Traditional Fighting Games and Smash - Where do we belong?

[Kal]

I don't think Cactuar said that Smash is superior to traditional fighters. He said that it more closely resembles a "fighting game" in the literal sense of the word. It has nothing to do with depth, as I'm sure this game comes pretty close to resembling real fighting, but its depth is questionable.

 

[KrIsP!]

^knockout in three seconds with a head-kick. I've got the tech skill.

 

[Shawn101589]

I don't think Cactuar said that Smash is superior to traditional fighters. He said that it more closely resembles a "fighting game" in the literal sense of the word. It has nothing to do with depth, as I'm sure this game comes pretty close to resembling real fighting, but its depth is questionable.

I wasn't referring directly to Cactuar's post but all the posts that are arguing whether Smash is a fighter or not. It's irrelevant. We obviously all think it is.

 

[Cactuar]

Yeah, I wasn't arguing if it was a fighter or not. Just pointing out that any exclusion we are dealt from the FGC that is based around them claiming smash isn't a fighting game is nonsense.

There is no point to arguing about smash being a fighting game. There is enough of a difference between smash and what is the standard for other games in the FGC that we still get excluded.

The core gameplay of smash is very different, even if it is closer to actually being like fighting.

 

[TeeVee]

wow at the melee community being too ******** to understand why smash as a whole (not just brawl) will not be apart of fgc. both games (yes, both) are painfully boring to watch as a spectator who doesn't play that specific game. games like marvel and street fighter (top 8 evo level only) get a ridiculous amount of viewers because the games are entertaining to watch even if you don't play the games at all. apex COULD have been a good opportunity to get smash into it but melee gf's was pretty much objectively the worst set of all time in any fighting game. also, the gap between new smash game releases is too large. there's a new "real" fighting game out pretty much every month, along with new content from already existing games while the smash series hasn't been updated for over 3 years.

both games are stale from a spectator point of view and no large tournament like EVO would ever risk running an event for it.

 

[Spyro]

@TeeVee: Bad trolling is bad.

 

[KrIsP!]

I don't like watching so called real fighting games.

 

[Qzzy]

@ TeeVee;

I really don't care to spectate traditional fighters. I don't think they're "objectively" bad to watch, just personally doesn't appeal to me. Also, people like watching basketball and there hasn't been a new iteration of that in a while. I think.

As for the FGC community and their games; really no experience, and thus no comment.

 

[rawrimamonster]

I've had numerous arguments with the loud and more obnoxious members of the traditional fighter community. The one thing we seemed to agree on more than anything else is that a community makes a fighter, not the corporation or developers who produce it. The best technical category I've seen smash put under was platform fighter. Course idiots are always louder than those with voices of reason when it comes to getting noticed so...

My personal opinion (probably going to get me banned by thought police, but i dont really care anymore. This board fell off in my eyes after 08 or so)

traditional fighter community as a whole, has too many over opinionated loud wiggers to ever accept us. Not to say our community doesn't have its loud obnoxious players but we're not half as bad (but heading that way from recent videos I've seen) as the ******* that **** themselves whenever daigo, wong, gamerbee or some other top pro gets on and start yellin BODIED BODIED SALT U MAD SON U MAD HAHAH U MAD SALT SALT SALTTTTTT...I sometimes wonder if these people know what shame is.

As far as to your question about what is better, acceptance or respect. Neither, dignity is the right answer. We don't need their community, yea we can draw more players if we get more noticed/accepted but at what price? Do we really want more of these types of players ****tin up the community? Their only defense I've ever seen to this "**** talking" (if you call jumpin everywhere like a monkey and screaming in someones ear **** talking) is "hurr durr you cant handle the pressure son" or some other bullcrap. Theres no excuse for it, its disrespectful,immature and doesn't belong in a professional game setting, whether you wanna scream "BAWW NO FUN ALLOWED" or not.

Sorry for kinda ranting but I've been dwelling on the attitudes of fighting communities for a while. It makes me sick to look at the way they've changed nowadays.

