Mindgames dont exist: The Truth

[FeArTeHsMaSh]

This thread is starting to get SOOOOO repetitive.
I hope posters at this point have done a good amount of reading before they post.

Mindgame as a term too broad has been discussed


so what if its broad.
as long as it isnt misused it doesnt matter.
and you cant use "broadness" as a reason to say mindgame doesnt exist =.=''
you know... "food" also doesnt exist, cause you cant find something named "food"

food is also a very broad word. are you gunna stop using it?
its just a category. categories arnt meant to be pinpoint specific.

If someone needs something to eat, you tell them. "go get some food"
If someone needs more intellectual game play, tell them "learn better mindgame"

it doesnt matter if its broad. its still a good word to use to identify what factors of gameplay they are missing.

I think that this post does not adequately address the statements made in this post.

QFT -- and "metagaming" or any other blanket term you want to use doesn't cut it either.

"Mindgames" is really just a nebulous word for intelligent in-game play. Tricking your opponent, predicting, being unpredictable, picking moves to counter your opponent's moves -- all that. And that's all well and good when the word "mindgame" is used as a substitute for "intelligent in-game playing" - it's quicker and less clunky.

But the irony is that here we are discussing a game (often in depth) and using a word pertaining to intelligent play that actually hinders the development of intelligent play. 95% of the time that someone says "mindgames," they're using the word as a crutch so they don't have to analyze what's actually going on and explain it.

Example:
Q: Why'd ___ lose to ____?
A: ___'s mindgames were better.

Congraduf***inglations. What does that accomplish? Nothing -- it just makes the answerer look like he knows what he's talking about without having to do the work of explaining the match, breaking down the match, providing information that someone might find helpful.

Q: Why'd PC land a grab at 2:26?
A1: mindgames
A2: A successful dashdance opened up by shl, executed with excellent spacing (close enough to give M2k very little reaction time, far enough to be safe while doing it) and exemplary patience on PCs part.

Which answer has the potential to help someone trying to understand the game better?
There are better examples still -- why'd PC land a grab at 2:11? A little harder to explain -- was it the wd back that fooled m2k, or did he think pc was following him up in the air with a full jump, dair hoping to outprioritize, and get crossed up by the short hop? Either way, answering 'mindgames' certainly doesn't do a good job of explaining.


People don't always talk about tech skill in abstract terms. They refer to specific techniques by name. There's no reason to be lazier and use "mindgames" EVERY D@MN TIME you talk about playing smart. Spell out what your saying instead and discussion of "mindgames" won't be so freakin pointless.

In this thread, and especially in the above post, it has been addressed that the "general" use of the term mindgames amounts to confusion. This is especially true when a new smash player is attempting to learn how to improve their smash ability.

Poster1: Here is a video of my fox, can someone tell me how to improve?
Poster2: Your ok, you just need more mindgames.

The above has been posted several times in this topic, but it is still a situation which demands an answer. How can you respond to the original poster with a term that is so broad that it doesn't even address the question of the poster.?

it doesnt matter if its broad. its still a good word to use to identify what factors of gameplay they are missing.

In the above situation, how does telling the player to improve his mindgames amount to anything according to this statement? If you tell someone they are lacking mindgames, what factors are they missing?

The problem with the word mindgames isnt that it is broad enough not to be misused, but the fact that it is overused, overused to the point where mentioning the term conveys no relevance.

In my previous post I assert that your "broad" definition of mindgames amounts to nothing more than a synonym for the word experience, or by your means, a synonym for in game strategy. Then the above situation becomes this:

Poster1: Here is a video of my fox, can someone tell me how to improve?
Poster2: Your ok, you just need more in game strategy.

That still fails to address the original request of the poster. If mindgames is used to describe words outside of its context, then the word mindgames becomes so overapplied that it loses any real meaning, which is further complicated by the fact that the word mindgames never really had any specific meaning at all.

Except, now Respawn linked to the quote where AlphaZealot provides his own definition for mindgames. Now it is a synonym of metagaming?

Poster1: Here is a video of my fox, can someone tell me how to improve?
Poster2: Your ok, you just need more metagame.

Indeed, that makes even less sense than the term mindgames itself. I think if mindgames is to be defined, then let it be the small section of AlphaZealot's post that states it as a single trick used against an opponent. At least from there, mindgames has a specific meaning, it becomes a synonym for tricking your opponent, but then the definition can be altered to incorporate specific instances and strategy.

Someone with mindgames can then be referred to as a person wiht strategy, but then mindgames becomes a synonym for tricks and strategy, which is, in many cases, the better term to use.

