thread that I've already read most of to find your one point. Instead of trying to patronize me you could just quote or summarize your point... and still patronize me (i don't mind ).

@Jam Stunna: You have to understand that many people play a game for the sake of a challenge (not all, but many) and so having an arbitrary technical barrier may not deepen the game, but it does add another challenge in the game that, once overcome, rewards you nicely by letting you crush noobs. To those who don't want the additional challenge (not to say they don't like challenge, but the challenge may be more than they would like) the added complexity will be a turn off as they have no intention of mastering the technique and thus can only be hindered by it when used by others.

Its really give and take. more challenge or more accessibility. Personally I prefer challenge and think l-cancel in melee is fun and that the myriad techniques in gunz are amazing (though those techs definitely add depth).

Fair enough.

Actually, ur the only person who seems to have gotten my point the first go around

 

[Big-Cat]

Hi, I don't post in the Melee section, but I noticed this thread, and I couldn't resist getting involved with this.

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.

I'm just wandering, but have you played FFXIII? There are actually quite a number of difficulties in that game that makes it frustrating, but some of the things in the game make life easier. For example, you have to be able to do Paradigm Shifts right when you need them. For some boss fights, this requires you to predict that the enemy is going to do something. Then there's having the proper paradigm sets. Also, for a good chunk of the game, you cannot grind as you normally would. Your roles will expand only after certain events happen in the main story so you actually have to think.

Things are made easier though with you not having the traditional MP to worry about and your health being restored after battle. Then there's you being able to distribute your experience points/CP.

In this case IMO, the game took out some burdens in favor of an enriched gameplay.

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.

The problem with this kind of thing is that it's matchup specific. As mentioned earlier, you have a reason for not teching in any given match. Any kind of mechanic/technique implemented should have pros and cons for using it in any given scenario, be it a fighting game, an FPS, a RTS, or whatever.

 

[rathy Aro]

Fair enough.

Actually, ur the only person who seems to have gotten my point the first go around

Mhmm. Though I disagree that quality->difficulty. Difficulty is a more well-defined and inhenrent trait where as quality is derived from the game's inherent traits. Difficulty->quality makes more sense. Not to say a diffult game is always good, but that difficulty adds to the quality of a game along with things like depth, story, etc.

Hi, I don't post in the Melee section, but I noticed this thread, and I couldn't resist getting involved with this.

I'm just wandering, but have you played FFXIII? There are actually quite a number of difficulties in that game that makes it frustrating, but some of the things in the game make life easier. For example, you have to be able to do Paradigm Shifts right when you need them. For some boss fights, this requires you to predict that the enemy is going to do something. Then there's having the proper paradigm sets. Also, for a good chunk of the game, you cannot grind as you normally would. Your roles will expand only after certain events happen in the main story so you actually have to think.

I haven't played it but....
according to the reviews I read you can redo a fight when u die with no penalty. lol Paradigm shifts end up only being used to switch from offensive to healing when you need it and then back afterwards. Also I read that the computer can basically choose your options for you and you end up just pressing the X button to execute your actions as quickly as possible.

edit: the tidbit about intentions leading a game isn't completely true. Look at Gunz and Smash. Clearly both didn't give a **** about competition and one (gunz) didn't even care about quality. Still they both ended up being deep, complex games.

 

[Big-Cat]

I haven't played it but....
according to the reviews I read you can redo a fight when u die with no penalty. lol Paradigm shifts end up only being used to switch from offensive to healing when you need it and then back afterwards. Also I read that the computer can basically choose your options for you and you end up just pressing the X button to execute your actions as quickly as possible.

With that mind, you really can't say anything regarding the game's difficulty.
There's nothing really wrong with you getting no penalty for dying. Like I said, this gets rid of a minor annoyance for something more important.

Paradigm Shift is also more than that. You can switch party members for who you want to fit the situation up ahead (but never in battle). I could go with Fang, Vanille, and Sazh if I want to focus on buffing my party and nerfing my enemies while bringing about hell.

The auto-battle options don't always work so there's not much more to say than that.

 

[INSANE CARZY GUY]

The problem with this kind of thing is that it's matchup specific. As mentioned earlier, you have a reason for not teching in any given match. Any kind of mechanic/technique implemented should have pros and cons for using it in any given scenario, be it a fighting game, an FPS, a RTS, or whatever.

could still be bait and i'm saying it's not a 100% always thing.

 

[Pink Reaper]

Do you also consider it silly to demand that basketball players be able to dribble the ball? I feel like there needs to be a more tangible qualification for over-centralization of a game's mechanics than "it seems silly." My points have been made solidly, but there still seems to be a disconnect...

Quality game design might produce a lasting, balanced product even though the metagame might take a game to a level or place unforeseen by the developers; i just think that a game can only be balanced and deep if a developer originally intended it to, and if the developer intentionally stripped the game of depth, then it is impossible to have a good balanced, deep game. That's really the only relevance i wanted to draw to the game designers themselves.

How is a game's worth not tied to its difficulty when most if not all quality games follow my model?? Again, keep in mind that I did not say that a game is better because of its difficulty; rather, quality games are difficult because of their quality.



The term "break" wasnt really what i meant to use. i meant to just refer to a move that "centralizes gameplay mechanics too much." But there has yet to be provided an example of such a technique that overall subtracted from the quality of a game.

