Article about Brawl tournament potential.

[Dark Sonic]

^^That was a very well written post and a great read. It's also quite refreshing to see these kinds of well thought out discussions emerging from the brawl section again.

 

[G-X]

Melee is the closest game to being perfect for tournaments and competitive play that we have seen so far.

I stopped reading here.

You need to play more Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo HD Remix, boy!


(Also, read The Elements of Style.)

 

[brawlpro]

Random you got some valid points, oh and thinkaman posted anything I would have said, i don't wanna repeat. Stl crew's posts ****.

 

[mario-man]

I stopped reading here.

You need to play more Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo HD Remix, boy!

You REALLY need to let up. Wether or not that is true(which it most likely is) it has no affect on the point he was trying to make.



VERY, EXTREMELY, WONDERFULLY NICE READ MAN!!!! If you can get this somewhere else besides just SWF, I will link to it a crap ton (i don't know why it matters where it is found. lol) This is near one of the best articles I have ever read!! Very well done man!!!

Also, alot of the comments wether supporting or not, are very well done. It's like all of the smash writers came into this thread and began writing. Seriously though, you guys should all apply to be smash writers, though I have no idea what they actually do. lol

 

[SamDvds]

yea, its nice to see well thought out comments and debate-type responses rather than silly bickering back and forth found on most of these threads.

 

[Thinkaman]

Silly bickering, about Brawl? Now who would do that?!?! >_>

Still a shame no one took my float canceling bet though...

 

[SamDvds]

lol...im not using peach in brawl so it doesnt matter to me...im using ivy

 

[Sir Bedevere]

....Whoa o_O Massive read. It's really late so I'll read this tomorrow. Very interested, though.

 

[Thinkaman]

I just wanna know who in St. Louis will be playing Olimar, since Olipuff is destined to be the greatest team of all time...

 

[G-X]

You REALLY need to let up. Wether or not that is true(which it most likely is) it has no affect on the point he was trying to make.

...

10char

 

[Senshuu]

Subscribing to this thread.

 

[BBQ]

Ok after finally reading all posts and enjoying all of it I have some things to add. I believe that we have to assume that brawl will grow in its development, which is based on the players as Thinkaman has said. Forgetting for a second the removal of adv. techs. and ultimate player control realities that we understand from melee. There are some facts about Brawl that are inherently inescapable.

1) As metroid01 said on pg 2 put Brawl does take control away from players. This in fact does take away from many aspects that affects how and what players can ultimately do/play.

2) Brawl is slow...it has to be. As one can clearly read from "ask Iwata" on wii.com that brawl was initially created with wi-fi in mind. This is the mindset and base brawl was built on.

As these things are facts I dont think we can say that Brawl will have as great competitive gameplay.


btw StL crew pwns and......I CALL DIDDY!!!...........*runs away*

 

[SamDvds]

I just wanna know who in St. Louis will be playing Olimar, since Olipuff is destined to be the greatest team of all time...

lol talk to zig about that one. he always mains characters no one else knows how to play

 

[G-X]

Ugh. In order to give an intelligent argument, I must go with my old standby: a paragraph-by-paragraph commentary in which I relentlessly criticize both your opinions and your writing style.

[paragraph 1]

Well, not much to comment on here because I skipped most of it. In fact, I think this whole post could have done without that paragraph. Anyway...

Super Smash Brothers Brawl, from which now on will be referred to as simply Brawl, cannot be fully understood yet. One reason for this is it has yet to be released in the U.S. with exceptions of a very few amount of people who have imported a Japanese version. The entirety of my analysis is based off of video, abundant on the internet, that I have studied and carefully analyzed. So as one reads this they should keep in mind that I have no hard evidence and that everything I am basing this analysis on can easily be proven wrong, or possibly right, in the future. That being said I will start off the remainder of this article by instead of stating assumption or fact I will ask a question, a question I had to ask myself after I formed my initial opinion about the game.

Again, it's the same story here. You took an entire paragraph (a really long one, too) to say "I haven't actually played the game yet, so take this with a grain of salt." Remember: Omit all unnecessary words.

Originally after viewing game play footage of Brawl I formed the immediate opinion that “Brawl will not be a tournament worthy game”. I took my opinion and I questioned it. I asked myself, “Why do I feel that Brawl will not be a tournament worthy game”? This was not the proper question yet, other questions should precede this one. I tried to go all the way to the roots of this opinion.

Yadda yadda yadda...

After several days of questioning more questions I found the question I was looking for.

This one was actually pretty clever.

Instead of asking, “Why do I have this opinion?” or, “What does Brawl offer for competitive play”? I needed to start with the root question that is simply, “What are the factors that make a game tournament worthy”?

OK, now I'm interested. Thing is, I could've been interested from the very start. But, anyway. Let's see what your opinion is about what makes a game competitive.

I had this question for several weeks. I could not put my answer into fluid thought but I knew the idea I was trying to convey. Finally, while in a conversation with a friend on the internet during a discussion of the Brawl game, in a moment of shear emotion I wrote in the message box my answer without even thinking about it. I wrote, “…; a game with speed and strategy at its core, a game that requires accurate and precise control of one’s character/s, where the ability of the player is not limited by the character, but where the characters are limited by the ability of the player, a game that consistently allows players of better ability to win against players of lesser ability”. Those are the factors that make a fighting game tournament worthy.

I seriously doubt you could have typed such an... eloquent response in a moment of "shear" emotion. But, I see that you have a good point, but I'll get to that later.

The next question to follow is simply a question to inform my audience of my background and how I came to this conclusion. My question is a simple one. How did I come to that conclusion? The way I found the answer to my first question was not accomplished through critical thinking alone. Since the fall months of 2005 I have been playing Brawl’s predecessor Super Smash Brothers Melee competitively. I was a late starter in the competitive world considering the game was released in 2001. The factors that make a good tournament game were found almost entirely in the game play of Melee. Before I go any further it is necessary for me to state that no game is perfect but, I will make the bold assertion that Melee is the closest game to being perfect for tournaments and competitive play that we have seen so far. Arguing that point would require an article all its own. For the sake of the rest of this article one should keep that in mind.

