Whoops, sorry Yuna. Got a little confused with my dates there, but I kind of figured I would (hence the 'if I remember correctly'; I obviously didn't, no big deal, I'll go back and fix it). The point I was trying to make (which is more important here) is that for a significant period of time, items were used in tournaments. Even taking my mistake in date into consideration, that's 2 years that went by with items on; that's a significant period of time.
The scene was young and n00b. There were few players and the players who were the best weren't even that good. They were pretty new to competitive fighting games because Smash 64 was kinda small on the competitive side (as in how many players it attracted) and Smash 64 was also vastly different from SSBM. I do not know the history of SSB, I do not claim to know so.
If they used items, I cannot say why they did it and why they chose not to turn them off. Experiments were done with items early on. The bottom line is, we came to the conclusion that they should be
off. No substantial evidence for why they should be turned on has been presented since, not for Melee and not for Brawl.
"It'd be more exciting" doesn't cut.
I never said that you ever used the argument that 'the most fatal part of Final Smashes is that it allows lesser skilled opponents to win'. But, the corollary to that argument is something that has been said before, that their randomness (among other things) makes them unfair, and this extends to all item arguments, which is what the (at the time) discussion had moved to.
You chose to only address that one issue which isn't even an issue I've
ever stressed. I've ever only said "They're random, they spawn randomly, at random times and in random places". I have never, as far as I can remember, stressed or possibly even
used the argument of "a lesser player might win over a more skilled player" other when pointing out that it could indeed happen.
I never bring it up unless someone brings it up first or if I'm rounding up
all of the issues against FS:es for the whole picture. Why would you address me and choose that one aspect I've never even stressed is a mystery.
Yes, there are balancing issues with Final Smashes; I don't remember anyone ever seriously saying there weren't (but I've already forgotten what I had for breakfast, so I'm not infallible).
Then why is this the first time you're seriously acknowledged it? Why do you so often forget it? Why are you still so insistent on FS:es being turned on?
And, again, I have to disagree with what you're saying about FS whoring becoming the gold standard of Smash gameplay.
I'll try to say this tactfully:
You - Not a competitive fighting game player (by your own admission).
Me - A competitive fighting game player.
I do not only play several fighting games competitively and at least at a decent skill level, I
know some of the world's best players at several fighting games. I've spoken to them, I know them, I'm part of their world, I know
our mindset, how competitive fighting games work, what will happen.
If something is
broken and will guarantee you (or at least tip the scales of balance) a win, people will
***** it if it isn't banned. If you leave FS:es on, tournament play
will devolve into what I say it will devolve into unless the people who play in tournaments actively choose not to do so because they deem it "too cheap" (those scrubs).
This is not negotiable. It might not be like that for the first few tournaments. Heck, you might even get a few months without it. But give it a year and it will be like that, almsot 100% guaranteed. The "almost" here is not
if it'll happen, it's
when.
Sure, to some extent and in some matches it may happen. But when you say 'competitive fighting gaming history shows that, you cannot deny it', you are patently wrong; I think many people would be hard pressed to present a time in competitive fighting games in the past that is close enough to FS's to warrant such a statement.
Broken **** has existed in competitive games (not just fighting games) since the dawn of videogames. And people whored them in tournaments. And they were invariably banned (sometimes even before they ever saw the light of tournament play).
Tact-levels receeding...
I know what I'm talking about. You don't. Why have you not learned this yet? It's a prediction based on history and analysis of the human mind. You cannot deny what I'm saying. Ask anyone who plays videogames competitively and go to tournaments and know how they work and how the human competitive videogaming mind works.
At least 9/10 will collaborate with me.
FS'es work so differently from what we're used to in competitive fighting games that we can't easily compare them to anything, really. They can't be compared to Supers because you're invincible while you use them and you gain FS'es in a completely different way. ...and that's all I can think to compare them to. Again, you're trying to make a concrete prediction that relies on us taking you at face value and just 'trusting you'... and I refuse to do that. I only trust my senses, and I refuse to believe someone because he says I should.
You must not have played many games. Supers also render you invincible for the start of them. So they
can be used to counter approach. But that's an altogether other discussion, one that does not to be gotten into here.
You trust your senses, be that way. Your senses are wrong. I and
many, many, many, many, many, many, many others have told you that you are wrong. Find me one single competitive Smash or fighting game or possibly even videogame player to whom you describe exactly how Final Smashes work (show them my posts if you must) and then ask them if they think they should be allowed in tournament play.
Then ask them what they think the scene will turn into if they're allowed. They show them my prediction.
This is kind of an aside... but 'some of my replies in this post are venomous' doesn't even begin to describe your posting habits. Every post I've ever read of yours has been full of, to be frank, hate.
No they haven't. Don't make up statistics that can easily be refuted by leafing through my posting history.
For one thing, hate is a very strong word. For another, "full of" is also a very strong word. For third, I just posted 3 posts today devoid of any kind of hate, venom or resentment of any kind.
I'm not really saying you don't have that right, and I've definitely come to expect that from you (so I accept and allow it)... but please don't try to seem like you're just a nice guy who loses his cool every now and then.
I really am.
I just use witty and biting sarcasm all the time. It's a life style. And I only give those who deserve it "hate". Unless you didn't notice, the people I quoted said some
very stupid things in
very stupid ways (trashing competitive gamers/Smashers in the process for the most part, making up random assumptions, having deep-seated and hateful stereotypical views of competitive gaming, uneducated bovine manure spouting, etc.).
I don't go down hard on people just for being uneducated. I don't even go after the people who are uneducated and don't know they are because we've all been that person. I only go after uneducated people who think they are who think they're right no matter what and who say stupid things in stupid ways.
If all of the stars align, then they're free game.
Regardless of the reason, most, if not all, of the posts of yours I've read are... well, unnecessarily full of spite.
Unnecessarily? Hardly.
And the mods agree. Not a single infraction (read
not a single infraction) for what I say or the way I say it (as in language, venom, attitude, etc). The collective Mod Squad of Smashboards has deemed my posting habits completely appropriate (though I was once told to turn the venom down but that was just an "IMO", so I guess I failed there. This thread just went straight to hell in a hand-basket over the weekend and I felt like these people needed a thourough thrashing).
This despite the fact that I often disagree with several mods and have made my disagreement apparant in posts. I'll argue against even mods if I disagree with them... but since I have yet to come across a mod posting something reaaaaally stupid, I have yet to verbally thrash them. But I'm not exactly some kind of golden child favourite of the mods' either... and still, no infractions or PM:s telling me cool it down.
I must at least not be doing something
wrong.
Don't try to act like they aren't. There's no reason to treat as many people as you do in such a 'dickish' manner, especially considering the most contact you've had with most of these people has been on an internet message board. It's unnecessary, and though it's your right to do so (and I know you aren't gonna stop anytime soon), realize that you aren't the victim here.
Saying people are wrong is not hateful. Saying people should go away is not necessarily hateful either. Especially not when I in almost at least 85% of the cases tell them in great detail on
why they are wrong and should go away. I'm simply telling them that they're cataclysmically wrong and going into great detail on why.
I reserve the real venom for only the stupidest cases. Because they're incurable or curing them would take months of therapy.
I'm not the victim. The world is the victim of stupidity. I'm just doing the ugly job of cleaning it up.