People have only been able to name L-Cancelling, to which I respond with "Anyone who considers L-Cancelling to be difficult needs a reality check"

I would actually argue that L-Cancelling contributes to the game's balance. Imagine Falco being able to pillar someone's shield without havin to learn the L-Cancel timing. As broken as that **** already is (my bias against falco ), to be able to do that would be just dumb.

Also, it is such that you need to L-Cancel because it adds to the effectiveness of your gameplay. If you can L-Cancel, but cant follow up from your aerials, then what good has it done you?

Moreover, Z-Cancelling was in 64; I doubt the game developers had a stigma with it in the first place. (not that original intent is all that relevant to how a game "should be played"; IMO, Sirlin is absolutely right in his "Playing to Win" article)

tl; dr: No one has provided a counterexample to the model and numerous examples that I have provided, though you all insist on disagreeing with me -_-"

You're starting to annoy me, gonna be honest. No one's provided a counterargument to what you're saying because what you're saying has little to nothing to do with the argument at hand. Case in point:

Also, it is such that you need to L-Cancel because it adds to the effectiveness of your gameplay. If you can L-Cancel, but cant follow up from your aerials, then what good has it done you?

You're still thinking about this with the wrong mindset. **** if I care if L-Canceling is in smash or not, I can do it so taking it out of a sequel or putting it in doesnt affect me whatsoever. But THIS IS THE ENTIRE POINT OF MY ****ING ARGUMENT AND HAS BEEN THE ENTIRE TIME, START PAYING SOME GOD **** ATTENTION for people who want to learn the game, who have never played before, it's a 100% unnecessary entry barrier. This has nothing to do with play to win mentality, nothing to do with the difficulty of the technique at hand and barely has anything to do with L-canceling in the first place. This is an argument about unnecessary entry barriers and the techniques that create them.

 

[INSANE CARZY GUY]

Don't worry pink reaper you can always just not come back to this thread.

 

[Pink Reaper]

Good point, im gonna go read the pichu boards

*leaves*

 

[Big-Cat]

Don't worry pink reaper you can always just not come back to this thread.

Why is that? Because he/she disagrees with you?

 

[rathy Aro]

With that mind, you really can't say anything regarding the game's difficulty.
There's nothing really wrong with you getting no penalty for dying. Like I said, this gets rid of a minor annoyance for something more important.

Paradigm Shift is also more than that. You can switch party members for who you want to fit the situation up ahead (but never in battle). I could go with Fang, Vanille, and Sazh if I want to focus on buffing my party and nerfing my enemies while bringing about hell.

The auto-battle options don't always work so there's not much more to say than that.

I can still comment on the game without playing it. Actually I didn't even comment. I merely paraphrased what I heard. I haven't made any statements about the game. Also what you call getting rid of annoyances is getting rid of difficulty phrased differently. Difficulty can be annoying and tedious. Some ppl don't like that kind of difficulty, others welcome it. For example: learning techs is tedious, but I enjoy it anyway, because its so rewarding at the end.

for people who want to learn the game, who have never played before, it's a 100% unnecessary entry barrier. This has nothing to do with play to win mentality, nothing to do with the difficulty of the technique at hand and barely has anything to do with L-canceling in the first place. This is an argument about unnecessary entry barriers and the techniques that create them.

Necessary is a strange word to use when discussing a game. I think you mean necessary to making it a good game. If so, I would argue that some people enjoy mastering arbitrary techniques that don't make the game deeper in any way.

Also, realistically, a technique will usually affect a game. It'll either remove or add options (or in some RARE cases add or detract nothing). It'll either make the game deeper or more shallow (except in RARE cases). L-cancel opens up more offensive options as it makes attacks on shield safer and thus makes many unviable approaches viable. Though its true that if u l-cancel an aerial you should do it all the time, that doesn't mean it doesn't affect the metagame.

 

[INSANE CARZY GUY]

If you have someone uber P***ed becuase they refuse to listen I 100% understand. If someone came up to you and disargeed with the color of the sky and refused to listen to you what can you do? Are you going to listen to him when he says the sky is blood red all the time? Will you go around saying oh the sky is red.

Also pink was trying to argee. You have to have a mind that fights on the right side not your side or their side but the right side and to quest it like you would the wrong side.

There is no reason to get yourself raging over nothing. I hope he sees my pichu video

 

[AlcyoNite]

You're starting to annoy me, gonna be honest. No one's provided a counterargument to what you're saying because what you're saying has little to nothing to do with the argument at hand. Case in point:



You're still thinking about this with the wrong mindset. **** if I care if L-Canceling is in smash or not, I can do it so taking it out of a sequel or putting it in doesnt affect me whatsoever. But THIS IS THE ENTIRE POINT OF MY ****ING ARGUMENT AND HAS BEEN THE ENTIRE TIME, START PAYING SOME GOD **** ATTENTION for people who want to learn the game, who have never played before, it's a 100% unnecessary entry barrier. This has nothing to do with play to win mentality, nothing to do with the difficulty of the technique at hand and barely has anything to do with L-canceling in the first place. This is an argument about unnecessary entry barriers and the techniques that create them.

You and the other guy are arguing different points:
Jam stunna is arguing against over-centralization of the game on one mechanic
You are arguing against entry barriers to the game
I am arguing that difficulty is an unavoidable aspect of a quality (usu. fighting) game

By failing to recognize that ALL of us are making different points, you are missing ALL of our points. In my original response to you, I was addressing your claim that the op quote was 100% right and I provided reasons for why it was 100% wrong. So let me address you directly:
-L-Cancelling is not an unnecessary barrier because a quality game will automatically garner things like L-Cancelling. You cannot have melee without L-cancelling, i.e., if a noob wants to pick up melee, he must necessarily learn l-cancelling

Generalization: If a Noob wants to pick up a competitive game, he must learn its advanced techniques.

