Topic: SUPER SMASH BROS BRAWL - The New Megathread

[Ceric]

Thy Fury Orb is out their and will dawn its shades, as hath Mario taught us, and Eliminate us from its omnipresent sight.

Quote

I wouldn't be surprised if they are waiting for a media event in order to officially announce online mode. They already said that they have 2 on 2 online mode working. The one thing they haven't been able to do is an online leader board.

So I say don't fret, but at the same time don't get your hopes up.

That just seems a little backwards.

[anubis6789]

Quote
Originally posted by: Arbok

Quote
Originally posted by: anubis6789
While it would be disappointing if SSBB was not online I, and I am being serious, would rather have no online at all then to only be able to play 1v1 with no items ... and the only people I could see enjoying it for a long period of time would be "pro" players.

...wow

Quote
Originally posted by: anubis6789
I do not see why "Professional" Smash players think that the rule set that they use, either because they like the rules or because the rules were put into place before they began to play it competitively, is the only true way to play SSB.

I love four player Smash Bros with all items turned on. I love one vs. one with no items on Final Destination, aka "pro" settings. I don't see either as the "true" way to play, and the strength of the franchise is the number of options available.

I really have not met very many "Professionals" who are admit about other methods of play in Smash Bros being wrong. In fact, I find it ironic that you are complaining about this, when you opened up the post by stating you would be happier if there was no online versus allowing a 1 vs. 1 setup.

Really, what's getting people rilled up about this? Is there really a problem if someone enjoys playing a game in a different manner than you if the options allow it?

Most of the "professional" players I have met have acted like their way was the only true way to play competitively. Perhaps This is conducive to my area, but I have also talked to many online that feel the same way, maybe I am running into only the elitist Smash players.

To clarify my "I would rather not have online" statement, I meant that if that was the only way to play online, then I would rather not have online. If it was one way of many then I would fine.

I really do not care how others play the game, especially since I have no interest in becoming a pro player (although it may be because I do not like the rules, and plus I am not really all that good ), but when the main competitive style is one that turns SSB into nothing more then a generic 2-D fighter, why not just go play Garou or SF3 which do it so much better? Plus I just like to argue.

[Mashiro]

Quote
but when the main competitive style is one that turns SSB into nothing more then a generic 2-D fighter, why not just go play Garou or SF3 which do it so much better? Plus I just like to argue.

1v1 melee no items is like no other fighting game on the market =)

[EasyCure]

Quote
I think the issue people have with calling those settings "Pro" is that Pros should be able to deal with items and not have to bend the rules to their liking to be competitive.

QFT  
“randomness =/= skill” = fail
i have two close friends whom i usually do most of my duals with reluctantly and we're fairly evenly matched, until we add items and possibly a fourth player. thats usually when i start pwning because they aren't used to dealing with everything else going on. They don't know how to use the level to their advantage either. You'd think a pro could handle it though. Thats why it irks me when pro rules are considered the only way to play.
That and because every “pro” player i've met is a pompous arse. Or when something like this happened:

When i worked at the nintendo store there would be six people on break, a comfy couch that easily sits 4 people, a gamecube with Smash loaded up, and four perfectly good controllers sitting there..

but two were always untouched because everyone insisted on 1v1. I didn't even bother to play if i had to wait for those stupid matches to end and hope i was handed off the nasty sweat covered controler of the loser.

[anubis6789]

Quote
Originally posted by: Mashiro

Quote
but when the main competitive style is one that turns SSB into nothing more then a generic 2-D fighter, why not just go play Garou or SF3 which do it so much better? Plus I just like to argue.

1v1 melee no items is like no other fighting game on the market =)

Joy Mecha Fight?

It is also kind of like playing any of Capcom's Vs. series on Auto mode.

EDIT: Sorry, meant  to post more then the original message.

[Mashiro]

Quote
Originally posted by: EasyCure

Quote
I think the issue people have with calling those settings "Pro" is that Pros should be able to deal with items and not have to bend the rules to their liking to be competitive.

