Traditional Fighting Games and Smash - Where do we belong?

[Kal]

If you want to discuss which games are better, vis-à-vis opinion, then we can happily discuss the pragmatic aspect. I'm down for it. ****, I think Melee is worse off due to Falco because I think Falco eliminates certain gameplay aspects I'm fond of. I also think Melee is worse off due to Pichu being a bad character. Not because I care about balance, but because the novelty of rocking your opponents with something so cute only lasts as long as your opponents remain awful.

But you specifically said "objective." As in, we presumably have some non-arbitrary, non-subjective aspect to discuss. In this case, you have to make an arbitrary choice as to what precludes the requisite number of games to measure skill from being too large. Congratulations, you're a philosophy major.

And pointing out the awkward phrasing was just poking fun. Hopefully my joke does not cause you to belligerently punch your monitor. That would be objectively bad.

 

[Varist]

not if he had been victimized, unwittingly, by a keylogger earlier that morning and punching his monitor prompted him to buy a new computer which happened to be clean which more effectively safeguarded his online banking process and stuff

 

[Kal]

There's some sort of lack of objectivity in buying a new PC because you just punched your monitor in the face. Unless you have one of those stupid Mac things with the box built into the display. **** Apple.

 

[PEEF!]

lkj,wj'flkajdsf'lasd

 

[Kal]

I think, if you want to argue for a game being competitively superior, then you should stick to depth. This provides an objective (albeit pretty much impossible to calculate) measure of which games are superior. Though adequately defining depth in the first place can be rather difficult.

In other words, "A is better than B if and only if A is deeper than B." It certainly makes sense (provided you can define "depth" in a meaningful way), and it avoids throwing in personal preference. It also seems like the only possible objective aspect you can throw out there; if someone claims that Brood War is better than Melee, you can argue the specifics (Melee tests short-term reaction time better which makes it a better game!"), but it all falls down to preference. But, if you can prove that Brood War is a deeper game, you at least have something logical to fall back on.

In fact, it seems that this is exactly what you are referring to when you claim Melee is better than "Dice-Rolling-for-the-highest-number." Why is the former the better game? Surely not because of consistency. Rather, because the first game has many avenues that allow for depth, whereas the second only requires that you learn how to roll a die (or dice) in a fashion to try and achieve a higher score.

Brinstar is awesome.

Shawn, I realize now that you were addressing my point about Poker. Many would agree with you that randomness sans depth is pointless, e.g. if players randomly lost stock. However, randomness, as in the cars on Mute City and the lava on Brinstar, do add depth. It could be that the depth they add is outweighed by how they impact the consistency of results (a debatable, and absolutely subjective, notion), but randomness does not immediately mean a worse game, even speaking practically.

 

[PEEF!]

lksajdfl'ads

 

[Kal]

I think we have reached incorrigibility.

You just need to learn to accept Brinstar. One day, you will awaken and realize that the stage was placed in the game as an act of divine providence. As a philosopher, you probably are not a fan of Divine Command Theory, but God has told me that only the truly righteous accept his gift of rising lava.

 

[PEEF!]

You just need to learn to accept Brinstar. One day, you will awaken and realize that the stage was placed in the game as an act of divine providence. As a philosopher, you probably are not a fan of Divine Command Theory, but God has told me that only the truly righteous accept his gift of rising lava.

*Drinks more, will probably forget this prophecy completely*


Not kidding.

 

[Kal]

Luckily, it will always be here for you to see. And, unlike the Bible, will be relatively well written.

Speaking of drinking, I should go out and buy some vodka. I'm thinking Russian Standard. I did not get drunk enough on Monday.

 

[PEEF!]

zsfsadfasdfasdf

 

[Kal]

I think most vodkas taste quite awful. Russian Standard, on the other hand, actually tastes pretty good in my opinion, provided it's not frozen (please, for the love of god, don't freeze vodka unless you're making a cake out of it. That gooey **** just hurts).

The Bible stuff was in jest. I don't want the mods coming in and spoiling our fun.

 

[PEEF!]

Better read it anyway.

Argh Melee best game traditional fighters suck booo. good arguments mean faces melee great game we don't need them FCG dudes!

 

[Sinji]

I noticed that Noel Brown (MVC3 player) was watching the set Dr.pp vs Armada at Apex 2012. Does anyone know what he thought of the set?

 

[popsofctown]

Competitivity is an objective value. Almost any competitive player agrees that, all other things being equal, a game is better if the best man wins it more frequently.

A random element or any other element that reduces competitivity more than it improves it, like some sort of random occurrence players do little to plan around (turnips, tripping), than there is a burden of evidence on that element to provide something good in return. Call it depth, call it fun, call it a chance to bluff.
A random element doesn't necessarily reduce competitivity more than it improves it though. For instance, if bad players always DI knockback from the lava on Brinstar incorrectly, and good players always DI knockback from Brinstar lava correctly, then the element provides an additional point of competitivity way for good players to outshine inferior ones. The control over lava knockback could offset the lack of control over the random seed itself.

