• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Brawl is competitive. (Finished editing post)

Yuna

BRoomer
BRoomer
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
10,358
Location
Stockholm, Sweden
Because it is more balanced. Characters that were bad in Melee have been buffed some. Characters that were exceptionally strong in Melee have been nerfed some.
For the love of puppies, this has got to stop!

I can't even count how many people have said "Some really good chars in Melee were nerfed and some really bad ones were buffed!" as a sign of Brawl being more balanced than Melee.

When we say "A game is balanced/unbalanced", we're talking about it in relative forms. Are the characters in the game we're talking about balanced when you compare them to each other?

So what if the game's been re-balanced from Melee? So what if most of the Tops and Highs have been nerfed at different degrees while the Bottoms and Lows and Mids have been buffed (and sometimes even nerfed)? That's re-balancing the game. The balance has changed, yeah.

But that does not automatically make it more balanced than Melee or even balanced in general. The tierlist has just changed. Using the same logic as you and others have used, if every single Top and Higher Tier in Melee were nerfed to Bottom Tier in Brawl and the Bottoms and Highs were nerfed to Top and High, it'd still be more balanced, even if the gap between Top and High is immense and no one below High can even come close to beating the Tops and Highs.

The game has been re-balanced (which is only logical). The question that remains is whether it's actually balanced. Don't compare the Brawl characters to their Melee counterparts, compare them to the other characters in Brawl.
 

Fugue

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
86
Location
Delaware
Because it is more balanced. Characters that were bad in Melee have been buffed some. Characters that were exceptionally strong in Melee have been nerfed some.
As a Samus main in Melee, I strongly disagree. We were nerfed hard, despite not being high tier.

Besides, just giving buffs to weak characters and nerfs to strong ones doesn't mean anything. It's quite easy to add too much or too little, and either not accomplish enough (Yoshi is still weak, Marth is still OP) or send the character down to trash tier (Sheik, Ganondorf, the Captain, Jigglypuff).

Number of characters is also not an argument in favor of a game unless the additional characters are tournament worthy. Marvel vs Capcom 2 has a huge roster, but if you're talking about serious play (which they are, and I'm pretty sure you aren't), you've barely got any.
 

LouisLeGros

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
403
Location
Seattle
I've found Brawl to be quite competitive myself.

I do agree this isn't the lightning game melee was. That's not to say it's not as good, but it's nowhere near the same gameplay. I think what's frustrating people mostly is that it's not a reflex game anymore, that there's a lot more stand-off, projectile reliance, and interrupted movements.

I've found I like this system a lot more. Aerial combat feels more correct and being above your opponent is not so suicidal. Combat is less close, as instead of a ball of fists moving across the field, characters will oscillate much more towards and away each other. The game is very different, nothing plays quite like it.

Still, it's highly skill based. There is a clear trend among my dedicated companions for there to be a gap of separation in ability. There are many different characters and strategies for each that require their own honing to counter, and soon, general offensive ideas emerge from them on the best ways to make approaches for every character. Priority is still a huge deal, and knowing that and your own is absolutely critical. Proper shielding and dodging is as important as ever. It's easy to be a working player of brawl, but there is definitely a learning curve. Watch groups of people play the game, and you will see tendencies and trends that show a competitive streak is definitely there.
I see these trends with people playing

people are starting to play characters who can spam more and more. People are giving up on approaching because the risk-reward pay off is so poor. Character with a good grab game and a good projectile game are dominating.

L button + a & repeatedly pressing B is sooo much deeper then melee and show just how much better Brawl gauges skill then melee does.
 

LUCYMONO

Smash Rookie
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
19
For the love of puppies, this has got to stop!

I can't even count how many people have said "Some really good chars in Melee were nerfed and some really bad ones were buffed!" as a sign of Brawl being more balanced than Melee.

When we say "A game is balanced/unbalanced", we're talking about it in relative forms. Are the characters in the game we're talking about balanced when you compare them to each other?
It's because the end result is that the characters are more balanced in comparison to each other. Sure, nerfing some of the higher tiers and buffing the lower tiers is a very blanket thing to do, but the end result is a more balanced character roster. There have both been some changes in the tiering AND there is more balance. More of the weaker characters that weren't initially competition viable in Melee are now viable in Brawl.

As a Samus main in Melee, I strongly disagree. We were nerfed hard, despite not being high tier.

