AWKWARD ZOMBIE

Fuck tiers I play as Ness whenever I want

Tiers don't prevent anyone from playing any character they want to play…

I can kind of appreciate why it has been done, but I still don't like the way that the competitive community has deconstructed SSB/Brawl to such an extent as it has.

In regard to not using items, I've personally always considered the items - and the 'skilled' use thereof - to be a fundamental part of the game, so to talk about an individual's 'skill' in using a specific SSB/Brawl character, but to completely ignore that individual's 'skill' in using items seems like a half measure of their ability as a SSB/Brawl player.

Accommodating the randomness of items - what item might appear, when it might appear and where it might appear - is a skill in itself, so removing items from competitive matches because they "Have nothing to do with a player's skill." is something that will never really set right with me.

A perfect example of this is considering how differently Sonic plays in a match with items and in a match without items. I understand he's a low-tier character in the competitive mindset because his moves lack smash power - but his character was created that way because of his ability to reach items faster than any other character in the game. So for characters like Sonic - created with those considerations in mind - removing the items from competitive play immediately skews the Brawl roster in a way that the games' developers never intended.

And then - doesn't removing items from play also give an unfair advantage to characters who have weapons as part of their base moveset (Link's bombs, Peach's turnips, Wario's bike, etc.)? It especially doesn't add up when you consider those characters and how removing randomly-generated items from play gives them an 'unfair' advantage over other characters.

Items (including the randomness in regard to items) are part of the spirit of the game - and I don't think the way the competitive community plays SSB/Brawl reflects in any way that spirit or the developers' intentions.


Anyway, that was my own little rant on the subject. I personally don't like the way the competitive community plays the game, but I find it's just easier to let the competitive players play the game their way and not let that influence the way I do.

DoNotDelete wrote:In regard to not using items, I've personally always considered the items - and the 'skilled' use thereof - to be a fundamental part of the game, so to talk about an individual's 'skill' in using a specific SSB/Brawl character but to completely ignore that individual's 'skill' in using items seems like a half measure of their ability as a SSB/Brawl player.

Why would a player care about being good at using items if he has fun playing without items? People that play like that understand that the game wasn't designed as competitive but they do not care because that is how they have fun with the game. That the game lets people play without items means it is a legitimate way to play and enjoy the game. Competitive play not reflecting the intention of the game's creators doesn't matter. It's not the player's role to conform to what the game designers wanted.

DoNotDelete wrote:And then - doesn't removing items from play also give an unfair advantage to characters who have weapons as part of their base moveset (Link's bombs, Peach's turnips, Wario's bike, etc.)? It especially doesn't add up when you consider those characters and how removing items gives them an advantage over other characters.

These are part of the characters, and art of their tools, yes, but unlike spawning items, these are (for the most part) not random. This advantage isn't fairer or more unfair than any other move in the game. If you start thinking these are unfair, then you might as well say that Falco having a blaster is an unfair advantage since not all characters can fire lasers, etc. Besides, these advantage are negligible when it comes to the other strengths of these characters (or lack thereof, as Link is one of the worst characters in a no items setting).

I still think the best way to play SSB is All Random, Random Stage, max items. I might be mega-casual in that regard but it really equallizes things between players of different skill level. (plus its also hilarious)

Which, by the way, is the whole point of anything random in a multiplayer game - to make the gap between skilled and unskilled players less noticable. That's the exact opposite of what a competitive game wants to do, though. I find it odd that SSB has a competitive scene at all when other fighting games are balanced around that mindset much more than SSB is.

But yeah I guess if you have fun playing All Fox No Items Final Destination, go for it. I don't understand why you would want to, but whatever. Too many restrictions for me, makes the game much more bland than it really is.

SaintCrazy wrote:But yeah I guess if you have fun playing All Fox No Items Final Destination, go for it. I don't understand why you would want to, but whatever. Too many restrictions for me, makes the game much more bland than it really is.

Bear in mind that scenario is really just a caricature of the competitive community - as Great Handsome Oppressor has said in the past it's not really how the majority of the competitive community play the game (it is funny though).


@Great Handsome Oppressor:

I totally respect the way individual people choose to play the game, but I'm allowed to have a moan about the competitive community as well.

Okay, so people who don't want to play the game with items can turn them off - that's fine, but the thing is - the way the competitive community is set up with the non-items rule it means that they outright exclude people who prefer to play with items.

You can't make an argument for playing without items being a 'legitimate' way of play when at the same time you're excluding people from competition who play the game with items.

