Why is Smash not taken as seriously?

[Life]

There is only ONE truly horrible incident that could "item screw" even the most amazingly skilled players... NOBODY can guess when a bob-omb will fall from the sky and land on them mid-smash attack. Nobody.

So I will give that point. But still, aside from bob-ombs, it could be done. It would just require different practice to reach a slightly different level of skill.

And Ganondorf is obviously going to stay at the bottom of the tier list in this scenario.

Not necessarily true. I'll take these in reverse order.

1. Ganondorf has nothing to do with it. Any "unwinnable" matchup is like this, I just used G/ICs since it's the most obvious matchup. Falco/Pika works assuming the Pika is ES4M. (Although Ganondorf is arguably balanced around having access to items. Anyone remember Super Ganon Time or w/e it was?)

2. There's a lot more.

You're playing a character that can't normally gimp well. Your opponent is someone like with a relatively predictable recovery. IDC which ones.

You knock them offstage. They barely survive and begin recovering. A homerun bat spawns next to you. Free kill when they should have been able to recover? Alternatively, what if a heart container or maxim tomato spawns? 50% is quite a bit of health in Brawl.

Obviously, a couple items can work. Food is fine, for instance (I actually advocate one-stock food). However, the community has a choice: go through each item and determine exactly what is and is not broken... or just say "the whole thing is too random" and turn them all off. Both have viable intellectual arguments, but the latter is far easier and more popular so the community goes with that. I'm not necessarily saying it's right, but it's justifiable.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Do I need to stress again that we don't need to have a reason to turn items off anymore than we need a reason to not play in Coin Mode?

 

[Life]

Grim: Wrong way to go about this IMO. Coin Mode is a completely different win condition. Items don't change things quite so drastically. Special Brawl isn't used because, well, it isn't used (yes, I'm aware that's horribly circular. What I mean is that new players aren't going to practice in Special Brawl, so Special Brawl tournaments have a much higher barrier to entry for an insufficient-to-nonexistent increase in depth). By contrast, new players are going to have at least a little item familiarity from SSE as well as item characters like Diddy and Peach.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

The point is that items are an option that we can choose not to use just like every single other aspect of the game.

 

[Life]

The point is that items are an option that we can choose not to use just like every single other aspect of the game.

We could also choose not to use MK.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

The game doesn't give you the option to turn Meta Knight off.

 

[majora_787]

The game doesn't give you the option to turn Meta Knight off.

Devil's Advocate time: You could always just stall until the other 3 players pick someone not Meta Knight. =P

 

[SmashChu]

The game doesn't give you the option to turn Meta Knight off.

In your words

The point is that items are an option that we can choose not to use just like every single other aspect of the game.

The game doesn't force you to pick him. Same as items.

Otherwise, glad to see some item talk. People don't realize this is a huge component of Smash Brothers.

You knock them offstage. They barely survive and begin recovering. A homerun bat spawns next to you. Free kill when they should have been able to recover? Alternatively, what if a heart container or maxim tomato spawns? 50% is quite a bit of health in Brawl.

This is a huge misconception. First, you should not let your opponent not have items. You can do this with good map control. But what if an item spawns while someone is off stage. First, the window for that is very small. The player would have to quickly react to the item and than throw it hoping the other player doesn't dodge it. A lot of times in Brawl you'll be in a position high enough to dodge and still preform a recovery. Few hits send you below a 45 degree angle. At the same time, if a player is preventing you from being on stage, than it wasn't a free kill. They worked to get that item advantage. They controlled space.

Seeing as most Smash players play just Smash, I can see how they don't get it. They never played a good Zerg in Starcraft 2.

Obviously, a couple items can work. Food is fine, for instance (I actually advocate one-stock food). However, the community has a choice: go through each item and determine exactly what is and is not broken... or just say "the whole thing is too random" and turn them all off. Both have viable intellectual arguments, but the latter is far easier and more popular so the community goes with that. I'm not necessarily saying it's right, but it's justifiable.

That is not intelligent. It's a cop-out.