Besides, just giving buffs to weak characters and nerfs to strong ones doesn't mean anything. It's quite easy to add too much or too little, and either not accomplish enough (Yoshi is still weak, Marth is still OP) or send the character down to trash tier (Sheik, Ganondorf, the Captain, Jigglypuff).

Number of characters is also not an argument in favor of a game unless the additional characters are tournament worthy. Marvel vs Capcom 2 has a huge roster, but if you're talking about serious play (which they are, and I'm pretty sure you aren't), you've barely got any.
Again, I'll repeat, "Of course there's still going to be some disparity. No fighting game is ever perfectly balanced."

I don't know why they felt the need to nerf Samus... possibly because you can now change into ZSS or to counter-balance her Final Smash? And yes, Yoshi is still a rather poor character, but there have been lots of other characters that were given a good boost.

And what do you mean "tournament worthy?" Last I checked, it's still being debated right now... or are you now the authority on which characters are gonna be used in tourneys?
 

Lessthan_tom

Smash Cadet
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
52
DanteSmash7:

Just being able to wavedash does not make you a pro. The implimentation of wavedashing and all advanced techniques is what makes you a good player. In fact this applies to all moves in Smash. The general idea is that you don't remember long button sequences. It's about the timing and execution of moves in Smash that counts. Like a good joke. Wavedashing might stray from this kind of mentality a little, but when you can do it consistently and everyone else can; just like in the melee metagame, it takes definate skill and cunning to use the AT properly and win.

That is why wavedashing is not 'exploited'. Also if you want to make a point or give your opinion, then fine. Don't call people morons or you will get flamed the **** out of here.
 

Fugue

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
86
Location
Delaware
It's because the end result is that the characters are more balanced in comparison to each other. Sure, nerfing some of the higher tiers and buffing the lower tiers is a very blanket thing to do, but the end result is a more balanced character roster. There have both been some changes in the tiering AND there is more balance. More of the weaker characters that weren't initially competition viable in Melee are now viable in Brawl.
Later in this same post, you mention that it's too early to be discussing character balance in high-level play. I agree it's too early to make definite statements, but everything we've seen so far implies that the competitive scene would be better off just sticking to Melee, and that's traditionally not a good sign of things to come.

NOTE THAT I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE CASUAL SCENE! WE CAN STILL PLAY BRAWL! BELIEVE IT OR NOT, IT'S PERFECTLY OKAY FOR US TO PLAY DIFFERENT GAMES!
If that's not what you were suggesting, I apoligize, but I'm not sure why else it'd bother other casuals that the pros aren't playing with us. Heck, it seems like most of us hate playing 'glitcheng tournietrds!1111'

Again, I'll repeat, "Of course there's still going to be some disparity. No fighting game is ever perfectly balanced."
And, in general, the ones that do a better job of getting close are considered more competetitive, and the ones that aren't, aren't. It doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to be good enough for an interesting high-level metagame. Brawl's metagame feels designed to be slower, less intense, more hit-and-run.

And what do you mean "tournament worthy?" Last I checked, it's still being debated right now... or are you now the authority on which characters are gonna be used in tourneys?
No, but fortunately for my point I don't need to be one, and I don't see how I implied I was one either. All I said was that only characters who can win in high-level play add anything to the competitive scene.
 

OrlanduEX

Smash Lord
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
1,029
And, in general, the ones that do a better job of getting close are considered more competetitive, and the ones that aren't, aren't. It doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to be good enough for an interesting high-level metagame. Brawl's metagame feels designed to be slower, less intense, more hit-and-run.

Not really. Almost all of the most popular fighting games are quite unbalanced.

Competitive Street Fighter 3 = Ken, Chun Li, Yun
Competitive Marvel vs Capcom 2 = Magneto, Sentinel, Storm, Cable
Competitive Melee = Fox, Falco, Marth, Peach, Sheik
Competitive Capcom vs SNK 2 = Blanka, Sakura, M. Bison, Sagat

And these are just a few examples.

Balance =/= competitive fighting game.

And the last sentence of that quote brings up the main reason why Brawl will never be as competitive as Melee.
All of the great fighting games that we've been playing for years are OFFENSIVELY ORIENTED. The active, attacking player generally has the advantage. This form of game keeps players interested for years in trying to find new ways to attack opponents and overcome their attack strategies.
Brawl is a DEFENSIVELY ORIENTED game. Attacking generally puts you in the position to be punished by something or another rather than benefiting you. Camping and poking are better than attacking. While this can foster a competitive scene, I think that in time players will just get bored of this monotonous style of play, this grueling, stock-by-stock percentage point by percentage point battle of attrition. The competitive scene will have to focus on trying to find an effective way to go on the offense to keep it interesting and make it meaningful.