 

[Pikaville]

Anything that you do purposefully and intentionally to throw your opponent off or make them think your doing something else is a mindgame.Baiting your opponent into doing something and pulling it off is obvious proof that mindgames can and do work.It shows that you can use you brain to outwit your opponent which is known by the smash community as being called mindgames.Although I do agree that it gets annoying reading about people constantly asking "what are good mindgames for *insert character*"Because you cant teach them they are natural and derived from your own judgement and understanding of the game/player.I kinda messed up what I was trying to say i hope yopu see whwer im coming from

 

[g-regulate]

did you not read when i said all a mindgame is, is a trick? for example, player A thought hed be safe going for an attack on you, player B banks on you doing that attack, and counters properly, using player A's knowledge against him, and hitting player A with an attack. player A was tricked, he thought hed be safe, and he was hit. at any given moment in a match, two players weigh their options and try to trick their opponent into going where they want, making them vulnerable to getting hit/grabbed. its that simple.

EDIT: ^ pikavilles post somewhat is right/ makes sense.

 

[mog87]

. As the post about the Bombsoldier and Jing Match, that was indeed a Mindgame, by digressing from the norm, therefore tricking the opponent, results in being 'Mindgamed' son.

What if Jing didnt know or care what BS was gonna do and just decided to pick the edge, BS obviously didnt think Jing was going for the edge, but how do you know Jings decision was made with respect to BS. Jing only had 2 options...in extremely dumified terms it was just a case of probability. He didnt "mindgame" anyone...BS just guessed wrong.

did you not read when i said all a mindgame is, is a trick? for example, player A thought hed be safe going for an attack on you, player B banks on you doing that attack, and counters properly, using player A's knowledge against him, and hitting player A with an attack. player A was tricked, he thought hed be safe, and he was hit. at any given moment in a match, two players weigh their options and try to trick their opponent into going where they want, making them vulnerable to getting hit/grabbed. its that simple.

All of that is just natural things that occur in basically any competitive enviroment. All based off probability and experience. And of course there is the afforementioned cases of did you really do anything to cause your opponents action. And if you force your opponent into a case where he has to make a certain move, you didnt mindgame him, you did an actual physical action which cause him to be in that situation...a la chess or boxing. Essentially the notion of the word as it is used is quite silly.

bbl

 

[g-regulate]

All of that is just natural things that occur in basically any competitive enviroment. All based off probability and experience. And of course there is the afforementioned cases of did you really do anything to cause your opponents action. And if you force your opponent into a case where he has to make a certain move, you didnt mindgame him, you did an actual physical action which cause him to be in that situation...a la chess or boxing. Essentially the notion of the word as it is used is quite silly.

bbl

whats your point? i mean, you dont have to call it "mindgames", but when people talk about mindgames they are essentially talking about the same thing. "mindgames" is the term that is widely used amongst the community when speaking about the exact same thing you just described in your paragraph.

i think you all misunderstand, mindgames is just a term used for being smart and using tricks. its not like they "dont exist", lol. they obviously do. thats why elite players dont just jump out and run around full speed doing random attacks at eachother, they try to put them in a spot, based on probability and experience, like you said. mindgames is a just a term thats used.

 

[cowboyardee]

The problem isn't that mindgames don't exist -- clearly they exist as defined. And the problem is not (really) that 'mindgames' is a blanket term that covers many more specific things. Taking airo's example, 'food' is a blanket term that means many things. And 'food' is a fine word.

The problem is that it's lazy and unhelpful to frequently resort to talking about mindgames without further specification on this site, where the idea is hopefully to convey useful information about smash.

Let's go to analogy (sortof half-@ssed analogy):

"mmm, i wan't to go get some food" is a fine statement. It says what you want to say succinctly.
However, if I go to a culinary institute and present a dish/discuss a dish, trying to discuss what works and what doesn't, if someone tells me "you need better food" what the hell am I supposed to do with that information?

Someone else tells me, "yeah, your general technique is okay, good knifework, well seared, nice presentation..... you just need to work on your food." Are you kidding me? What does that mean -- my ingredients are poorly chosen? My flavor combinations are off in some way? My ingredients have spoiled? I didn't season well? If I'm trying to learn how to cook, refering constantly to 'food' as a blanket term for all aspects of cooking that aren't covered by technique is **** near ********.

Yet we routinely respond in just that way on the forums. Check the melee discussion, character specific and (especially) video discussion forums -- this kind of thing is all over the place. We make ridiculous statements analyzing pro play with it -- "bombsoldier doesn't have mindgames" -- that are at best lazy and near useless and at worse, patently false (see the preceding quote). We say it's what separates bad players from good players, as though that means any more than "good chefs are better at making good food." In the video room, we toss it at players looking for critique: "you need better mindgames" -- that's like giving a panhandler a coupon for 10 cents off shampoo. Gee, thanks.