This is in part why Smash Brother players are not taken seriously and are seen as ban happy. They never take the time to test it. They rely on conjecture and cherry picking arguments. They say "Oh, but this scenario could happen and you might lose a match. You don't want to lose a match, do you?" Forget the fact that it may be unrealistic or has never been seen. EVO ran items because no one took the time to run item tournaments and test them. All testing is done in tournament play because there it is not biased. Everyone is trying to win and will do what they can to do so.

Your are suppose to test all of them. That's how you know if it's bannable in the first place. Saying "we don't want to deal with it," makes you look unprofessional.

 

[chaosmaster1991]

Obviously, a couple items can work. Food is fine, for instance (I actually advocate one-stock food). However, the community has a choice: go through each item and determine exactly what is and is not broken... or just say "the whole thing is too random" and turn them all off. Both have viable intellectual arguments, but the latter is far easier and more popular so the community goes with that. I'm not necessarily saying it's right, but it's justifiable.

I'd like to remind you that we have a ruleset for Item Standard Play for which each item was tested afaik.

The point is that items are an option that we can choose not to use just like every single other aspect of the game.

So you're saying it's a preference, right? In other words, it's fine to not use them because people don't like them, yes? Now, let's assume a majority doesn't like to play on a given stage (which is perfectly fine for competition), can we not use that stage then?

 

[Life]

This is a huge misconception. First, you should not let your opponent not have items. You can do this with good map control.

Irrelevant to the scenario I posted.

First, the window for that is very small. The player would have to quickly react to the item and than throw it hoping the other player doesn't dodge it.

Not true. Recoveries, from the time the character is hit to the time they make it to the ledge,

A lot of times in Brawl you'll be in a position high enough to dodge and still preform a recovery.

Many characters do not have this luxury.

At the same time, if a player is preventing you from being on stage, than it wasn't a free kill. They worked to get that item advantage. They controlled space.

Also not what I said.

Seeing as most Smash players play just Smash, I can see how they don't get it. They never played a good Zerg in Starcraft 2.

You claim we're unfamiliar with SC2 Zerg (we have a Starcraft thread somewhere, go fetch) and then you don't explain how it's relevant to this conversation AT ALL, especially in a game that can be patched unlike Brawl.

That is not intelligent. It's a cop-out.

Maybe when I put it that way. However, there's a reason this is Smashboards and not Mariopartyboards. Too much randomness is anticompetitive and most(!) items are both powerful and have no warning, the two criteria by which we can tell if a random element is too much.

This is in part why Smash Brother players are not taken seriously and are seen as ban happy. They never take the time to test it. They rely on conjecture and cherry picking arguments.

Actually, I've been to SRK (briefly). It's "stop telling people how to play the game, oh, and turn on items", plus "Smash is for kids, it's not even a real fighting game" and "the community is really immature". I can practically taste the idiocy (although I won't argue with the last one).

They say "Oh, but this scenario could happen and you might lose a match. You don't want to lose a match, do you?"

Not over a factor that neither myself or my opponent had control over.

EVO ran items because no one took the time to run item tournaments and test them.

And Ken lost to a scrub in finals specifically because of a bad item spawn (IIRC). Before you say anything, Ken is/was a player who loved items to death, just not in tournament. I can't imagine anyone (excepting maybe a few modern Diddy mains) who would be more familiar with item play.

Your are suppose to test all of them. That's how you know if it's bannable in the first place. Saying "we don't want to deal with it," makes you look unprofessional.

"Items are too random, ban" =/= "Items are gay, ban". Argue with the statements I made, not the statements you made.

chaos: I'm usually the one that points that out, LOL, thanks for the reminder nonetheless.

 

[SmashChu]

LINES LINES LINES

You can have an argument or discussion of any kind if you look at every single individual line piece by piece. next your going to want to quote words and respond to that. To prove my point.

You claim we're unfamiliar with SC2 Zerg (we have a Starcraft thread somewhere, go fetch) and then you don't explain how it's relevant to this conversation AT ALL,

Smashchu says:

You can do this with good map control.