And I don't think the Brawl roster is a as balanced as you claim. Those characters who are best at camping and playing defensively will be the best in Brawl. The rest of the cast will fall into a category of "just ok".
I don't think we will have a bottom tier as large as in Melee, but it seems that Brawl will turn into another game that is defined by just a handful of powerful characters.
 

RedTone

Smash Cadet
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
40
Not really. Almost all of the most popular fighting games are quite unbalanced.

Competitive Street Fighter 3 = Ken, Chun Li, Yun
Competitive Marvel vs Capcom 2 = Magneto, Sentinel, Storm, Cable
Competitive Melee = Fox, Falco, Marth, Peach, Sheik
Competitive Capcom vs SNK 2 = Blanka, Sakura, M. Bison, Sagat

And these are just a few examples.

Balance =/= competitive fighting game.
I believe this is true.. since the reason brawl seems balanced is because the game isn't that old yet
it took awhile to pick out which characters would dominate in any of these games and I think we've just hit the point
most people are saying Toon Link, Marth, and other characters seem to be having a good time winning.. we just need to see a real tournament and see how the characters fall into place
 

OrlanduEX

Smash Lord
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
1,029
Emphasis on "do a better job" and "for an interesting high-level metagame."
Marvel, Third Strike, and Melee have some of the most interesting, high-level, popular, and extremely competitive metagame's among all fighting games and they are sorely unbalanced.
Again, balance is not the determining factor in a game's competitive quality.
 

Fugue

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
86
Location
Delaware
Their competition is horrendously unfair games like SvC:Chaos and CFE. It's not perfect, sure, but it's what we've got.

There's also Guilty Gear series, they have a nice tourney scene too.

I think we might be arguing over a point we're not disagreeing on, though. The entertainment value is the most important, you're definately right. What I'm trying to say is that a game where every match is the exact same two players doing the exact same combo in the exact same way every time gets old fast. General balance can be a great way to make a game more varied, and hopefully more entertaining.
 

Pink Reaper

Real Name No Gimmicks
BRoomer
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
8,333
Location
In the Air, Using Up b as an offensive move
Marvel, Third Strike, and Melee have some of the most interesting, high-level, popular, and extremely competitive metagame's among all fighting games and they are sorely unbalanced.
Again, balance is not the determining factor in a game's competitive quality.
Melee wasn't that unbalanced as low and even a few bottom tier characters were at least usable for competitive play(anyone who says Gimpyfish proves tiers dont exist is an idiot, I just want to say that now) Granted, it was usually reliant on lack of experience, but low tiers were usable to a point.

In Brawl however, I don't think this is going to be the case. As Brawl seems to be very camp friendly, bottom/low/lower mid tier is going to be made up of characters that can't spam/deal with spam, and because Brawl is SO camp friendly, characters that can't deal with spam will become basically unplayable. All you scrubs who thought Fox was bad have never played an AMAZINGLY campy Toon Link. Its literally unwinable if your playing a character who can't spam back.
 

LouisLeGros

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
403
Location
Seattle
Melee wasn't that unbalanced as low and even a few bottom tier characters were at least usable for competitive play(anyone who says Gimpyfish proves tiers dont exist is an idiot, I just want to say that now) Granted, it was usually reliant on lack of experience, but low tiers were usable to a point.

In Brawl however, I don't think this is going to be the case. As Brawl seems to be very camp friendly, bottom/low/lower mid tier is going to be made up of characters that can't spam/deal with spam, and because Brawl is SO camp friendly, characters that can't deal with spam will become basically unplayable. All you scrubs who thought Fox was bad have never played an AMAZINGLY campy Toon Link. Its literally unwinable if your playing a character who can't spam back.
tats a liez Pink Raeper!1!eleven!!

you just wiat for all the AT that Brawl will hve in like 3 yaers that will blow meelee out of the water!one !11!




Actually thinking about a really campy toon link is scary...
 