Now, the noob might think its unnecessary, but I, as someone who has stuck with it and improved, know that it is not unnecessary; HOWEVER, there is no way that I will agree that l-cancelling is unnecessary in the eyes of EVERY noob; I never considered l-cancelling to be a burden. I had fun playing without it and had more fun playing with it.

So, what can we conclude? Your response to the quote seemed to be a justification on the part of the noob while I refuted the noob's evidence. I still cant tell whether or not u agree with him or not because first you say that he is 100% right and then you say that its unnecessary for the noob (implying for the noob alone). Despite how clear you think ur being, I cant tell what your thoughts in all of this are (which i actually value believe it or not)

 

[KAOSTAR]

As far as the L canceling goes, I dont feel its unnecessary.

There are ledge/auto cancels

A good complex game should have a balance of technical ability that requires consistency along with then mental aspect of the game that makes it important to read and analyze your opponents. Inherently it allows for legitimate non broken strategies to be developed.

L canceling is something that just requires some technical consistency. I dont think the goal of it is to be a mindless must do technique. Its more of a risk reward kinda thing.

Take melee without the need to L cancel. That would literally make foxs falcos shield pressure amazingly better than it is now.

That takes a defensive part out of the game. If I angle my shield high so that the timing of the l cancel would be diff, I will most likely be rewarded because they ****ed up, and it was something I did to make that happen. Without the need to L cancel they wouldnt even get punished for that.

L canceling also ties directly into missing techs. Unless you press L/R lightly (consistently) you are in danger of missing a tech if you get counterattacked. Offense directly limiting defensive options.

When is it not better to powershield a physical attack? Its literally the same thing as L canceling except you do it when your opponent attacks you. The fact that it is difficult means that it take more practice/timing/skill/dedication to the game.

The elite will truly be elites in melee. Most techniques have some sort of counter even powershielding(shield lag) and L canceling(attack lag).

That halo 2 **** was whack because there is no counter for it, other then the most consistent will prevail, even then I dont think its that bad. Its just being technically accurate and consistent. IMO that kinda stuff adds a technical difficulty that requires some sort of practice to master.

The basic strategies of the game are still the same, as long as the strategy isnt unrealistically difficult its not a problem, and thats only if its a necessary strategy such as bxr.

Look at competitve shooting. You can just pull the trigger with one finger as it was designed. But for speed, alot(like everyone) of ppl use 2 fingers. That doesnt make that a bad technique because there is a technical level of diff that makes using one finger obsolete.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Do you also consider it silly to demand that basketball players be able to dribble the ball? I feel like there needs to be a more tangible qualification for over-centralization of a game's mechanics than "it seems silly." My points have been made solidly, but there still seems to be a disconnect...

Quality game design might produce a lasting, balanced product even though the metagame might take a game to a level or place unforeseen by the developers; i just think that a game can only be balanced and deep if a developer originally intended it to, and if the developer intentionally stripped the game of depth, then it is impossible to have a good balanced, deep game. That's really the only relevance i wanted to draw to the game designers themselves.

How is a game's worth not tied to its difficulty when most if not all quality games follow my model?? Again, keep in mind that I did not say that a game is better because of its difficulty; rather, quality games are difficult because of their quality.

FRC is silly in Guilty Gear, because it's a cancel that has frame-specific requirements. It really adds nothing to the game to say that you can only cancel this specific move at this specific time, it just forces you to learn which frame it can be canceled on, and really does limit the combo abilities of many characters. I love GG, but BlazBlue got it right when they got rid of FRC, just like Brawl got it right when it removed l-canceling.

And I don't agree that all quality games follow your model. I'm not going to name examples because it's all personal taste, but I know everyone here can name an easy game they love and a hard game they hate.

 

[Fletch]

As far as the L canceling goes, I dont feel its unnecessary.

There are ledge/auto cancels

A good complex game should have a balance of technical ability that requires consistency along with then mental aspect of the game that makes it important to read and analyze your opponents. Inherently it allows for legitimate non broken strategies to be developed.

L canceling is something that just requires some technical consistency. I dont think the goal of it is to be a mindless must do technique. Its more of a risk reward kinda thing.

Take melee without the need to L cancel. That would literally make foxs falcos shield pressure amazingly better than it is now.

That takes a defensive part out of the game. If I angle my shield high so that the timing of the l cancel would be diff, I will most likely be rewarded because they ****ed up, and it was something I did to make that happen. Without the need to L cancel they wouldnt even get punished for that.

L canceling also ties directly into missing techs. Unless you press L/R lightly (consistently) you are in danger of missing a tech if you get counterattacked. Offense directly limiting defensive options.

Was just going to say all of this, especially the part in bold. Fox and Falco would be even more broken.

 

[CRASHiC]

Look at the lineage of 2D fighters. Smash is the only example most of us will be able to pick out as a game developed for casual players, and it isn't a standard 2D fighter at all. Otherwise, the development of these games is academic.

The original SFII was an accident. Everything that is now standard in 2D fighting games was a glitch in that game, cross ups, combos, all of it pure accidents not intended by the makers, much less for it to be played on the levels it is today.

Marvel Versus Capcom 2. Complete fudge.