That also creates a situation where people who want to compete have to drop the use of items and play the game a different way "Because that's the way the 'professionals' play the game." - so they turn their noses up at items matches and start to look down on people who play the game the way it was developed.

There's also a trickle-down into the non-competitive SSB/Brawl community - you get people saying stuff like "If you play with items you're not really a skilled player." and other crap like that - people who refuse to accept a loss because of a random Bob-omb spawning (you must know the kind of person I'm talking about).

All I'm saying is, the competitive community - though it may not intend to - does put indirect pressure on the casual circuit, making the SSB/Brawl experience unpleasant for some people.

Surely - for these reasons - you can also see how the competitive community creates a distortion in the way the game is perceived by the more general gaming community - and also the reasons why a lot of people dislike the competitive SSB/Brawl community because of that?

I get the feel that that dislike often comes from direct interactions with those players.

I don't own SSBB. Sometimes, I play it at a friends house. I have one friend who owns it that is really good with Ness, and will stubbornly refuse to play anything but Ness. Meanwhile, since I don't play the game very often, I'm not particularly good with anybody (woohoo button mashing). So of course he's going to win every time, because he has a different mindset about the game than I do - that mindset being winning at any cost is more important and rewarding than making the game fun for everyone.

Now, he's by no means a competitive-level player, but its the same kind of interaction that happens between non-competitive and competitive. As a result, these two groups of players are completely seperate from each other; they play the games in entirely different ways and enjoy it for entirely different reasons. When one person tries to make the other totally overhaul their way of playing, of course there's going to be some frustration there.

This happens all the time, with all sorts of games. Someone brought up Pokemon as an example - I think the differences between competitive and mainstream play aren't as drastic, but there's still a big divide going on there. Whenever two people have different ideas about how to make a game fun, and then try to share the same space, they're going to clash. The main difference is, 'competitive' players are more likely to enforce their playstyle onto mainstream players, out of the belief that it is the "better" way to play, while the mainstream players mostly just want to play however they want.

DoNotDelete wrote:I can kind of appreciate why it has been done, but I still don't like the way that the competitive community has deconstructed SSB/Brawl to such an extent as it has.

That's just what people tend to do with any popular videogame man.

DND wrote:Okay, so people who don't want to play the game with items can turn them off - that's fine, but the thing is - the way the competitive community is set up with the non-items rule it means that they outright exclude people who prefer to play with items.

They're not excluding people who want to play with items. You look at the community as one homogenous entity, it's not. There are just people who get together and organise tournaments and set their own rules. That's not exclusion. There have been competitive tournaments with items on as well.

@Saint Crazy, to explain why some people prefer to play with items off: items off focuses the gameplay purely on the characters and their unique and complex interacting mechanics. Some people find that items detract from that, and that the game starts to revolve too much around grabbing items first with them on. They also find that a competition should revolve around the interactions of two players, and that the random element inherent to items detracts from that. Also, the random element can kill suspense for some, because the game becomes too 'unpredictable' in a sense. Comebacks are usually the most exciting part of a competition, but they're much less impressive when they're not the result of a player's action but instead the figurative roll of a dice. This also leads to a sense of unfairness, when a 'deserved' win slips away through bad luck.

The main difference is, 'competitive' players are more likely to enforce their playstyle onto mainstream players, out of the belief that it is the "better" way to play, while the mainstream players mostly just want to play however they want.

Nah, see in your own example you have probably tried to convince your friend to play your way as well, because you think it's more fun or you don't enjoy getting your booty kicked. The inverse is just as likely to happen. People are just headstrong that way, thinking there's a 'right' way to play a game.

Syobon wrote:

DoNotDelete wrote:Okay, so people who don't want to play the game with items can turn them off - that's fine, but the thing is - the way the competitive community is set up with the non-items rule it means that they outright exclude people who prefer to play with items.

They're not excluding people who want to play with items. You look at the community as one homogenous entity, it's not. There are just people who get together and organise tournaments and set their own rules. That's not exclusion. There have been competitive tournaments with items on as well.

Given, but surely the communities that are oriented around non-item play do exclude people who prefer to play with items?

Syobon wrote:...items off focuses the gameplay purely on the characters and their unique and complex interacting mechanics. Some people find that items detract from that, and that the game starts to revolve too much around grabbing items first with them on. They also find that a competition should revolve around the interactions of two players, and that the random element inherent to items detracts from that. Also, the random element can kill suspense for some, because the game becomes too 'unpredictable' in a sense. Comebacks are usually the most exciting part of a competition, but they're much less impressive when they're not the result of a player's action but instead the figurative roll of a dice. This also leads to a sense of unfairness, when a 'deserved' win slips away through bad luck.