LUCYMONO

Smash Rookie
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
19
Camping and poking are better than attacking. While this can foster a competitive scene, I think that in time players will just get bored of this monotonous style of play, this grueling, stock-by-stock percentage point by percentage point battle of attrition. The competitive scene will have to focus on trying to find an effective way to go on the offense to keep it interesting and make it meaningful.
Brawl is a different game and will have a different competitive scene, no doubt. But to say that it'll be "less" competitive is absurd. The Wii is selling WAY better than the Gamecube ever did and Brawl is selling retardedly well. It'll have a competitive scene despite the crys of the desperate who still cling to Melee's gameplay.

I'm not arguing that the system is "better" or "worse" - I'm arguing that it's different. This is a new generation of players, a new gameplay style, and there are new things to consider in matches. Using your best Melee strategies won't work as well in this game.
 

LouisLeGros

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
403
Location
Seattle
Brawl is a different game and will have a different competitive scene, no doubt. But to say that it'll be "less" competitive is absurd. The Wii is selling WAY better than the Gamecube ever did and Brawl is selling retardedly well. It'll have a competitive scene despite the crys of the desperate who still cling to Melee's gameplay.

I'm not arguing that the system is "better" or "worse" - I'm arguing that it's different. This is a new generation of players, a new gameplay style, and there are new things to consider in matches. Using your best Melee strategies won't work as well in this game.
the amount of competition has nothing to do with competitive merit of a game.

If there were 10 million registered professional tic-tac-toe players that went to worldwide competitions it wouldn't have any effect on the competitive merit of the game.
 

Fugue

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
86
Location
Delaware
If they're the ones who are desperate, why are they the ones offering logical arguments based on reason and experience, while everyone else keeps relying on personal beliefs and avoiding arguments they don't have an answer to?
 

Radical Dreamer

Smash Ace
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
827
Brawl really isn't that balanced. No major Brawl tournament will ever be won with Ganondorf, Captain Falcon or Sonic.
 

Tajem

Smash Apprentice
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
127
Location
Louisiana
The game is competitive, whether or not it's slower and lacks the old ATs.

Play for a good while. It's much different, but equally as challenging to beat someone. It's also still very new. If it's ATs you need, they'll come in time. If not, then enjoy the shiny new toy that is Brawl.
 

LUCYMONO

Smash Rookie
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
19
the amount of competition has nothing to do with competitive merit of a game.

If there were 10 million registered professional tic-tac-toe players that went to worldwide competitions it wouldn't have any effect on the competitive merit of the game.
Of course it does. Having a larger player base means there will be a more successful tournament scene and larger talent pool to draw from. You can't compare Brawl to tic-tac-toe, that's an unfair characterization. It's not all that different from Melee that you can make such a comparison.


Fugue said:
If they're the ones who are desperate, why are they the ones offering logical arguments based on reason and experience, while everyone else keeps relying on personal beliefs and avoiding arguments they don't have an answer to?
You misinterpret me. I mean that they're desperate to hold on to their own ways and deny that Brawl can be successful
 

LouisLeGros

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
403
Location
Seattle
Of course it does. Having a larger player base means there will be a more successful tournament scene and larger talent pool to draw from. You can't compare Brawl to tic-tac-toe, that's an unfair characterization. It's not all that different from Melee that you can make such a comparison.
I'm not comparing brawl to tic-tac-toe, I'm pointing out that the value of competitive play has nothing to do with the amount of competition.

If coin tossing was a major sport that was really popular it wouldn't change the competitive value of coin tossing at all.

If Brawl gets a bigger competitive community then Melee it doesn't mean that it is a better gauge of skill.
 

Pink Reaper

Real Name No Gimmicks
BRoomer
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
8,333
Location
In the Air, Using Up b as an offensive move
Of course it does. Having a larger player base means there will be a more successful tournament scene and larger talent pool to draw from. You can't compare Brawl to tic-tac-toe, that's an unfair characterization. It's not all that different from Melee that you can make such a comparison.l
No, having a large player base means nothing. I can think of alot of people that play Mario Party, doesn't make it any more of a COMPETITIVE GAME! Your still mistaking competitive players for competitiveness. Competitive players do NOT make the game competitive.
 

LUCYMONO

Smash Rookie
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
19
I'm not comparing brawl to tic-tac-toe, I'm pointing out that the value of competitive play has nothing to do with the amount of competition.

If coin tossing was a major sport that was really popular it wouldn't change the competitive value of coin tossing at all.

If Brawl gets a bigger competitive community then Melee it doesn't mean that it is a better gauge of skill.
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

How can you say one game is more competitive than another despite having less competition?

