Brawl will be as competitive of melee eventually!

[Yuna]

I am not shure if you agree whit me or no... but I like to make an adicional point:

Well If some one like cooking mama a half that much we like melee, He/she will be Predisposed to go/organize a tournament about it! and if enough people like cooking mama
well, this could be the forum for cookingmama instead of smash... besides, there are rock-paper-scisors tournaments http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_rLjIhKxTI

so, I dont see why brawl wont be competitive

None of this would magically make Cooking Mama deeper or more competitively viable than, say, Smash, though.

 

[Psichoah]

If soul calibur or street fighter has a competitive fan base, theres no reason brawl won't.
All the people claiming the game is designed to be easier to play and less competitive might be right. But i have a feeling, even if the game is irrevocobaly broken, there will be a popular tourney following.

Melee looked like a shallow 2d party fighter when I first played it...I had no idea there were that many layers to the game...brawls gonna be the same thing(I think)

 

[Mr.C]

Holy chit what in the **** happened to Smash Boards?! The place is like a ****ing noob farm now. Noobs go back to GFaqs fuxxin chit.

**** **** **** **** *** mother ****ing piece of **** ****ing **** ****er ****ing ****s always being noobs being ****s all up in this ho eat a cookie mother ****ing noobs god****

EDIT:

Brawl is shallow compared to Melee.

 

[Ti11erTheKi11er]

If soul calibur or street fighter has a competitive fan base, theres no reason brawl won't.
All the people claiming the game is designed to be easier to play and less competitive might be right. But i have a feeling, even if the game is irrevocobaly broken, there will be a popular tourney following.

Melee looked like a shallow 2d party fighter when I first played it...I had no idea there were that many layers to the game...brawls gonna be the same thing(I think)

AGREE 100% ! and whoever posted brawl is shallow compared to melee stop crrying because you have to start over ! i'm not

 

[OrlanduEX]

Clearly...

I have no problem with the competitive scene sticking with melee. After all, leaves more room for me on top
The only thing I hate are the whiny ***** elitists who are demanding brawl not be taken seriously. I really don`t see how since we haven`t discovered a way to manipulate a character`s movement (i.e wavedashing, L-cancelling) in a time period of a little over a month automatically =fail. Don`t you think this would cause player skill and strategy to be more of a factor in who wins? I for one will quite enjoy seeing more than Fox/Falco v.s. Captain Falcon/Marth matches on Final Destination.
And besides, we always have Lightning/High Gravity mode to kick it up to Melee intensity.

Elitists such as? I don't see too many people making that extreme claim, but I do see people arguing that maybe Brawl won't be as competitively viable as Melee, which is a reasonable stance to support.

Rock Paper Scissors is an example of a game that will not be competitively viable no matter how many people play it (it's not deep enough). 200-hole-card Texas Hold-em is an example of a game that will not be competitively viable no matter how deep it is (no one will play it).

Grossly oversimplifying, the formula looks something like this:

competitive viability = popularity * depth

...and no, I am not one of the people that believes that Brawl must be more competitive. I am just trying to point out a logical fallacy based on a flawed metric.

I see that my analogy was weak, but my logic was sound I think. Basically what I'm trying to say is that depth alone determines the competitive viability of a game. There are many simplistic, shallow games that are very popular and likewise there are deep games that are played by only a faithful few.
The amount of people playing the game don't determine whether or not the game is worth playing.

 

[fr0st2k]

The fan base of a game has nothing to do with how viable a game is in competitive play.
The competitive viability of a game depends on the design of the game itself.
We discover things about the game the more we play, but we don't make the game and we don't decided how competitively viable the game is.

Lets take rock paper scissors for example. No matter how much we like the game or how much we try, it will never become more than just a guessing game. How much we play it doesn't change it's viability as a competitive game unless we change the rules to make it another game entirely.

I think that many people are unwilling to accept the possibility that Brawl may not be as competitively viable as Melee.

But ... what if rock paper scissors also had a !!!!!!!!!!change your mind 3 times and hop on 1 foot rule!!!!!!!!!!