Zerg

Get the picture. The only things I'm going to say are
1)The reason items were off in Melee was not randomness. It was because you could not turn off exploding capsles. The reason they are off in Brawl is because the Smash Brothers community doesn't know how to play with then and their possition would be threatened
2)Ken lost because he couldn't use items. Plain and simple. For instance, in match 2, Ken grabbed a hammer despite his character having a counter move and ROB having a lot of projectiles. He also managed to die because he didn;t realize the bunny hood makes you fall faster. Watch.
3)This whole "SRK vs Smashboards" is silly. What is going on here is that Smash people ask "Why does SRK not like us." They tell them why. And Smashboards sits here and says "They are mean poppy heads." The arguments SRK for why Smashboards sucks is valid. I mean, you don't get kicked out of two major tournaments for nothing. Of course, Smashboards tries to say "Oh, they are arrogant." Really, it's Smashboards bugging them for attention and not getting it. Like a freakin' child.

 

[Steam]

@smashchu- read the thread. also I dunno, more universal options kinda seems like more depth to me.

1) that's why they were initially banned in melee. they are banned in brawl mainly because it randomly just gives one player a massive advantage

2) there's a difference in actually knowing how to use items effectively, and just knowing that warp stars are unblockable. it's pretty obvious people who never use them wouldn't know they're unblockable.

3) why are you being a grammar nazi? and that doesn't prove in any way that I haven't "been around" enough.

 

[SmashChu]

@smashchu- read the thread. also I dunno, more universal options kinda seems like more depth to me.

1) that's why they were initially banned in melee. they are banned in brawl mainly because it randomly just gives one player a massive advantage

2) there's a difference in actually knowing how to use items effectively, and just knowing that warp stars are unblockable. it's pretty obvious people who never use them wouldn't know they're unblockable.

3) why are you being a grammar nazi? and that doesn't prove in any way that I haven't "been around" enough.

1)So they were banned in Brawl because they were random but not Melee. Then why the change?
2)Knowing you can't shield a warpstar is part of knowing items. If, as a Terran in Starcraft, I say "I know the Terran vs Protoss match up," and you only know how to 3 Rax rush, than you don't really know it. It's all inclusive.
3)You type like a little kid, so I think your a little kid. What's the problem?

 

[Steam]

1)So they were banned in Brawl because they were random but not Melee. Then why the change?
2)Knowing you can't shield a warpstar is part of knowing items. If, as a Terran in Starcraft, I say "I know the Terran vs Protoss match up," and you only know how to 3 Rax rush, than you don't really know it. It's all inclusive.
3)You type like a little kid, so I think your a little kid. What's the problem?

1) because melee was the first smash game taken "seriously". and for about half of the game's lifespan there was little knowledge of the game in general and top play could often consist of things that would be considered very basic today. most of the old smash community back then didn't really know what it took to make a game competetive.

2) if people were forced to play with items it would be something they'd learn in 5 minutes. It's something very specific that's just a tidbit of knowledge and takes no practice or anything to apply. Item techs like Z catching, DACIT, insta-throw take practice and are very useful even with items banned due to characters that generate them. Also items aren't character specific and don't really add much depth... it's just, "oh a smart bomb spawned near me while my opponent is offstage. time to get 30%+ for free"

3. it's spelled "you're". and for future reference, don't criticize someone's grammar if you can't get it right yourself. Also I just graduated high school, so you're wrong on that too.

 

[Gatlin]

I would appreciate if #3 was dropped, please.

 

[Life]

Hypocrisy is a beautiful, beautiful thing. /ignore

 

[SmashChu]

Hypocrisy is a beautiful, beautiful thing. /ignore

The point

























Your head

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I have a strong dislike of Smashchu after reading his posts on that Shoryuken thread.

 

[chaosmaster1991]

Grim, do you feel like adressing my point? I was kinda trying to get into a pointless argument there :/

 

[link2702]

i stopped paying attention to smashchu when he refered to competitive play in smash as street fighter light.


yes because street fighter is really all about knocking the oppenent offstage, because in smash you are always locked on to your oppenent the entire time just like street fighter, because in street fighter the terrain of the stage is extremely important i mean its not like its just the same 2d plane with a different backround pasted on it, and yes because street fighters damage meter is set up so that every attack will send the oppenent farther and farther away each hit.

your posts lost all of their credibility when you refered to competitive smash as "street fighter light"

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Grim, do you feel like adressing my point? I was kinda trying to get into a pointless argument there :/

Oh, that.

Well, seeing as the game actually gives us an option to turn items off, I consider it a "choice".

