Link to original post: [drupal=817]This Old House[/drupal]
There has been alot of talk about banning since the day that Super Smash Bros. Brawl was released. Just by looking on the front page of the Brawl Tactical Discussion Forum, I find these threads:
Should King Dedede's Infinite Chaingrab be banned?
Taking a Stance on Infinites
The SBR's Official Position on Metaknight
Over-Centralization: What Should the Community's Tolerance Be?
Poll: Should Metaknight be Banned? **Take 2** {Post-Podcast)
All on the front page. Granted, most of these are redundant, but the fact that these threads are still open or have been stickied indicates to me at least that this debate is large enough to warrant all the talk about them.
In my last blog, I stated that the community's propensity to seek bans is emblematic of the non-competitive nature of Brawl. I still think that's true, but I'd like to take it one step further. People enjoy Brawl so much that they're willing to play a broken game. I believe they like it because it's easy, but it actually doesn't matter why they do. The fact (and yes, it is a fact) remains that Brawl is broken, no matter how much you may like it. Have we come to expect so little from Nintendo, videogames and from ourselves that we play something that is fundamentally unplayable?
Before I continue, I should define what I consider ban-worthy. This is a post I made in Umbreon's thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jam Stunna
Anti-ban:
1. What do we gain, in terms of tournament and community, by allowing all true infinites?
We force individual players to come to individual solutions, as opposed to asking them to rely on community decisions as a crutch. It is individual achievement that drives the development of any community, and by inserting community decisions we are in effect creating a false metagame. If DK is unplayable against D3, so be it; that's an individual problem. The individual should be forced to either find a way around it or pick up another character, not ask the community to make the match-up playable.
2. What do we lose, in terms of tournament and community, by removing/banning all true infinites?
We remove the necessity for critical thinking. In essence, a tournament player can say, "I know that my character can be infinited by [insert character here] or on [insert stage here], but I'm going to choose him anyway because they can't infinite me anymore." It also removes the incentive for creativity and experimentation. People who fought Wobbling ICs discovered that it was possible to mash out under the right circumstances; people who didn't fight Wobbling ICs did not.
3. What do you propose to regulate all true infinites for a tournament setting?
I don't think they should be regulated. If any aspect of a tournament game (besides stalling) is so broken that it needs to be regulated, then why are we playing the game?
Basically, I say anything goes. I make an exception for stalling tactics though, because stalling breaks competition in general. Every major sport has anti-stalling rules: The NBA has the shot clock and the 3-second rule; The NFL has the play clock; etc.
All of this talk of bans and limits seeks to address a basic issue: If Brawl is allowed to be played at it's "peak" (I use the term loosely to describe an unregulated playstyle, except in regards to stalling), it is literally unplayable. The argument against Metaknight is that he cannot be reasonably beat. Donkey Kong, among other characters, is now literally unplayable against D3. For the moment, let's grant that both of those statements are true. If you can't play as your favorite character and have a reasonable chance of success, then the question is simple. Why are you playing this game?
Why have you chosen to move into a run-down house? As a matter of fact, let's extend the analogy. Brawl is a run-down house. The pipes are leaking, the windows are drafty, the sheetrock is crumbling. But, there are those people who like to move into these kind of homes, because they seem them as "fixer-uppers". They put alot of time, effort and sweat into patching those holes in the walls, redoing roofing and siding, installing a new water heater. These people find a sense of pride and accomplishment in taking something that was uninhabitable and turning it into the best house on the block.
In the world of Smash, these "fixer-uppers" are the Brawl + community. While I believe that their efforts in regards to Brawl are somewhat misguided, I do respect their effort and dedication. I know alot of them are doing it for fun, and it really is interesting to see what they've been able to manage, and some of it is truly useful (like the sub-3 minute replay fix). Bravo gentlemen, carry on.
The rest of the Brawl community has moved into this house and taken a defeatist attitude. It's as if they saw leaky pipes, and decided to stop running water through them. Well, they're not leaking anymore, but you haven't fixed the problem. That's what a ban is: you see a problem, and instead of fixing it, you just ignore it. The underlying issue is still there, and no amount of covering your ears and screaming "Lalala!" is going to change it.
Of course, Brawl + is never going to become the tournament standard. It requires a hack, and the idea of hacking a game into tourney-worthiness is absurd. Playing Brawl + with friends is one thing; playing it for money is something entirely different. I'm afraid that this is a house that cannot be fixed.