As I said before, it usually functions as a crutch to save people from having to elaborate on/think about what they really mean.

Mind you, I'm not opposed to ever mentioning the word 'mindgames' ever again. Look at lunin's thread or wobbles' thread -- their use of 'mindgames' is fine, primarily because they use the word in general terms and then actually go on to talk about what they mean. That's fine. More of that please. But this is a forum for discussing smash in depth. And many of us are very lazy in talking about such a major aspect of the game.

 

[Paranoid_Android]

Tennis has what we call "High Percentage Tennis" the player that plays the better high percentage tennis on average usually wins. Working angles and using the court and hitting proper shots and forcing your opponent to make tougher shots to win the point is what wins in tennis. That and a great serve. Federer doesnt mindgame anyone..he just has superb shot selection, great serve, good physical conditioning, and obvious understanding of the games mechanics.

Except that in smash there isn't much physical activity to be done. You're right, Federer isn't mindgaming anyone when he makes a shot that he knows his opponent can't catch. However, if Federer started dashdancing to make his opponent come nearer, then wavedash Fsmash tippered him, he'd be mindgaming. Mindgaming is about getting your opponent to make a bad decision. Federer isn't tricking his opponent into a bad decision when he smashes a shot on the other side of the court. He's making a shot that his opponent physically can't return. (However, if Federer tricked his opponent into believing that he was making a shot that he wasn't, then he would be using a sort of mindgame).

Lol Expert, I guess you mindgame'd me into responding to your silly post, Prove your point show me some mindgames and show me a player who doesnt use mindgames. I dare you. And nice resorting to name calling, junior.Prove your points with sound reasoning or is that too much to ask of a 12 yr old? So yea you go get me some examples and point out these "mindgames" with your oh so keen insight.

Funny how you make fun of me for being immature, then resort to calling me names in exactly the same fashion. I maintain that you are an idiot. For the record, I don't care enough to find you videos of people that are and aren't using mindgames. If you want to, you can go to a video section and look at the videos with people posting things like "Wow, he has excellent mindgames", and "He doesn't mindgame enough" and compare them. I on the other hand am a lazy *******.





By the way, the Chess comment is hilarious. I'm going to have to agree with "CHESS IS ONE BIG ****ING MINDGAME!"

 

[Airo]

The problem isn't that mindgames don't exist -- clearly they exist as defined. And the problem is not (really) that 'mindgames' is a blanket term that covers many more specific things. Taking airo's example, 'food' is a blanket term that means many things. And 'food' is a fine word.

The problem is that it's lazy and unhelpful to frequently resort to talking about mindgames without further specification on this site, where the idea is hopefully to convey useful information about smash.

Let's go to analogy (sortof half-@ssed analogy):

"mmm, i wan't to go get some food" is a fine statement. It says what you want to say succinctly.
However, if I go to a culinary institute and present a dish/discuss a dish, trying to discuss what works and what doesn't, if someone tells me "you need better food" what the hell am I supposed to do with that information?

Someone else tells me, "yeah, your general technique is okay, good knifework, well seared, nice presentation..... you just need to work on your food." Are you kidding me? What does that mean -- my ingredients are poorly chosen? My flavor combinations are off in some way? My ingredients have spoiled? I didn't season well? If I'm trying to learn how to cook, refering constantly to 'food' as a blanket term for all aspects of cooking that aren't covered by technique is **** near ********.

Yet we routinely respond in just that way on the forums. Check the melee discussion, character specific and (especially) video discussion forums -- this kind of thing is all over the place. We make ridiculous statements analyzing pro play with it -- "bombsoldier doesn't have mindgames" -- that are at best lazy and near useless and at worse, patently false (see the preceding quote). We say it's what separates bad players from good players, as though that means any more than "good chefs are better at making good food." In the video room, we toss it at players looking for critique -- that's like giving a panhandler a coupon for 10 cents off shampoo. Gee, thanks. As I said before, it usually functions as a crutch to save people from having to elaborate on/think about what they really mean.