 

[Beat!]

wow at the melee community being too ******** to understand why smash as a whole (not just brawl) will not be apart of fgc. both games (yes, both) are painfully boring to watch as a spectator who doesn't play that specific game. games like marvel and street fighter (top 8 evo level only) get a ridiculous amount of viewers because the games are entertaining to watch even if you don't play the games at all. apex COULD have been a good opportunity to get smash into it but melee gf's was pretty much objectively the worst set of all time in any fighting game. also, the gap between new smash game releases is too large. there's a new "real" fighting game out pretty much every month, along with new content from already existing games while the smash series hasn't been updated for over 3 years.

both games are stale from a spectator point of view and no large tournament like EVO would ever risk running an event for it.

Traditional fighters are fun to watch for like 5 seconds.

 

[popsofctown]

Problems happen when you look at a game and say, "This game is objectively bad." Whether it's FGC hating on Smash or Melee players hating on Brawl, you should never try to make that assertion. Depth doesn't matter, most games have so much depth you'll never get to it all, like Go or chess. I learn something I didn't know every time I play Brawl or Melee.

It's really a matter of whether you enjoy watching the game or not and enjoy playing the game or not. The attitude that a game can be objectively bad is what needs to change. When an FGC player starts bashing Melee as objectively bad, usually the Melee will defend it and insist it's objectively good. That validates the idea that a game can be objectively bad, so then the subsequent failure to change the FGC player's subjective opinion of smash is reinforcement of the game's objective inferiority.
If a game is competitive (best player consistently wins) and has depth then it can be played competitively, and whether you enjoy it or enjoy watching it is a matter of taste.

 

[PEEF!]

Problems happen when you look at a game and say, "This game is objectively bad." Whether it's FGC hating on Smash or Melee players hating on Brawl, you should never try to make that assertion. Depth doesn't matter, most games have so much depth you'll never get to it all, like Go or chess. I learn something I didn't know every time I play Brawl or Melee.

It's really a matter of whether you enjoy watching the game or not and enjoy playing the game or not. The attitude that a game can be objectively bad is what needs to change. When an FGC player starts bashing Melee as objectively bad, usually the Melee will defend it and insist it's objectively good. That validates the idea that a game can be objectively bad, so then the subsequent failure to change the FGC player's subjective opinion of smash is reinforcement of the game's objective inferiority.
If a game is competitive (best player consistently wins) and has depth then it can be played competitively, and whether you enjoy it or enjoy watching it is a matter of taste.

I'm philosophically interested in this kind of relativism. Could we not say that a game that has moves that randomly cause the character to freeze, at random times characters fall through the stage, fighting games with only one playable character, are these not all examples of things that make a game objectively worse? If so it seems like there might be legitimate properties to go by.

 

[Dan Salvato]

I'm philosophically interested in this kind of relativism. Could we not say that a game that has moves that randomly cause the character to freeze, at random times characters fall through the stage, fighting games with only one playable character, are these not all examples of things that make a game objectively worse? If so it seems like there might be legitimate properties to go by.

In my opinion, randomness in virtually any game is a worsening quality only if the random factor is not designed to become a part of skill and strategy. For instance, Poker is not damaged by its randomness because the strategy of the game is to work around the randomness with skill. On the other hand, the random tripping in Brawl hurts the game because it can not be, and is not designed to be, strategically worked around.

Most fighting games suffer from randomness as a detraction from pure skill. If any randomness is included in the game, it should not have such a wide deviation of consequence. For instance, Peach's random turnips are strategized around (ensuring accuracy of a powerful turnip, attempting to pull a powerful turnip between stocks), but the Stitchface and Bob-omb are very consequential and even too rare to be strategized around. So, these turnips should not be included for Peach to pull, in my opinion.

Similarly, Luigi's misfires and G&W's "9" hammer are too consequential and too rare to be strategized around. If Luigi's misfire had, say, a 1/4 chance but sent him not quite as far, it would be slightly more effective strategically. Better yet, if Luigi would flash when the next fire is going to be a misfire (as I think P:M will do?) then the randomness can be worked into strategy. G&W's hammer could also have a 1/4 chance of "9" without it being a 1-hit kill.