QFT  
“randomness =/= skill” = fail
i have two close friends whom i usually do most of my duals with reluctantly and we're fairly evenly matched, until we add items and possibly a fourth player. thats usually when i start pwning because they aren't used to dealing with everything else going on. They don't know how to use the level to their advantage either. You'd think a pro could handle it though. Thats why it irks me when pro rules are considered the only way to play.
That and because every “pro” player i've met is a pompous arse. Or when something like this happened:

When i worked at the nintendo store there would be six people on break, a comfy couch that easily sits 4 people, a gamecube with Smash loaded up, and four perfectly good controllers sitting there..

but two were always untouched because everyone insisted on 1v1. I didn't even bother to play if i had to wait for those stupid matches to end and hope i was handed off the nasty sweat covered controler of the loser.

While I don't think a 4v4 match with items should determine whom really is the better player, any "pro" style player should be able to deal with all the normal play stuff (items, stages, etc).

One of my personal favorite stages to play on is the Brianstar depths stage in Melee because of it's hectic nature.

A good player or anyone whom really wants to consider themselves a "pro" should learn all methods of play and try to become the best at all of them because in the end, it just increases your overall skill.

For my Randomness =/= skill remark, I stand by it. Though I should clarify that that does not include stages. I think a pro match should be able to be held on any stage.

Edit: About pro players beings "arses" thats a shame and tell em to lighten the f*** up. It is just a game after all haha. I remember at this convention call I-Con that's in my area, I went to the game room and a bunch of torni players had just finished their melee matches and were playing for fun. I joined in and rocked em in a 4 way FFA match a couple of times on various stages, until they picked the F-Zero stage where you fight on the cars. Needless to say I got my ass kicked but it was all in good fun and we had a good laugh =)

[Kairon]

Tolerance! With items, without items, with selected items, 1 vs 1, 4 vs 4, random stage, picked stage... it's all good, and none is better than the other!

[Sarail]

"If you can dodge the hammer, you can dodge a pro player."

I stand by it.  

[EasyCure]

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Tolerance! With items, without items, with selected items, 1 vs 1, 4 vs 4, random stage, picked stage... it's all good, and none is better than the other!

Also QFT

I know my post seemed hostile but it wasn't my intent. Also Mashiro i didn't mean to sound like i was attacking you buy using your quote. If you thought i was calling you an arse, i apologies.

its just i'm sick of the boneheads i've had to deal with for competition because they never want to lighten up. Melee permanently became stuck up their rectums and ruined the game for me. i used to love a good dual as much as the next guy but i can't deal with it anymore. I only play 1v1 one when i have no choice, either we play the game buy those stupid rules or not play at all. And some times you just have to get your Smash on so i deal.
it's just become so boring. If you cant enjoy the game whats tin point of playing? even if i'm competing i try to have some fun. I honestly don't know how i feel about Smash being online because part of its appeal is sitting down with friends and trash talking and i don't think i'd get the same feeling playing someone online. It wouldn't matter if it were 1v1 or a 4player brawl, or against a stranger or a friend, i don't think it can capture the fun vibe. A 2 on 2 game with a buddy by my side vs someone else could be fun but i don't see that happening often since i've separated myself from most of my smash circle (because they're the ones that take it too serious).

If the game does have online i hope for more than just 1v1 battles because i'd like to enjoy ALL types of matches. With that said i hope i get to face off with most of you this december

[anubis6789]

Quote
Originally posted by: Mashiro
For my Randomness =/= skill remark, I stand by it. Though I should clarify that that does not include stages. I think a pro match should be able to be held on any stage.

I am not trying to attack you or anything, but I just do not follow your logic. You treat randomness and skill as mutually exclusive, but that is not the case. Pro golfers have to deal with changing wind, Football players (North American) have to deal with adverse weather, poker players have to deal with the hand they are dealt, and in BF2142 players have to deal with being spawned right in front of a hostel Walker. Its all about adapting or dying, and adaption is a skill which the current tournament rules do not test as much as they could. I will concede that surviving in a random, harsh environment does not automatically make one skillful, but neither does surviving in a sterile, fair environment.