That's like saying that Basketball is more competitive than Football. Makes no sense whatsoever.

Who's talking about skill? I'm talking about competition. Again, to put that in an analogy, it'd be like saying that College basketball is less competitive than the NBA because NBA players have more skill at the game and have to face more skilled opponents. But for the players, there's no difference in competitiveness.
 

LUCYMONO

Smash Rookie
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
19
No, having a large player base means nothing. I can think of alot of people that play Mario Party, doesn't make it any more of a COMPETITIVE GAME! Your still mistaking competitive players for competitiveness. Competitive players do NOT make the game competitive.
Actually, by definition, competition makes things competitive.

The reason that Mario Party isn't considered competitive is because there's no competition for it. Same with coin tossing, number picking, tic-tac-toeing or any other bizarre thing you wanna compare Brawl to.
 

LouisLeGros

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
403
Location
Seattle
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

How can you say one game is more competitive than another despite having less competition?

That's like saying that Basketball is more competitive than Football. Makes no sense whatsoever.

Who's talking about skill? I'm talking about competition. Again, to put that in an analogy, it'd be like saying that College basketball is less competitive than the NBA because NBA players have more skill at the game and have to face more skilled opponents. But for the players, there's no difference in competitiveness.
Again the amount of competition has no correlation to competitive merit. I don't know how you haven't gotten this point, I can only assume you have a poor level of reading comprehension level.

I have not said one game is more competitive then another despite having less competition.

There are more college basketball players then NBA basketball players, but that has nothing to do with with the competitiveness or the competitive merit. The two factors are not correlated with each other!

10 million people playing Brawl competitively would have little effect on its competitive merit.
The reason I say little instead of no is because more players can develop the meta-game faster, but they can't change the game's limitations.

I suggest you goto Scar's thread on this matter of competitiveness vs competition in regard to the Smash Bros competitive scene. You clearly are mistaking the two.
 

Fugue

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
86
Location
Delaware
You misinterpret me. I mean that they're desperate to hold on to their own ways and deny that Brawl can be successful
Brawl's already been hugely successful. Fastest-selling Nintendo title in history, I believe? Nobody's arguing against, that for obvious reasons. The problem is, commercial success does not automatically translate to great high-level gameplay.

Very few of the high-level players wishing to stay with Melee are doing so just because Brawl's different. They want to stay because the changes were, as a collective whole, great for casual play, but terrible for serious fighting. If somewhere down the road, someone finds some crazy way to add back the depth removed in the transition, they'll switch over, even if that way isn't called 'wavedashing' or 'l-canceling.' Until then, though, they're better off sticking with Melee, because Brawl just isn't as deep right now and nothing we've yet seen indicates it's going to get much better.
Why is it so important to you that they be forced to play Brawl instead of Melee?
 

LUCYMONO

Smash Rookie
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
19
Again the amount of competition has no correlation to competitive merit. I don't know how you haven't gotten this point, I can only assume you have a poor level of reading comprehension level.
You're really making me laugh. :) You say I have a reading problem and you can't even read the thread title.

"Brawl is competitive."

Competitive - Definition: Pertaining to competition.

You're somehow twisting the definition of competitive into this amalgamation of skill and merit to suit your argument.

From Scar's thread: "If you look it up in a dictionary, you will find a very different definition. Sometimes the dictionary is not the place to go. Words are clumsy tools we use to try to convey thoughts. We must define the word on our own.

The definition of competitive that has received the most support is the innate property of a game allowing better players to win consistently."


AKA: WE'LL MAKE UP OUR OWN DEFINITION OF COMPETITIVE BECAUSE THE DICTIONARIES ARE ALL WRONG.

Please, know what you're even arguing.
 

LUCYMONO

Smash Rookie
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
19
Brawl's already been hugely successful. Fastest-selling Nintendo title in history, I believe? Nobody's arguing against, that for obvious reasons. The problem is, commercial success does not automatically translate to great high-level gameplay.

Very few of the high-level players wishing to stay with Melee are doing so just because Brawl's different. They want to stay because the changes were, as a collective whole, great for casual play, but terrible for serious fighting. If somewhere down the road, someone finds some crazy way to add back the depth removed in the transition, they'll switch over, even if that way isn't called 'wavedashing' or 'l-canceling.' Until then, though, they're better off sticking with Melee, because Brawl just isn't as deep right now and nothing we've yet seen indicates it's going to get much better.
Why is it so important to you that they be forced to play Brawl instead of Melee?
Finally --- this is a much better argument.