Also, if you can't see how unnecessary L canceling is, god your dumb. Its nothing more than a manual button press and a stupid attempt to add depth to the game. Take it out and nothing changes, at all, some **** may be easier to do for beginingers, but other than taht, its all the same.

 

[KAOSTAR]

Yea, I feel that brawl was correct in removing a good technique from a bad game. lol.

Brawl is just a different game, L canceling in that game wouldnt be as demanding. Gameplay is slow enough to where its only making you push an extra button for almost no reason.

L canceling in brawl is pointless and does just make the learning curve a bit higher, but for no reason.

in Melee, L cancelling is very much tied into the gameplay on more than one level. In such a fast paced game there should be a check on how fast you can move/execute moves when ur are getting to the point where things are frame perfectly inescapable.

Its like saying just have a short hop button and a full hop button because most of the time, offensively, you will want to short hop.

 

[CRASHiC]

L canceling is NOT a good techique. It isn't even a ****ing technique, its a manual land button.

Melee isn't even taht ****ing fast. Go play Guilty Gear and talk to me about fast, and when you land in that game, all your lag is taken away. Marvel Versus Capcom 2 is faster, and they don't have ******** **** like taht in it.

No, its not like a short hop, because taht adds depth. THERE WILL NEVER BE A SITUATION WHEN YOU WOULD L CANCEL WHEN YOU DON'T WANT TO, EVER. NOT L CANCELING ALWAYS PUTS YUO AT A DISADVANTAGE. You give examples of other cancels, but those exist WITHOUT L CANCELING. Without L canceling, the game at high level play plays exactly the same. However, a game without a full and short hop is NOT played the same.

 

[adumbrodeus]

L canceling is the worst kind of technical barrier.


Technical barriers unfortunately, are a natural result of increases in depth, but making it easier to do what you want your characters to do is fundamentally a good thing, known as "good controls" in every area except competitive gaming.


This is because competitive gamers tend to love their arbitrary skill tests, so bad controls is a GOOD THING!


*sigh*


Arbitrary entrance barriers just decrease the audience for the game, making it easier for the game to die.



What makes a game a good competitive game is DEPTH, which as I said before, tends to be tied with technical difficulty, but the more steps you take to avoid that, the larger audience you make possible, and the less harsh you make the technical skill plateau on your players.



So, making it easier to play is a good thing, as long as they don't dumb down the strategic element, and I doubt that will happen. That's what you need for viable competitive play, and I'd far prefer to spend my 213 apm controling my troops rather then my drones.


So... good controls ftw!

 

[Eggm]

The only thing I don't get is why company's don't make controls feel tight and super responsive like you have total control over every thing that is happening. That's what initially attracted me to both SC and Melee ( my 2 fav games and the only ones I still play ). Both Sc2 and brawl seem wayyy more clunkier and less responsive in the way I can precisely move my characters. But IMO this is developers way of evening out the playing field or "dumbing down the game" so to speak. Which is just ********. Casual players can still enjoy and will still buy a release of a popular title like smash brothers or starcraft even if the controls remain super ultra responsive and tight. No one is going to force them to play with people who push that control to its limits and play super competitive and its not going to hurt sales. If brawl were made exactly like it was but your character could actually move the way you hit the control stick instantly and didn't have buffer frames which make you do stuff you didn't think you inputted and just felt super responsive and tight not 1 less person who bought it would have said **** that this game blows and not buy it, and the competitive gamers would have been able to take a much more serious look at it.

Edit : And left out tripping. Adding a random element in which you have no control over that affects your controls (gameplay) is just beyond stupid. And why get rid of moving shots in SC? Clunkier controls don't help even the playing field.. just make the game less interesting. Tight responsive controls don't deter newbs from buying games in mass either.

 

[Velox]

I think you're hitting on the general idea that money destroys lots of cool things.

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Just to point out, things like lcanceling and BXR don't remove complexity or options, they simply provide an alternate option which is always better. This isn't negative complexity, just not necessarily positive complexity.

If they changed the patrol function in SC2 so that if you patrol moved at the enemy base with ranged units they would automatically attack once then retreat perfectly then attack perfectly on their own and repeat, that would remove the need of you manually doing it if that was your intended purpose. it would remove the point and purpose of micro and erase many of the skill-sets that made one player better than another.

BXR and Lcanceling can be compared to micro. In every case you intend to do it correctly, but in my opinion forcing the players to manually do these things adds in an element of consistency which layers on top of the strategy and forces the players to multiply their concentration further and creates a more realistic element of nerves and composure.

 

[rathy Aro]

L canceling is the worst kind of technical barrier.


Technical barriers unfortunately, are a natural result of increases in depth, but making it easier to do what you want your characters to do is fundamentally a good thing, known as "good controls" in every area except competitive gaming.


This is because competitive gamers tend to love their arbitrary skill tests, so bad controls is a GOOD THING!


*sigh*


Arbitrary entrance barriers just decrease the audience for the game, making it easier for the game to die.



What makes a game a good competitive game is DEPTH, which as I said before, tends to be tied with technical difficulty, but the more steps you take to avoid that, the larger audience you make possible, and the less harsh you make the technical skill plateau on your players.



So, making it easier to play is a good thing, as long as they don't dumb down the strategic element, and I doubt that will happen. That's what you need for viable competitive play, and I'd far prefer to spend my 213 apm controling my troops rather then my drones.


So... good controls ftw!

Yes! We love them! Because we ENJOY them. Why would we want to remove something we enjoy from a game?