However, there is no mode where you can say: "Stocks w/ timer all items off and every stage except Smashville banned".

 

[chaosmaster1991]

Oh, that.

Well, seeing as the game actually gives us an option to turn items off, I consider it a "choice".

However, there is no mode where you can say: "Stocks w/ timer all items off and every stage except Smashville banned".

Sure there is, you just have to go into random stage select, turn all stages except SV off and then start every match on a "random" stage.

 

[Big-Cat]

I have a strong dislike of Smashchu after reading his posts on that Shoryuken thread.

Join the club.

 

[kataklysm336]

Where did I say it wasn't deep. Please, tell me, because I don't see it. My point was that Smash is more tech skills than raw strategy (said more, not less).

You said it wasn't strategically deep in this sentence "Wavedashing and L-canceling shouldn't hurt Brawl if it had a lot of strategy already". You're saying it doesn't have alot of strategy aka strategically shallow. And now you say Brawl has more tech skill than strategy? Do you even play the game?

I'm not a memeber of either. In fact, I play Starcraft (why I'm talking about strategy). Not sure why you are ostracizing me with 51 post.

I never said you were. However you are a member of the anti-competitive smash community, so stop trying to act unbiased. And you are bashing me for my post count? Please, grow up man.

I never played it because of people like you. You drag the community down. This is why people hate you and 4Chan raids your site. They will do it again with SSB4.

Care to elaborate? What do you mean people like me? What did I do to make you not like competitive smash? Tell you the truth?

Also, I say the backroom controls the community because too often I've heard many people (even in real life) put faith into it.

What does this even mean? You are justing saying NOTHING to make yourself sound legit. Stop.

Also, the Backroom is made up of the top players and tournament organizers, people in it for money. Do you think they look out for you. No. This is just life kid. Everyone looks out for themselves. When the community demanded Meta-Knight be banned, the Backroom said no. Why? Because they play Meta-Knight. They also wont make rulesets for items because they have too much to lose from it. What's that? You think they'll still win with items. LOL NOPE. In fact, all the research on items has been done by SRK, not Smashboards.

LOLWUT?! Dude the SBR doesn't look out for ANYONE its not their job, they aren't our government. If you want to see who is the best its got to be 1v1, no items, certain stages because that is the format that favors skill over anything else. If your goal is something other than testing skill then you can gladly play the game anyway you want, but if you want to know who has more skill it has to be done this way.

You OBVIOUSLY have no knowledge of how things here work. Not every member of the SBR plays metaknight, and items are banned because people will lose if they are on. Every time a tier list or something is released there is extensive write-ups about the process. There is an entire section for stage discussion, and items have a tournament standard now. Why you *****ing?!

The other reason I don't play competitive Smash is because I play Super Smash Brothers, not Street Fighter Light. As the SRK thread mentioned, Smash is Smash. Items are a huge part of Smash and really help make the game, but tournament players refuse to use them. And on basic stages with 2 players, it makes matches very boring. Street Fighter is more interesting anyway. Why don't Smash Players play that? There is a lot less of a stigma or those players.

Items are a huge part? Then why the option to turn them off? Guess what, COIN MODE is a huge part of smash, so if you don't play that then you are doing it wrong. See, I can do that too.

Lastly, the community started as something good and then because a private treehouse club. This is why it doesn't really grow. It's sad when Brawl has sold 10 million to SF4's 4 but Street Fighter has bigger tournaments, a bigger site and comparable prize pools (MLG to EVO at least).

Doesn't really grow?! Dude the community is growing everyday, Ally and ADHD weren't huge competitors in Melee and are now two of the biggest names in Brawl.

Who cares how many have been sold in comparison to tournaments? Those things are totally unrelated. How many Street Fighter tournaments do you think are held outside of Japan? The thing is less people play smash competitively because they honestly don't know about it, and those same people probably don't know about competitive street fighter either.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Sure there is, you just have to go into random stage select, turn all stages except SV off and then start every match on a "random" stage.

Alright then, I see no reason why the stage list can't be a single stage objectively. However, the alternative yields more depth.

If we were to add more than one stage to that "random stage select", the chance of getting a bad stage would have too much effect on results, though.