The truth is that the players who refuse to make the transition to Brawl over a perceived "lack of depth" won't affect the game's competitive success or it's nature. As Melee has it's own champions and heroes, Brawl will have its own. But I think that the Melee competitive scene is going to shrink simply because Brawl is an update and most people agree the changes, while drastic, aren't enough to prevent them from playing a new game with nicer animation, more characters, gameplay modes, customization, and popularity.

EDIT: Also note, I'm not arguing that Brawl has as much depth as Melee, currently it doesn't, but I think in time... who knows what we may find? Additionally, I think that the difference in depth isn't enough to affect the game's competitive scene.
 

Fugue

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
86
Location
Delaware
I see no reason that the claim "Number of players is unrelated to competitive merit" can't fit the defintion of "If two people fight, the more skilled one is more likely to win."
 

LouisLeGros

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
403
Location
Seattle
No one is saying Brawl isn't competitive!
YOU CAN MAKE ANYTHING COMPETITIVE!
Battleship, cointossing, mario party, counter strike, starcraft, battleship, rock paper scissors, ANYTHING!!!

your points are moot and you have no understanding of what this debate is about.

Also, language is a malleable and what the dictionary says means nothing.

Merriam-Webster defines the verb tap as
"to strike lightly especially with a slight sound"

This does not make the usage of the verb tap in the trading card game Magic The Gathering invalid. The use of words can change depending on situation. So what Merriam-Webster has to say on competition and competitive has little bearing on this debate.

No one is arguing about whether or not Brawl can be played competitively because that is simply a ******** point. Competition can arise anywhere and thus anything can be competitive.
 

Sinan421

Smash Rookie
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
12
I agree it is competitive, but that's what makes it so great. The fact that it spurs up whole communities like these, is what makes it such a great game. It can make friendships, and amazing parties like when brawl came out everyone got together and just played it for pure enjoyment. It's competitive, but its a very beautifal sort of competitiveness. (I know I'm a terrible speller).
 

LUCYMONO

Smash Rookie
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
19
No one is saying Brawl isn't competitive!
YOU CAN MAKE ANYTHING COMPETITIVE!
Battleship, cointossing, mario party, counter strike, starcraft, battleship, rock paper scissors, ANYTHING!!!

your points are moot and you have no understanding of what this debate is about.

Also, language is a malleable and what the dictionary says means nothing.

Merriam-Webster defines the verb tap as
"to strike lightly especially with a slight sound"

This does not make the usage of the verb tap in the trading card game Magic The Gathering invalid. The use of words can change depending on situation. So what Merriam-Webster has to say on competition and competitive has little bearing on this debate.

No one is arguing about whether or not Brawl can be played competitively because that is simply a ******** point. Competition can arise anywhere and thus anything can be competitive.
What people ARE saying is that one is "more competitive" than another... which is a total fallacy by my definition of competitive. Competitive isn't "slang" like Tap. Doesn't work that way.
 

LouisLeGros

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
403
Location
Seattle
I see no reason that the claim "Number of players is unrelated to competitive merit" can't fit the defintion of "If two people fight, the more skilled one is more likely to win."
It works perfectly, but what really matters in this comparison of melee and brawl is the likeliness of the more skilled player to win and the skills that are used/tested in this competition.

The fact of there being competition with Brawl or the size of the competition does not affect this point.
 

J0K3R

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
210
Location
New York.
Yea, ease of the melee more competitive with Brawl people

6 years of AT discovery > ~ 2 weeks
 

LouisLeGros

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
403
Location
Seattle
What people ARE saying is that one is "more competitive" than another... which is a total fallacy by my definition of competitive. Competitive isn't "slang" like Tap. Doesn't work that way.
The connotation in which the term is being used does not rely upon a definition in a dictionary.
 

LUCYMONO

Smash Rookie
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
19
It works perfectly, but what really matters in this comparison of melee and brawl is the likeliness of the more skilled player to win and the skills that are used/tested in this competition.

The fact of there being competition with Brawl or the size of the competition does not affect this point.
Brawl takes different skills than Melee. Therefore you can't compare them on competitiveness.

You can say that one game takes more skill at the game's basic mechanics and gameplay. But you can't say one is more "competitive," unless based on competition.
 
Top Bottom