Yeah, we don't care how you came to your conclusion.... Wait, what? "Melee is the closest game to being perfect for tournaments and competitive play that we have seen so far?" I guess by "we," you must mean "people whom have never played chess, poker, Magic: The Gathering, Super Turbo HD, Puzzle Fighter, StarCraft, or even (shudder) Marvel vs. Capcom 2."

I spent over 2 years studying videos and traveling across the nation not only playing professional players but asking them questions trying to understand the game more than just how to play it. After years of study and taking what I knew and applying it and figuring out my own ideas along the way I understood why Melee was a great competitive tournament game. There are hundreds of small and detailed points I could make that would support the overall idea, it just took me up until this last month or so to produce a small list of general factors that accurately describe the important attributes of Melee that make it so significant to tournament and competitive play. Now that I have the factors in a list I can take the list and break it down to illustrate why these are the factors that matter. As I do this I will be using examples from melee game play so if one is reading this article and has no prior experience playing this game from here on out they will have to keep an open mind and try to stay with me.

Again, another big paragraph where you say essentially nothing. Writing tip: never say "I'm going to tell you this." Just tell me whatever it is.

To restate the factors of competitive compatibility they are: speed,

I disagree.

allows strategy,

I agree.

need for accurate and precise control,

Are you saying that the game needs us to be accurate and precise, or that the game itself needs to have accurate and precise controls?

freedom of control that enables the game to be limited by the abilities of the player,

"Enables the game to be limited?"

and the last point which, in theory, will surface in a game that has these previous factors, the better player can win against the worse player.

Okay, I agree.

This is not as simple as it can get, this is still somewhat of an expansion of the factors. The only 2 factors that really matter in this line up are the factors with the subject of control. Having total freedom to control the game contains the speed factor, and the speed and control should allow strategy. This eliminates the first 2 factors completely.

...What? I thought those WERE the first 2 factors!

So why did I even state them in the first place? They are discussed and highlighted because they play a significant role in competitive play even though they can be easily categorized under the other factors.

I didn't understand the rest of this, because I was still confused by the "first 2 factors" thing.

Looking at what I consider to be the most important factor in a fighting game to make it tournament viable, freedom of control, I can take this idea and put it into measurable numerical terms.

Um, okay...

Before I continue on that, however,

*groan*

I need to explain that in the beginning before I was able to identify these key factors by definition, this was how I tried to justify my idea. While in numerous discussions with peers in the recent months I have tried to make this a point only to find out that simply in the way I had been conveying my point of view on this factor was not sufficient.

Opinion: this conveyance isn't sufficient either.

I needed to find a way in my native language of English

I think we can tell what your native language is.

to place my idea into a more compact and understandable statement other than a 5 minute sign language battle and a lot of numbers.

You have failed to meet this goal.

So in essence, what my audience is about to read is

Remember that writing tip I gave earlier? Good.

what my argument used to try to stand on, but now I feel that coupled with my definition of this factor, this has become an example more than just the argument itself and the end result being they support each other and it gives my argument 2 legs to stand on.

Stop turning this article into a "history of how I got to writing this article" blog post.

This article is wordy to say the least

I agree.

so I will try to restate some things in order to keep the points together.

Illogical! Illogical! Norman, coordinate!

To further define freedom of control we can make a scale of numbers. First, I will go over an example of a game that limits control. In hypothetical game A we see 2 players compete in a match. Both players select the same character for the purpose of simplicity. Player1 has an ability of 300, while Player2 has an ability of 50. However, the character they have both selected to fight each other with only has a maximum capacity to be controlled at an ability level of 20. Is it not too unimaginable to see how this can lead to an unfair victory and loss? At this point the player’s individual ability levels do not matter, or matter less. Both of them are limited to the character which is stuck at a maximum capacity of 20. So in this instance we have a 300 versus a 50 and it’s obvious by looking at their skill who is the better player, but Player2 still has just as much of a chance to win as Player1 in these circumstances where neither of them can play any better than the ability level of 20.

I see your point, but you would be hard-pressed to find a game with an ability level of 20.

Immediately if one questions this who has competitive experience they may discredit this example

No kidding.

and make an understandable argument that even though they are still evenly matched, Player1 with a higher skill in the game none-the-less would still be able to use a more developed strategy, or what it is commonly referred to in the video game community as “mind games”, to defeat Player2 who is of lesser ability with less strategy.

I agree with this, but I dislike the feeling that you think "mindgame" is a synonym of "strategy."

This would be a good argument that I would love to get into, however, that is another subject for yet another article, but I will still address this with a point I have already made. In my hypothesis I link speed and strategy directly with control. I firmly stand by this assertion. If your control is decreased, one’s ability to produce strategy is lowered proportionately with it. Less control means less “mind games”.

... So, you just introduced a counter-argument (DO WANT) only to immediately dismiss it (DO NOT WANT). Also, "less control means less mindgames" is false. You don't need good controls to have a good mindgame. You just need a good... mind.

Inversely, a game with more control is able to grant more strategy in play. Now I take the game that is limited by the player’s ability. Hypothetical game B is being played by Player3 and Player4. For simplicity again we will say they are both playing the same character against one another. Player3 has an ability of 300, while Player4 has an ability of 400. The character’s full potential is an ability of 1,200. Now the players are free to fully control the game to the best of their ability and the contest is no longer in the hands of a flip of a coin. The player with a 400 ability in this game should, in theory, consistently win most matches against the player of a 300 ability. These outcomes seem a lot fairer to me, as they should to anyone. To tie this lengthy example together, this is what I mean by the control factor. A good tournament worthy fighting game is one where a player’s ability defines the game play. From this hypothesis of control stems the; speed factor, strategy factor, accuracy and precision factor and, consistency of outcome factor.