 

[chaosmaster1991]

Alright then, I see no reason why the stage list can't be a single stage objectively. However, the alternative yields more depth.

If we were to add more than one stage to that "random stage select", the chance of getting a bad stage would have too much effect on results, though.

Theoretically, yes. On the other hand, you could set a different stage as the "random" stage before each match.

Also, how would you define a "bad" stage?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I meant bad for the character (for example, if the two legal stages were Smashville and Final Destination, it could be up to a coin-flip whether MK wins or not).

I realize I didn't clarify that at all in my post xD

Anyway, what method would be used for selecting stages then? I mean, it's all well and good to switch them between on and off, but how would you decide which ones go on and off?

Overall, even if it is logical, it is still vastly inferior to our current system due to it being both more convulted and less deep.

 

[ssbowns]

Look at the presentation. Games like SF and MK scream hardcore and maturity while SSB screams childiness and casualness. It's like asking why bowling isn't serious sport compared to golf.

I still prefer SSB because of how open and varied it is. Fan service helps too. Without Mario and the gang, plus the sweet unlockables, it wouldn't be the same at all. But MVC has the same sort of Marvel/Capcom fan service and it's still worse than any SSB

 

[chaosmaster1991]

I meant bad for the character (for example, if the two legal stages were Smashville and Final Destination, it could be up to a coin-flip whether MK wins or not).

I realize I didn't clarify that at all in my post xD

Figured as much but thanks for clarifying.

In that case, you would need to add the "right" stages I guess, so ones that don't give any character a large advantage.

Anyway, what method would be used for selecting stages then? I mean, it's all well and good to switch them between on and off, but how would you decide which ones go on and off?

Striking? I didn't mean to say that the current system is bad or anything, the point I was trying to make has pretty much nothing to do with stage selection in that sense... I will explain below...

Overall, even if it is logical, it is still vastly inferior to our current system due to it being both more convulted and less deep.

Yeah, I got a bit sidetracked, sorry about that.


What I was trying to say originally, is that I have issues with the following sentence:
"We don't ban items, we choose to turn them off, but we can't turn off stages"
which uses personal preferences as a reason to exclude items but when it comes to stages, it's not ok to ban one based on preference.
Basically, while it's true that you cannot turn of stages, you can turn off a stage. Or in other words, just say that you banned items.

(Yes, I know that you didn't say exactly that but I was trying to make that point for some time now and your statement was relatively close... this conversation developed differently than I thought tbh and I feel like I forgot to mention something important >_<)

 

[Steam]

Look at the presentation. Games like SF and MK scream hardcore and maturity while SSB screams childiness and casualness. It's like asking why bowling isn't serious sport compared to golf.

I still prefer SSB because of how open and varied it is. Fan service helps too. Without Mario and the gang, plus the sweet unlockables, it wouldn't be the same at all. But MVC has the same sort of Marvel/Capcom fan service and it's still worse than any SSB

you don't have to be ripping heads off for it to be a competetive fighter. (in MK's case)

 

[ssbowns]

I know but it helps getting that "Oh this is serious" feel

 

[Sunnysunny]

I disagree.
Most people in the competitive community are already sick of fatalities and instead just want it to go by quicker. Sure it was cool at first, but it gets old. I just see all the blood and gore as a gimmick.

Mortal kombat is taking seriously because it was made with the intent to be competitive and balanced. Smash was not.

 

[Reizilla]

I see 150 posts here, when it's a simple answer.

Smash was originally made as a party game. "Legit" fighting game players are used to playing games made for competition. It's a big jump for them to take something like this seriously. Just think of how Melee kids insist that Brawl sucks just because it's different, and then multiply that by a bunch and that's how different Smash is to "legit" fighters. They just refuse to give it a chance and assume it's bad, despite Smash being a much deeper game and often much more competitive.

There's no logical justification other than "I don't like it." Simple as that.

 

[Klunker]

The main reason why it isn't accepted is because its different. Like the poster above me. It's seen as a party/casual game. But look at any game out there and there is always going to be some group of people who look into every nook and cranny to optimize their chance of winning.

I feel the main reasons for why Brawl isn't accepted is because its different. No life bar, no "combos", stages make the difference, style of play, and more than just "special moves".