BUTTT, no one knew about it, cause they havent played it long enough. Then, suddenly, it has more depth.

This argument is moot. no one has played brawl long enough to know anything about its competitiveness.

So lets end this stupid argument

 

[Mr.C]

AGREE 100% ! and whoever posted brawl is shallow compared to melee stop crrying because you have to start over ! i'm not

Ummmmmmm........ That "whoever" is one of the best Melee players in Texas. I've been apart of the competitive smash community for years, I think I know a little more about the meta-game for both Melee and Brawl than you could ever know. No one is crying that we have to "start over" even though the games are so similar all the high-level competitive players have to do is relearn percents, knock backs , which moves are safe and learn in what situations we need to use them, which moves have priority etc.... and other similar game mechanics, the top in Melee WILL be top in Brawl.

But anywho Brawl is shallow compared to Melee...its science..although I love Brawl its just never going to be what Melee was/is.

now go back to ur noob cave you **** ***** *** **** drinking apple juice loving mother ****er ****ing potato pancake eating *** motha ****a ***** *** ***** milk drinking sucka *****es all up in this ho noobin up smashboards i hope you realize in like 5 months you will be complaining that competitive players "broke" brawl you garb *** ho ****ing **** ring.

EDIT:

Sorry for being so rude, its just seeing so many noobs really hurts my feelings.

 

[ComradeSAL]

I see that my analogy was weak, but my logic was sound I think. Basically what I'm trying to say is that depth alone determines the competitive viability of a game. There are many simplistic, shallow games that are very popular and likewise there are deep games that are played by only a faithful few.
The amount of people playing the game don't determine whether or not the game is worth playing.

This is going to sound rude, but no, I don't think your logic is sound. Let's break down what you are saying.

Statement A: There are many simplistic, shallow games that are very popular.

This does not refute my claim that a game needs to be popular AND deep to be competitive.

Statement B: There are deep games that are played by only a faithful few.

Yes, but the metagames of these obscure games have not reached the level of complexity that a more established game has. Chess^4 is a more complex game than chess, but chess has more people playing it by many orders of magnitude. It has a deeper metagame, and can be played at a much higher level. As a result, chess is much more competitive.

Before I go any farther, I think we should define "competitively viable" to eliminate confusion. In my opinion, a game's competitiveness is measured by the difficulty a player has in becoming the best player in the world at that game. A reasonably intelligent adult can become the best tic-tac-toe player in the world in maybe half an hour. It will take a lot longer than that to become the best at either brawl or melee.

 

[OrlanduEX]

This is going to sound rude, but no, I don't think your logic is sound. Let's break down what you are saying.

Statement A: There are many simplistic, shallow games that are very popular.

This does not refute my claim that a game needs to be popular AND deep to be competitive.

Statement B: There are deep games that are played by only a faithful few.

Yes, but the metagames of these obscure games have not reached the level of complexity that a more established game has. Chess^4 is a more complex game than chess, but chess has more people playing it by many orders of magnitude. It has a deeper metagame, and can be played at a much higher level. As a result, chess is much more competitive.

Before I go any farther, I think we should define "competitively viable" to eliminate confusion. In my opinion, a game's competitiveness is measured by the difficulty a player has in becoming the best player in the world at that game. A reasonably intelligent adult can become the best tic-tac-toe player in the world in maybe half an hour. It will take a lot longer than that to become the best at either brawl or melee.

I agree with your definition, but how does the amount of people competing in the game determine how worthy the game is of being played competitively? Theoretically, the Chess variant that you mentioned is more competitively viable than standard chess because by your very definition, it is more difficult to master than normal Chess since it is more complex. It has a greater potential to be competitive than Chess does.
The metagame of a game does not determine how competitively viable the game is.
You are confusing "competitive" and "competitively viable". The Chess variant is more competitively viable than standard chess, but standard chess is more competitive.

I will agree that it takes people to make a game more "competitive", but the amount of people playing doesn't determine how deep the game can possibly be which is its competitive viability.