Also, it's a game. Arbitrary is not really a critique in a game as it serves no particular purpose than for people to enjoy it. I could say adding depth to a game arbitrarily caters to people who like strategy.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Edit : And left out tripping. Adding a random element in which you have no control over that affects your controls (gameplay) is just beyond stupid. And why get rid of moving shots in SC? Clunkier controls don't help even the playing field.. just make the game less interesting. Tight responsive controls don't deter newbs from buying games in mass either.

I think you're making the mistake of associating "easier" with "clunkier", controls can be made to be easy enough to do what you want, while giving the option to give tighter controls when necessary.

That's part of what good controls are.

Yes! We love them! Because we ENJOY them. Why would we want to remove something we enjoy from a game?

Also, it's a game. Arbitrary is not really a critique in a game as it serves no particular purpose than for people to enjoy it. I could say adding depth to a game arbitrarily caters to people who like strategy.

Because people that enjoy arbitrary skill tests in and of themselves are a tiny minority of overall game players, yet at the same time, a lot of people enjoy being able to perform arbitrary skill tests as a way to seperate themselves from the "noobies". Of course, the reality is that if a game has depth, win ratio and understanding of complex strategic objectives should be enough.


Regardless, if you're one of the people that enjoys trying to constantly click a button in a 6 frame window, there are certainly games that cater to that, so a fairer critique would be making it that way on purpose is counter to the strategy of increasing market share.

Just to point out, things like lcanceling and BXR don't remove complexity or options, they simply provide an alternate option which is always better. This isn't negative complexity, just not necessarily positive complexity.

That's the point, if something must always be executed, then it's just a skill test and doesn't increase depth.

If they changed the patrol function in SC2 so that if you patrol moved at the enemy base with ranged units they would automatically attack once then retreat perfectly then attack perfectly on their own and repeat, that would remove the need of you manually doing it if that was your intended purpose. it would remove the point and purpose of micro and erase many of the skill-sets that made one player better than another.

It's called testing different skills, and micro is simply a technical skill, it has no real basis in intelligence and strategy, and therefore from a game design standpoint it is a completely uninteresting skill to depend on. +

BXR and Lcanceling can be compared to micro. In every case you intend to do it correctly, but in my opinion forcing the players to manually do these things adds in an element of consistency which layers on top of the strategy and forces the players to multiply their concentration further and creates a more realistic element of nerves and composure.

Macro tests nerves and composure just fine, and it's not an excuse to decrease market share and purpose and test a competitively uninteresting skill.

 

[KAOSTAR]

Aight so my *****s agree with me lol. MELEEE!!!!!!

Good controls is diff than having added ****. super mario 64 had good controls, bomberman 64 had good controls. new super mario bros have good controls. they arent super difficult. gran turismo 2 had good controls.

LoZ OOT has decent controls. They are responsive and make sense but zelda isnt really a fast paced game.

GTA: san andreas doesnt have amazing controls. Typically when you add that turn around or spin in a circle kinda thing. It makes moving worse. such as tomb raider or resident evil. Unless you add a pivot button that gives you free range of movement otherwise

Halo imo has better controls when they are set at higher sensitivities. I like H movement at max so I can turn around as fast as I can.

Like eggm said, **** needs to respond, Also the controls need to make sense. In alot of games a fully customizable button layout fixes most of the problems, but thats only if the actions are mapped correctly to inputs.

real life is dependant on technical ability as well as mental complexities. Thats how games should be, it generally makes for more indepth gameplay and a better game all together.

Basketball isnt simply plays that are run and dont require technical ability to execute.

There has to be a reason to come up with strategy and a certain level of tech skilll required to implement them. There needs to be a risk or chance of failure or else you get perfect shield pressure from fox falco because they wont miss any l cancels.

 

[Brightside6382]

It's called testing different skills, and micro is simply a technical skill, it has no real basis in intelligence and strategy, and therefore from a game design standpoint it is a completely uninteresting skill to depend on. +



Macro tests nerves and composure just fine, and it's not an excuse to decrease market share and purpose and test a competitively uninteresting skill.

If you don't play Starcraft then don't try to make assumptions about things you don't understand. I swear there are so many misconceptions in this thread flying around about micro/macro/straregy/etc mechanics when I doubt many of you understand how any of these concepts relate to each other in Starcraft.

Don't try to compare SC to melee and make the most ridiculous assumptions such as comparing micro and macro mechanics to anything in melee. Your not even comparing apples and oranges at this point.

 

[AlcyoNite]

goodness

if ppl have devolved into arguing over whether or not l-cancelling is a good technique or not, this thread is over

u all need to think up better qualifiers for the role of techniques than "good" or "bad"; way too subjective imo

if no one complains about l-cancelling then why start now? ppl are missing the bigger picture intended for discussion in the op...

 

[adumbrodeus]

If you don't play Starcraft then don't try to make assumptions about things you don't understand. I swear there are so many misconceptions in this thread flying around about micro/macro/straregy/etc mechanics when I doubt many of you understand how any of these concepts relate to each other in Starcraft.

Don't try to compare SC to melee and make the most ridiculous assumptions such as comparing micro and macro mechanics to anything in melee. Your not even comparing apples and oranges at this point.

Don't assume I don't, there's a reason I was so specific about that APM up there, granted it's been a while since I've been playing consistently.

Aight so my *****s agree with me lol. MELEEE!!!!!!

Good controls is diff than having added ****. super mario 64 had good controls, bomberman 64 had good controls. new super mario bros have good controls. they arent super difficult. gran turismo 2 had good controls.

