Respect the Game

RESPECT THE GAME​

What does this mean?

To respect the game means to not change the game.

Why can't you change it? Why have respect?

Respect allows you to find the truth in a game. The truth in games is to realize the best player.

You can't find this truth with changes, without respect?

You can, but it is an unrelated, irrelevant truth. This altered truth is acceptable as a different truth, but it would be false to present it as the original.




THIS MEANS ITEMS-ON

Lol, no.

The ultimate goal is the truth, but the ultimate tool to reach that goal is not respect. To reach that truth, respect can be forgone, and at times it must be. In this case: the removal of items. Items randomize wins much too much to ever allow consistent results.

Super Smash Bros, unfortunately, with complete respect in place, does not hold competition. It does not have a truth.

With an absolute minimum breach of respect though, we can reach a truth. The real and only truth Smash has. Comparatively to say, Street Fighter, this minimum breach is actually quite substantial. This doesn't make Smash a lesser game, but merely a game a bit more difficult to set-up.

WE AS A COMMUNITY DECIDE WHAT THE GAME IS

That is... if you don't care about competition. Let me lay out an example.

Think about what a tournament is. In essence, it's the physical attempt to realize the truth. "Who is the best player?" And so, through a system that most easily allows us to find this individual within time and space constraints, we achieve a ranking of players that most likely fit this truth - starting with first place. Imagine it as an incredibly serious investigation.

This best player is really hard to find.

First off, this guy could be any of these 100 individuals. And these are just the individuals that decided to show up! The people who had the time, money, and interest! Imagine if he's not there! We have to forgo that thinking though - we're working with what we have. But already we have a flaw: the guy might not even be here. So we change our goal to: "who is the best player who has the time, money, and interest to be here?"

So we have a selection; the obvious way to realize the best among them is to have them all compete against each other and calculate the player with the most wins. Unfortunately, we don't have all day. So instead, let's split them into smaller groups, and have the winners from those groups compete against each other (thus removing the worse players very quickly). But once again we have another flaw: we risk losing track of this best player in our rush to whittle down the selection.

Now though, every single match is taking thirty minutes. We install the least-intrusive time limit to keep things rolling. But then we raise another flaw in our investigation, and a rather new artifact in the system: losing due to time-limit breach. Unfortunate, but necessary.

Now, one of the more apparent 1st-place candidates just lost due to an unfortunate slip of fingers. Someone yelled from nearby and startled the player, and so we hit on the aspects of the physical taxation of playing. He reach another flaw, and another incredibly foreign artifact: one of the requirements to winning is now physical stamina and endurance to a local environment. A trait completly unrelated to the original game.

From here, we install double elimination for our slippery-fingered friend. Our investigation now makes it harder for one of the higher qualifiers to lose to small or arbitrary mistakes. But overall, it's another unavoidable flaw.

Finally, we reach... the finals! The bracket closes up, and after a heated and intense set for grand finals, we crown a victor! Our investigation is a success! This is literally the best player! ...possibly!

Barring the possibility that the "true" best player didn't randomly botch his matches during the course of the tournament, or become physically too distressed, or lose just by a hair due to a lack of time, or get sadly washed away during the initial pools, or even, almost inconceivably, the chance the player didn't attend! ...barring all of that, we have revealed the closest possible candidate to wear the title of "best player."

And now, returning to my first point, considering that massive room for error, there still exists any notion that the "community" has a choice in deciding what the game should be like? Is that a joke?

Competition is about finding the truth. Anything that affects the game that isn't in direct pursuit of that is a total detriment to the game.

LET'S PLAY AN ALTERED VERSION

That's cool, just call it something different if you're going to breach that respect. That'll be obtaining a different truth after all.

Duelist has a different truth than competitive Super Smash Bros Brawl.
Brawl+ has a different truth than competitive Super Smash Bros Brawl.

Problem only arises when respect is breached and yet it's still called the same thing. For example, having a ruleset that only includes one starter stage (a gross disregard for respect pursuing a different and arbitrary truth such as "the stage should not affect a match"), or banning Meta Knight on the basis of introducing more character diversity (another gross disregard pursuing the pipe-dream of an actually balanced game).

Alterations and breaches of respect are acceptable in theory, but in practice, these alterations rarely pursue the truth competition is after, and instead are placed pursuing vague or subjective notions of how the game "should" be played, how the game is "fun", or how "skill" should be measured.

WE HAVE TO CHANGE IT TO KEEP PEOPLE PLAYING

Consider playing something less crappy.