I'm not really feeling the whole number analogy. By your logic, Tic-Tac-Toe has a maximum skill of 2, and any fighting game ever made has a maximum skill of over 9000.

Melee is a game where several characters are so complex that it seems almost humanly impossible to ever truly tap into their full potential. The limit is set far beyond the ability of any player the game has ever seen. Melee is an example of a game that allows a player the freedom to use their full potential in some cases. Not all characters in the game are completely controllable, as previously stated Melee is not the perfect fighting game. Melee players have constantly been improving as a whole, the bar keeps getting set higher and higher and the limit has yet to be reached. Players are proving every year in every tournament that they can play even better than previously observed. Every year the tournament videos are faster and more complex and the matches even more exciting than the year before without fail. However, no one has even come close to controlling the game at its limits.

The limit of human (hands / motor skills / reaction times) will be reached long before the limits of the actual game. This, in my opinion, actually makes Melee less balanced than some other games where you have less control.

This is demonstrated in a series of videos made by a player who goes by the alias, or “tag”, Super Doodleman. He slows down the game to a frame by frame state (one sixtieth of a second intervals) using special software called “Action Replay” and demonstrates just where the limits of the characters lie. The videos are shown in real time and are truly impressive to a player familiar with the game; to someone not familiar with Melee these videos will not make sense to you. Refer to the end of this article for the links to these videos.

Really? Is that what "tag" means? What's Action Replay? I'm sorry, I don't know anything about competitive Smash, that's why I'm on SmashBoards.com.

Examples of fighting games that limit player control are a lot easier to name.

Oh, here we go...

One could take almost any classical fighter and identify how confined you are to the entire character roster.

"Confined to the entire roster?" What the ****?

Games like; any Street Fighter (Capcom), any Dead or Alive (Tecmo), any Tekken (Namco), the list goes on. This does not mean that these are bad games. The point I make is that they are not tournament and competitive play conducive as much so as Super Smash Brothers Melee. This is the reason I make the bold assertion that Melee is the world’s best fighting game so far.

Once again, I would disagree with you, if I had any idea what you were trying to say.

This is all the analyzing that I had to go through just to prove to myself that I had reason for my opinion and that I wasn’t just jumping to conclusions.

Well, at least you proved it to someone.

When doing exploration into a subject like this with critical thinking and logic one has to keep an open mind to the facts and not “fall in love with one’s own ideas” (Keith Edwards).

That ship sailed a few paragraphs back.

Ready with this open minded mind set I started looking at this subject not to justify my opinion, but to reform it if necessary. After my analysis I was successfully able to logically place Brawl’s visibly slower and more constricting game play under the “not tournament conducive” bracket.

You never really said why you thought speed was important. I believe that speed is not important at all. Games that go in turns (Magic: The Gathering) can be just as competitive as games that don't (StarCraft).

It has already been confirmed by many sources that several of the techniques that gave far more control in the previous games do not exist in Brawl giving the player far less control. My prediction stands.

So, at the end of this wall of text, your agrument is that Brawl is less competitive because it is slower (bull****), and you have less control (bull****).

I believe that Brawl will be a step backwards in tournament play from its predecessor Melee.

Oh, was that your thesis statement? Because I sure didn't see any arguments for it anywhere except the last few sentences.

I am sure a lot of my readers disagree and are not happy with my conclusion.

How charming.

I am aware I have probably made some enemies with this article.

Yep.

However, there is hope. All I have done here is based my judgments off of observation. Once the game is released widespread in America the Super Smash Brothers community will be studying the game play non-stop like a nationwide task force. If there is hope for Brawl to be played at a higher tournament level than Melee, we have nothing but time to find out how. So, my prediction is nothing more than that, a prediction. No one can tell the future accurately, we can only make our best guesses, and I am sure I stand along-side most of you in the hopes that I am absolutely wrong.

And so, at the end, you invalidate your own entire argument, making this whole post meaningless. Great job there, Orwell.

 

[Zig-Zag!]

pika pika pika

 

[methinkso]

Wow. G-X completely wrecked the OP. And I agree with everything G-X said, especially about the OP's horrendously wordy writing style. More words does not a good point make.

 

[RedMage8BT]

NB: Walls of text with fancy vocabulary don't make you look smart, they make you look like a jack***.

 

[Libomasus]

While I have no doubt Brawl will be competitive, I still have to agree with the OP on Melee being near perfect. I think not having that ceiling reachable is a good thing, and that speed is an important factor in competitive fighting games. DI and opponent prediction is too hard to do when your opponent DI's faster and the game moves slower, just makes too many moves useless.

This is coming from someone who has played MvC2, SC, and SF:TS competitively. I don't know why its such a bold accusation to say Melee was near-perfect, and Brawl may or may not be the same.

I agree with the OP, everything hes said actually. Though maybe I'm just choosing to interpret it in my own way.

NB: Walls of text with fancy vocabulary don't make you look smart, they make you look like a jack***.

Oh c'mon. Do people actually think this way? Let's just all assume OP is a smartass just because he tried to make something worth reading, because that makes us feel smart instead! We all know about the internets right?

 

[Random6669]

Good discussion, I hoped for nothing less. Responses are nice. I anticipated some very negative and also offensive attacks on not just my article, but myself as well. If I expected them not to happen I would be delusional to say the least. These are the consequences for posting personal works in the world wide web.

One point that needs to be stated, my "Control Factor" hypothesis was developed to help try to explain the fighting game genre only. Relating it to chess and real time strategies is irrelevant because it does not apply. I did not do my analysis on any other style of game so it has no link to other styles.

Oh, was that your thesis statement? Because I sure didn't see any arguments for it anywhere except the last few sentences.

This write was not a traditional research paper. This article was an exploratory essay where the goal is not to form a thesis statement and do research on it but to question a current belief so much that in the end you find a thesis statement, and that is exactly what I did.

Really? Is that what "tag" means? What's Action Replay? I'm sorry, I don't know anything about competitive Smash, that's why I'm on SmashBoards.com.