LoZ OOT has decent controls. They are responsive and make sense but zelda isnt really a fast paced game.

GTA: san andreas doesnt have amazing controls. Typically when you add that turn around or spin in a circle kinda thing. It makes moving worse. such as tomb raider or resident evil. Unless you add a pivot button that gives you free range of movement otherwise

Halo imo has better controls when they are set at higher sensitivities. I like H movement at max so I can turn around as fast as I can.

Like eggm said, **** needs to respond, Also the controls need to make sense. In alot of games a fully customizable button layout fixes most of the problems, but thats only if the actions are mapped correctly to inputs.

real life is dependant on technical ability as well as mental complexities. Thats how games should be, it generally makes for more indepth gameplay and a better game all together.

Basketball isnt simply plays that are run and dont require technical ability to execute.

There has to be a reason to come up with strategy and a certain level of tech skilll required to implement them. There needs to be a risk or chance of failure or else you get perfect shield pressure from fox falco because they wont miss any l cancels.

Both real life and games depend on technical ability by necessity, but often it also comes down to pure physical ability, so ability in real life games says far more then just strategic ability.


As far as shield pressure... I have faith in our community.

 

[Lovage]

l canceling ***** *** the haters who have chubby cheetos fingers

 

[GHNeko]

l canceling ***** *** the haters who have chubby cheetos fingers

jesus christ this is hilarious ahahahah

 

[KAOSTAR]

Don't assume I don't, there's a reason I was so specific about that APM up there, granted it's been a while since I've been playing consistently.



Both real life and games depend on technical ability by necessity, but often it also comes down to pure physical ability, so ability in real life games says far more then just strategic ability.


As far as shield pressure... I have faith in our community.

U play brawl. lol >_<

but also what is it that you expect from shield pressurers. utter **** in the future?

 

[adumbrodeus]

U play brawl. lol >_<

but also what is it that you expect from shield pressurers. utter **** in the future?

I play Brawl too... but I said "our community", unless you're part of the brawl community too...

And yes, melee players have a disturbing ability to steadily increase the average tech skill of the metagame, so I expect shield pressure to improve.

l canceling ***** *** the haters who have chubby cheetos fingers

Ehhh, it's probably a bad assumption to think that the people who disagree with it can't perform it, just a thought.

 

[Shawn101589]

Ok. To the thread-maker, I apologize that your topic has gotten derailed and I apologize that I'm about to add to that. But I need to address something here.


===


First off, I'd like to talk about why I think L-canceling is not a negative thing. Everything in the high levels of play that go into Melee, all take time and patience to learn, and they are all equally important when talking about it.


===


Let's, just as an example, take L-canceling out of Melee, and assume that everything in the game moved at full potential and speed.



Now, let's make shorthopping easier. Why should we have to short-hop and full-hop with the same button if there are 2? Let's do that!



Let's make wavedashing / landing user friendly too.


===


"But wait Shawn, shorthopping and wavedashing / landing all help to advance the game, but L-canceling doesn't. It's an unneeded barrier that only alienates people who would otherwise play the game."

Like hell it does. If you started off playing Melee, and saw some random video online, and you could tell right away that they were moving far faster then you though possible, simply through the use of fast falling, L-canceling, and all that other stuff, would it not leave you with a much better impression then if they were simply doing things you had instant access to upon playing the game? I don't know about you, but when I found out about the techniques that existed, for the sequel to a game I had grown up loving, knowing that there was a higher level and I was looking at it, and that with time and practice I could be that good, It had a much greater impact on me then it would have if I said "oh thats not that hard everything is autocanceled lulz". This is one of example of why I think it helps: People are a lot more wowed when you do **** they didn't think was possible and it's what got me into melee in the first place. If everything were auto, everyone would be on even ground. Meaning people that have been playing for years would have the same technical prowess of my 11 year old brother. Kinda dumb if you ask me.


===


Not a good example? Let's take instrumentals as an example. An unrealistic example, but bear with me.

Let's say that I want to learn the piano. Let's say that the piano is made much much easier to use, they managed to fit all the keys in places more comfortable so the size is no larger then a keyboard. Hand movement is no longer an issue. They don't take nearly as long to master, and in fact can be mastered in the same way that typing on a keyboard is mastered.


===


Does this lack of a barrier make piano more appealing to a more casual market? Sure. Does it make it easier? Sure. Is is literally removing a technical barrier and does it make music playing a lot more accessible? Sure. Does it completely take away from people who play real piano, who practice day in and day out, go to classes for years and years, learn different ways of using there hands, focusing on there weaknesses to make them better, overall just improving drastically? Absolutely. If thats what you want out of game, then you can keep it.

Is this a good thing? Is L-canceling a barrier? Or is it a reason to practice, a reason to put everything you know together. A reason to practice and to always improve. Nobody is frame perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. It's already been said before: Auto Lcanceling would make spacies Crazy-****ing-good. No L-canceling would make a lot of characters a LOT worse.


===


L-canceling is something you have to work hard to be proficient at. Shield pressure is something you have to work hard to be proficient at. I don't think anyone here is arguing that it's not a pain in the ***, because it is. But without it, the game would be much slower paced. Saying that "Oh there is no reason you wouldn't want to do it so it stupid" is not a valid argument. There ARE different timing for it and different ways of getting punished for it.