...Is this hating on hacking?

This blog sucks.

Refusal to alter the game directly inhibits finding truth. It's science. If you can't conduct hypothesis tests, you can't find evidence.

This is a thinly veiled "don't ban metaknight" thread.

You say "respect the game" and "changing the game is detrimental to finding truth", yet you yourself admit that we have had to change the game to make it playable in the first place. You point out that banning items is necessary. Don't you think banning stages is necessary, too? How about forcing the first game to be played on one of 5 "neutral" stages? What about banning the IDC?

So you say "change the game in the minimum way possible" and still have a competitively sound game. Well, what on earth do you think they've been doing in the Metaknight discussion thread for the past few months...? They've been discussing whether it is necessary to ban metaknight to have a competitively sound game!! Who are you to go waltzing in and touting this "respect the game" and "changing the game kills the truth" crap when you already (competitively) play a game that has been modified and tweaked so much that it's nothing like the "party" game that Sakurai imagined all of us to be playing right now?

This is quite frankly an insult to all the hard workers who have spent countless hours searching for evidence to decide whether brawl is a BETTER COMPETITIVE GAME with or without metaknight. At the very least, you should move your topic in the metaknight discussion where it belongs, because it's quite apparent that, despite all the talk about "respect", the ONLY PROBLEM YOU HAVE MENTIONED IN YOUR TOPIC is that you don't agree with banning metaknight. (and some silly single starter stage thing that has never been a topic of debate in the first place......ever)

What this means can be interpreted into many things, hacking, MK, DDD infinite, etc.

I like it, good read.

Red Ryu said:

What this means can be interpreted into many things, hacking, MK, DDD infinite, etc.

I like it, good read.

Click to expand...

I don't, because it apparently is against hacking, banning MK, removing items, removing stages, et cetera. Or maybe I'm missing something?

how is it against hacking? he said nothing of the sort. in fact, meno is a supporter of balanced brawl. all he said in regards to hacking is that the "truth" of those games is not the same as the "truth" of competitive Brawl, because it isn't the same game.

anyway, just remove what you must in order to find the truth (something that produces inconsistent results, like items) and nothing more.

^
Essentially, people aren't seeing the real meaning if they keep thinking it's against everything.

I cannot decide if this was a good read that I liked or a semi-troll thread I should dispise.

1048576 said:

Refusal to alter the game directly inhibits finding truth. It's science. If you can't conduct hypothesis tests, you can't find evidence.

Click to expand...

I agree with this man.

Delvro said:

Well, what on earth do you think they've been doing in the Metaknight discussion thread for the past few months...?

Click to expand...

Mainly *****ing.

Budget Player Cadet_ said:

I don't, because it apparently is against hacking, banning MK, removing items, removing stages, et cetera. Or maybe I'm missing something?

Click to expand...

Delvro, Budget, re-read, or if it's easier, listen to the people who actually read it.

Because reading is hard.

Or maybe I'm just terrible at writing? D:
Might have to reconsider that English minor...

1/10 will never read again. Also, dont say Smash bros as a whole isnt competitive...more like brawl isnt. Melee is VERY competitive.

Reread. Still not convinced. Interesting, but not really meaningful.

Philosphy is nice and all, but has no place in a "play to win" environment. Its like trying to apply ethics to war, and decency to business.

Hacking sucks

Brawl+ Sucks

Brawl minus sucks

Project 2.0 sucks

Get @ me


edit - TLMSheikant also sucks

he mains shiek

Budget Player Cadet_ said:

Reread. Still not convinced. Interesting, but not really meaningful.

Click to expand...

To be honest, this article's purpose was to dismantle any ground a "Constructivist" view has.

See: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=262937

I think I've successfully succeeded.

CRASHiC said:

Philosphy is nice and all, but has no place in a "play to win" environment. Its like trying to apply ethics to war, and decency to business.

Click to expand...

Please elaborate. I don't see how the two could be incompatible (as I myself subscribe to both).

Concerning MK. It can be hard to determine who the best player is when by doing "something" it gives you a serious advantage over others. It'd be like trying to find the best swimmer in the world when some swimmers take steroids and some don't. The only answer to this is for all swimmers to take steroids to be on an even playing field.

Comparing this to MK if Mk really does give a considerable advantage than the only solution is for everyone to pick MK but then the game isn't about who is the best at the game as a whole but rather who is the best at the MK ditto.

