Funny you bring up GG, cause i feel that’s the fairest, deepest and most intricate fighter made so far.
So you’re a purist then? I still argue that in a competitive fighter, you want it to be 100% skill-based, which no fighter is, but brawl really lags in this category, and becomes somewhat bland when you do remove as many chance-elements as you can. If “different gameplay desires” includes chance, nobody cares on a competitive level. We don’t add animatronic nets to basketball to ‘cater to different preferences’.
I also think your argument on character depth is weak. # of moves doesn’t necessarily mean much. Each character inputs these moves in the same fashion, totally eliminating difference/difficulty in input mechanics, and the majority of these moves only have nuanced differences. These nuanced differences can FEEL very big mid-play, but at the end of the day makes the game bland. Everyone has a smash and they all work relatively the same. In SF or GG, everyone has supers, but they all function extremely different.
Also, you cite 8 characters that are tourney-viable, but Fox and Falco are VERY similar, as are Ganon and Falcon, even further closing the gaps between each character. So out of 25 characters, there’s 8, arguably 6 that’s worth playing? And i dont care if the ‘bottom tier still shows up’. Only a third, arguably a fourth – that’s a bad statistic. SF also lags in this category, but they’ve gotten better, not worse, with new installations of the game. In GG, out of 24 characters, I can only count two or three that are considered prohibitive at a fundamental level.
I get where you’re coming from. Having played a game intensely for 6 years, of course you’ll defend it. I’m not saying the game’s bad. It’s fun, but at a competitive level, it’s bland at best in comparison to others in the same genre. It’s better suited to be called a ‘casual fighter’, in my opinion, and that in no way diminishes the huge amount of fun you’ve had playing it over 6 years, but might explain why many other fighting game enthusiasts are turned off by it. Anyway, this guy needs to go to bed.
Seriously, why are you guys feeding this troll?
Every time there is some kind of melee related thing about being retarded or whatever, this guy comes out of no where and starts trolling the topic and somehow gets away with it 20 pages later.
WTF is wrong with people…
Maybe it’s just entertaining to see stupid people argue like this, I dunno…
I can respect melee, but not brawl. But going from SF4 to melee and actually being competent at it is still much more difficult. I’ve been to local SF4 tournaments AND local melee tournaments. (Keep in mind, I say local for a reason) My local melee tournaments, me and a few friends always at least placed top 5, and thats us playing casually against each other.
SF4 and Super, at this point in the game only one of my friends can still touch me (because I don’t play it casually anymore) and I got shit on at my first tournament, and have only recently actually seen progress.
So theirs a testimony from someone who played both.
Now that, after watching those Virtua fighter matches, jesus christ if every dodge and block requires an input (I know next to NOTHING about the game) then bar none, I award this prize to that. To games I actually know, I’m going to go with either MVC2 or GG. I can’t nominate anything else because I know nothing else. ST is also up there, seeing as I can’t play that worth shit. 3s and 4/super are (in my opinion) nothing compared to ST. At least in 3s I can apply 4 rules and do pretty ok.
I respect your demeanor, but it’s clear you no experience with high-level Melee. Have you even played anyone that plays the game competitively? You’re making some very ignorant assumptions and remarks. Is your experience only with Brawl?
[quote=“nocon, post:401, topic:61948”]
Funny you bring up GG, cause i feel that’s the fairest, deepest and most intricate fighter made so far.
I don’t even see what your point is here. You’re not saying anything I disagree with.
First off, it wasn’t a comment on “character depth”. Secondly, I agree that the number of moves does not correlate to complexity (speaking abstractly, adding more of anything to an existing element, does in fact add depth) - I only brought this up because you did first.
Thirdly - you’re just ignorant. “Everyone has a Smash and they work the same”? This is false and ridiculous. You’re talking abstractly about “nuanced moves” and you clearly know nothing about the differences between Luigi and Mario’s Down Tilts, Ganon’s and Falcon’s forward Smashes, or Falco and Foxes Down Smashes (and these are just comparing clones).