Mind you, I'm not opposed to ever mentioning the word 'mindgames' ever again. Look at lunin's thread or wobbles' thread -- their use of 'mindgames' is fine, primarily because they use the word in general terms and then actually go on to talk about what they mean. That's fine. More of that please. But this is a forum for discussing smash in depth. And many of us are very lazy in talking about such a major aspect of the game.

how are mindgames overused. the situation we all refer to

player 1: how do i improve
player 2: youre tecniques are good, you just need more mindgame

when i tell my friend "you need more mindgame"
he quickly interprets it as "ok, i need to be more careful, more conscious, and stop throwing out random spontaneous attacks."

and he doesnt even post. my friend, who doesnt read smashboards interprets the term mindgame correctly.

again. mindgame.. is a category. there are only 3 categories to success in smashbrothers melee.

experience, tecnique, and mingame.

you can say, you need more expereince. (doesnt need to be specific to WHAT TYPE of expereice they need."
you need better tecnique.
you need more mindgame.

its only a category. ahhh i GTG im in school

 

[MikeMan445]

how are mindgames overused. the situation we all refer to

player 1: how do i improve
player 2: youre tecniques are good, you just need more mindgame

when i tell my friend "you need more mindgame"
he quickly interprets it as "ok, i need to be more careful, more conscious, and stop throwing out random spontaneous attacks."

and he doesnt even post. my friend, who doesnt read smashboards interprets the term mindgame correctly.

again. mindgame.. is a category. there are only 3 categories to success in smashbrothers melee.

experience, tecnique, and mingame.

you can say, you need more expereince. (doesnt need to be specific to WHAT TYPE of expereice they need."
you need better tecnique.
you need more mindgame.

its only a category. ahhh i GTG im in school

Saying "get better mindgames" is not helpful, no matter how many times you bring up the fact that your friend "understands what you mean". Of course he understands. But how the hell does it help him?

What would help him would be identifying the specific ways in which he fails to play intelligently. That's what would help him.

Does telling someone "get better mindgames" ever lead to concrete improvement? Did PC Chris go from being some random smasher to being one of the best in the world in just 2 years from him being told "get better mindgames?" No.

Improvement is about discipline, experience, and intelligent analysis of your game's weak points. The phrase "get good mindgames" does not address that.

 

[EnigmaticCam]

In terms of smash, perhaps "mindgames" is synonymous with "experience".

Experience will tell you that when you become too predictable, your opponent will catch on to your habitual approaching, edge-guarding, and recovery techniques and take advantage of that. It's only common sense to realize that you should stop dashing into your opponent if he's going to crouch-cancel it everytime. Or continually spamming smash attacks will only get you shield-grabbed everytime. Dashing towards your opponent, baiting him to attack you, and wavedashing backward with a forward smash isn't a mindgame. Doing that over and over can get just as predictable as anything else.

Instead, I think of "mindgames" as simply doing something unexpected. You learn to mix it up and fool your opponent into thinking you're going to be doing one thing or going to be in one place when you're really doing another thing or going to some other place. And the only way to learn that is with experience. The more matches you play at higher and higher levels of play, the more you learn of what works and what doesn't work. You gather together a repertoire of tactics, all of which can be predictable if statically abused, and deploy them dynamically and randomly in such a way that your opponent never knows what to expect.

So instead of saying, "You need more mindgames," perhaps we should be saying, "You're too predictable. Mix up your tactics." Not that it's any less vague, but ultimately you can't explain something that only comes with experience. That's why I think "mindgames" and "experience" are pretty much the same thing.

Then again, I suck at smash, so I have no idea what I'm talking about.

 

[Brookman]

"Then again, I suck at smash, so I have no idea what I'm talking about."

You should work on your mind games cam.

 

[cowboyardee]

how are mindgames overused. the situation we all refer to

player 1: how do i improve
player 2: youre tecniques are good, you just need more mindgame

when i tell my friend "you need more mindgame"
he quickly interprets it as "ok, i need to be more careful, more conscious, and stop throwing out random spontaneous attacks."

sorry man, and I don't mean any offense, but i gotta cry bull****.

you got the situation right. When you tell someone he needs more mindgames, he interprets that as he has to play smarter. We can agree on that. But here's what actually happens -- he is only able to improve in areas that he has seen for himself that he needs improvement in. You have told him nothing whatsover that he doesn't already know. We all know that we should play smarter -- smarter = better.

But say you didn't tell him "you need more mindgame."...

Say you told him instead "every time you wavedashed backward into a forward smash, your opponent saw it coming, didn't take the bait, and sheildgrabbed you. He was able to do this because you used wd back to fsmash multiple times in almost identical circumstances. So when that happens, try wavedashing back into dashing forward into a jc grab. Also, most of the time you dash danced, your opponent shot a projectile at you and followed up with an aerial. He was able to do this because you were dashdancing from too far away to pose an immediate threat and you also kept off the trigger for too long before moving in. ...." and so on.

Now, is your friend gonna get all that from "you need more mindgame"? No way, unless he already noticed it himself, in which case your suggestion was useless anyway. Far more likely, he's gonna interpret "you need more mindgame" as "you need to get that wd back to fsmash working" among other things. Because that's one of his preconceived notions of a mindgame. You'll actually perpetuate bad habits rather than helping him out.


