Super Smash Bros.: The one with Ridley in it

[SaintCrazy]

Again, I think the balance of the game itself gave rise to this whole situation. I don't want to say it wasn't "meant" for competitive play. As competitive gaming as a whole goes, though, SSB isn't one of the better ones. It does have a unique playstyle compared to other fighting games, but at the cost of having to limit the game immensely.

I don't have a problem with how anyone plays anything, really. But in my opinion it doesn't seem fun to take out so many parts of a game to make it viably balanced that it's basically a completely different game. But you know, opinions.

[Shad]

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.

Okay, I understand that, however I think blaming the competitive community for things they have no control over is silly. As I said you'll have idiots in any community. Blame them for being idiots.

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.

The tier lists affects what characters players pick in a very marginal way, most top player stick with the characters they liked in the first place. I can think of a few players that did switch to MetaKnight or have at least a "pocket" MetaKnight for bad match-ups, but they're not the majority in tournaments. Competitive players like fun too, and a lot of them don't find MetaKnight fun to play as. It's true that most characters you'll see in tournaments are in the higher tiers of the tier-list, but the tier-list is a result of that, not the other way around.

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.

The game lets you turn items off, so the game created that situation. The no-items rule was not created through some kind of trickery by the players: it was put in the game by the development team. They created that balance.

[Nap1000]

Oh great, this discussion.

Look, the reason that most tournament players prefer to have items off is that it adds an element of randomness to a match that they don't want. You have to understand that these people are playing for cheddar, and to lose your cheddar because some guy managed to get a fan or a bomb spawned while you attacked isn't exactly fair for a competitive environment. There's always an element of luck when it comes to these things, sure, but something like that which is the fault of the game rather than the players doesn't exactly constitute to a good competitive match.

And, as mentioned before, the developers gave players the option to turn items off. They wouldn't have done that if they didn't want players to have some freedom of choice when it comes to these things, now would they?

As for tiers, just because a character is at the highest tier doesn't mean every character who isn't god tier is going to be excluded. And just because two players are of equal skill and the matchup isn't in their favor does not mean the match is one-sided. It's theoretical tiers as opposed to experimental tiers. Think of it this way: when you flip a coin, you have a 50/50 chance of getting heads or tails. Does that mean when you flip the coin 100 times you're going to get heads 50 times and tails 50 times? No, as the actual experimental outcomes differ from the theoretical outcomes. Same kind of thing when it comes to matchups in fighting games. Just because the matchup for Marth against Jigglypuff is 6-4 (correct me if I'm wrong) does not mean that for every 10 rounds Marth wins 6 and Jigglypuff wins 4. Experimental matchups differ highly from theoretical matchups.

And honestly, any person who tries to push their view of NO ITEMS FOX ONLY FINAL DESTINATION on you is likely a poser trying to be a competitive player. Never take those kinds of people seriously.

[Shad]

The Marth vs Jigglypuff match-up on Brawl is believe to be 8-2 in Marth' favour as far as I know. Jigglypuff is pretty bad in Brawl. In Melee, the match-up is believed to be 6-4 in Jigglypuff's favour.
And really, competitive players prefer to play with items off because they find it more fun, not just for cheddar.

[Nap1000]

I was referring to Melee, not Brawl. Sorry for not clarifying.

I only bring up the cheddar thing because while I know that's not the only factor when it comes to this, it's a pretty significant part. I find playing without items more fun myself as well, I'm just mentioning another reason that some people might not take into account.

[Shad]

Yeah, that's true. However, some competitive games do rely on some randomness, such as card games.

[Madican]

Honestly I think a competitive game should have at least some random elements, otherwise it becomes predictable.

[Shad]

Huh? What? That's what the players are here for, man. They're the ones making every match different.

[Madican]

I don't consider the players as a random element in a fighting game because, given they are all of the same skill, they tend to know what their opponents' character will do and they know how to deal with it. It becomes a slightly more complicated version of Rock Paper Scissors.

The randomness needs to be inherent in the game mechanics for me, whether a board or video game.

[Shoolis]

Third Party character ideas:

The orange m&m
Brad from gym class
Launchpad from Ducktales
Final Fantasy character
Balloons

[hotb]

I don't consider the players as a random element in a fighting game because, given they are all of the same skill, they tend to know what their opponents' character will do and they know how to deal with it. It becomes a slightly more complicated version of Rock Paper Scissors.

The randomness needs to be inherent in the game mechanics for me, whether a board or video game.

Why? Because without a random chance of the other person exploding you'll lose if they're more skilled?

If they know what the other person will do then the other person just has to do something else, it's called improvisation.

[Madican]

No, it's just a whole lot more fun when there's a chance of random explosion for anyone. Some of my favorite Smash matches have ended with my carefully timed strike intercepting a newly materialized Bob-omb. It's hilarious and just part of the game to me, because it happens to everyone else too.

Doesn't even have to be explosion. The assist trophies can be plenty random, especially the Nintendog.

[hotb]

That's you playing with friends, we're talking about at a competitive level.

Obviously it's big laughs if that happens at home, it's not so funny when it fucks someone out of a tournament.

[Syobon]

I don't consider the players as a random element in a fighting game because, given they are all of the same skill, they tend to know what their opponents' character will do and they know how to deal with it. It becomes a slightly more complicated version of Rock Paper Scissors.

The randomness needs to be inherent in the game mechanics for me, whether a board or video game.

But randomness can only create so many situations, the experienced players still know how to deal with anything random that might occur. It doesn't fundamentally change the game, it just adds an unnecessary third element. What keeps a game interesting is a complex and naturally evolving metagame.

And to carry on your nonsensical analogy, your way would just be Rock Paper Scissors where Rock sometimes beats Paper.

[YCobb]

Personally, I think the competitive Smash Bros community is dumb because the game is never balanced. With items, it can be unfair in situations like princess brothel described. Without items, the character balances change because the nature of the fights is so heavily altered.

I'm not saying people shouldn't play it competitively, but they could do much better.