SynikaL, post: 6817228, member: 3272 wrote:
You might have watched some Melee matches, but judging by your pos,t and this line in particular, you likely just played Brawl. Everything you just posted is awful in more ways than one.
SynikaL, post: 6817268, member: 3272 wrote:
I'm not defensive regarding Smash, or even Melee - I'm defensive against bad opinions. I'm pretty sure Melee had its largest tournament ever just last year (Genesis, maybe? Not sure, don't pay attention to the scene much anymore). Alphazealot suggests numbers are strong for the game in general, still, with many tournaments throughout the year. I doubt 3rd Strike at the height of its popularity even compared.
How relevant to the FG scene Melee (or even Brawl) is to the scene at large - is irrelevant. Especially in consideration for how self-sustained they are.
Brawl is such a bad game, I don't even consider it cannon. I always make sure to mention I'm referring to Melee whenever talking about Smash.
ViolentDjango, post: 6817289, member: 43185 wrote:
Just saying that, unfortunately, Brawl is Smash Bros for the average person these days.
ViolentDjango, post: 6817289, member: 43185 wrote:
First, there's no such thing as a "bad" opinion, there can be uneducated opinions -- but that assumes the opinion references the pertinent information in some way or would otherwise benefit from it. The fact that Melee had a big tournament last year doesn't really equate much to what I'm trying to say...
I've never said anything about Smash not being a popular series, and I've said nothing against Melee as the hallmark of the game's quality -- but when the average person thinks of Smash, Brawl is the game that comes to mind, purely because its the most recent -- Numbers be damned. If people cared about numbers then Brawl probably would never have been played in a single tournament.
Just saying that, unfortunately, Brawl is Smash Bros for the average person these days. And the only reason I brought up the Third Strike example was not to try to goat some "Street Fighter is better and more popular comparison" comparison, but to point out that, for example, the last sentence of your last post is EXACTLY something someone would say about Third Strike compared to AE, because arguably, Third Strike is the technically superior game. Just meant to point out that the comparison was parallel in terms of quality among people who know what they are talking about.
sanchaz1, post: 6817298, member: 54487 wrote:
Bullshit. Melee is the game for a smash player.
ViolentDjango, post: 6817350, member: 43185 wrote:
Average person =/= Smash player...
I'm not going to bother with trying to re-explain any of this again...
SynikaL, post: 6788845, member: 3272 wrote:
To suggest that the Nintendo branding is the only reason the game was popular is simple-minded and plain wrong.
ph00tbag, post: 6819985, member: 64083 wrote:
ViolentDjango, I really do think that you're the one that's just plain not getting it. In fact, I have a hard time believing at all that you got all that deep because just from reading your posts, it seems pretty clear that you're stumbling on a fundamental point to SynikaL's posts, which anyone who has come to any remotely deep understanding of the mechanics and gameplay of Smash games can tell you: Melee and Brawl are wholly different games. They share the same fundamental goal of removing an opponents options of avoiding the blast zone, but their way of crafting gameplay around that goal is different in an almost innumerable number of ways.
That you don't grasp this fact that all dedicated smashers, even Brawl players, confirm, is evident in the fact that you continue to insist that all Smash games can be thrown under the umbrella term, Smash Bros.
Basically, I'm sure if you were explicitly dismissive of Brawl, there wouldn't be as many people calling you out. The issue is that you seem to think Melee is the same game as Brawl, and you dismiss it out of hand. The point is that Melee, although intended as a game for young adults to dick around with at parties, is in fact, very deep and highly competitive. Maybe it doesn't have what you want, but that doesn't mean lumping it with Brawl doesn't do it a huge disservice.
I don't really insult, Smash Brothers, but after quitting it and switching to proper fighting games I no longer have respect for it. They all have their valuable points in competitive depth, but honestly, the game as a whole just doesn't do it for me after I learned to play real fighting games.
LordLocke, post: 6829588, member: 344 wrote:
It's not too hard to figure out- Super Smash Bros. and it's sequels were fun. Still are, outside of it's current scene. It's not surprising a scene was created around the game because it's got a major built-in audience, is basically the definition of 'easy to learn, hard to master,' and is both very flashy and very technical at the same time. It took years of gaming history and shoved it into one package that just hit all the right notes. The Smash games reeks of fanservice and polish and joy and flair and depth to explore, but most importantly, the Smash games were just a huge blast to play, especially with other people who truly and genuinely loved the game- much like any other competitive fighter. No sane person would spend the time it would take to consistently perform actions like L-canceling (a technique required to be performed virtually every time you used a jumping attack to be competitive) if there was not a genuine passion for the game, and no bad game could inspire that kind of passion in so many people.
I was there when what would be the first major breakout of the scene first started up- in Northern California, the spring after Melee launched. The Tournament Go series, the Bay Area Biweeklies, etc. Back when the game was new, the player base was open minded, and it about playing some Smash Brothers and not playing the 'right' ruleset for it or the 'most competitive' stage selection- partially because there was not one for the time, but mostly because they wanted to keep Smash intact. Over a year came and went, and the most radical changes to the game were the removal of stages that had obvious horrific flaws for competitive play- Icicle Mountain for it's ability to kill heavy characters with a random speed-up (It could rise faster then Bowser or DK could keep up with- if they were already low on the screen they were dead), Yoshi Island 64 for cloud camping,
But then the major question came up- what would it take to get Smash Bros. recognized by the greater fighting game community?