The guy with the batman avatar (sorry, I'm lazy) seems to think that Brinstar acid increases competitivity. My opinion is different. The only definitive answer would be comparison of tournament results of lavaless Brinstar and lavafilled Brinstar, and of course that's not happening.

 

[Kal]

I do so appreciate claiming it's an objective value, then following with "almost any player." Surely there's some ***-backwards logic being used when you have an objective concept (that you haven't yet really defined) that can't be agreed upon. I think most fighting game players would agree with what you've just claimed. However, take a game like Poker, and I think good players winning too often is a bad thing. A large enough element of luck guarantees, for me, that the players who don't actually have a grasp on the game's depth (e.g. 90% of the people who watch WSOP on ESPN) will be returning, thus ensuring me consistent revenue.

I've provided examples of depth the lava provides. The lava on Brinstar is also extremely easily reacted to, and I would conjecture that it affects the consistency of results about as much as Peach's turnips. The results on this stage are pretty consistent, and those wanting it gone are not even banning it in a misguided attempt to make results more consistent (as though having Brinstar legal actually shakes up results in any meaningful way). They're doing so because, like you, they unjustifiably claim the stage "decreases competitiveness."

Surely people don't think the stage would suddenly be ok if the randomly rising (though easily reacted to) lava were put on a timer? This, to me, suggests that it is not, and never has been, the randomness that puts off most players to the stage.

 

[ajp_anton]

The lava on Brinstar isn't completely random, though its pattern is too long to memorize.
And I actually like that stage =). It seems to be good for Luigi for some reason.

 

[Jockmaster]

Competitivity is an objective value. Almost any competitive player agrees that, all other things being equal, a game is better if the best man wins it more frequently.

A random element or any other element that reduces competitivity more than it improves it, like some sort of random occurrence players do little to plan around (turnips, tripping), than there is a burden of evidence on that element to provide something good in return. Call it depth, call it fun, call it a chance to bluff.
A random element doesn't necessarily reduce competitivity more than it improves it though. For instance, if bad players always DI knockback from the lava on Brinstar incorrectly, and good players always DI knockback from Brinstar lava correctly, then the element provides an additional point of competitivity way for good players to outshine inferior ones. The control over lava knockback could offset the lack of control over the random seed itself.

The guy with the batman avatar (sorry, I'm lazy) seems to think that Brinstar acid increases competitivity. My opinion is different. The only definitive answer would be comparison of tournament results of lavaless Brinstar and lavafilled Brinstar, and of course that's not happening.

You are using the word competitive wrong, it isn't a word of many varying values. Something is either competitive or it isn't. Whether there is luck involved or not isn't part of the argument. Anything involving two people competing is competitive, be it a fighting game or shooting craps. Something only lacks competivity (and even then it is ALL competivity) when nobody is competing.

I think what you guys are arguing is simply what takes more skill and knowledge, which is completely different. At its purest value, there should be no random element in any competition to be considered more SKILLED. When there is no random element, the competition simply comes down entirely to skill vs. skill.

This does not imply that things with random elements are less competitive, shoot professional poker is absurdly competitive, but people, for obvious reasons, tend to want to pursue competition with less randomness (especially in video games). The problem is, it is hard to remove all randomness without robbing the game of its original value, and as you stated it can help develop a DIFFERENT kind of skill.

For the record this argument is beaten like a red headed step child in the Pokemon meta so I've heard a lot of it. Generally in the Pokemon communitys eyes, the extent of the randomness and the potential of its ability to decide a winner or loser is what causes bans.

TL;DR- randomness=/= uncompetetive

 

[Anth0ny]

I noticed that Noel Brown (MVC3 player) was watching the set Dr.pp vs Armada at Apex 2012. Does anyone know what he thought of the set?

All the Marvel players were watching, including Winrich and Chris Matrix. Not sure what they thought about the set, but they easily could have been playing casuals in the other room.

 

[♡ⓛⓞⓥⓔ♡]

In my (more or less) humble opinion Brawl is a boring, dumbed down version of melee.

tell me more, I've never heard of this

 

[ajp_anton]

tell me more, I've never heard of this

Brawl is like automatic transmission in cars. It tries to do things for you, but all it does is make you frustrated at how you can't decide what to do yourself.

 

[Jockmaster]

Brawl is like automatic transmission in cars. It tries to do things for you, but all it does is make you frustrated at how you can't decide what to do yourself.

That plus tripping. Only reason I use my Brawl disc anymore is for Project M O_o