Compare Smash 64 to Melee. Lets say more people played the original Smash than Melee. Would you say then that the original Smash is more competitively viable than Melee just because there is a greater metagame, despite the fact that Melee is inherently deeper and more balanced?

 

[ComradeSAL]

You are confusing "competitive" and "competitively viable".

I don't believe I am. If you agree with me that a game must be popular to be competitive, then it follows almost directly that a game must have the potential to be popular to be competitively viable.

 

[OrlanduEX]

I don't believe I am. If you agree with me that a game must be popular to be competitive, then it follows almost directly that a game must have the potential to be popular to be competitively viable.

Not necessarily. This is why I said that there are many shallow games that are popular. Many people don't care if a game is competitively viable or not. They just play because it's fun.
If many people play rock paper scissors, does that make it more competitively viable? Simply, no.
A game's POTENTIAL has nothing to do with how popular it is.

 

[ComradeSAL]

Not necessarily. This is why I said that there are many shallow games that are popular. Many people don't care if a game is competitively viable or not. They just play because it's fun.
If many people play rock paper scissors, does that make it more competitively viable? Simply, no.
A game's POTENTIAL has nothing to do with how popular it is.

Now you're just going in circles.

Remember, as I've said several times now, I think a game must be both popular AND deep to be competitive. The statement, "a game must be popular to be competitive" is not equivalent to "all popular games are competitive."

 

[RenX]

ComradeSAL I FREAKING AGREE WITH YOU....and just stop they are NEVER going to get it.

EITHER way In the next year or 2 Brawl Will OVERRUN SSBM and thats that It will be more competitive just give it time and thats all there is to it. Pros will quit and new Pros will be made dont waste your time they will never get it just laugh at them 6 to 10 months from now when they are like FUDGE YEAH BRAWL TORNEROGKOSK HPOGD you know?

 

[Witchking_of_Angmar]

ComradeSAL I FREAKING AGREE WITH YOU....and just stop they are NEVER going to get it.

EITHER way In the next year or 2 Brawl Will OVERRUN SSBM and thats that It will be more competitive just give it time and thats all there is to it. Pros will quit and new Pros will be made dont waste your time they will never get it just laugh at them 6 to 10 months from now when they are like FUDGE YEAH BRAWL TORNEROGKOSK HPOGD you know?

RenX.

Please, honestly, stop posting ****. It doesn't smell good, ya know?

 

[RenX]

No I am ok i'll keep posting ^_^

 

[OrlanduEX]

Now you're just going in circles.

Remember, as I've said several times now, I think a game must be both popular AND deep to be competitive. The statement, "a game must be popular to be competitive" is not equivalent to "all popular games are competitive."

I am not talking about how competitive a game gets. I'm talking about its potential to be competitive. If more people play Chess than Chess /\4, how does that make Chess more competitively viable than Chess /\4? Who says that Chess /\4 doesn't have a greater potential to be deep and competitive? Sure that potential may never be explored and Chess /\4 may never become as competitive as Chess, but that has nothing to do with its potential. The people playing the game have nothing to do with the competitive potential of the game.
You have not supported the argument that popularity is a factor in the depth of a game. It is not.
Popularity determines how large the metagame of a game will grow, but it has nothing to do with the game's inherent potential. The design of the game determines its potential, not the people who play it.
This is what I've been trying to say all along. "Competitive" and "Competitively viable" are not the same.
If more people play Smash 64 than Melee, it doesn't mean that Melee is less competitively viable. It means that Smash 64 has a more complex metagame. However, since Melee is inherently deeper and more complex than Smash 64 based on its design, its metagame has the potential to grow more complex than Smash 64's metagame ever could. Thus it is more competitively viable, which was the original argument.

 

[Plairnkk]

ComradeSAL I FREAKING AGREE WITH YOU....and just stop they are NEVER going to get it.