Those are just some couple examples of how randomness is used in fighting games, and under what conditions it can add to or detract from gameplay.

 

[Kal]

It might be objectively worse than the same game with certain differences (e.g. you can argue that Melee with 30 characters is better than Melee with 26 characters), but I say that otherwise it's like comparing apples an oranges.

In the above example (Melee with 30 vs. 26 characters), you aren't even guaranteed an objectively better game. Suppose Melee with 30 characters trivializes the 29 other characters? Or more realistically, trivializes a character you were fond of?

It's possible to discuss the depth of games, and in theory even possible to show something like "Brawl is less deep than Melee." However, most would agree that this depth does not necessarily make the game better. If depth were the be-all end-all of gaming, we'd all play Brood War and Chess instead of Melee. And, in the same vein, some people will enjoy aspects that you consider "worse;" some people enjoy Poker exactly because of the random shenanigans that arise from a shuffled deck.

Now, I can certainly see to certain conventions we would all agree upon. For example, in most competitive games where randomness is not an inherent trait (i.e., games in which you can realistically eliminate randomness without breaking the game altogether), randomness is disliked. I'm sure there are plenty of others (in Melee, people seem to dislike the stage not sitting there, stationary, not doing anything (i.e., people like boring stages)).

As an aside, we should tread carefully in the use of such conventions, because they're usually not ubiquitous. Very often it becomes players hoping to turn scrubby preference into rule. These conventions are perfectly fine for game design, but for creating a ruleset one should be careful.

 

[TeeVee]

@Quizzy and Beat - It doesn't matter what your personal opinions on traditional fighters are, nobody cares. The only fact that matters is the numbers they get for streams and entrants dwarfs us. This has nothing to do with the quality of the game. No one cares that melee is more technically demanding than marvel or street fighter(hell, there's players at high level in both games that say brawl is a harder game to reach high level than marvel is).

The fact that melee and brawl streams on average hit 30 - 70 viewers, with nationals barley scraping 300 most of the time is a joke. Top 8 street fighter at evo hits in the 10's of thousands, EVERY decent sized marvel event hits at least 1,000. Apex 2012 had the most entrants of all time in brawl with around 410 while street fighter consistently hits 1,500+ every EVO. The sad fact is no one outside of the brawl community likes to watch brawl and no one outside of the melee community likes to watch melee, these games are not going to grow.

 

[Sinji]

No one important cares whether Melee is a "fighting game," we all just know it's sick as **** and one of the best competitive games ever made.

This

10this

close the thread.

yea I don't have to go to SRK and cuse them out for insulting Melee. I know deep within that Melee is sick as **** and is one of the best competitive games ever made and is still being played today. 10 and a half years of success.

Apex 2012 was a test to see if Smash (Brawl and Melee) a TFG would get along and they didn't. I was shocked when I heard that the commintators were insulting Brawl and melee by calling it a party game when we don't even dance in the game lol.

Deep down TFG are jelly because we have taken the game to a level that it wasn't intended to be.

 

[KrIsP!]

Can anyone point me in the direction of this apex commentary if it exists on youtube?

 

[Anth0ny]

I'd like to be accepted as a part of the FGC. But the feeling I get is the majority of Melee players don't really play any 2D fighters, and thus is indifferent to the whole situation.

Apex was an incredible experience. Marvel, AE and Melee all being played on the same stage. I'd like more of that. Although I was there, I watched the stream archives, and it was by far the best Smash stream I've ever seen. 99% of Smash streams are poverty streams. This is the kind of stuff we need to keep the community alive and thriving. Sp00ky streaming a major Melee event would be incredible.

The sad thing is... Melee would possibly still be at Evo if Brawl didn't come out and mess everything up =(

Ha. Could this post be more ironic?

That's your opinion. Those who love traditional fighting games would say the same about Melee. Ne?