The similarity of the inputs for moves tones down the introduction barrier and nothing more. Arcane execution methods does not equate to competitive legitimacy. While I like SF motions for what they are, they are hardly intuitive and that’s where the Smash series trounces other fighters. You can explain to a new player how to control their character in under a minute. Breaking barriers that allow attract new players allows a game to become MORE competitive because it increases the pool of competition.
Ignorant. When people cite how similar Fox and Falco are, you know they haven’t fainted clue as to what they’re talking about. Yes, Fox and Falco share identical movesets, but the properties that govern them are drastically different which change the way both characters operate completely. Look up Shizwiz (Falco) vs Colbol (Fox) on Youtube for examples that should be obvious to even the untrained eye.
Didn’t say “bottom”. I said, “lower”, as in people beneath the top tiers (my fault, that wasn’t clear). There’s a ton of variety at Melee tournaments, because the gameplay is relatively open-ended (compared to traditional fighters), which gives weaker characters more options. Melee’s tiers are some of the tightest in the genre.
Smash has 3 games, dude. Not every game can be GG. If you’re not going to hold SF, or any other fighting game to GG’s standard, then it’s not fair to Melee. No game’s perfect. And 8 viable character at high-levels is still more than most competitive games being played today. It’s a petty criticism. Every fighting game ever made has this problem.
“Casual Fighter”? Really, these arbitrary distinctions need to go. What kind of sub-category are you looking to carve out on the behalf of Smash, and why? It’s different, so it’s casual? Give me a break. It’s only “casual” because you play it casually.
Who are you and who did you beat to get top 5, consistently? You must know some names since you’re a tournament regular. Also, what city are these tournaments taking place in?
I’m pulling a random video of high level play (assumably) of melee.
[media=youtube]Qna80MbcAAc[/media]
And I’m going to leave this here. I’ll say this, this is not a level I can compete with. It’s just not. I’m not even going to say anything anymore. I’ll simply leave this here for people to decide on their own.
Slow down there tiger, I said FOR A REASON that they were all local tournaments. Ran by schools, game crazys, the like. I never said I beat anyone in the smash community. So calm down. I’m technically on your side.
what? What are you talking about? Did I ever say it invalidate melee? No. I’m saying that what is generally seen as the “top level play of melee” is not what it actually is. It is something different. Where as top level play of SF is known to be very different.
Get off your high horse btw. Who cares if people shit on your game? Wanna know something crazy? Everyone outside of the FGC shits on all of our games. They say “oh look another gamer”. So who the fuck are you? Whats one more person to shit on your game? Get the fuck over it. Move on with your life. It’s a fucken game.
Why are you getting angry? Relax. If I somehow misinterpreted you, sorry. Don’t go pulling the “it’s just a game” card, because most of the people on these forums are here because the fighting game they play is more than just a game to their life.
Yeah, I understand that. But for you in this case, it’s a game you don’t even play anymore. You admit you stopped playing, so why argue that? If today, I stopped playing Street Fighter, and someone started talking shit about it, so what? That’s past me.
Let’s get personal now. If you’re not even playing the game and people are shitting on it, so what? Thats about as self destructive as defending an ex wife that constantly cheated on you. Just move on. Because, as you can see, not many people on these boards care for Smash. And theirs no point in arguing it anymore. Thats what Smash Boards are for.
It’s kinda funny how people call out the game as simple and easy going so far as mentioning how easy they beat x person in y tournament yet when they are actually put to the test they just run away.
Smash is a good fighting game.
It’s not as advanced as most competitive fighting games in terms of mindgames or strategy.
Considering there are only two options at any point of attack.
Attack or Throw.
No overheads no Lows no crossups nothing like that.
The execution requirements are high in the game though.
SynikaL, just don’t bother with them, its no good arguing with people if they just won’t accept the truth. Just move on, you can’t win with these people.