No life bar
This is the trademark for any type of fighting game. Watch your life or you're going to die. Well for Smash brothers in general, this if the first rule: Higher percentage, higher CHANCE to die. There is no "chipping" to death in brawl. You have to legit KILL your opponent by taking them off the stage. Whether that be by spiking them into the oblivion or sending them off the sides or into space. This is the first techinical difference that falls into play from all other fighting games.

Combos
As someone said, there aren't exactly fluent bread-and-butter combos suck as MK9, SF, ect. There are only follow ups to your attacks. Melee had combos, marth/fox upthrow into whatever. But there aren't muscle memory combos within Smash brothers. There is only the players ability to follow up on their attacks. I feel this is another reason why this game is, in general, disregarded as a "fighting" game. Because the entire layout for a fighting game has always been about the combos.

Stages attribute to the game
What other fighting game do you have to jump on a platform to attack the enemy?! (My knowledge is mk, sf, mvc. Don't pay attention to much else). You actually have to CHASE your opponent. The stage is more than a flat piece of land with a shiny background. You have to take that into account. The stage makes a difference to matchups rather than just player skill and character skills (diddy on rainbow cruise anyone...). So again, this game doesn't exactly follow the typical straight forward, 1v1 flat stage you vs me. ect.

Style of play
Smash brothers is a game of spacing, zoning, and poking. Without the use of combos, you have to use your witt to be able to maximize your characters abilities. Brawl is slower than most of the other games because it was designed for that purpose. I'm pretty sure if everyone had skills that came out in 2-5 frames, the game would be completely different. But since there are no "combos" and just everything about the game is slower, it requires a more patient style of play.

Special moves
The special moves within Smash bros are just more than a combo ender or initiator. For EVERY character (except puff and probably someone else), their up b is DESIGNED to be the recovery move. The special moves are just more than special moves because they are DESIGNED to be more than just what they seem to be. The special moves are also just forward b, up b. It isn't like backforward x or they don't have long, memory intensive requirements. The special moves are more extensions of your character than "special moves".

I have been on a mk9 binge recently and love the game. But I'll always come back to Smash brothers because its unique and fun. It isn't about muscle memory. I love the gameplay, style, and how it IS different. The percentage over healthbars is a genius idea. And I feel that Brawl/Melee doesn't get enough credit for its uniqueness. But I feel that I've hit the nail on the head for why people disregard Smash for being a competitive game. People just need to realize that there will always be elitists in every fighting game who want a competitive scene.

 

[Mr.Jackpot]

Anybody that thinks that platforms mean that Smash isn't a fighting game should play Guilty Gear Dust Strikers.

 

[Johnknight1]

The recent it isn't accepted is because it has cute snuggly characters like Pikachu, Pichu, Yoshi, Kirby, Jigglypuff, Squirtle, Ivysaur, and whatnot. But I find this "I'm better than that childish stuff" funny because all video games are TOYS! TOYS! The same thing your 4 month old cousin chews on all day! Street Fighting fans think they're better because their characters are all racial stereotypes (green brazilian... really? Also, as my friend says best "SFIV seems like it's aimed at stereotypical African-Americans" ([my friend is a quarter black btw! XD]).

Also, we don't have to push a trillion buttons to do one attack. Not that there's wrong either way, but they think more buttons makes 'em cooler. Of course, I mean the jerks who think they're the hardestcore thing despite the fact they play a video game aka a toy competitively (competitive SF'ers who don't complain are cool, as are any competitive gamers that don't complain about others via stereotypes at any game IMO).

If they said they didn't like it, that would be fine. Being indifferent is fine. But all these complainers do is try to act cool over a child's toy, which is hilarious. They also think we're all twelve and living in our parent's garage. (Wrong! I live in the attic!) But I guess that's what's up with haters. Haters gonna hate. They hate the player... and the game. They also hate it when their mom doesn't make 'em nachos!

 

[SmashChu]

Are we really bringing this up again. The fighting game community TOLD you why they don't like Smash. They hate the community. Why are we doing this dance again.