See, people stone-set in their belief that Brawl is objectively bad are only reinforcing my point. The fighting game community is as convinced that Smash is bad as you are that Brawl is bad. Have you guys ever considered that perhaps Brawl players see the Melee community the same way we see the FG community? We only want acceptance... and then we turn around and hate on Brawl. I'm sure they think the same thing we think about the way the FG community acts: "We're not asking them to play the game. All we want is acceptance. Why are they so hateful?"

The irony of posts like yours and UltiMario's being here is so rich it hurts, considering the thread's topic.

Spoiler

And no, I don't like/play Brawl myself.

So true lol.

The Melee community is FGC-lite. Brawl community is Melee community-lite. Everyone ****s on everyone.

 

[popsofctown]

I'm philosophically interested in this kind of relativism. Could we not say that a game that has moves that randomly cause the character to freeze, at random times characters fall through the stage, fighting games with only one playable character, are these not all examples of things that make a game objectively worse? If so it seems like there might be legitimate properties to go by.

As I use the word "competitiveness", let it mean "the margin of difference between the better player's chance of winning a set and the worse player's chance of winning the set."

It is certainly possible to identify specific mechanics that are objectively bad, because they reduce competitiveness. Tripping reduces competitiveness, it's extremely unlikely that the unique skillsets players use to combat tripping (like, I've probably been Pavlovian conditioned to dash 1% less than I would if it didn't exist) overcomes the variance introduced by tripping. It's possible an uncompetitive mechanic could exist because it explores interesting depth or is just fun, for example, the explosive power of pawn promotion in chess probably makes endgames a bit easier to win for weaker players, but pawn promotion strategy is fascinating and most chess players I know, including myself, really like the mechanic. (Chess has luck. Whenever a player can't actually perform the analysis or remember a strategic rule of thumb that supports Move A being better than Move B, they at some point pick Move A arbitrarily and get rewarded or punished. And move A might even be part of an 10 move chain you're looking at .)

Tripping is definitely not one of those mechanics. People don't enjoy it. So there is certainly no particular gain to justify the loss of competitiveness.


In the post you quoted though, I was saying that an entire game should not be considered objectively bad. Smaller aspects of a game can be evaluated, but many are very difficult to evaluate.

Games with an overly dominant character tend to lose competitiveness from that aspect on its own, because the loss of depth leaves less total possible skills for someone to master and get the leg up on someone else, move A vs move B scenarios are more likely to fill the void, or a lucky save from Randall.

Those aren't the only factors though, each game's spacing, mechanics, matchups, and whatever else goes on impacts competitiveness, because there are nuanced ways to get skills at the game to give you the leg up on your opponent. It's very possible for the mechanics of the game to compensate for specific flaws by having good strategy in general, and overall be more competitive.

For an example, when Zendikar came out, I didn't see anything wrong with any of the cards in the set for drafting. From reading high levelled players' feedback though, I found out that the ideal metagame was highly centralized aggro vs. aggro games, and that the simplification made it much harder for strong players to win consistently. Most of them were losing elo rating because it was too close to a coinflip for them to beat a very inferior player, because they both had mastered aggro v aggro drafting and then the shuffles take over. As a layperson I had no idea this was the case. The situation is complex enough that I could be skeptical of those good players' opinion of the format - maybe if they were at an even higher level it becomes a skillfull set - but the changes in stable elos they had had for quite a while demonstrated statistical evidence that competitiveness was getting reduced by hard evidence rather than theory - good players were losing a lot.

When Rise of the Eldrazi came out, I thought the set looked really random. Venerated Teacher was a common card that was either awesome or terrible when you drew him and he added swing to the format, and most of the pro drafters wouldn't disagree on that specific flaw. But even though I could pick out more specific sources of variance like that, I didn't have the big picture - Rise of the Eldrazi has an extremely balanced set of strategies with lots of nuances on playing them well, and in spite of Venerated Teacher it's leagues more competitive than Zendikar. ELOs started returning to normal.