EITHER way In the next year or 2 Brawl Will OVERRUN SSBM and thats that It will be more competitive just give it time and thats all there is to it. Pros will quit and new Pros will be made dont waste your time they will never get it just laugh at them 6 to 10 months from now when they are like FUDGE YEAH BRAWL TORNEROGKOSK HPOGD you know?

Brawl will indeed overcome melee. Why? Not because it's a better game or because it's more competitive. Because of the legions of newbies like you who exist. Good job. The brawl scene will be huge because of people like you. That just means it will be less competitive because you all suck.

 

[Xengri]

Now you're just going in circles.

Remember, as I've said several times now, I think a game must be both popular AND deep to be competitive. The statement, "a game must be popular to be competitive" is not equivalent to "all popular games are competitive."

I just underlined the base of your argument.
You're saying that a game must be Deep and, popular to be competitive.

This is only half true.

To be competitive, a game must be deep however being popular enhances it's competitive scene.
But, a game must be deep, it doesn’t have to be popular to be competitive.
Being popular just helps.

Example:
The smash competitives (AT users, tier followers, frame scholars, etc..) make up about 1-2% of the total smash player base.

The other 98% are causal.
Out of these Casuals, a lot of them don't use Ats.

Playing without Ats is a much more popular way of playing, yet how many none AT tournaments do you hear of?

It maybe have more popularity but, its a much more shallow play style.
It has more popularity, but, it lacks the depth.
Where as, the At user play style maybe less popular but, it has the depth.

That’s why a game (or in this case a play style) needs depth to be played at a high competitive level.
Popularity helps, but depth is a must.
That's why, even if Brawl is vastly more popular then Melee, it will never live up to Melee's competitive level if we don't discover more depth in the game.

@RenX
I want to know where you got your future seeing crystal ball, and for how much would you sell it for.
Thanks.

 

[Eggm]

Brawl will indeed overcome melee. Why? Not because it's a better game or because it's more competitive. Because of the legions of newbies like you who exist. Good job. The brawl scene will be huge because of people like you. That just means it will be less competitive because you all suck.

QFT. This game is so boring and slow, and it has random tripping. L O L.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDgUo_9W724

 

[Ichida]

I just think it's incredibly sad how much political bullcrap has developed around the competitiveness (and/or the lack thereof) of Brawl. Tell you what. You guys keep arguing about it. I'm going to go over in this direction. You know, towards the Wii, and rather than decide if it's good enough to be competitive or not, I'll just play. "Casually" and "competitively." Because regardless of whether any of you, no matter if you call yourselves skilled or amateur, competitive or casual, think it fits or doesn't fit your definition of "competitive," there WILL be tournaments, PLENTY of them, and therein will be competitors competing in a competition. It's a whole new battlefield, and I'm going to be on the frontlines.

 

[Plairnkk]

I just think it's incredibly sad how much political bullcrap has developed around the competitiveness (and/or the lack thereof) of Brawl. Tell you what. You guys keep arguing about it. I'm going to go over in this direction. You know, towards the Wii, and rather than decide if it's good enough to be competitive or not, I'll just play. "Casually" and "competitively." Because regardless of whether any of you, no matter if you call yourselves skilled or amateur, competitive or casual, think it fits or doesn't fit your definition of "competitive," there WILL be tournaments, PLENTY of them, and therein will be competitors competing in a competition. It's a whole new battlefield, and I'm going to be on the frontlines.

No you won't, top melee players will be. I complain about brawl and how awful it is because i'm right. Does that mean i'm not going to play it? Of course it doesn't. I'll play it, i'll be better than all of you (again), and i'll still completely talk down about it as a game, because it deserves it.

What you newbies don't get is it's not a WHOLE NEW CONCEPT. It's still smash. It's dumbed down and slow smash, but it's smash. And us pros are just better at SMASH than you, not better at melee.

 

[Froilen]

But ... what if rock paper scissors also had a !!!!!!!!!!change your mind 3 times and hop on 1 foot rule!!!!!!!!!!

BUTTT, no one knew about it, cause they havent played it long enough. Then, suddenly, it has more depth.