This was not written originally with Smash Boards as the intended audience. It was after I completed the paper that friends of mine wanted me to post it here, so I did. This was originally written with an audience in mind that may or may not even play video games. The paper also has a double point. It makes a prediction and at the same time it shows my thought process which is another aspect of exploratory essay.

Quote:
I had this question for several weeks. I could not put my answer into fluid thought but I knew the idea I was trying to convey. Finally, while in a conversation with a friend on the internet during a discussion of the Brawl game, in a moment of shear emotion I wrote in the message box my answer without even thinking about it. I wrote, “…; a game with speed and strategy at its core, a game that requires accurate and precise control of one’s character/s, where the ability of the player is not limited by the character, but where the characters are limited by the ability of the player, a game that consistently allows players of better ability to win against players of lesser ability”. Those are the factors that make a fighting game tournament worthy.

I seriously doubt you could have typed such an... eloquent response in a moment of "shear" emotion. But, I see that you have a good point, but I'll get to that later.

That actually was my exact quote just to clear that up. The person I was talking to was SamDvds so she can confirm this. Minor point but I feel I needed to clarify that.


I was hoping for more discussion and responses arguing for or against the "Control Factor" which is ultimately the main point. Attacking the writing style and my writing ability (which I won't claim to be anything special) doesn't do anything but argue small unimportant qualities of the medium that the information was conveyed on. It doesn't argue the information. The response by G-X is not entirely focused on the writing, only somewhat. He makes some points that I am glad he brought up. Anyone could read even a Harvard Law School professor's writing and flaw it because it's not written the way you want to read it. Writing is different across the board depending on the writer and the audience for each individual instance. So, for future posts I hope to see more about the subject less about the structure.

The limit of human (hands / motor skills / reaction times) will be reached long before the limits of the actual game. This, in my opinion, actually makes Melee less balanced than some other games where you have less control.

This was good, phrased in a way I haven't thought about it or heard it that way yet. After reading this line and thinking for a small while it is imaginable for this to be true in some senses. This response made me think and question more about he topic which I originally thought I questioned as much possible.



Phanna did a good job summarizing the article on page 3. I enjoyed reading that one. Keep responses coming!

 

[RedMage8BT]

I'll advise you to not act as if this were some sort of science; it isn't. The competitive scene is a malleable entity. Despite its current state, I personally believe that players can change their way of thinking of the series, in much the same way Super Smash Bros. was retroactively deemed a competitive game after Melee's success. Does Super Smash Bros. have the intricacies of Melee? Not even close. Brawl is so much more deep than Melee, it almost encourages a tournament scene. Your arguments are based on the fact that a game needs hidden skills that one needs to warp physics to perform in order to be valid in a tournament. Brawl's gameplay is streamlined as compared to Melee's, that doesn't make it worse for competition.

Yes, I know, a wall of text. It's not as bad as yours though.

 

[BrawlChampBro]

i think random is a pretty cool guy. eh writes essays and doesn't afraid of anything

 

[Libomasus]

I'll advise you to not act as if this were some sort of science; it isn't. The competitive scene is a malleable entity. Despite its current state, I personally believe that players can change their way of thinking of the series, in much the same way Super Smash Bros. was retroactively deemed a competitive game after Melee's success. Does Super Smash Bros. have the intricacies of Melee? Not even close. Brawl is so much more deep than Melee, it almost encourages a tournament scene. Your arguments are based on the fact that a game needs hidden skills that one needs to warp physics to perform in order to be valid in a tournament. Brawl's gameplay is streamlined as compared to Melee's, that doesn't make it worse for competition.

Yes, I know, a wall of text. It's not as bad as yours though.

No, his arguments aren't based on that at all. They are based on control and speed, both of which have been reduced in Brawl. Most everybody sees a topic like this and they incriminate the creator and miss any new insight they give, and I don't know where you got these ideas. Brawl is balanced, whether it is deep is arguable, but if you're going to be optimistic at least give some proof.

A lot of techniques were taken out, intended techniques. What makes you think Brawl is so much deeper than Melee?

 

[Radikal]

Amazing how most of these topics get destroyed so easily. Props to Random for trying and putting it all in words, but I guess not everyone enjoys reading more than a few sentences.

 

[RedrappeR]

You know, I really don't want to be an ******* to the OP right now. The guy took a lot of time to write that. I can understand. But here's what's REALLY preventing me from being all that nice to him...

Examples of fighting games that limit player control are a lot easier to name. One could take almost any classical fighter and identify how confined you are to the entire character roster. Games like; any Street Fighter (Capcom), any Dead or Alive (Tecmo), any Tekken (Namco), the list goes on. This does not mean that these are bad games. The point I make is that they are not tournament and competitive play conducive as much so as Super Smash Brothers Melee. This is the reason I make the bold assertion that Melee is the world’s best fighting game so far

... Are you ****ing serious? Street Fighter isn't a competitive game? Really? Are you joking me?

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=fx3EvFEOkig
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=U08xNVUx7RA
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=WaNxEvKO4Cw
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0RDJd3EJpk
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=oEPc5_r8wds
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=s4-eioMO6oM
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=_tiTHw6dfTM
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=HvTywRL3-bw
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=AeSLwz1Czxo
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=o60aXCw_-j0
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ9NHTIs4GQ
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-2ZiWjgCew
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=0vHHDeSIGLo
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=_bX5DguSEzw
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=n1DU7HD3t2k (This is actually a really good combo vid.)

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=DHi8MUVopVI
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=4nyLMWgVZ4E
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=5vNFYa-8l7k
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=5pFHgb12tVE
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=AK5M1YbAPyE
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Jtu6bGHwQr0
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=ouoRotvyCxQ
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=FcGl8TFFwxI
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=qL1nqpbSjK0
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=zPjx2bHCMr8


OR maybe I should mention...