So why are you still living in it?
There has been alot of talk about banning since the day that Super Smash Bros. Brawl was released. Just by looking on the front page of the Brawl Tactical Discussion Forum, I find these threads:
Should King Dedede's Infinite Chaingrab be banned?
Taking a Stance on Infinites
The SBR's Official Position on Metaknight
Over-Centralization: What Should the Community's Tolerance Be?
Poll: Should Metaknight be Banned? **Take 2** {Post-Podcast)
All on the front page. Granted, most of these are redundant, but the fact that these threads are still open or have been stickied indicates to me at least that this debate is large enough to warrant all the talk about them.
In my last blog, I stated that the community's propensity to seek bans is emblematic of the non-competitive nature of Brawl. I still think that's true, but I'd like to take it one step further. People enjoy Brawl so much that they're willing to play a broken game. I believe they like it because it's easy, but it actually doesn't matter why they do. The fact (and yes, it is a fact) remains that Brawl is broken, no matter how much you may like it. Have we come to expect so little from Nintendo, videogames and from ourselves that we play something that is fundamentally unplayable?
Before I continue, I should define what I consider ban-worthy. This is a post I made in Umbreon's thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jam Stunna
Anti-ban:
1. What do we gain, in terms of tournament and community, by allowing all true infinites?
We force individual players to come to individual solutions, as opposed to asking them to rely on community decisions as a crutch. It is individual achievement that drives the development of any community, and by inserting community decisions we are in effect creating a false metagame. If DK is unplayable against D3, so be it; that's an individual problem. The individual should be forced to either find a way around it or pick up another character, not ask the community to make the match-up playable.
2. What do we lose, in terms of tournament and community, by removing/banning all true infinites?
We remove the necessity for critical thinking. In essence, a tournament player can say, "I know that my character can be infinited by [insert character here] or on [insert stage here], but I'm going to choose him anyway because they can't infinite me anymore." It also removes the incentive for creativity and experimentation. People who fought Wobbling ICs discovered that it was possible to mash out under the right circumstances; people who didn't fight Wobbling ICs did not.
3. What do you propose to regulate all true infinites for a tournament setting?
I don't think they should be regulated. If any aspect of a tournament game (besides stalling) is so broken that it needs to be regulated, then why are we playing the game?
Basically, I say anything goes. I make an exception for stalling tactics though, because stalling breaks competition in general. Every major sport has anti-stalling rules: The NBA has the shot clock and the 3-second rule; The NFL has the play clock; etc.
All of this talk of bans and limits seeks to address a basic issue: If Brawl is allowed to be played at it's "peak" (I use the term loosely to describe an unregulated playstyle, except in regards to stalling), it is literally unplayable. The argument against Metaknight is that he cannot be reasonably beat. Donkey Kong, among other characters, is now literally unplayable against D3. For the moment, let's grant that both of those statements are true. If you can't play as your favorite character and have a reasonable chance of success, then the question is simple. Why are you playing this game?
Why have you chosen to move into a run-down house? As a matter of fact, let's extend the analogy. Brawl is a run-down house. The pipes are leaking, the windows are drafty, the sheetrock is crumbling. But, there are those people who like to move into these kind of homes, because they seem them as "fixer-uppers". They put alot of time, effort and sweat into patching those holes in the walls, redoing roofing and siding, installing a new water heater. These people find a sense of pride and accomplishment in taking something that was uninhabitable and turning it into the best house on the block.
In the world of Smash, these "fixer-uppers" are the Brawl + community. While I believe that their efforts in regards to Brawl are somewhat misguided, I do respect their effort and dedication. I know alot of them are doing it for fun, and it really is interesting to see what they've been able to manage, and some of it is truly useful (like the sub-3 minute replay fix). Bravo gentlemen, carry on.
The rest of the Brawl community has moved into this house and taken a defeatist attitude. It's as if they saw leaky pipes, and decided to stop running water through them. Well, they're not leaking anymore, but you haven't fixed the problem. That's what a ban is: you see a problem, and instead of fixing it, you just ignore it. The underlying issue is still there, and no amount of covering your ears and screaming "Lalala!" is going to change it.
Of course, Brawl + is never going to become the tournament standard. It requires a hack, and the idea of hacking a game into tourney-worthiness is absurd. Playing Brawl + with friends is one thing; playing it for money is something entirely different. I'm afraid that this is a house that cannot be fixed.
So why are you still living in it?