This argument is moot. no one has played brawl long enough to know anything about its competitiveness.

So lets end this stupid argument

also, in Rok paper scissors are mindgames if someone use rock 3 times in a row... the 4º one change to scissors expecting that the oponent still thinks that it will be rock and use paper...


enough of this alredy, you guys are making a thyphoon in a glass with water

 

[RenX]

lawl just cuz i have a life unlike you with your 3000 posts doesnt mean i am a noob so get over yourself you dont know who i am and have no right to say i am a noob and i do not apparicate you taking stabs at me when i have done nothing to you


and seriously PLEASE STFU ABOUT HOW GOOD YOU ARE ITS FREAKING ANNOYING

 

[ComradeSAL]

Ignoring all the ****** trolls...

I am not talking about how competitive a game gets. I'm talking about its potential to be competitive. If more people play Chess than Chess /\4, how does that make Chess more competitively viable than Chess /\4? Who says that Chess /\4 doesn't have a greater potential to be deep and competitive? Sure that potential may never be explored and Chess /\4 may never become as competitive as Chess, but that has nothing to do with its potential. The people playing the game have nothing to do with the competitive potential of the game.
You have not supported the argument that popularity is a factor in the depth of a game. It is not.
Popularity determines how large the metagame of a game will grow, but it has nothing to do with the game's inherent potential. The design of the game determines its potential, not the people who play it.
This is what I've been trying to say all along. "Competitive" and "Competitively viable" are not the same.
If more people play Smash 64 than Melee, it doesn't mean that Melee is less competitively viable. It means that Smash 64 has a more complex metagame. However, since Melee is inherently deeper and more complex than Smash 64 based on its design, its metagame has the potential to grow more complex than Smash 64's metagame ever could. Thus it is more competitively viable, which was the original argument.

I see now that I was wrong to define competitive instead of competitively viable. In reality I needed to define both.

Competitive: see previous definition
Competitively viable: the degree to which a game can become competitive.

Under this definition, popularity does indeed become a factor. If a game has probability zero of being played by anyone (imagine a Barbie fighting game), it is not competitively viable no matter how deep it is.

Your definition of competitively viable seems to be something along the lines of:

The degree to which a game can be competitive assuming it becomes popular.

To be competitive, a game must be deep however being popular enhances it's competitive scene.
But, a game must be deep, it doesn’t have to be popular to be competitive.
Being popular just helps.

You're right to point out that I have a slight inconsistency in my definition. When I say "popular," I mean popular competitively. Of course, a game that is popular among casuals is probably more likely to be popular competitively, because all pros start out as casuals.

 

[Plairnkk]

lawl just cuz i have a life unlike you with your 3000 posts doesnt mean i am a noob so get over yourself you dont know who i am and have no right to say i am a noob and i do not apparicate you taking stabs at me when i have done nothing to you


and seriously PLEASE STFU ABOUT HOW GOOD YOU ARE ITS FREAKING ANNOYING

LOL good job, the old "just cuz i have a life" line ROFL

 

[goodkid]

Brawl is still as competitive as Melee. It will be even more though, because of more interest and since smashboards gets 500+ members each day, this game will continue to get more popular.

 

[Commodity]

No you won't, top melee players will be. I complain about brawl and how awful it is because i'm right. Does that mean i'm not going to play it? Of course it doesn't. I'll play it, i'll be better than all of you (again), and i'll still completely talk down about it as a game, because it deserves it.

What you newbies don't get is it's not a WHOLE NEW CONCEPT. It's still smash. It's dumbed down and slow smash, but it's smash. And us pros are just better at SMASH than you, not better at melee.

Oh no, did someone misses melee.

 

[Legendary Angel]

Why can't we just screw the techniques and play the game for what it is? I've played melee for 5 years and still do today and so far all I've found to be a "technique" worth learning was (as Dojo calls it) the Ukemi. But wavedashing and L-canceling and w/e crud else is in there I just never saw worth mastering. The obvious stuff we catch on to in a matter of days (if you're a consistent player), but all this "hidden" stuff is just a bunch of glitches/exploits that they didn't intend to input the game imo.