I agree that you can separate success in smash into mindgames and tech (sidenote: experience, natural talent, and effective practice are also valid elements of success in smash, but they seem to group better among themselves than with mindgames and tech). So why the hell do we constantly talk about such a major aspect of the game only in blanket terms?

 

[EnigmaticCam]

"Then again, I suck at smash, so I have no idea what I'm talking about."

You should work on your mind games cam.

Whoa, never thought of that. MLG, here I come! :D

 

[Brookman]

when i tell my friend "you need more mindgame"
he quickly interprets it as "ok, i need to be more careful, more conscious, and stop throwing out random spontaneous attacks."

In other words..."mind games" is just playing smart >_>...which there are at least 60 posts of peoplesaying it's justplaying smart. I don'tunderstand why people keep posting several paragraphs, do you just want to be loved, do you crave to have your name known? Quit beating dead hoarses, animal rights activists will get you.

Mog should just edit his post to say "Mind games'd ALL OF YOU!! NOOBS."

 

[cradmazy_SKAG]

i watched the Windmill of Fury video...

AWESOME MINDGAMES!!!

 

[Paranoid_Android]

I agree with Cowboyardee. When you say "You you mindgame enough", you might as well be saying "Play better", because it's vague as hell. On the other hand, it's difficult to explain to someone exactly what they should do in the future, because mindgaming is always different - it's not like learning how to SHFFL, where you perform the same little combo every time. You have to adapt on the fly when trying to trick your opponent based on the opponent. I guess the only thing you can really do when reviewing a video is dissect it and tell people which situations they could have used mindgames and how (of course, the problem being a mindgame relies on your opponents reactions, so it would sound like hypothetical trash).

 

[Jack Lavender]

I'm starting to think this would be an interesting poll:

"Mindgames; overused and ambigious or perfectly clear?"


I forget where to make suggestions though... v_v

I also wonder what happen if the word was banned. lol

 

[pyrotek7x7]

I'm not even going to bother arguing with you...

 

[cowboyardee]

hypothetical trash is good.
because....
a) you give someone an idea of their tendencies and what to look out for

b) the next time someone sees that situation (and chances are he will see any situation again, many times), he'll conciously realize that he has other options. He'll think when he plays. And sometime down the road, maybe this realization will get him to the point where he reads his opps and reacts well instinctively.

c) it's a hell of a lot more interesting than just reading "mindgames, son" over and over and over again.

 

[Mogwai]

I was just about to start posting on this stupid *** thread.

And then I read all of Cowboyardee's posts and he has said everything I wanted to say much more eloquently than I ever could, so I got nothing.

If it was still around, I'd totally +rep him.

 

[Airo]

sorry man, and I don't mean any offense, but i gotta cry bull****.

you got the situation right. When you tell someone he needs more mindgames, he interprets that as he has to play smarter. We can agree on that. But here's what actually happens -- he is only able to improve in areas that he has seen for himself that he needs improvement in. You have told him nothing whatsover that he doesn't already know. We all know that we should play smarter -- smarter = better.

But say you didn't tell him "you need more mindgame."...

Say you told him instead "every time you wavedashed backward into a forward smash, your opponent saw it coming, didn't take the bait, and sheildgrabbed you. He was able to do this because you used wd back to fsmash multiple times in almost identical circumstances. So when that happens, try wavedashing back into dashing forward into a jc grab. Also, most of the time you dash danced, your opponent shot a projectile at you and followed up with an aerial. He was able to do this because you were dashdancing from too far away to pose an immediate threat and you also kept off the trigger for too long before moving in. ...." and so on.

Now, is your friend gonna get all that from "you need more mindgame"? No way, unless he already noticed it himself, in which case your suggestion was useless anyway. Far more likely, he's gonna interpret "you need more mindgame" as "you need to get that wd back to fsmash working" among other things. Because that's one of his preconceived notions of a mindgame. You'll actually perpetuate bad habits rather than helping him out.


I agree that you can separate success in smash into mindgames and tech (sidenote: experience, natural talent, and effective practice are also valid elements of success in smash, but they seem to group better among themselves than with mindgames and tech). So why the hell do we constantly talk about such a major aspect of the game only in blanket terms?

so i guess the main question is now "does saying 'you need better mindgame' help the play."

you cant teach someone mindgame, you cant teach someone experience.

these are all things people need to learn by themselves by playing more.
by saying "you need more mindgame," the person would know which area he is looking for to work on improvements. people are capable of analysis on their own. you dont have to analyze for them. its not rocket science to figure out that you are constantly getting sheild grabbed.

if saying "you need more mindgame" is too broad, then i suppose saying "play smarter" and "you need more expereince"are just as broad.

back to food analogy. if you are in the mall and you say to your friend "go get some food," he will look for a resturant or mcdonalds or whatever, you dont need to teach him exactly how to get food.

there are things that you dont need to specify to get your point through, and the term "mindgames" falls into that category. a while ago, my good friend said to me "those set of mindgames arnt working on me anymore." and that was plenty and enough for me to know what i need to work on.

