How exactly can it be paraphrased to about anything? The list, if not completely accurate, is pretty **** close. Even if you think Mario or Bowser or Marth or whomever should be slightly higher or slightly lower, they are very close to where the general consensus places them. Mario is bad, Marth is relatively good, and Bowser is in the middle. Try to use tht list to argue that Ganondorf is good. Go on, try it.
You seem to have missed my point that the list can indeed be paraphrased to anything, you just gave me your spin on it.
I can't explain that Ganondorf is a good character using the list, part of why I don't care for it, it labels characters as good or bad and sparks arguements. It depends on the player, simple as that.
People often assume that the character's moveset immediately reflects off of the player's ability to use them, when it should be the other way around.
You're mixing up cause and effect here. The reason (or at least the major one) that so many people play MK is how good he is. Also, please, please, please do not try to tell me that MK and CF are equally good characters. CF is such an incredibly limited set of options that he really has NOTHING on most of the top characters. A good MK will always do better than an equally good CF. It's not even remotely close.
It depends on the player and their ability to play.
You persay see C F as a limited set of options, but what if a C.F. player were to enter a tournament and own like mad?
He could widen the possibilities for him and spark new ideas.
And don't say thats impossible, because just about anything is possible in the smash world.
After all, in Melee, everyone thought the I.C.s sucked, that is until a certain someone cae in and widened the eyes of countless people.
And for the record, most people picked MK because they preemptively decided to play him since he was announced.
Yes, skill is still the biggest deciding factor. Taking MK to a touranment is far from a free win, and an excellent Samus can come out on top as well. However, the person playing Samus has put themself at an inherent disadvantage by playing Samus. This doesn't mean they can't overcome this character gap, but it means they two can't be even in skill and still have an even match.
Don't characterize general skill with character pros and cons.
They can indeed be at equal skill and fight equally, if not then they aren't equals.
Skill is summed up to a simple 3 phase analogy.
Circumstance, Personal Input, and Reaction.
Circumstance is the situation you're in.
Personal Input is your thought on how to go about it.
And Reaction is the action you take, typically the physical result of Personal Input.
The player with the higher P.I. and reaction is the one with more skill as they can alter the Circumstance to their advantage. So with equal skill, regardless of the characters chosen to fight, it can be anyone's match.
I'm not even sure what to say to this.
How about, "I agree"?
Learning to player is simply relying on the steps I gave above to win a match, in contrast to trying to spam smash attacks and fairs to get a cheap and easy kill.