All I'm saying is that Brawl (and the previous Smash games) is meant for competition, but not to the point to where we take it as something in relation to a workout in order to master our mental reflexes or w/e. Just play the game for crud's sake!

 

[NES n00b]

Trite stuff

I say why don't you just play the game instead of trying to label what is intended and what is unitended. To me, what is in the game is the game. To the game, what is in the game is in the game. So why don't you just play the **** game?

 

[Plairnkk]

Oh no, did someone misses melee.

Oh no, did someone miss their grammar class?

Like I said i'm going to play brawl either way.

 

[JesiahTEG]

Plairnk good? Maybe, but he has a hard time beating ness.

Anyways, perhaps pros will remain the best, simply because some are more naturally talented than others.

However, to others, like ohhh say myself, we've spent 7 months saving up money to travel for Brawl, not melee, because we want a fresh start. More money to travel=better player

 

[Commodity]

Oh no, did someone miss their grammar class?

Like I said i'm going to play brawl either way.

Please tell us more ways I have personally slighted you.

 

[Ichida]

Oh no, did someone miss their grammar class?

Apparently you don't understand how baby talk is used to mock.

 

[Peaquak]

I understand the whole....hating the next game and not seeing it as gold.

I used to play cstrike on a high competitive level. I hated the change from 1.5 to 1.6 and i refuse to play source because its a crock of ****. I played 1.5 till won.net finally took the servers offline and steam was the only thing left.

Point being even though alot of hardcore cs fans hate source there are a bunch of new kids rocking the competetive league and even a few of the 1.5/1.6 gamers transition to be solely source players.


So even if brawl isn't as great as you hoped you can continue playing melee and other people will play brawl and if enough people see it your way there will be tournies for both.

 

[Plairnkk]

Apparently you don't understand how baby talk is used to mock.

It just sounds like stupid talk to me. Someone with half a brain wouldn't try to use baby talk to mock online as 95% of the effect comes in the tone of voice.

Jessie - that's cool, but the thing is you're pretty good at melee. you would smash these brawl newbies in as a whole...but if you think it's a completely fresh start, you're wrong You have a good attitude towards it though. :D

 

[S623]

Dude, can't we just let people compete in which ever one seems like the better choice to them?

And besides, those of us who choose Brawl get to toughen up new players who think that Wave-Dashing and L-cancelling were cheating and went to Brawl to get away from that. We'll just have to show them that they're being silly with that mindset.

Either way, the goal is the same. To have fun. And regardless of your opinion, a competitive scene will open up for Brawl.

EDIT: Sorry, Yuna. Love you.

 

[Yuna]

PS- Yuna, why would you start a thread like this? It invites trolls and uninformed arguments. And no one likes those.

What could possibly make you think I started this thread?

 

[S623]

Oops. Sorry. I thought I was posting in a different thread that was started by you.

I apologize.

 

[Mr.C]

Plairnkk we all know noobs will always be noobs. These scrubs think they will automatically get better at Brawl when it comes out and start beating high-level competitive players lol...news flash everyone Brawl is almost the same exact thing as Melee in a sense except dumbed down and shallowed out, we are good because we "wanted" to be good....we practiced and dedicated ourselves to the game. We also practice with other very good players unlike all you scrubs who just play with scrublets. All you noobs suck because you were born that way, gg.

Oh about this competitive bullchit, of course people will play Brawl and of course Brawl will be competitive because just like me and many other high-level competitive players are switching from Melee to Brawl for the change....because frankly 7 years of Melee its getting a little old even though its still an amazing game. Brawl will be competitive but it will always be shallow compared to Melee, end of story.

I hope a few months after Brawl comes out all the noob masses get the fux off the boards lol.

 

[DonkeyPirate]

yeah I dont understand how people can think that just because its a new game, high level players will not be good at it. thats like saying I played halo 2 alot. and when halo 3 comes out someone who's never played halo would be able to compete. the games are different but with obvious similarities.