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!
It appears that you are using ad block :'(
Hey, we get it. However this website is run by and for the community... and it needs ads in order to keep running.
Please disable your adblock on Smashboards, or go premium to hide all advertisements and this notice. Alternatively, this ad may have just failed to load. Woops!
I can't believe you're seriously linking David Sirlin to disprove that having a lot of viable strategies is what creates competitive depth. I mean, I got that entire idea from him.
I have told you the type of argument you would need to make to explicitly refute the central points of my arguments. If you cannot do so, they stand.
If you think a game that is balanced, strategic, and fun to watch isn't the criteria that defines if it is suited for tournament play, then please inform me what is.
I know that you care what I say, and regardless of anyone caring, I've made a substantial case for why I am right and no one has bothered to disprove it.
I have told you the type of argument you would need to make to explicitly refute the central points of my arguments. If you cannot do so, they stand.
If you think a game that is balanced, strategic, and fun to watch isn't the criteria that defines if it is suited for tournament play, then please inform me what is.
I know that you care what I say, and regardless of anyone caring, I've made a substantial case for why I am right and no one has bothered to disprove it.
ITT: people who are good at smash proving they are the worst at civilized debate ever xD
Brawl-'s selling point is that it elevates the power level of the game balance (for an example of high vs low power balance, see Dota 2 vs League of Legends, or MvC2 vs SSBM). It doesn't make things "broken" it makes things a lot more powerful, but the fact that all the options are more powerful means the counter-options are more powerful.
You can't point to an abstract design concept and say that it can't be a serious game... you bear the burden of proof to make such a claim. And no, pointing to personal credentials is not evidence of an otherwise baseless claim...
Also by what logic would doubles have a higher turnout than singles? Especially for a mod that's relatively new, where people need to foray deeper into the singles meta before doubles is a huge thing.
Making a game as broken as possible is supposed to be fun and casual. I'm not gonna enter a tournament where I lose even though I'm smarter than the other player. Plain and simple.
In Melee, a player loses because they're new, dumb, have bad tech skill, or are overall slower than the other player. That's something I can get on board with.
my point was... Developer intent means next to nothing in competitive gaming. And a smash player should know that better than anyone.
I saw johns johns and more johns. (this game is different and I don't know how it works, so when something happens that I'm not familiar with, it's the game's fault and not mine).
Also, for the last time, the point of minus isn't to make the game "broken" (read: unplayable; intentionally unbalanced). Stop hiding behind buzzwords to justify your position.
I'm not a huge fan of minus (and I won't be entering it) but I'm a pretty big fan of consistent and appropriate use of logic.
This is the part where the room goes "OOOOHHHHH!!!" right?
Because tossing out insults is so stylish, hard to do, and cool. Especially when no one has yet to prove any of these games are bad with an argument that holds water.
The amount of irony in your statement is reaching critical levels considering the people that you play with.
The fact that i played enough to win money in every single one of slashys tournaments ever, is all the evidence i need to know that the conceptualization of all the brawl physics hacks are bad, but if you dont want to listen to the guy with all the experience, and a better understand of smash than... Everyone here, thats yalls perogative.
>Listen to me, because I have x, y, and qualification
- But what's the actual reason?
Those qualifications tell me you should know what you're talking about but you won't prove the reason behind your claim... you just point to the qualifications again.
That's like coming into a job interview and showing your impressive credentials, getting the job, and then showing up for work and doing nothing.
You've given me evidence that you should know why you claim what you do, but you never give the actual reason. And there are very few (if any) things in life I'm willing to accept based on blind faith in someone's credibility.
This is the sole reason why I can't stand StarCraft2 ladder. I can make all of the right decisions, but I'm too slow right now to make it count (meaning I have less units than someone who is faster).
You made a claim and your evidence is an open ended assumption?
Please explain. I'm a fan of discussion rather than argument. I genuinely want to know what you think "developer intent" is in a variety of competitive games.
Compare and contrast The original Starcraft with it's expansion, BroodWar. Vanilla StarCraft was literally broken - some unit compositions could not be beaten in some matchups (so should we define "broken" as uncounterable?). 7months (iirc) later, the BroodWar expansion came out and rebalanced the game by introducing counters to the "broken" unit compositions. "Developer intent"? They waited for the metagame to develop and applied huge fixes via an expansion and continued to fix small issues via patches over several years. They created one of the best competitive games ever purely by intending to make a "good" game.
Starcraft 2 is a different story that isn't even close to being finished.
Smash can be a very small world. I consider the competitive success of smash to be a very happy accident.
You've given me evidence that you should know why you claim what you do, but you never give the actual reason. And there are very few (if any) things in life I'm willing to accept based on blind faith in someone's credibility.