SSBM takes a lot of skill to play and I’d like to all these bashers go 1 on 1 with the top 5 players.
While I’ll concede that Smash is part of it’s own bastard subgenre of fighter (versus platform or whatever the Japanese call it).
For some however, it’s hard to see it as a game that requires skill when they see the competitive community for it doing what some see as dumbing the game down and general scrubberry. I know a good number of folks who basically believe that if Smashboard folks were the ones who ran Marvel tournaments, they’d make it so that it would be low tier only with no assists.
What I think is happening is two arguments at once. Does the game require skill, and how much? Is the game robust, and by how much? I think both are interesting conversations for any game and its quite on topic here, because it helps people to stop making statements and start making arguments.
My comments on character similarity aren’t ‘ignorant’. I watched this video: [media=youtube]03YHhbGYnhE[/media] by your suggestion and I see two characters shooting a laser, putting up a reflector shield, doing a fast forward dash attack – an untrained eye might believe that there’s no difference at all between the characters. I know and you know there are because we’ve played both heavily. This person might also believe there’s no difference between Ryu and Ken, too (both shoot fireballs, do jumping uppercuts and spinning kicks…) The situations are very similar. This hurts the games’ ‘robustness’, definitely, but also hurts its ‘skill demand’; for instance, it makes opponent prediction easier. This is one of the strengths of GG over both games, and GG and SF over Smash. There’s more variation between each character.
Now in Melee, every character has the same commands with different effects. Like you say, this helps the game be more inviting, which I say speaks to its strength as a casual fighter. This hurts the game’s robustness, too, because part of a flavor of a game has always been how we interact with a controller and I argue difference in character input is part of the challenge and fun of a fighter, or any game. Simplification of that absolutely makes the game more accessible, but at the cost of robustness and also required skill. There’s a fine line here, though. If a game requires really elaborate inputs for even basic attacks, it would just make the game cumbersome. Smash is on the other side of this – making it too simple. Blazblue, I think, also oversimplified, but not as much.
In regards to tourney-playable characters, you’re arguing I’m not holding all games to the same standards, but I do. I find the large amount of prohibitive characters in SF appalling, and it absolutely hurts competitive play when you can reasonably expect everyone to play from the same couple of names, but its gotten much better over time in SF. If you want to talk about multiple renditions of Smash, its gotten worse over time.
The bottom line. Does Smash require skill to play competitively? Absolutely. Anyone who says otherwise is unjustly bowdlerizing the game. Does it require as much as traditional fighters? Arguably not, I’d say. At best, mostly, but in different ways. However, the game is just not as robust as other fighters, and in my opinion not as fun, especially when you remove the chance elements in order to make it more skill-oriented. I think that’s why a lot of fighter enthusiasts are turned off by it. It lacks flavor at high-level play, and after removing so many elements of a typical fighter, it just feels foreign.
uh, shut the fuck up. the smash community doesn’t know about ‘games in general’ given that for most of them it is the first game they ever ‘got really into’ and ‘played competitively’. if you have ever read that forum then you are fully aware that it is metaphysics fest 2010
What? I used to play you all the time when you used to play VF you aren’t really “decent”, sorry dude. : / Those weren’t intermediate players you were beating, they were scrubs.
Anyways, If execution is what your basing “skill” on VF probably wouldn’t make the list. VF5 execution is fairly simple, it’s everything else that makes the game difficult.
With most of them I agree, doesn’t mean that all smash players are as such like you automatically assume. Some of the smash players in my country are with the top competitors in Blazblue, playing smash =/= only having knowledge or being good at that single game series only that forum is huuuuuuuuge and yes it is mainly full of complete scrubs that so of course you are going to get stuff like that in the general sections of the forum (hence why you go to regional zones where good people go)
Oh wow I just saw this place’s strategy forum, no wonder you think all smash players are retards -_-