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=MafBIcsL6Vw
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=NlSwCvBfXZA
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=8EoJnoMTp78

But if that's not good enough, LETS GET BACK to the first argument

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=aVF0eiNzbd4
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=K4RWVxL_lQA
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=z6iCAxRBm9I
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=_9-rX5BcO2g
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=w_fj7A5xTro
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=xvwe7PnS1wg
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=cqFUPnD3UfA (Which was covered by various japanese news orgs...)

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=oaLxqiCWImE
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=BiJhHMgLRK8
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxke7BGgMow (<--- CRAZY ****ing skill)
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=JdeqKMuBlrc
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=m-0V_GI_qJA
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=LNPgwdM-XxU


Or you know, I could state that STREET FIGHTER INVENTED Cancelling, and that it's the probably one of the biggest, if NOT the biggest attraction @ EVO EVERY YEAR(that includes BOTH 3rd strike and HSF2T) not to mention SBO, SUPER BATTLE OPERA, which is DEDICATED to games like those, and IS A HUGE ATTRACTION TO TONS OF PEOPLE EVERY YEAR.

But Oh... you mentioned Tekken. Well, you know, I'm not really that into tekken but these people are:

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=d3r75bvc4Bw
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=62_tLShtJC0
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=m2E8n8V9Hk8
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Wur8p_lzBOo
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=BOl91TGcSMo
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw1XfB0bFBI
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=HFI1KgsnpEM
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=7GiDemM1Riw
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=gG_SBtDdAwM
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=UhaDhly_u4g
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=PqcWhzc8yrU
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=c5NOgbWqZdo
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=WdIKXMBLtfM


oh, but you're saying being confined screws up depth. Well if all those videos didn't convince you yet(but really, they should have, because all 5 of those games I just liked you are some of the most intensely competitive fighting games out there BECAUSE of depth.) Lets look at Virtua Fighter 5, which... I don't know...

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/937423.asp?q=virtua fighter 5

According to those reviews has been described as one of the most intricate and complex fighting game series of all time. And is one of the biggest fighting game series in Japan. Lets just take a look at those matches. Keep in mind, that while Melee generally has... about 21 basic set moves per character... Virtua Fighter has about 60-90.

So lets take a look.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=a3neJL3Uq58
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=KnLoAKepho4
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=005f8sZ8EPs
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z6qVa8zIW0
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=yP2w8GhSn28
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=bIczr9_ErMw
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=wuJIS1wZCn0
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=NuqC3lNBDfw
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=dHgKpQZvHr8
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=hm1FIwAHzMo
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=qbEUBTUOcRU

Oh... is that too slow for you? Maybe you just focused on the speed rather than the entire fact that every player is trying to think up over 90 combos and situations, and that the game is nearly button masher proof(Probably one of the only games that is) Well then mavbe I'll move on to dead or alive... which is more FLASHY than anything...

And what do you know? It's still got a competitive scene...

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=ChuqFypkJ2o
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=FMAG6Mk7C9E
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=E2gF6sttlM4
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=3An0h1lfngw
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=WIcBXPlSw_8
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=m1icQ14a8e0
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=NxmmfyEuOBo
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=3SmvHKMkMKo
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=XOB5wV4-82k

Oh... and it was ALSO featured at Evo? Imagine that?

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=tAuTt2s03zc
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=JXr8XfsJvSc
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=fb7Lf4zeo-A
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=wFmcNQPSmuw
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=BMYvLN2VjKA

But hell... what do I know? I mean... I've only attended the events... and y'know, known of the existence of Shoryken.com, the people who sponser EVO every year, the biggest fighting game tournament in the world... so big that it got the attention of capcom, who decided to donate a couple grand towards the prize pool, as well as announced their renewed interest in Street Fighter properties because of it, thereby a year later pushing on with the announcement of Street Fighter IV.

Now I'm going to make this CLEAR to you, so you can possibly understand this with EVERY INCH of your Body. If you are THAT stupid to think that these games AREN'T competitive, you're an Idiot. You are. You're as stupid as those people who say that melee is too childish to be competitive.

You want the truth? You want the facts? Well here it is, and I can gaurantee you this. Games aren't competitive because they can be broken. That's ****in ********. Most of you joined the melee scene in 2004-5... you look back to around 2001-2003... it was a gradual growth to what it is. This is ****ING TRUE. If you're DUMB enough to start looking for BROKEN **** in the game and call it an "Advanced Technique" your making all those idiots who started calling Melee a competitive Glitchfest be all the more right. And they aren't. They're idiots.

Games are about strategy. It's like Chess. I'm getting so ****ing SICK and Tired of these topics because, lets face it, some of you are still BUTTHURT about the roster-- or are just too afraid of change.

You're pretty much going through what the SF community went through in 97-98 when SF3 came out. Even when 3rd Strike came out it was the same thing. And now, once again... it's one of the biggest fighting game tournaments in teh world. Even if any of you DON'T click one of those links up there, look at this at least...

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=KS7hkwbKmBM

THAT is how crazy it's gotten. HONESTLY people, we're NOT being CYNICAL IDIOTS trying to "WISH" We had a competitive Game. It's there. I've played it. I've seen it, it has potential. it is a DIFFERENT ****ING GAME. GET OVER IT. Regardless of what you say. Jesus, do you people even realize that there's a competitive game out there that relies solely on the outcomes of Guessing the numbers on Dice? DICE?! Do you NOT realize this?

And you're telling me BRAWL isn't going to be as competitive as that game?

"OH BUT WAVEDASHING IS OUT! SO IT'S GOING TO SUCK EVEN WITHOUT L CANCELING! IT CAN'T BE AS COMPETITIVE AS MELEE"

No. It can be. You have to give it time, but some of you don't see that because you're too busy crying to your friends how your not going to switch because "Wavedashing" is a thing of the past. Even people with RESPECTED REPUTATIONS can't get you people to shut up.

DID YOU SEE HUGS TOPIC? Anyone? Have you even been following Gimpy's tournament vids?