 

[DippnDots]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

So far the agument has been a lot like proposing this question to a group of first graders. People keep answering in circles...

"But the chicken has to make the egg"
"But chickens come from eggs"

Very few people have actually read what other people have posted and then thought about what they're going to post before posting. I think a mod should move this to the debate board so that it gets the attention and thought it deserves. It's depressing to watch a topic with this much potential at teaching the community getting butchered by people who don't know what they're talking about(which is why I'm not posting my two-cents).

Edit: Holy **** I missed 6 pages >_> Ignore me

 

[Brookman]

"a while ago, my good friend said to me "those set of mindgames arnt working on me anymore." "


In other words you weren't using mind games and you were just auto-piloting.


"But the chicken has to make the egg"
"But chickens come from eggs"

The egg came first, naturally. If you follow evolution from single-celled organisms to however far into the future you get creatures that start reproducing using eggs, however that would happen. Chickens came long after the egg.

edit: Cort told me Charmeleon came first, so I guess it has to be correct?

 

[MaskedMarth]

In other words..."mind games" is just playing smart >_>...which there are at least 60 posts of peoplesaying it's justplaying smart.

No, there are sixty people all trying to define "mindgames" to mean a different thing. I've seen it used in many contexts, with many definitions.

- mindgames is playing smart - don't just throw random shffl's, but plan and think.
- mindgames is out-predicting the opponent - wavedash backwards when they're attacking and counterattack
- mindgames is tricking the opponent - sneakily guiding him to do something that makes him vulnerable or stupid
- mindgames is bewildering the opponent - that missile you just shot backwards will distract the opponent and allow you a free hit
- mindgames is being unpredictable - don't w-d back to fsmash every time or the opponent will catch on
- and sometimes, mindgames is that foggy force that allows a good player to beat a flashy player.

and people argue that it is one of these things but not the others, or all of these things put together, or none of them at all but something entirely different. And then sometimes people use it in an altogether vague and useless way: "you have weak mindgames" or "mindgame the opponent" that doesn't tell the player to do any tangible thing. Better to follow cowboyardee's advice:

But say you didn't tell him "you need more mindgame."...

Say you told him instead "every time you wavedashed backward into a forward smash, your opponent saw it coming, didn't take the bait, and sheildgrabbed you. He was able to do this because you used wd back to fsmash multiple times in almost identical circumstances. So when that happens, try wavedashing back into dashing forward into a jc grab. Also, most of the time you dash danced, your opponent shot a projectile at you and followed up with an aerial. He was able to do this because you were dashdancing from too far away to pose an immediate threat and you also kept off the trigger for too long before moving in. ...." and so on.

And it's really easy to make a critique like this. Where does a player get tied up the most? What works? What doesn't work? Most of the time, when you want to say "use better mindgames," the problem lies in the player's approach. He's overly reliant on the same technique (usually shffl'ing towards the opponent), or doesn't understand the spacing or timing of the technique he's trying to use, and thus gets punished too often (this is common in medium-level Fox and Falco players).

I agree that you can separate success in smash into mindgames and tech

I make a division similar to mindgames and tech skill, but a little more specific.

Technical ability: the net number of things the player can do with his character. For example, Fox can do each of these things after a full jump:

- double jump
- attack
- fast-fall attack
- fast-fall attack (l-canceled into shield)
- fast-fall attack (l-canceled into shine)

(of course, he can do many other things, too - but suppose these are his only options, for now).

Each item here is an "option." A player with a little technical ability has few options - maybe he can only choose the first option. A player with a lot of technical ability would be able to do all five. A simple concept. Players with more options (with more technical ability) are like armies with more weapons - they are more flexible and can meet more threats.

Choice ability: the ability for a player to choose the correct option. In the above example, the fifth example is the best, if the enemy is below you and shielding. In this case, choosing the most technical option is the best thing to do.

Of course, this isn't always the case, as there are plenty of situations where double jump, a very "untechnical" option, is the best. Or where ffl' into shield is more appropriate (if the enemy is out of reach from shine).

 

[Airo]

well what if it was reworded into. "those set of tricks arnt working on me anymore."

i dont think i was auto piloting. either way, what he said was simply enough to help me. and in my ears, they weren't broad.

edit: to respond to masked marth

being specific is certainly very good and benefitial.
saying "you need better mindgame" is just not useless, and in my translation, is enough to identify the category of things they need to work on.