If everything were automatic, would everyone be good? No. People will always be smarter then others. Will it make people who don't even play the game possibly as good as Mango or any other top player? Who knows. When the game comes down to the metal aspect, who's to say that Mango couldn't be defeated? Who's to say there isn't someone who given the right circumstance, having everything on autopilot, autotechskill, not having to work, just watch a strategy video, studying Mango, and then beating him based on not techskill, but mental skill. Not to take a way from something like that, as it would be an impressive feat. But would it truly be a win, when Mango has been working hard to perfect his techskill? If everything were made simple, we'd have a completely different Metagame.


===


Let's say I'm about to L cancel and get hit near the ground. That counts as a missed tech. Now I lose my tech. My opponent knows I was going to L-cancel. I get punished. Thats one example of L-cancel = bad. Later on in the day I go to a website called smashboards.com and learn that if I L-cancel lightly it doesn't count as a missed tech. I start practicing that.


Le'ts say I'm being shield pressured by a Falco. I am facing left, and he is coming from the right. I expect an approaching shdair. I dash forward slightly and throw my shield up at an angle behind me towards the Falco. This could mess up the L-cancel, giving me enough time to shknee, shstomp, shbair.


My point is that L-canceling isn't just a button key. It isn't just something they threw in for artificial depth.. ok actually that might be the case. Maybe that is why it's there. But it definitely adds something to the game.


===


Now some good questions arises: Would taking L-canceling out / making it auto remove the depth of the game itself? I'd say: Only very slightly. Making it so that that the game automatically does it means that there is no room for error meaning you'll never be able to punish a missed L cancel and also that you'll be alot more safe about approaching with whatever you want and not worry about messing up.



Would it make the game better? I can't say. Thats all in the eyes of the beholder. The great thing I've always liked about Melee is that It's curve is so long and that there are so many levels of play in between "lol 25 stock item matches" and "I counterpick randomly so you can't switch." that it is must mindboggling. The line between good and bad would blur if we just made it instantly accessible.



L-cancelling I feel isn't the big issue here. I feel like the people who think L-cancelling is dumb still will and i'm wasting my hand when I could just be masturbating. To say that L-cancelling does not add to the depth of the game is incorrect. Simply put. Depth is defined by variables associated with it. The variables don't always have to do with movement. Think about games like Tekken where even basic movement is technical and has a learning curve. Would fixing all that and making it easy make the game worse? Probably not. But it would definitely make taking the time to get good and make it much less rewarding, impressive, and fun in a challenging way ( in my opinion).


Rant over.






TL;DR: Don't blame ya. It was pretty long. Basically I'm some noob with **** to say. You should point out my grammar mistakes instead of addressing my points like cool forum posters do.

 

[Lovage]

 

[Jam Stunna]

The point that is continually being missed is that EVERYONE l-cancels ALL THE TIME. There are times that you should full hop instead of short hop, there are times when you should dash instead of wavedashing, but there is never a time that you shouldn't l-cancel an aerial (barring ICG's example, but I'm not a Pikachu expert lol).

Since l-canceling is non-optional anyway, why not just build it into the engine? Does it actually prove anything to do something that is required? L-canceling only separates non-tournament players from tournament players. No one that's actually putting down money on this game doesn't know how to l-cancel.

 

[jugfingers]

l canceling ***** *** the haters who have chubby cheetos fingers

lol yup.


l-cancelling is just squeezing the trigger when you hit the ground like if you were bracing yourself for impact so you can react instantly, it makes sense from a logical perspective
it's really just about timing your inputs with whats happening in the game, why should you be able to react instantly after using an aerial if your not aware of when you are landing on the ground, it adds a level of awareness and skill without being a hindrance because of its simplicity and the fact that you can use a finger that's essentially doing nothing anyways.

 

[Kanelol]

Technical barriers unfortunately, are a natural result of increases in depth

I think you've got that mixed up bro

Also, simple =/= good in terms of control, and the technical barriers in melee are hardly arbitrary.

Sure, there's a certain level everyone has to be at to play competitively, but after that the arbitrariness stops, and tech skill becomes another tool, another unique facet you have to utilize to the best of your ability to win.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Ok. To the thread-maker, I apologize that your topic has gotten derailed and I apologize that I'm about to add to that. But I need to address something here.


===


First off, I'd like to talk about why I think L-canceling is not a negative thing. Everything in the high levels of play that go into Melee, all take time and patience to learn, and they are all equally important when talking about it.


===


Let's, just as an example, take L-canceling out of Melee, and assume that everything in the game moved at full potential and speed.



Now, let's make shorthopping easier. Why should we have to short-hop and full-hop with the same button if there are 2? Let's do that!



Let's make wavedashing / landing user friendly too.


===


"But wait Shawn, shorthopping and wavedashing / landing all help to advance the game, but L-canceling doesn't. It's an unneeded barrier that only alienates people who would otherwise play the game."

Like hell it does. If you started off playing Melee, and saw some random video online, and you could tell right away that they were moving far faster then you though possible, simply through the use of fast falling, L-canceling, and all that other stuff, would it not leave you with a much better impression then if they were simply doing things you had instant access to upon playing the game? I don't know about you, but when I found out about the techniques that existed, for the sequel to a game I had grown up loving, knowing that there was a higher level and I was looking at it, and that with time and practice I could be that good, It had a much greater impact on me then it would have if I said "oh thats not that hard everything is autocanceled lulz". This is one of example of why I think it helps: People are a lot more wowed when you do **** they didn't think was possible and it's what got me into melee in the first place. If everything were auto, everyone would be on even ground. Meaning people that have been playing for years would have the same technical prowess of my 11 year old brother. Kinda dumb if you ask me.