For the competitiveness as a game as a whole, only tournament data can present a good picture on the game's competitiveness. Basketball teams upset eachother all the time but Lance Armstrong or Lenny Krazelberg can win over and over again so I can conclude basketball is a less competitive game than racing sports. But throwing balls into hoops is fun so that's worth it.

To the best of my knowledge, Brawl, Melee, and traditional fighting games have tournament outcomes that reflect a very competitive game. They all are pretty similar in competitiveness, so either tripping is a small fault, or it's a large fault and Brawl has tons of qualities that outweigh it, but either way the tournament data suggests the games are very competitive and it's mostly a matter of which one you like more.


This post is already too long, I will stop now.

 

[Cactuar]

Just because the results of something are more random, doesn't make it less competitive. There is a scenario where a game that has a higher chance of a random outcome can better display the gap in skill between two players as as the required skill advantage to maintain a consistent win ratio vs the opponent is greater as the randomness of the game output is increased.

 

[popsofctown]

Correct. This a more succinct way of making one of my points.

Sealed is a format in magic the gathering where players receive 6 packs of cards with random contents, build a deck in half an hour or so, and then play a tournament against other people who did the same. Constructed is a format where you know certain cards are legal, you can acquire whichever ones you want to build your deck, and you play against others who did the same. Sealed is more random, because players have no control over the random contents of their packs, and it's quite possible to get unusually many low quality cards or high quality cards. But tournament data consistently and overwhelmingly demonstrates that sealed is miles more competitive than constructed. Somehow or other, the skillset it tests sets players apart better There are various explanations for the causes, no copying other people's ideas because no one has gotten your six packs before, having to predict opponent's concealed hands based on how you think they designed their random set of cards, underpowered creature cards get used more frequently and emphasize combat which is skill intensive. Who knows how much of each of these are the real reasons are true, but none of them are outright removing a random element that was present in constructed, yet somehow or another they sum up to added competitivity.

 

[PEEF!]

"Just because the results of something are more random, doesn't make it less competitive."

This allows for better players to lose because of things that are out of their control. Do you not think something important is lost here relevant to our game? Our game is not about consistent win ratio, each battle is a man vs man, and for some people to be given fraudulent and random wins would undermine the integrity of our game, no?

 

[Kal]

No, Peef. That's like saying that randomness in heads-up Poker undermines the game's integrity because, like Smash, each game is "man vs. man."

What you're doing is taking the measurement for skill in a game without randomness and applying it to a game with randomness, then saying "see, this game is worse." In a game with random elements, skill is measured by long-term results. M2K losing against me on Brinstar does not impact the integrity of Smash any more than Doyle Brunson losing a game against me impacts the integrity of Poker.

Assuming no randomness, it's fine to claim "the better player always win." Since this no longer holds with randomness (and, in fact, even games without randomness built in will have some arguably random elements, since people are not necessarily predictable), it doesn't make sense to just assign skill based on who beats who. There is more to it than that (specifically, it's "who beats who, how often").

 

[PEEF!]

No, Peef. That's like saying that randomness in heads-up Poker undermines the game's integrity because, like Smash, each game is "man vs. man."

What you're doing is taking the measurement for skill in a game without randomness and applying it to a game with randomness, then saying "see, this game is worse." In a game with random elements, skill is measured by long-term results. M2K losing against me on Brinstar does not impact the integrity of Smash any more than Doyle Brunson losing a game against me impacts the integrity of Poker.

Assuming no randomness, it's fine to claim "the better player always win." Since this no longer holds with randomness (and, in fact, even games without randomness built in will have some arguably random elements, since people are not necessarily predictable), it doesn't make sense to just assign skill based on who beats who. There is more to it than that (specifically, it's "who beats who, how often").