This is the sole reason why I can't stand StarCraft2 ladder. I can make all of the right decisions, but I'm too slow right now to make it count (meaning I have less units than someone who is faster).
Yet you're the fastest masher evar?
You made a claim and your evidence is an open ended assumption?
Please explain. I'm a fan of discussion rather than argument. I genuinely want to know what you think "developer intent" is in a variety of competitive games.
Compare and contrast The original Starcraft with it's expansion, BroodWar. Vanilla StarCraft was literally broken - some unit compositions could not be beaten in some matchups (so should we define "broken" as uncounterable?). 7months (iirc) later, the BroodWar expansion came out and rebalanced the game by introducing counters to the "broken" unit compositions. "Developer intent"? They waited for the metagame to develop and applied huge fixes via an expansion and continued to fix small issues via patches over several years. They created one of the best competitive games ever purely by intending to make a "good" game.
Starcraft 2 is a different story that isn't even close to being finished.
Smash can be a very small world. I consider the competitive success of smash to be a very happy accident.
Okay okay, hold the presses. Thanks for asking for me to back that up, although I didn't expect anyone to argue against the developer intent point
But I believe we have a misunderstanding, as I see from the example you chose. Obviously devs intend to make good games. There's nothing at issue there.
What I'm saying is that you can't just say "you can't play a game this way because the developers didn't intend you to" because The developers didn't intend for us to do a lot of the things we do (and frankly should be able to)
Smash is intended to be a party game. it's not intended to be a serious tournament game, and we were not intended to abuse and exploit game mechanics to the point that we have. The point I'm making here is that it doesn't matter what one person or group of people "intend" something to be; that something, in the end, is what it is.
This is why I said smashers should understand this concept more than anyone, because we've been given **** for years from other fighting game communities for playing a party game. A Brawl player should know this better than anyone, as brawl devs intentionally pulled out a slew of advanced techniques (the scapegoat representing "competitive play") and even stuck in a few middle fingers to competitive players (e.g. Tripping).
And notice I'm not arguing that you shouldn't play Brawl competitively. By all accounts, nintendo did not intend Brawl to be a competitive fighter. But what you realize is that you don't care what they intended, because in the end, if Brawl stands up as a competitively viable game (which it does), then it deserves to be played competitively. I'm trying to get the people arguing developer intent against things like P:M or B- to realize that the same reasoning applies here, and developer intent has jack **** to do with how the consumers should play the game they are given.
im pretty sure no develop intends for someone to hack their game and change it into something completely different then the game that was shipped out to stores
Okay okay, hold the presses. Thanks for asking for me to back that up, although I didn't expect anyone to argue against the developer intent point
But I believe we have a misunderstanding, as I see from the example you chose. Obviously devs intend to make good games. There's nothing at issue there.
What I'm saying is that you can't just say "you can't play a game this way because the developers didn't intend you to" because The developers didn't intend for us to do a lot of the things we do (and frankly should be able to)
Smash is intended to be a party game. it's not intended to be a serious tournament game, and we were not intended to abuse and exploit game mechanics to the point that we have. The point I'm making here is that it doesn't matter what one person or group of people "intend" something to be; that something, in the end, is what it is.
This is why I said smashers should understand this concept more than anyone, because we've been given **** for years from other fighting game communities for playing a party game. A Brawl player should know this better than anyone, as brawl devs intentionally pulled out a slew of advanced techniques (the scapegoat representing "competitive play") and even stuck in a few middle fingers to competitive players (e.g. Tripping).
And notice I'm not arguing that you shouldn't play Brawl competitively. By all accounts, nintendo did not intend Brawl to be a competitive fighter. But what you realize is that you don't care what they intended, because in the end, if Brawl stands up as a competitively viable game (which it does), then it deserves to be played competitively. I'm trying to get the people arguing developer intent against things like P:M or B- to realize that the same reasoning applies here, and developer intent has jack **** to do with how the consumers should play the game they are given.
im pretty sure no develop intends for someone to hack their game and change it into something completely different then the game that was shipped out to stores
Pc games dont get shipped to stores anymore. Thats what steam is for silly!
And apparently i have a new reason to hate project M now.
I let Jesse, Foy and Nightro borrow my Wii. I got it back two days ago. Yesterday i turn my wii on, redo my internet settings. Put my copy of brawl in and:
"An error has occured. Press the eject button and remove the disc, then turn the Wii console off and refer to the Wii Operation Manual for troubleshooting"
Im going to absolutely flip my sht, if Project MotherFk this game bricked my Wii.
Like, i broke foys controller back in the day, and i know they break other peoples stuff in that apt constantly so im sad, but im not surprised. Just tha fact that i mysteriously hear about them playing project made for ***s on it right before i find out its broken is what really burns me up