 

[Ghostbone]

All you guys above me (except SmashChu) are all wrong, they don't hate on Brawl or Melee because of any of the mechanics, they don't even hate the game, many of them occasionally play Brawl casually. What they do hate is the community, how childish we are, and our scrubby attitude to making competitive rulesets. They also dislike how we seem to be always trying to 'prove' ourselves worthy of being considered a fighter, since that's not the reason they dislike us.

There are obviously elitist haters, who will hate on Smash for no particular reason, but similarly, we have people in the smash community who dislike other fighters because they consider them more shallow compared to Smash, and other various reasons.
Neither of these groups have ever seriously tried out the other game, and have no right to regard their opinions as fact.

 

[Reizilla]

Location tho

Oh, it's okay, leave them be. Florida and Australia.

 

[Starphoenix]

Super Smash Bros is seen as a joke and non-competitive to much of the traditional fighter base for several reasons.

1: The characters - As beloved as characters like Mario, Luigi, Kirby, Pikachu, and others are; they do not fit the standard perception of what constitutes a fighter. Though this begins to delve into the murky waters called "semantics", the general perception is not colorful and cheery. Look at Street Fighter, Vs. Series, King of Fighters, BlazBlue, and others. These characters are generally, though sometimes more loosely in regards to the Vs. series, vastly different in design than many Nintendo characters. They perceive colorful and sprightly to mean immaturity and childish, not something a "mature individuals" would be associated with. Many Nintendo characters are pinned with that "kiddy" label, which of itself is not untrue, but it is the connotation implied that is what many have as an issue. To sit here and follow this logic is to bring into discussion what even constitutes a fighter? And that is too much time and brain power wasted for triviality that changes nothing at the end of the night. The summation of my rambling is this, Nintendo characters are supposedky kiddy. So therefore the game must be kiddy too.

2: Variables - Most traditional fighters rely solely on technical skill such as spacing, timing, and gauge building. They don't have over arching variables that can affect the entire course of a match. What do I mean by this? Simply the Super Smash Bros series is more dynamic in nature than most fighters. While skill remains the primary basis of the game, there are more outside influences to add to this the equation. Items, stages, and random tripping are all components that can drastically change entire matches, regardless of a player's skill. The better player can lose to somebody highly under skilled simply because of a mistimed jump, an unseen Bob-Omb, stage hazard appearing at an inopportune time, random tripping (ughhhhhh), etc...

Granted, the competitive Smash community has made great strides in mitigating as much of these hazards and variables as possible (though Brawl made this harder to do with some of the mechanic decisions by the developers). Still, many competitive "elite" players scoff at the game because it even offers these features (which are entirely optional).

3: Xenophobia - Let's be frank here, the game isn't Street Fighter. It isn't made to be like Street Fighter and it won't ever be. Can it take cues and ideas from those games? Sure, absolutely. But anyone trying to make it "Nintendo Street Fighter" is going to live in a very sad state for a long time. Most gamers spend so much of their time devoted to perfecting techniques, stringing combos, judging frames, and so many other details. When something is out there radically different then that it is met with some skepticism. It doesn't fit the mold so therefore it doesn't count. It is like saying an orange isn't a fruit just because it isn't part of the apple family. It may not be an apple, but it's still a fruit regardless. It may be more lighthearted but that doesn't disqualify it as being a fighter. Traditional fighter? No. A fighter none the less.

4: It is designed for greater access - Super Smash Bros is successful for one reason beyond just the massive crossover it is. The formula works. We have had three games now, soon to be four, that all have built upon the foundation laid in Super Smash Bros 64. Everyone can jump right in and begin playing, so because of that the fanbase is generally dispersed between families and children. Whereas much of the fighting game community is segregated and inclusive to only a niche group. Most people jump in only to hop back out or go on to play something else. Because Smash Bros is different in offerimg an easier option for those wanting the fighter experience without much of the self-mutilating toil that will occur trying to dive deeper into the fighting community. This causes, again, the perception that the series is "simplistic" or "under developed" when many competiive Smash players can inform them that it carries quite a bit of depth. There is a very valid meta-game too it. Getting people to that point seems to be a much shorter route in Super Smash Bros.

This doesn't cover everything, only a few points that seem to be the most common to me. My points may not have been fully developed as they could have or on point. If not forgive me, it is a little late. That would explain my rambling.