Well, poker, when played 1v1, really doesn't provide almost any serious conclusions after a few, or even 20 hands. I think this is to the detriment of poker, and honestly, I believe that poker is overblown and overrated for this very reason, in spite of the massive and intelligent crowd that plays it. Perhaps this helps. I can play 10 matches vs Armada, assuming we are both trying (on neutral maps, I despise the use of counterpick maps), and we will know based on results within that time who is the better player. I (lets say amateur understanding of the game) can play 10 hands with one of the best poker players in the world, and it really won't determine much if anything. I think this is a serious problem for a competitive game.

 

[Kal]

Number of hands won is totally irrelevant. You clearly have no understanding of Poker. You're trivializing the game the same way the traditional fighting game community trivializes Smash.

Before you bash the game, go read some literature on it. Poker is an extremely deep game, and the fact that you're even considering the number of hands won indicates that you have absolutely no grasp of what constitutes skill in Poker.

 

[PEEF!]

Number of hands won is totally irrelevant. You clearly have no understanding of Poker. You're trivializing the game the same way the traditional fighting game community trivializes Smash.

Before you bash the game, go read some literature on it. Poker is an extremely deep game, and the fact that you're even considering the number of hands won indicates that you have absolutely no grasp of what constitutes skill in Poker.

Amount of money won, is that better?

 

[Kal]

The thing you seem to fail to realize is that this problem you have is only logistical. If being better than you at a game with randomness means that I win 51% of the time, this doesn't make the game "objectively worse." It just means that we have to play a longer series of games to ensure a "correct" outcome.

Often times, randomness adds to depth. On Brinstar, being forced to know how to continue combos, how to break away, and which platforms to run to on reaction, when the lava rises, are all aspects of depth that arise from randomness. If the lava were on a timer, it would stop being something you need to do on reaction, and become a measure of your ability to memorize and keep track of the timing.

 

[PEEF!]

The thing you seem to fail to realize is that this problem you have is only logistical. If being better than you at a game with randomness means that I win 51% of the time, this doesn't make the game "objectively worse." It just means that we have to play a longer series of games to ensure a "correct" outcome.

Often times, randomness adds to depth. On Brinstar, being forced to know how to continue combos, how to break away, and which platforms to run to on reaction, when the lava rises, are all aspects of depth that arise from randomness. If the lava were on a timer, it would stop being something you need to do on reaction, and become a measure of your ability to memorize and keep track of the timing.

Brinstar is ****, and it makes the game worse. You won't be convincing me or many other people based on arguments that centralize around Brinstar.

As to your 51% bit, what if there was a game that required you to play 100,000 games before someone would appear better than another. Is that not a perfectly acceptable criteria for a game being "competitive" for your understanding? I am valuing how quickly and easily the better player can be deemed the better player, and I think this matters. In poker, who knows how long it might take, in Melee, we will know very quickly because the best players place in the top few placings every single time. I think there is a serious value to that.

 

[Kal]

After your Brinstar comment, I'm not going to continue the discussion. You've convinced yourself that all randomness is objectively bad, despite the crux of your argument falling on pragmatism. No argument is going to change that because it's ideological for you.

 

[Varist]

@ TeeVee;

I really don't care to spectate traditional fighters. I don't think they're "objectively" bad to watch, just personally doesn't appeal to me. Also, people like watching basketball and there hasn't been a new iteration of that in a while. I think.

As for the FGC community and their games; really no experience, and thus no comment.

As for the FGC community and their games; really no experience, and thus no comment.

FGC community = fighting game community community

 

[Strong Badam]

thank you for your contribution varist

 

[Kal]

varist for mvp

 

[PEEF!]

After your Brinstar comment, I'm not going to continue the discussion. You've convinced yourself that all randomness is objectively bad, despite the crux of your argument falling on pragmatism. No argument is going to change that because it's ideological for you.

And you have convinced yourself that all randomness is objectively good or acceptable! I could say the same of you! I am attempting to get you to draw the line somewhere. Now either answer the second part of my question, or risk accusing yourself of that which you accuse me of!

 

[Kal]

I haven't convinced myself that all randomness is objectively good. Hardly. Being "objectively good" is exactly what I'm arguing against. Your pedestrian attempt at calling me a hypocrite just suggests that you lack the skills to actually understand my argument.