It's a COMPETITIVE GAME PEOPLE. VIDEOS EXIST OF IT.
A COMPETITIVE GAME IS A GAME IN WHICH SKILL LEVELS HAVE THE ABILITIY TO EFFECT GAMEPLAY CORRECT? THE GAME ISN'T ****ING RANDOM PEOPLE.

This is ********. Grow the **** Up. Or go back to GAMEFAQS.

Because if you are REALLY going to run around complaining, up to the point where you call STREET FIGHTER, the franchise that not only INVENTED the genre, but MADE IT Competitive, and is STILL PLAYED TODAY(SEE ABOVE VIDEOS)... then you're really just flat out ignorant.


And you know what? For the record... every other time I've posted I've tried to see both sides of the story. I've tried to advocate for both. Now it's just getting ridiculous.

Respond if you want. I don't really care. The post is to make you think, not argue like five year olds on a playground. If you really hate my guts for what I said then ignore it and go on with your life. You'll see eventually. It's happened before, it'll happen again, regardless of whether you want it to or not, because if it's happened with EVERY ****ING MAJOR FRANCHISE FIGHTING GAME EVER MADE, it's GOING to happen with THIS ONE.

Rant over. Hopefully you'll read this.[Don't bother with the TL;DR's. You're post is worthless in that case.]

 

[RedrappeR]

OH and one more thing:

ADVANCED TECHNIQUES HAVE BEEN TAKEN OUT OF FIGHTING GAMES BEFORE, AND THE SEQUELS MANY TIMES OVER HAVE BEEN EITHER MORE COMPETITIVE, OR JUST AS COMPETITIVE.

That's all. Read the end of the first post if you're going to bother to respond.

EDIT: So now that I've cooled off a bit.

Sorry if the Above post offends you... I got a bit angry and had to get that off my chest.

Thanks.

 

[Random6669]

I feel I am being misunderstood on the point I make about Street Fighter since I am getting a lot of responses and a really.....enthusiastic one.....just recently.

I did not mean by my post to discredit the Street Fighter as a tournament game. Now, with RedrappeR's previous post I have hours of footage evidence to say that it is a game played and enjoyed in tournaments. I am not a professional player of Street Fighter, so, considering you're the expert on the subject of this game over me, I can only understand what you say to be true.

However, that was not the point. My wording could easily not have been clear enough so I will clear it up with this post.

The games listed in the article give less freedom for the players of the game to define the game play with their own physical and mental ability than Melee. I am willing to argue this. Take, for example, one of the key differences in Melee from all other fighting games, King of the Hill game style over Death Match. This , I believe, is a key difference that makes the game play of Melee far more designed by the player than the game structure. This style appears to free up movement, and aerial movement to a point where it takes a huge weight of the players shoulders to play the game.

This is exactly what I did not want to get into when I wrote this article.
If one reads the article they will notice that nowhere in it do I state anything about canceling, teching, wavedashing, or any other small point. This is because I believe they are all irrelevant to what I am trying to say, and they have all been argued to death already with absolutely no progress.

I'll end it with this, I don't want to agrue little bits and pieces in this thread. One could do that anywhere in this website. Let's try and discuss what we feel are the key pieces that make a game better for competitive play and try to expand on those.

Still I love the feed back. Continue to tear me down to the best of your ability, all it does is show me my own weaknesses and it tells me where I need to improve. This community is helping me clean this article up with every post and I thank you all for doing it.

 

[RedrappeR]

I feel I am being misunderstood on the point I make about Street Fighter since I am getting a lot of responses and a really.....enthusiastic one.....just recently.

I did not mean by my post to discredit the Street Fighter as a tournament game. Now, with RedrappeR's previous post I have hours of footage evidence to say that it is a game played and enjoyed in tournaments. I am not a professional player of Street Fighter, so, considering you're the expert on the subject of this game over me, I can only understand what you say to be true.

However, that was not the point. My wording could easily not have been clear enough so I will clear it up with this post.

The games listed in the article give less freedom for the players of the game to define the game play with their own physical and mental ability than Melee. I am willing to argue this. Take, for example, one of the key differences in Melee from all other fighting games, King of the Hill game style over Death Match. This , I believe, is a key difference that makes the game play of Melee far more designed by the player than the game structure. This style appears to free up movement, and aerial movement to a point where it takes a huge weight of the players shoulders to play the game.

This is exactly what I did not want to get into when I wrote this article.
If one reads the article they will notice that nowhere in it do I state anything about canceling, teching, wavedashing, or any other small point. This is because I believe they are all irrelevant to what I am trying to say, and they have all been argued to death already with absolutely no progress.

I'll end it with this, I don't want to agrue little bits and pieces in this thread. One could that anywhere in this website. Let's try and discuss what we feel are the key pieces that make a game better for competitive play and try to expand on those.

Still I love the feed back. Continue to tear me down to the best of your ability, all it does is show me my own weaknesses and it tells me where I need to improve. This community is helping me clean this article up with every post and I thank you all for doing it.

The only thing I was trying to hit at you was the STREET FIGHTER thing. Like I said earlier, you actually had a concise post. I'm just fed up with the idiots on this board who shove fingers in their ears and yell around yelling on the top of their lungs about how the game will NEVER be competitive or as competitive which is just a ******** claim at this point.

Brawl, in it's most BASIC form qualifies as a competitive game. Whether you like it or not, that's the truth(not mentioning it to you Randomguy, just in general.) There are fighters out there already who's advanced techs, are even fewer than brawls basic techs, and they get shown off(lol DOA). Just because they remove techs from a game, doesn't change the fact it can be competitive, because new **** is going to come along. It's happened EVERY SINGLE TIME for crying out loud. Why, in the HELL, would it just decide to change now.

As for Street Fighter... I really don't want to argue with you, but that's FAR from a confined form of Gameplay. No, It's not king of the hill style... but if anything, that's why Smash is what it is... because it's not TRYING to be like everyone else in the sense of mechanics. That doesn't mean it's NOT going to be competitive. It means it's attempting a different way of doing things, and that's fine.

Pretty much, for a fighting game to be competitive, you need three things at the least...