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Tolerance! With items, without items, with selected items, 1 vs 1, 4 vs 4, random stage, picked stage... it's all good, and none is better than the other!

I would just like to say that I have no problem with how people play the game for fun, but what I am actually arguing is that the current tournament rules should not be held up as the only way to truly play SSB as a "pro". If fencing can have three recognized professional forms then why is it so far a stretch to say that SSB cannot have more then one?

I actually think that the unwillingness in the pro smash community to have a different rule set, even in tandem with the old one, may come from the fact that those who are in power, the Pro players, are so entrenched and have spent so much time using the current rules that the mere idea of change and having to share their Pro status with upstarts that do not follow the same rules both disgusts and scares them , either consciously or subconsciously. I would like to add that this is more of a generalization of the smash community as a whole, and does not pertain to every individual that is apart of the smash community, remember that group think is wrong, no matter what end it is used from, but from my personal experience the "my way is the only way" belief is adopted by most of the Smash community that I have dealt with and, up until participating in this forum, I have not found any Smash players who would even humor the idea of another set of rules that one would also consider to be professional. Keep in mind that I do not want the old rules to be abandoned, I just would like to see another set of rules that would be used at the same time and would also be given the status of professional.

[Kairon]

I completely agree with your assessment of such people.

Personally, I believe tournaments should be held under all sorts of different conditions. They could have certain sections with items, without, on random stages, on specific stages, even with particular hand-picked items! The beauty of Smash showed be showed off by the mutability of its conditions, and players should be celebrated for being well-rounded, not just obsessively skilled.

[anubis6789]

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
I completely agree with your assessment of such people.

Personally, I believe tournaments should be held under all sorts of different conditions. They could have certain sections with items, without, on random stages, on specific stages, even with particular hand-picked items! The beauty of Smash showed be showed off by the mutability of its conditions, and players should be celebrated for being well-rounded, not just obsessively skilled.

This is a trap isn't it? No one just agrees with me like that... do they...?

[Kairon]

I don't think I have nearly as much experience in the wider smash community as you do, for one, but I actually started typing up an "I do not agree, I think etc." post that I discovered was merely rephrasing what you already said.

[Stogi]

Fighting with no items is the best way to see raw skill. Items tend to help the player and that is a handicap (plus quicker players tend to get more items).

With no items, players fight to the best of their abilities with no x factors.

[Kairon]

I can accept that to a certain extent, but items also tend to test a player's adaptive skills and thinking on the go because the situation isn't static but changes with the inevitable introduction of new factors. Additionally, characters use items in different and unique ways, adding an additional element of mastery that players need to demonstrate. There's no question that in a one-on-one, my best friend must use items differently as Sheik than I do as Pikachu, and demonstrate skill and knowledge in that respect.

[Stogi]

Well that's all true to a certain point, but even then your omitting some items (i.e. the star and/or heart). That little act of segregation breeds a whole new topic: what items are fair and what items are not.

Getting rid of them all is the only reasonable conclusion, and by default, is the only way to consistently judge a person's skill.

Or, of course, the exact opposite.

[Mashiro]

Quote
Originally posted by: KashogiStogi
Fighting with no items is the best way to see raw skill. Items tend to help the player and that is a handicap (plus quicker players tend to get more items).

With no items, players fight to the best of their abilities with no x factors.

/agreed

[anubis6789]

Quote
Originally posted by: KashogiStogi
Fighting with no items is the best way to see raw skill. Items tend to help the player and that is a handicap (plus quicker players tend to get more items).

With no items, players fight to the best of their abilities with no x factors.

I will say that fighting with no items may show how well someone would fight just using the character themselves, but if you were to add items then that scenario would require a different SKILL set, it would still take skill, just different skill then fighting with no items. Also what is funny is that with items on, current low tier characters are much more dangerous, like Mewtwo and Bowser, in fact one could say that items are a balancing factor and by taking them out of the game you are in effect disrupting the balance of the game. Perhaps Sakurai and his team factor in items as part of the balancing system in which case the current rules would always make the game seem unbalanced, or even broken, in the eyes of the pros.