===


Not a good example? Let's take instrumentals as an example. An unrealistic example, but bear with me.

Let's say that I want to learn the piano. Let's say that the piano is made much much easier to use, they managed to fit all the keys in places more comfortable so the size is no larger then a keyboard. Hand movement is no longer an issue. They don't take nearly as long to master, and in fact can be mastered in the same way that typing on a keyboard is mastered.


===


Does this lack of a barrier make piano more appealing to a more casual market? Sure. Does it make it easier? Sure. Is is literally removing a technical barrier and does it make music playing a lot more accessible? Sure. Does it completely take away from people who play real piano, who practice day in and day out, go to classes for years and years, learn different ways of using there hands, focusing on there weaknesses to make them better, overall just improving drastically? Absolutely. If thats what you want out of game, then you can keep it.

Is this a good thing? Is L-canceling a barrier? Or is it a reason to practice, a reason to put everything you know together. A reason to practice and to always improve. Nobody is frame perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. It's already been said before: Auto Lcanceling would make spacies Crazy-****ing-good. No L-canceling would make a lot of characters a LOT worse.


===


L-canceling is something you have to work hard to be proficient at. Shield pressure is something you have to work hard to be proficient at. I don't think anyone here is arguing that it's not a pain in the ***, because it is. But without it, the game would be much slower paced. Saying that "Oh there is no reason you wouldn't want to do it so it stupid" is not a valid argument. There ARE different timing for it and different ways of getting punished for it.



If everything were automatic, would everyone be good? No. People will always be smarter then others. Will it make people who don't even play the game possibly as good as Mango or any other top player? Who knows. When the game comes down to the metal aspect, who's to say that Mango couldn't be defeated? Who's to say there isn't someone who given the right circumstance, having everything on autopilot, autotechskill, not having to work, just watch a strategy video, studying Mango, and then beating him based on not techskill, but mental skill. Not to take a way from something like that, as it would be an impressive feat. But would it truly be a win, when Mango has been working hard to perfect his techskill? If everything were made simple, we'd have a completely different Metagame.


===


Let's say I'm about to L cancel and get hit near the ground. That counts as a missed tech. Now I lose my tech. My opponent knows I was going to L-cancel. I get punished. Thats one example of L-cancel = bad. Later on in the day I go to a website called smashboards.com and learn that if I L-cancel lightly it doesn't count as a missed tech. I start practicing that.


Le'ts say I'm being shield pressured by a Falco. I am facing left, and he is coming from the right. I expect an approaching shdair. I dash forward slightly and throw my shield up at an angle behind me towards the Falco. This could mess up the L-cancel, giving me enough time to shknee, shstomp, shbair.


My point is that L-canceling isn't just a button key. It isn't just something they threw in for artificial depth.. ok actually that might be the case. Maybe that is why it's there. But it definitely adds something to the game.


===


Now some good questions arises: Would taking L-canceling out / making it auto remove the depth of the game itself? I'd say: Only very slightly. Making it so that that the game automatically does it means that there is no room for error meaning you'll never be able to punish a missed L cancel and also that you'll be alot more safe about approaching with whatever you want and not worry about messing up.



Would it make the game better? I can't say. Thats all in the eyes of the beholder. The great thing I've always liked about Melee is that It's curve is so long and that there are so many levels of play in between "lol 25 stock item matches" and "I counterpick randomly so you can't switch." that it is must mindboggling. The line between good and bad would blur if we just made it instantly accessible.



L-cancelling I feel isn't the big issue here. I feel like the people who think L-cancelling is dumb still will and i'm wasting my hand when I could just be masturbating. To say that L-cancelling does not add to the depth of the game is incorrect. Simply put. Depth is defined by variables associated with it. The variables don't always have to do with movement. Think about games like Tekken where even basic movement is technical and has a learning curve. Would fixing all that and making it easy make the game worse? Probably not. But it would definitely make taking the time to get good and make it much less rewarding, impressive, and fun in a challenging way ( in my opinion).


Rant over.






TL;DR: Don't blame ya. It was pretty long. Basically I'm some noob with **** to say. You should point out my grammar mistakes instead of addressing my points like cool forum posters do.

Laser guided attack on underpinings of point...

What's wrong with making wavedashing easier, or short-hopping easier, or [AT here] easier.

Granted, for some, it would be difficult or inconvenient, but if you can remove technical barriers WITHOUT DECREASING THE DEPTH why not?


That allows us to concentrate on the intellectually interesting portions of the game/instrument/whatever.

I think you've got that mixed up bro

Why? Increasing depth generally means an increase on control, increasing the complexity of the required control scheme.

Also, simple =/= good in terms of control, and the technical barriers in melee are hardly arbitrary.

Sure, there's a certain level everyone has to be at to play competitively, but after that the arbitrariness stops, and tech skill becomes another tool, another unique facet you have to utilize to the best of your ability to win.

The more difficult the control scheme makes it to perform what you want to perform, the worse it is, and here I'm referring to L'canceling (since most of the most of the technical aspects come from manipulations in the engine, which at the very least, would require significant changes in the game at the last minute, and therefore, are not intentionally bad).


And what isn't arbitrary about L canceling? It was a skill added in, necessary in all but the most absolutely stupid case that should never occur anyway.

Yes, the tech skill is necessary to play the game, but what I'm saying is that we should not intentionally add to it, and where we can simplify without eliminating depth, we should.