Again, you're asking for a pragmatic distinction. I agree that being forced to play 6.022 x 10^23 games of Melee in order to verify who is better would be bad. Not objectively, but logistically. Pragmatically. A distinction you don't seem to understand.

And the last line of your post is unbearably awkward. Phrasing, my friend.

 

[Varist]

i like how peef was probably writing his post thinking like "oh yeah this is it what i been waiting for irrefutable evidence of kal is wrong i'm gonna get him i been watching carefully for his hipocrisy and he just did some of it! i'm gonna try to guide him into the direction of logical thinking"

but then the whole time he was just not even understanding the argument he was in. lols

 

[KrIsP!]

FGC community = fighting game community community

ATM machine = automated teller machine machine

1. World is stupid
2. I love you.

 

[Varist]

and i bet if you started calling it an AT machine people would have no idea what the **** was spilling out of your mouth.

god

 

[Shawn101589]

I don't really see how the Poker examples hold any water. The entire premise of card games are that they are games of chance. The strategy in it involves manipulating and misleading your opponents, and there is plenty of physical depth too. IE, Virtual Poker has less variables then playing Poker in a room full of people.

The thing about Poker, though, is that the depth of it stems from the randomness. And I don't think anyone here is arguing that randomness inherently detracts from depth all the time in every situation.

The way we play competitive Melee is that two people face off on the most neutral stages we can use as determined by the tournament organizer, items are shut off because of randomness, and most of the stages are shut off because of random elements or things the detract from the better player winning. Complication an argument by saying something is only objectively better or objectively worse is completely irrelevant.

The way we play Melee (we being the majority of the competitive community) is effectively made worse when random elements are added because they do not add anything to the game aside from skewed results. Just because randomness can add depth to certain games does not automatically mean it adds depth to Melee.

 

[PEEF!]

I haven't convinced myself that all randomness is objectively good. Hardly. Being "objectively good" is exactly what I'm arguing against. Your pedestrian attempt at calling me a hypocrite just suggests that you lack the skills to actually understand my argument.

Again, you're asking for a pragmatic distinction. I agree that being forced to play 6.022 x 10^23 games of Melee in order to verify who is better would be bad. Not objectively, but logistically. Pragmatically. A distinction you don't seem to understand.

And the last line of your post is unbearably awkward. Phrasing, my friend.

Jesus ****ing christ your "high and mightiness" is unbelievable. I should note that I'm drinking, not as an excuse but perhaps as an explanation of bad (no) editing/awkward wording. My first thoughts are generally clumsy. Not to mention we are on a message board and I have been giving you the benefit of the doubt and trying to charitably read your arguments instead of nitpicking the little things.

Discussions of pragmatism are extremely important when discussing whether a game is better or worse than another. I'm not sure how you could even escape pragmatism when the whole purpose of the project is pragmatic. I understand the distinction, Kal. Perhaps what you are wanting me to say is that Melee is objectively a better game than one totally encumbered by randomness, pragmatically speaking. Does this make sense, or have I run afoul of you and your "heavenly gifts?" Objectivity is always an absolutely burdensome conversation (I am a philosophy major) and I genuinely hate talking about it because of the many different interpretations of the meaning. I do want to get across this point: Why have discussions unless they are pragmatic; and objectivity can refer to whether or not a thing is based soley in the mind aka subjective (favorite flavor if ice cream), or it conforms to the way the world really is. I think that everything we have been talking about has been about the real world of gaming, and it has also been pragmatic. Please, spare me another post from your "isle of the blessed" so an actual dialogue and understanding can be had.

 

[Bing]

I dont think people truly appreciate the FGC, I mean when it boils down to it, we all are the same.
Smash may infact be the most technical in that we are constantly moving zipping around the stage. But I mean for every game, we all put in hours upon hours upon hours of practice into a game that we love. Some games require different skill sets and thought processes. This is true for every game, and yes that includes Brawl