But at the same time the competitive community has created a situation - with the tiered characters - where only a restricted number of characters are used in competition - surely that would bore as many people as the suspense would excite?

Also some people find the randomness entertaining - and situations where people are dealt a bad hand (in regard to items) and how they come back from that can be as entertaining as the situation(s) you have outlined.

I mean - say one player loses two stock to his opponent's lucky Pokeball draws - yet still somehow manages to claw his way back from that and win the match - wouldn't that be tremendously entertaining? Needless to say it's a mark on that player's ability to deal with items too.

Syobon wrote:

The main difference is, 'competitive' players are more likely to enforce their playstyle onto mainstream players, out of the belief that it is the "better" way to play, while the mainstream players mostly just want to play however they want.

Nah, see in your own example you have probably tried to convince your friend to play your way as well, because you think it's more fun or you don't enjoy getting your booty kicked. The inverse is just as likely to happen. People are just headstrong that way, thinking there's a 'right' way to play a game.

That's fair, although I still find a significant difference between using restrictions to say "this is the only correct way to play the game" and saying "can't you just try something else for a change?"

SSB is somewhat unique in the magnitude of restrictions used in competitive play, I think. If there was more variety, more strategy, more unexpected things happening in competitive games, I'd be more likely to follow it. I'd like to see pros whipping out more "unpopular" characters. I want to see pros work with certain items for certain strategies, maybe with a few specific bans that the players can choose (isn't that how Items On tourneys work?). However, the game itself is just not balanced in a way that accomodates that reasonably, so there's not much that can be done about the situation, except maybe be hopeful about the next game's balance situation.

DND wrote:Given, but surely the communities that are oriented around non-item play do exclude people who prefer to play with items?

Well, that depends on how you view "exclude". Those item people aren't publicly shunned or anything, but tournaments aren't going to change their rules for a couple of people who want to play differently.

DND wrote:But at the same time the competitive community has created a situation - with the tiered characters - where only a restricted number of characters are used in competition - surely that would bore as many people as the suspense would excite?

You still do not seem to understand the purpose of a tier list. In a typical tournament, any one can use any character they want. It's just that higher tier characters are more common because more people think they are better.

DND wrote:Also some people find the randomness entertaining - and situations where people are dealt a bad hand (in regard to items) and how they come back from that can be as entertaining as the situation(s) you have outlined.

Those people are fully entitled to that opinion.

SaintCrazy wrote:SSB is somewhat unique in the magnitude of restrictions used in competitive play, I think.

Pokemon is pretty similar in that regard I think, even more restrictive even. TeamFortress 2 also has some very restrictive tournaments, as well as less restrictive ones.

DoNotDelete wrote:Surely - for these reasons - you can also see how the competitive community creates a distortion in the way the game is perceived by the more general gaming community - and also the reasons why a lot of people dislike the competitive SSB/Brawl community because of that?

No, I think that's blaming the competitive community for other people's shortcomings. Most competitive tournaments have items off because that's what the great majority of competitive players want in their tournaments. There are simply more competitive players that enjoy playing with items off, so it makes sense to have most events follow the rules they enjoy. That doesn't stop people who likes to play with items on from making their own events, they're simply less numerous or willing to create/ go to these events.
As for the people looking down on casual play? These are stupid fucks, and you'll find these in any and all communities. It has nothing to do with competitive Smash Bros. The quotes you used are strawman. The very great majority of competitive players know that playing with items is a valid way to play that is very fun and requires skills.
"Indirect pressure on the casual circuit"… It's a game. Competitive players play how they like to and bodaciously don't give a damn how you play. There is no pressure.

DoNotDelete wrote:Given, but surely the communities that are oriented around non-item play do exclude people who prefer to play with items?

Why should they turn items on to please the few people that want to play with them when the vast majority of competitive players want them off? Communities oriented around non-item play don't exclude anyone, anyone is free to join any tournament or discussion. What they don't want is the same thing you talked about: people questioning the way the play the game and calling it "inferior", "less fun", "illegitimate". These are very subjective opinions that only create drama. It boils down to this: Some people have fun playing one way and some people have fun playing in another way and that's fine. None is superior to the other. Why would you want "the community that plays with items off" to please "the people that play with items on", when these people can just play with guys from "the community that plays with items on"?