The answer should have been one that's basically been adopted by both the Smash and greater Fighting Game community these days for spite instead of acceptance- 'Who cares? Let's play our game!' But at the time Smash was starting to outgrow it's britches. Melee tournaments were going from local affairs to inter-state to national to finally international- as early as 2003 players from Europe were already coming over for events, by 2004 Japan was coming too. And the guys behind Tournament Go were looking at trying to convince Evo to host Smash for the first time for Evo 2004. But the outside was not sold on the game. Weren't sure the scene had matured enough. Wasn't sure the game had competitive depth. They needed to be sold on Smash as an actual fighting game, and left it to the Smash community to go out and do it.
And so starting Summer 2004, people began talking rulesets- some communities had already adapted a no item, limited stage selection like New York, while others like NorCal had only banned the bare minimum to keep the game competitive without being totally broken. After a lot of debate, the scene for a while tried to put out a somewhat unified face in terms of ruleset in an attempt to get itself taken seriously- one that tried to absolutely minimize the random factors and player vs environment factors of the game to focus as greatly on the one-on-one aspect of the game as it could- ironic, the actions they first took to reach out beyond their community and draw the interest of other fighting games groups would wind up forming the mindset that would wind up ostracizing the Smash community from both it's casual fanbase AND other fighting game communities. Some, like myself, slowly splintered off from the community during this time, but many many more trickled in- happy to know the game they lapped up so eagerly on their sofas with friends on slow weekends was actually becoming serious business and wanted to help push it into becoming a real breakout success.
The rest, of course, is history. Evo finally gave Melee it's shot in 2007 to some moderate success, and invited the Smash guys back to help break in their new game that turned into the community wedge that was Brawl @ Evo 2k8- ironically enough, because this time Shoryuken and Evo wanted to test out the new game in it's fullest while the Smash community, who years prior cobbled together as minimal a ruleset as possible to get themselves invited to Evo in the first place, were confused why SRK didn't just want to grandfather in Melee's proven rule list. But by then Smash wasn't just another up-and-coming community- it was a huge and unique beast all it's own, unlike anything that had really come before or has risen up since. So it wandered off and still continues to really do it's own thing, drawing in new faces every so often that want to have their favorite Nintendo characters beat each other up in a brawling game that offers a genuinely unique experience that isn't really offered anywhere else.
LordLocke, post: 6848370, member: 344 wrote:
The question must be asked- would a lot of these strategies be still problematic without Meta Knight? The community at large seems to think yes (AKA, ledge grab limits and delay of game rules would still exist without Meta Knight)
ph00tbag, post: 6849072, member: 64083 wrote:
I have to interject here. This is actually a point that is still hotly debated, and if the number of players in the community who wanted to ban Metaknight as of the last poll on the topic is any indicator, the majority of the community seems to disagree with you.
The issue is really that it's not a plurality. Whether MK is banned or not, effectively half the community is up in arms about it.
Usually when the topic comes up, I ask people why they don't just play Melee.
LordLocke, post: 6848370, member: 344 wrote:
Metaknight is an easy issue if you compare his role to other banned characters in other games.
Is is very good? Yes. Is he the best character in the game? Very much so.
Is he anywhere near unbeatable? No. He has one or two fights that are considered even and a lot of matchups with the upper tiers that are judged only marginally advantaged to MK. He probably lacks a solidly disadvantaged matchup, but he's not a dominant force to the degree that if you don't pick him, you will lose to him unless you are far more skilled then your opponent. So the SSF2T Akuma angle is out.
Is he the most centralizing character in the metagame? (aka the Pokemon-style ban argument that for some reason people love to throw around on Smashboards despite it being borderline troll logic when applied directly to a fighting game.) ...this one is tougher (due a lot to the weirdness of applying it to a 1v1 fighting game with a competitive roster probably around 20ish instead of a 3v3/6v6 battle RPG with even the ranks of competitive characters leveling in at around 60+), and a lot of problems with Brawl have been emphasized and exaggerated by Meta Knight. Planking. Scrooging. Sharking. Evasive stalling, off the stage stalling... other characters can do that stuff, but MK can as well, and is among the best at it while still being one of the strongest characters in a straight-up fight as well. A lot of the 'tactical bans' that Brawl has had come out during it's life are due either directly or theoretically to Meta Knight. The question must be asked- would a lot of these strategies be still problematic without Meta Knight? The community at large seems to think yes (AKA, ledge grab limits and delay of game rules would still exist without Meta Knight) and if that's the case, then he's not centralizing in this aspect- these tactics would still be restricted/banned/competitively restrictive with Meta Knight or without him and are more issues about design elements of Brawl itself or design elements present in multiple characters. So, the question moves on to character matchups? Does the presence of Meta Knight greatly limit the competitive variety of the character roster by holding down a significant portion of the cast by himself?
There are not a lot of characters who are 'viable except for Meta Knight.'- not having an awful Meta Knight matchup is important, but all taking Meta Knight out of the metagame does is make the game a little easier for everyone else- a lot of the characters who had a really bad time with MK have a really bad time with multiple members of the top tier. Ike won't suddenly rise in position without Meta Knight- he still has problems with the Olimar and Dedede too. Shiek still has some pretty bad matchups with Ice Climbers and Pikachu. ROB's still got a brick wall named Falco in his way. Pit still lacks anything better then an even matchup against anyone in the top three tiers- losing his marginally-worse MK matchup is not going to catapult him up any positions. The sole exception, IIRC, is Peach, and a solid character having competitive problems due to a single awful matchup is not a new thing for Brawl (just talk to any Donkey Kong or Fox main about King Dedede or Pikachu, respectively) All removing Meta Knight from the game really does is make the top tier of the game one character smaller without a whole lot of new faces suddenly becoming viable.
His best analog out there is probably vanilla SF4 Sagat- a dominant force who lacked any bad matchups and had a lot of advantages, but was still very much in the realm of possible to deal with. IMO, that's not ban-worthy, since banning him adds little to the game while removing an entire character from it.