-A. Mechanics that enable competition. One's that require skill. Even if they're basic, things where skill is a high factor and can be represented as such through the use of such mechanics. That's how brawl is. And a quick note: Just becaue a game is accessible doesn't make it noobish. If you think that, you're an idiot. There's a difference between dumbing down mechanics, and making things accessible, and that's what Sakurai's done.. make things accessible. It's not like what they did with the Power Stone series and just streamlined ATTACK to one button, with literally almost NO VARIATION whatsoever, having people Spam the same combos OVER and OVER again(Literally the SAME 3 HIT COMBO. You literally can't do ANYTHING ELSE. I'm not talking about Smash 3 hit combo I meant, PUNCH KICK PUNCH. That's it. Same combo. over and over. No skill. Why couldn't they just leave it how Power Stone 1 was, huh? That had variety, and that had at least SOME strategy.)
-B. Roster. AT 8 Characters Street Fighter 2 was probably the most popular game in the world when it came out. The entire SNES controller was REDESIGNED, and given shoulder buttons, just for SF2. A typical roster size has increased over the years, but most current fighters have their rosters pegged around 20-30 characters. But regardless of WHAT you think the size of the roster is, it's how the characters play. Characters need differentiation and variety in order to be fun to play as. The same skill set can work, but the character mechanics have to be different enough to justify it. The clones are all FAIRLY different at this point. Saying Fox and Wolf are the same character is like saying Ryu and Akuma are. And they're NOT. By a long shot. Brawl has it. It has AT LEAST 20 different skill sets. It could have worked with 8, and regardless of size or "Ridley's NOT IN"... doesn't matter. It has this.
C. Variety. You want to know why I get annoyed when people keep talking about breaking a game as a way to find AT's? Because that's not how a fighting game should work, or does work. It's specifically Dependant on how you use the characters. That's why the genre's prevailed. You look at 3rd Strike, Not all Ryu players will play the same way. There's different styles to HOW you approach a character and use them.

Pretty much it works as this. In fighting games, you're given a set of tools, and an objective. You're set of tools is your character, you're objective is to kick the **** out of the other person. Now you also have rules(mechanics). You're job is to find a way to USE those tools within the context of the rules, in order to meet your objective. And people DON'T always use them the same way. There's different ways to play Chun Li, there's different styles for Ken, you won't play Ryu the same with a Shin Shoryu like you will with a Shinku Hadoken... it's strategy. That's how things normally are supposed to be.

So when people say "Lets break the game to make it competitive", that's stupid to me, because it's obvious they really don't know how competitive play works, and if they apparently ARE competitive players... It's just stupid. You master the basics of a game first, and the way to use your characters first, and every other mechanic or discovery comes thereafter.

Hopefully that makes sense towards what you were going for random.

 

[TheMintyCookie]

I had a fun time.

 

[Random6669]

Hopefully that makes sense towards what you were going for random.

A little off topic in some areas but I was glad to read your comments.
I enjoyed reading your ideas into what makes a good fighting game, or what makes a good tournament fighting game. That's exactly what I was looking for.

I hope someone else will make comments about what you have to say there and compare them to my ideas about tournament games and do a nice analysis over what is similar and what is not. I would myself but I am currently distracted with something else at the moment and it's late and I am tired.

Excellent quality discussion from RedrappeR!
Let's get some more going!

 

[SamDvds]

i actually have a friend who plays on a Namco sponsored team for Soul Calibur, Tekken, Street Fighter, and every other possible fighting game imagineable...he usually places top 3 in all these tourneys and...he said he doesn't consider Smash a 'real' fighting game, because it has TOO MUCH control...of course i argued with him for hours about this...but anyway thats coming from the perspective of some 1 who does play those other games professionally

i also just wanna add my opinion..still speaking from Soul calibur 2, because other than Killer Instinct, its the only other fighter i play besides smash. Ivy has 132 individual moves on her moveset (including grabs, crouching moves, etc) and 5 different stances. i have memorized all of these and a majority of the combo possibilities, at least all of the most effective ones. I still feel like this game limits me more than Smash, because of a few reasons.

On fighters based on health bars...you only get so many moves before your opponent is dead. In Ivy's case it can take anywhere from 3 to 10 moves...only more than that if im sandbagging. With games like this..its like...you have a HUGE moveset and not enough time in a match...or life on the meter to use even a fraction of them. Also a majority of combos are failproof...and will work 100% of the time...you cant jump over your enemy and run to the other side...so you have two options: block or attack

Now with Smash...each character has a very small movelist...and infinate possibilities to use them to their maximum potential. No combo is 100% guaranteed if DI is done correctly. Certain stages play to character advantages, where in other fighting games the stage does not matter at all. I just feel like i get bored alot quicker playing soul calibur because its the same scenario every match...yea it might vary depending on how i feel like killing my opponent, but if i want the victory asap...i dont even need a fraction of those 132 moves.

Anyway thats just my thoughts on the two. Defending Random's point though...he's not attacking the tourney credibility of the other games, he's just saying that Melee has an evolved depth that other games don't.

 

[RedrappeR]

i actually have a friend who plays on a Namco sponsored team for Soul Calibur, Tekken, Street Fighter, and every other possible fighting game imagineable...he usually places top 3 in all these tourneys and...he said he doesn't consider Smash a 'real' fighting game, because it has TOO MUCH control...of course i argued with him for hours about this...but anyway thats coming from the perspective of some 1 who does play those other games professionally

That person is an idiot.

Shoryuken.com says so.

 

[SamDvds]

apparently Namco doesn't think so...

 

[TK Wolf]

(Note: this is coming from the perspective of a Fox + Marth main. I'm not a pro, maybe you could call me a newbie-pro? I've been to some smashboards tournies in San Jose and can hold my ground against several people there, and can beat some of the bottom-tier players there ^^; )


I agree with 99% of what Red said.

Random, I feel you had some merit in your arguments, but limitless potential in control, I feel is a double-edged sword. But more importantly, I don't think it's the only thing that makes a good fighter.