DoNotDelete wrote:But at the same time the competitive community has created a situation - with the tiered characters - where only a restricted number of characters are used in competition - surely that would bore as many people as the suspense would excite?

Entirely false, many characters outside of the higher tiers are still used regularly in both Brawl and Melee tournaments.

DoNotDelete wrote:Also some people find the randomness entertaining - and situations where people are dealt a bad hand (in regard to items) and how they come back from that can be as entertaining as the situation(s) you have outlined.

Yes, it's entertaining. However, most competitive players like it better when they don't have to roll a dice at all. They want to test their skills in a game they like (Smash Bros) with a controlled environment that leaves little place to chance (no items, neutral stages). Once again, neither way of playing is "superior", they're just aimed at different people.

SaintCrazy wrote:The main difference is, 'competitive' players are more likely to enforce their playstyle onto mainstream players, out of the belief that it is the "better" way to play, while the mainstream players mostly just want to play however they want.

That's completely untrue. Competitive players are more likely to organize tournaments for other competitive players, yes, however nothing is stopping anybody from creating tournaments with items on and all stages on. Competitive players enforcing their playstyle? You're imagining problems here. Once again, no competitive player cares if you play with items on and has fun doing so. It's widely accepted in the competitive community that Smash Bros with items on is very fun and is a very valid way to play the game. It's simply not how they themselves prefer to play the game.

SaintCrazy wrote:That's fair, although I still find a significant difference between using restrictions to say "this is the only correct way to play the game" and saying "can't you just try something else for a change?"

I'm repeating myself here, but only dumbasses would say something like that. This is not a mindset the competitive community accepts nor enforces, so blaming them for it is not right. I'll also repeat myself by saying that plenty of lower-tier characters are seen in tournaments.

Competitive players don't make tournaments to please the spectators or to please non-competitive players but for themselves. Isn't that normal? They make tournaments with rules they like to have fun with like-minded people. Why would they change that to accommodate for people with a different mindset, when these people can make their own events and play together?

The competitive community still gives these 'stupid fucks' a grounding on which to base their opinions (and arguments) in regards to items though.

The competitive community (even though it may not mean to) also creates a 'professional pedestal' for itself which many gamers will aspire toward - so there are real impacts that are felt by casual gamers; I'm a casual gamer and I have had to deal with the trickle-down effect - the quotes I've given are based on things people have actually said to me. Regardless of whether or not they're made by 'stupid fucks', those kinds of opinions have arguably been inspired - if only in part - by the competitive community. So there is a real impact felt by casual gamers; I've felt them.

Syobon wrote:

DoNotDelete wrote:But at the same time the competitive community has created a situation - with the tiered characters - where only a restricted number of characters are used in competition - surely that would bore as many people as the suspense would excite?

You still do not seem to understand the purpose of a tier list. In a typical tournament, any one can use any character they want. It's just that higher tier characters are more common because more people think they are better.

No that's exactly the point I was trying to make - characters becoming 'more common' in tournaments because more people think they are better; I personally don't see the appeal in that, but I'm not a spectator of these kind of things anyway.

Not being a spectator doesn't mean I don't feel the effects of competitive play though - as eluded to above - if I hadn't felt the effects why would I be having a moan at all?

The competitive community still gives these 'stupid fucks' a grounding on which to base their opinions (and arguments) in regards to items though.

Stupid fucks always find grounding for their idiocy, that doesn't affect the source. Hardline atheists often misuse science to prove their point, but that doesn't make the scientists in any way responsible.

No that's exactly the point I was trying to make - characters becoming 'more common' in tournaments because more people think they are better; I personally don't see the appeal in that - but I'm not a spectator of these kind of things anyway.

People use the characters they think are best because it's a competition and they're trying to win. You're essentially complaining that there are too few viable characters, and that is not the fault of the competitive community. And as Great Handsome Oppressor said there are still people that just use the characters they like.

Syobon wrote:

DoNotDelete wrote:No that's exactly the point I was trying to make - characters becoming 'more common' in tournaments because more people think they are better; I personally don't see the appeal in that - but I'm not a spectator of these kind of things anyway.

People use the characters they think are best because it's a competition and they're trying to win. You're essentially complaining that there are too few viable characters, and that is not the fault of the competitive community.

But the viability of characters in that competitive situation has been created by removing items from play - a situation the competitive community has created - so they are at fault.

That's the fault in the non-item competitive community - removing items from play skews the roster massively - because the roster was created with items in mind.


I'm detecting the makings of a circular argument here.