 

[ROB_[MCC}]

IMO if mindgames didn't exist, the more technically skilled player should always win (assuming the character matchups are equal). However, as we all know, this is not the case. Since this game is 99% skill, we cannot blame luck as the deciding factor. Therefore, mindgames make the difference.

 

[DippnDots]

"a while ago, my good friend said to me "those set of mindgames arnt working on me anymore." "


In other words you weren't using mind games and you were just auto-piloting.


"But the chicken has to make the egg"
"But chickens come from eggs"

The egg came first, naturally. If you follow evolution from single-celled organisms to however far into the future you get creatures that start reproducing using eggs, however that would happen. Chickens came long after the egg.

edit: Cort told me Charmeleon came first, so I guess it has to be correct?

I was making an analogy to the answers, not the questions. As when asking a group of first graders the question they would run in circles with those two answers, just like how people are running in circles with their definitions of mindgames and the same proof being used to dismiss them.

Edit: But thank you for clarifying the answer, I never really put much thought into it because I couldn't care less, I guess my trivial persuit abilities have just improved slightly.

 

[Brookman]

well what if it was reworded into. "those set of tricks arnt working on me anymore."

i dont think i was auto piloting. either way, what he said was simply enough to help me. and in my ears, they weren't broad.

edit: to respond to masked marth

being specific is certainly very good and benefitial.
saying "you need better mindgame" is just not useless, and in my translation, is enough to identify the category of things they need to work on.

I didn't say what he said was broad. I'm saying that for "mindgames" to be a "set" means they aren't really mindgames. that means you were just doing something like dash-dancing back and forth or running forward wave-dash back over and over. The movements themselves don't make them "mindgames" it's the way your opponent reacts to whatever it is you are doing in any given situation. "mindgames", by nature ARE broad, because they aren't TRULY definable. yes, wavedashing backwards works wonders on many people, but it doesn't work on everyone. If you take a second and look at what I'm saying from a proper point-of-view you'll realize that the last two or three sentences make a ton of sense.

 

[mog87]

IMO if mindgames didn't exist, the more technically skilled player should always win (assuming the character matchups are equal). However, as we all know, this is not the case. Since this game is 99% skill, we cannot blame luck as the deciding factor. Therefore, mindgames make the difference.

No, thats awfully simple reasoning dont ya think, in smash we also have different characters and different stages. Your argument kinda falls apart before your conclusion, which Im not sure how you arrived at.

I'm not even going to bother arguing with you...

Rofl, good job getting your post count up that completely unneccesary post. Lol youre not gonna argue yet you post...but thanks I appreciate you informing me that you will not discuss this issue with me. But really, I had been waiting all this time for your R.S.V.P.Im sorry and disapointed to hear you couldn't make it.

 

[Brookman]

Mog, why do you avoid all the posts with actual substance?

 

[Respawn]

back to food analogy. if you are in the mall and you say to your friend "go get some food," he will look for a resturant or mcdonalds or whatever, you dont need to teach him exactly how to get food.

Staying true to your analogy there, I think it's safe to say that yes, you don't need to teach your friend how to get food, but they won't necessarily know what you want. Your friend will most likely say something along the lines of "What do you want?" or "You have a taste for anything?" (or whatever, I don't know what your friend would say).

Keeping this in mind, if someone told you to get better mindgames, or whatever, you would have a general idea of what they are talking about. But, not all good friends "know what the other likes to eat", if you understand my meaning (which I'm sure you do). In some situations, other people may not remember what worked and what didn't, and what they might get away with in future matches. Some may need it explained a little more clearly than others, but (as it seems) in your situation that is not the case. There is that chance that someone didn't pay enough attention during the match. But that can be fixed through simple questioning.

Personally, I agree that if someone told me to get better mindgames, that would be enough for me.

 

[Brookman]

The food analogy is really bad, why do people keep using it?

I asked for a big mac with no onions, but they put onions on it anyway. Mindgames!! Too bad for McDonalds I'm allergic and they had to pay me in an outside of court settlement. So, in the end, McDonalds has bad mind games and I won the match.

 

[Mogwai]

The food analogy is really bad, why do people keep using it?

I asked for a big mac with no onions, but they put onions on it anyway. Mindgames!! Too bad for McDonalds I'm allergic and they had to pay me in an outside of court settlement. So, in the end, McDonalds has bad mind games and I won the match.

Lol, Brookman's Mindgames are way too much for me to comprehend.