Granted i know there are some exceptions such as an MK player who rocks the MK ditto that cant fight a as well as snake fights the mk might lose to a snake. But the general concept is the same. Now it becomes which MKs are the best at the MK, Snake, Diddy and Falco MU

TLMSheikant said:

1/10 will never read again. Also, dont say Smash bros as a whole isnt competitive...more like brawl isnt. Melee is VERY competitive.

Click to expand...

in comparison to Brawl, if only on the basis of it being more technically difficult. They both suffer from problems. But when you put Smash on the same level as other competative games, it doesn't have much value other than the fun aspect.

Please elaborate. I don't see how the two could be incompatible (as I myself subscribe to both).

Click to expand...

We shouldn't be making decisions about this game and our ruleset based on any sort of philosophical ideal. Sorry, but neither absurdist nor exotentalist can help us solve our Metaknight problem. We should make decisions similar to that of those who write the rules of war and those who moderate and regulate business, that being pure necessity and always acting and treating the game and its players as the worst thing possible. For instance, at Evo with Guilty Gear, they banned a color scheme because it could be abused on certain stages to mask your movements. Now, from a logical standpoint, this seems silly, especially with Evo's rule about not banning anything that hasn't been proven broken, but regardless, it HAD to be banned, out of neccissity, because other wise it would have been over abused.

/bob-omb KO.

Do you feel the same way now?

btw THE GAME.

Allied said:

Hacking sucks

Brawl+ Sucks

Brawl minus sucks

Project 2.0 sucks

Get @ me


edit - TLMSheikant also sucks

he mains shiek

Click to expand...

ITT: a person who has never tried any of the hacks he disses

USA sucks, Europe is better.

Budget Player Cadet_ said:

ITT: a person who has never tried any of the hacks he disses

Click to expand...

i'm best friends with veril

GET @ ME!!!!

also trolled ^_^

EUROPE IS TRASH

Allied said:

i'm best friends with veril

GET @ ME!!!!

also trolled ^_^

EUROPE IS TRASH

Click to expand...

Also Veril should kick you in the nuts. ^_^

MenoUnderwater said:

Delvro, Budget, re-read, or if it's easier, listen to the people who actually read it.

Click to expand...

It's like you didn't understand anything I said.

How can you expect to be taken seriously when you say that "changing the game takes us away from the truth", while IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH, admitting that "some changes need to be made to make the game competitive, like turning items off"?

Not to mention, the ONLY PARTICULAR THING you mention in your post is that you disagree with banning metaknight (as well as some silly single neutral stage thing that was never really an issue to begin with).

This is a "don't ban metaknight" thread, disguised as a "don't change the game" thread.

Take it to the metaknight discussion.

Delvro said:

How can you expect to be taken seriously when you say that "changing the game takes us away from the truth", while IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH, admitting that "some changes need to be made to make the game competitive, like turning items off"?

Click to expand...

This actually isn't a contradiction. He didn't say that "some changes need to be made to find the truth," he said, "some changes need to be made to make the game competitive."

Where are you even finding this particular paragraph, because you paraphrased so I can't find his wording vs. yours.

Not to mention, the ONLY PARTICULAR THING you mention in your post is that you disagree with banning metaknight (as well as some silly single neutral stage thing that was never really an issue to begin with).

This is a "don't ban metaknight" thread, disguised as a "don't change the game" thread.

Take it to the metaknight discussion.

Click to expand...

Problem only arises when respect is breached and yet it's still called the same thing. For example, having a ruleset that only includes one starter stage (a gross disregard for respect pursuing a different and arbitrary truth such as "the stage should not affect a match"), or banning Meta Knight on the basis of introducing more character diversity (another gross disregard pursuing the pipe-dream of an actually balanced game).

Alterations and breaches of respect are acceptable in theory, but in practice, these alterations rarely pursue the truth competition is after, and instead are placed pursuing vague or subjective notions of how the game "should" be played, how the game is "fun", or how "skill" should be measured.

Click to expand...

Instead of finding the words "Meta Knight" and latching onto them like that's all that's important (lolol), try to find the big picture and get the meaning of the entire post.

He never explicitly said he disagreed with banning Meta Knight, he said it was a "breach of respect that's called the same thing." Which, two sentences earlier, he said Brawl+ was the same breach of respect, and three sentences earlier, he said:

That's cool, just call it something different if you're going to breach that respect. That'll be obtaining a different truth after all.

Click to expand...

Not only is your claim of his only particular thing being his stance against the Meta Knight ban false, as his stance with Duelist and Brawl+ was taken with the exact same wording, but you failed to understand what he was even saying.