Another possible balancing factor maybe the number of players in a match. I feel that a few characters are more suited for "crowed-control" than for dealing with just one other player.

So in effect I am saying that if characters are balanced with these things in mind, are you not giving the characters who were designed to not need items for things like range an X factor by default?

[Mashiro]

Quote
know my post seemed hostile but it wasn't my intent. Also Mashiro i didn't mean to sound like i was attacking you buy using your quote. If you thought i was calling you an arse, i apologies

Oh it's alright I didn't think you were attacking me, I really meant for those other arses to chill =)


Also it should be important to note I would have no problem playing in a tournament style game of Melee with items on and such, in fact I find it easier to win that way, I just feel like it makes it too easy sometimes. Hence why I personally prefer more official style matches to be held in the more "standard" way. Furthermore, too many people end up crying with items on (in my experience) and with a 1v1 setting of no items it just makes it more clear that the person lost because well they couldn't handle the battle at hand rather than "oh you got lucky cause the heart fell by you" or some stupid stuff.

[Stogi]

How can Bowser possibly be better when items are on? He's slow; making it hard for him to race his opponent. He's big; making him a pretty easy target.

He's slow and big.

[Mikintosh]

Quote
Originally posted by: KashogiStogi
How can Bowser possibly be better when items are on? He's slow; making it hard for him to race his opponent. He's big; making him a pretty easy target.

He's slow and big.

And he doesn't have much range, but most of the offensive weapons are either throwable or have a longer reach than Bowser can easily manage. While Bowser's still a little too clumsy (same with DK), the items help make him competitive in the frenetic atmosphere in a way that he can't function in otherwise; Mewtwo's just a floaty goof, always.

Man, it's late.

[anubis6789]

Quote
Hence why I personally prefer more official style matches to be held in the more "standard" way.

More "Official"? By who's standards? Those who are already good at fighting with the "official" rules? And would not the "Standard" way be the way that the game is setup when you first turn it on? It seems to me that items have time taken to design and implement into the game, and they keep putting them on by default. Why do some characters have special attributes with certain items while others do not, such as the length of the Beam Saber when used? To me it clearly says that items are in fact part of the balancing of the game, and by most peoples definition a more balanced game is the better game.

In a lot of ways the constant reimplementation of items is in fact a snub, on the developers part, in the pro players direction.

Quote
Furthermore, too many people end up crying with items on (in my experience) and with a 1v1 setting of no items it just makes it more clear that the person lost because well they couldn't handle the battle at hand rather than "oh you got lucky cause the heart fell by you" or some stupid stuff.

What ever happed to the phrase "Sucks to be you"? Seriously though that can be remedied with a best 2 out of 3 match setup, or by using timed matches, but things like that should only become a problem in a match where there are very close equally skilled players, but in that case the game would still come down to who screwed up less, item or not.

BTWI hope you do not think that I am attacking Mashiro, it is that I may just come off that way. Like I said, I love to argue.

And Thank you, Mikintosh, for saving me the typing on explaining what I meant with Bowser, but to me it is quite early.

[Mashiro]

Quote
More "Official"? By who's standards?

By the standards of those who play on an international level and are give thousands of dollars of prize cash for winning in said tournaments =)

[Bill Aurion]

"Fighting with no items is the best way to see raw skill. Items tend to help the player and that is a handicap (plus quicker players tend to get more items)."

Wrong, wrong, WRONG...Considering there isn't a single designated spawn point for items, there is absolutely no way a single player can monopolize all the items on the map...And if you have trouble fighting someone who is using items against you, you don't have a right to consider yourself "pro" in the first place...

You are basically saying "Fighting without items is skill" and then are turning around and saying "Items are luck," without realizing it takes skill not only to utilize items to your advantage, but also skill to deal with how your opponents themselves utilize them...

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: KashogiStogi
Getting rid of them all is the only reasonable conclusion, and by default, is the only way to consistently judge a person's skill.

Or, of course, the exact opposite.

I prefer the opposite.