But honestly, I feel like this Airo's points arn't contributing anything to this. You keep saying the "you need more mindgame" (also, why is it mindgame is this terrible quote instead of mindgames, plural) quote is enough for people to understand why they lost, but honestly, what you're telling them is absof***inglutely nothing. These are the people who already knew why they lost and you're not doing them or anyone else a favor by telling them that there mindgames aren't as good as yours. What Cowboyardee is saying is that when people are asking for advice, they want advice, not a million people shouting, "you need better mindgames, son!" In his example, he's very clearly stating how people could give more useful advice, describing the player in question's poor habbits that led to his eventual defeat. There's no question that "I noticed you always WD backwards when running towards me, so I just started dash grabbing you when you tried that approach" is better advice than, "you need to work on mindgames". Anyway, completely beating the dead horse here, but seriously people, there's no debate about whether better advice could be given than, "work on mindgames".

 

[Airo]

ok then.

i definately dont disagree that complex analytical advices are very benefitial.
i agree that its really anoying when people ask for advice and people say "learn better mindgame." thats just a different situation from mine.
but i have to support what my friend said to me cause it worked.

now responding to brookman, whether or not, my set of movements, are mindgames or not.
i Have to debate that 'sets' of movements are still mindgames.
By commonly accepted definition, trickery, i have my definition: predicting and practicing unpredictability.
practicing unpredictability incorporates movement patterns. it may not be 100% mysterious but having movement patterns certainly grants more unpredictability than walking in a strait line all the time.

simply, my friend is basicly "im starting to catch on to your movement, they wont work anymore." and that was healthy to me. though as broad as it is, it was benefitial to me.

btw.. the food analogy, i wasnt asking him to get me food, im asking him to get himself food x.x

-----------
thankyou for the good responses
peace

 

[Brookman]

now responding to brookman, whether or not, my set of movements, are mindgames or not.
i Have to debate that 'sets' of movements are still mindgames.
By commonly accepted definition, trickery, i have my definition: predicting and practicing unpredictability.
practicing unpredictability incorporates movement patterns. it may not be 100% mysterious but having movement patterns certainly grants more unpredictability than walking in a strait line all the time.

simply, my friend is basicly "im starting to catch on to your movement, they wont work anymore." and that was healthy to me. though as broad as it is, it was benefitial to me.

I wasn't saying that movements "aren't" mindgames, I just said everything has the potential to be a "mind game." Instead of changing what you do in a situation like that you just add to your library. I'm tired at the moment, I'll add more later.

 

[swift]

I think mindgames are excellant!

 

[JFox]

I personally think that all intelligent play, which includes predicting your opponent as well as staying unpredictable(which is really predicting that your opponent will predict you, and than changing based on your predicting his prediction) should be called simply be called intelligent play. The reason why is because this sort or play is usually fruitlessly discussed. You can only tell someone to try to play intelligently, but you can never teach them how.

Tricks that purposely mess with someone's mind on the other hand, by distracting your opponent or throwing his concentration off in some way, and than using that to your advantage should be referred to as a "Mindgame". For example, Moonwalking has nothing to do with prediction whatsoever, but is considered an effective "Mindgame" because it throws off your opponent letting you capitalize.

There is really no use in trying to teach someone how to play intelligently. Even the thought of it sounds illogical. People learn how to play intelligently by picking up patterns. Mindgames(tricks) on the other hand can be taught, and are therefore useful to discuss. When someone says "So I need to learn some mindgames" there will be no confusion. People will not wonder whether or not people are talking about learning tricks, or learning how to predict or read an opponent. You can now answer that question by simply giving examples of some mindgames that you find effective. "Dash Dance back and forth and Shffl attacks, but never approach your opponent. This will make it look like you are really doing something, when really you are simply camping and waiting for your opponent to attack you instead of going to them. (This is common among Roy players)

To be clear on my stance, I don't think Mindgames "don't exist". The real problem I have with Mindgames as it is defined now is simply that it has multiple meanings. We need to agree on a concise definition.

 

[Brookman]

If you just read the Manga Death Note you'llhave a thurough understanding of mind games/prediction/using "predictability" to manipulate your opponent etc.

 

[mog87]

Mog, why do you avoid all the posts with actual substance?

Because its easy, silly, besides Ive responded to everyones posts over the course of the thread. In the end I hope at very atleast I will see lets stupid advice regarding "mindgames" or stuff like "I dont need tech skill i specialize in mindgames". To me those posts look like "Hey I know why you didnt win, its cause you lost." Again as masked marth and jfox eluded to..everyone has various definitions..but when you try the word in a non-defining sentence it means nothing.

sidenote: ill get around to death note...eventually...

 

[ReadySetGo]

Mindgames are SSBM own pattented word for strategy. Its like play speed chess. If two people are playing speed chess and one guy has a strategy (mindgame) and the other doesn't the player implementing strategy will win 9/10. I use the example of speed chess because it is fast paced much like Super Smash which makes mindgames hard to learn. But "mindgames" are in everything from sports to Halo 2 or Madden, its just called strategy.