Thanks Avarice! Saved me some time there.

CRASHiC said:

We shouldn't be making decisions about this game and our ruleset based on any sort of philosophical ideal.

Click to expand...

Uhh... can you rephrase this?

"We should not make philosophical choices based on philosophies."

>_____>

CRASHiC said:

We should make decisions similar to that of those who write the rules of war and those who moderate and regulate business, that being pure necessity and always acting and treating the game and its players as the worst thing possible.

Click to expand...

You realize war and business both have incredibly different goals? While competitive gaming searches for the truth within the confines of a community that accepts every regulation (hence a structure), war and business don't have defined structures.

If the rules are "THERE ARE NO RULES" you get... items. And shoving controllers out of people's hands. Which doesn't have a truth, or a structure, and thus, isn't a game.

War and business are good models for the actual gameplay though. We know this as Play to Win.

tis aint no truth i eer herd of, dis sound mo like sum bullshiet if u kno wat im sain

I lost the game because of this thread.

Err, sure...


...the OP has pretty colors.

Ok guys i tried to take it at face value and understand where he is coming from.

The only issue i have with this so far is that what he said is that if we are to change the game we should not pretend it is the same game it was before. Ok thats fair. As u said some respect must be forgone in order to make the game more competetive ie items turned off. So this is no longer brawl but rather itemless brawl ok thats cool.

Next we must breach more respect by getting rid of certain stages in order to make the game more competetive ie 5 starter stages. This is now no longer itemless brawl but itemless, 5 stage brawl.

Ok thats fine i can deal with that now suppose we need to ban other things because they are skewing results such as D3 player ****** much more skilled players with infinites. Ok lets breach that respect and call it itemless, infiniteless, 5 stage brawl. I can handle that.

Lets suppose that infinites aside there is still 1 character that using said tactic is constantly beating more skilled players. In order to form a more competetive game we must breach this respect. Now we must call it itemless, infinteless, said tacticless, 5 stage brawl.

So now our truth is who is the best player at itemless, infiniteless, said tacticless, 5 stage brawl?

Anyone up for itemless, infiniteless, said tacticless, Metaknightless, 5 stage brawl?

Judo777 said:

Anyone up for itemless, infiniteless, said tacticless, Metaknightless, 5 stage brawl?

Click to expand...

... I'll meet you online in 5 minutes. o_o

People who think Meno is trying to say hacking sucks and don't ban MK just aren't getting this thread.

Good read, wouldn't read again because reading is boring.

But really, well said.

Basically, remove the **** you have to remove, then play the rest of the **** game.

Click to expand...

Problem with this is that it sounds simple but you really need to define the '**** you have to remove' before you can do that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-IeLZO-sdw#t=0m12s

Respect the game

RESPECT IT

In all honesty, I do like when people discuss a different option instead of defaulting, because what you overlook can be amazing when all do is follow a "mob mentality".

That doesn't necessarily mean differing in opinion just to be ostentatious or to just be annoying.

How can you hold the position that you cannot find truth without changing the game while simultaneously contending that in order to find truth we shouldn't change the game?

Good read, kool format and colours.

Would maybe read half again and stop.

The problem with this ideology as many people have already pointed out (both in this thread and others) is that you are arbitrarily choosing a line where things on one side of the line can be changed because they are TOO detrimental to competitive play and things on the other side can't be changed. What is the exact standard and reasoning for that standard of which something is too detrimental?

I also like the mention that experimentation is the method of finding truth, and changes are necessary for experimentation

EDIT- @Judo that seems like a fair idea, I'm not going to start referring to the game like that because it takes too long to say, but it definitely seems to make sense, and if that was the point of what this thread was trying to say: that's nice, what's your point?

Nothing is true.

Everything is permitted.

J4pu said:

The problem with this ideology as many people have already pointed out (both in this thread and others) is that you are arbitrarily choosing a line where things on one side of the line can be changed because they are TOO detrimental to competitive play and things on the other side can't be changed. What is the exact standard and reasoning for that standard of which something is too detrimental?

I also like the mention that experimentation is the method of finding truth, and changes are necessary for experimentation

EDIT- @Judo that seems like a fair idea, I'm not going to start referring to the game like that because it takes too long to say, but it definitely seems to make sense, and if that was the point of what this thread was trying to say: that's nice, what's your point?

Click to expand...

Thats what im saying lol. We already did change the game so what the last part of the thread was referring to was calling it something else. Why?