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.