First, about the double-edged sword comment:

In Melee, at the highest levels of play (with certain characters), simply getting your character to do exactly what you want them to do is incredibly difficult unless you're one of the pros among pros, or dedicate TONS of time to get the input right. I'm NOT talking about things like timing your attacks. I mean specific things, like waveshine combos, ken combos, etc.

I don't think that anyone would disagree that a player who can properly input commands (as well the very best players) without strategy, will probably overpower someone who understands all the deep mechanics of the game and has great strategy, but has trouble timing their l-cancels. There are many things you can do in Melee which, assuming you connect (opponent guarding or not) will be 100% safe. That might even reduce strategy. I'm not awesome enough at Melee to comment further on that, but I think it's interesting to think about.

While there is obviously plenty strategic value in Melee, I find that I'm fighting to control my character (Again, I main Fox and Marth, so hopefully you understand why I find high-level play difficult to control) as much as I'm fighting my opponent, and I don't see that as a good thing.

I haven't played Brawl, but I like the idea of it not being as difficult to control your character. I'm not saying to dumb things down, but when you look at a video like perfect control... and see that to maximize certain characters you literally need to be a computer... I think that's a bit much. I'm hoping that Brawl will have depth in control, but not to the point where players CANNOT fully utilize it. I think the fight should be between the heads of the two players, not their fingers.


Note that I'm not complaining about Melee. It's my favorite game ever and I REALLY like that I always can improve more.


But yeah, with LOTS of time and practice, you can work around the almost-too-much control thing. Regardless of that, once players CAN control their character flawlessly, then the game shifts entirely to utilizing your character to its fullest, being creative and unpredictable, and so on. If there is strong balance and depth in THAT section, then the game will thrive.

In Melee, players grow both in terms of being able to control their character, and in terms of developing their mental game. In Brawl, I think that the control side will not need much growth, but the mental game still has full potential, right?

 

[Random6669]

I'll give my personal opinion on this one. That is to say I'm not arguing this as fact. This is how I feel.

I would like to see a game that is both a contest of physical quickness and mental strategy (like Melee). I believe that is the ultimate contest. and being better at either one in some cases won't lead to a victory (in Melee). On the grand scale the player who is better at both usually comes out on top. A contest of one or the other is boring anymore, we've been there and done that.

In Dance Dance Revolution it's all about how well timed you can hit the arrows. In chess it's all about thinking at least 1 step ahead of your opponent. Melee is the best of both worlds.

*Although Melee is in another genre of game*

Also a game that isn't control demanding or easier to play is not as rewarding to be good at. If I put a lot of time into a game I want every second of my play style to show it. I would hate to see techniques I've been using for years get executed just as easily and accurately by a guy who just started a month ago. There needs to be some kind of control barrier that is difficult to breach to help separate the better and more experienced players from the lesser players.

That is my view on that.


Hooray! This thread now has as many views as my article has words! (good or bad thing?)

 

[TK Wolf]

I can understand that, and I think I agree. I don't know if you've played Guilty Gear: XX before, but I find that to be a wonderful example of both fast control and strategy. The control is very fast, free, and open, but I've never felt like I just can't pull something off most of the time.

At the same time, I bet if I had gotten into the competitive scene of Melee a year sooner, I might not be stuck like I feel I am at my current skill level. Currently, at least, I feel like some things are just beyond my button-pressing abilities. I mean, even basic stuff like shuffling with fox... the number of button presses + stick movements per second is nuts. I'd personally like something that's just slightly less demanding than Melee.

*shrug* Oh well. ^^;

 

[Green'n'Clean]

My personal concern about the "dumbing down" which we fear has been inflicted upon the smash series will remove the uniqueness of the game.
Most fighting-games are easy to control and is basically a contest of strategy, creativity and other mental skills. Smash is, in my humble opinion, the only series ever to truly emphasize both strategy and control on the competitive level of the game. In other fighting games, mastering all the possible moves is just what separates the competitive players from the casuals. In smash, however, none has ever truly mastered the control, and it's impossible for a mere human to do so.

I'm simply afraid that the most unique series on the gaming market will loose what makes it so special.
I really hope that it won't be possible to master brawls "control" during its life span, as that would, in my opinion, make it more like Street Fighter than melee.

 

[Green'n'Clean]

Yes, i managed to double post. Sue me.

 

[Takeshi245]

I've read your article, Random, and it's nice to see how you're taking this criticism positively as a way to improve. That's a good ethic. Anyways, I think that some people are worried about Brawl being competitive is the way games have been more simplified when it comes to overall control and technique. However, though Brawl has been simplified, I believe that the new techniques that we will find will last us for years. This is only the beginning, so we have a ways to go. Sure, it's most likely that Brawl won't have the fighting system depth like Melee did, but it may be just enough.

 

[DRaGZ]

I think it's all fine.

 

[G-X]

In Melee, at the highest levels of play (with certain characters), simply getting your character to do exactly what you want them to do is incredibly difficult unless you're one of the pros among pros, or dedicate TONS of time to get the input right. I'm NOT talking about things like timing your attacks. I mean specific things, like waveshine combos, ken combos, etc.

I don't think that anyone would disagree that a player who can properly input commands (as well the very best players) without strategy, will probably overpower someone who understands all the deep mechanics of the game and has great strategy, but has trouble timing their l-cancels. There are many things you can do in Melee which, assuming you connect (opponent guarding or not) will be 100% safe. That might even reduce strategy. I'm not awesome enough at Melee to comment further on that, but I think it's interesting to think about.

[...]


I haven't played Brawl, but I like the idea of it not being as difficult to control your character. I'm not saying to dumb things down, but when you look at a video like perfect control... and see that to maximize certain characters you literally need to be a computer... I think that's a bit much. I'm hoping that Brawl will have depth in control, but not to the point where players CANNOT fully utilize it. I think the fight should be between the heads of the two players, not their fingers.

QFT.

GG, OP.