Super Smash Bros.: The one with Ridley in it

[Nap1000]

Items really don't do anything for balancing characters. The only reason the game might be more balanced with items on is because of the random factor that comes with the territory, making the game revolve more around the items than the characters. That's the primary reason competitive players prefer items off. They want the game to focus on characters, not items.

[DoNotDelete]

Hold on a second - there's more to items than you seem to be allowing for:

I'm not getting this "The game is balanced with items in mind" argument.

Balanced in what way? Besides speed there's nothing I can think of that could be altered to balance with items, besides reflection moves I guess, but everyone has a shield and a dodge so thrown items aren't such a big deal.

Items can be caught too - but dodging/catching/shielding items is a risky business that can backfire horribly (shield-bounced Bob-ombs/capsules can still KO you).

Items level the playing field to a degree - even with Pokeballs you're just as likely to be the person that gets a Groudon as you are to be the person that gets a Goldeen.

Items let you create your own dynamic around a specific character beyond their base moveset - for instance a Ray Gun doesn't really give a character with a blaster (or other projectile move) much of an advantage beyond what they already have, so a person playing as that kind of character would probably err on disposing of the Ray Gun or using it as a ballistic weapon (throwing it). Given the option of choosing between a Ray Gun or a Beam Sword, a blaster/projectile user would have to decide which item best serves the current battle.

Also you have regenerating health items such as the Maxim Tomato/Heart Tank which can be really annoying - but choosing between making a run for that kind of item or using it as an advantage/opening to drop a Smash on your opponent is what makes you a smart brawler.

Items create combat openings which can be exploited - situations which skilled (items-on) brawlers learn to read and predict. That's a whole dimension of 'skill' that items-off doesn't allow for.

The real thing with items is - barring characters that can reach them faster - they don't give a bias to any one character. Any character can throw a Bob-omb. Any character can swing a Home-Run Bat. Any character can plant a Proximity Mine. How those items are used in a fight is solely down to the skill of the human being holding the control pad - that kind of thing can't be tiered in the way the characters themselves can be.

Random Bob-ombs are just one of those things you learn to accept when you play with items on all the time.

DND, the way to resolve that is to let people play the way they want, which is exactly what players do by playing with items off or items on depending on what they like better.

I was never against letting people play the way they want to - it's just that the competitive community aspect throws up a lot of questions about SSB/Brawl that are interesting to debate every now and then.

[hotb]

The real thing with items is - barring characters that can reach them faster - they don't give a bias to any one character. Any character can throw a Bob-omb. Any character can swing a Home-Run Bat. Any character can plant a Proximity Mine. How those items are used in a fight is solely down to the skill of the human being holding the control pad - that kind of thing can't be tiered in the way the characters themselves can be.

So the game isn't balanced for items at all.

If like you say items are pure player skill, having them on or off makes no difference to the balance.

Ergo playing with them off is not "wrong"

[DoNotDelete]

When did I say playing with items off is wrong?

I only recall saying I didn't like the competitive SSB/Brawl community for placing their focus on items-off gameplay.

[Shad]

The game is not balanced with items on either. Many would say it's severely more unbalanced this way. Wavedashing was fun but the game doesn't need techniques of that kind to be competitive.

Though I had been figuring that the hardcore crowd, usually characterized as ultra-focused on tournaments, would be more concerned with the nature of play than on the mechanics itself?

That depends a lot on the tastes of each player. However, competitive play can be derived from any game, so the mechanics of a game are what makes you like or dislike how competitive play goes with the game.

DND, characters actually have different attack animations and start-up with home-run bats and other clobbering items, meaning that could lead to more imbalance. The thing is, saying that randomness evens out the playing field is not true. It may seem that way when you think about it, but actually playing with items doesn't give an even chance to get items for each player. The items spawn in a random order, at random spots and random times, meaning that in a match, a player could get a severe advantage with lucky item spawns. While it's very fun, that's not competitively sound. If items were distributed fairly to each character at fixed times, that would be competitively sound.

[Syobon]

DND, if I understand what you're saying is that items create an additional positional element in the game. While that is true, there already is a positional element in the game in the form of edge and ledge control, changing stages and stage hazards. Items on just periodically changes the optimal positioning, which is a good thing to some extent, but it doesn't add anything that isn't already there. It's true that you have to make a decision which item to go for, but those are usually pretty simple and straight-forward and don't add that much to the game. They still add something of course, but I don't feel it weighs up against the downsides I've mentioned before.

For argument's sake, though: if the hardcore players did have their way, I'd imagine the game would be built to work best with items disabled, so the game would be less balanced with them enabled.

The game is already imbalanced with items enabled though? I think you could make a good case that the game is actually better balanced with items off, since the top and high tier characters are already mobile and faster characters (with the exception of Snake who has the tools to make up for it), with imbaknight even being the most mobile of the bunch (I think). Turning items on would just further enlarge that gap.

Edit: I keep having to edit my posts because you people post so fast and I think some people are also editing their posts. I hope this doesn't cause any confusion.

[DoNotDelete]

DND, characters actually have different attack animations and start-up with home-run bats and other clobbering items, meaning that could lead to more imbalance. The thing is, saying that randomness evens out the playing field is not true. It may seem that way when you think about it, but actually playing with items doesn't give an even chance to get items for each player. The items spawn in a random order, at random spots and random times, meaning that in a match, a player could get a severe advantage with lucky item spawns. While it's very fun, that's not competitively sound. If items were distributed fairly to each character at fixed times, that would be competitively sound.

I'll give concessions/allowances for the need to turn items off in competitive play for the purposes of eliminating randomness.

However, I'll not concede that playing with items off is the best way to gauge somebody's skill at playing SSB/Brawl - playing with items on remains more of a test of a brawler's mettle (in my opinion).

[Shad]

Playing with items off is the best way to test someone's skills at playing with items off, that's all.

[YCobb]

I'd agree that it's more difficult to maintain control with items enabled, but I don't think that makes them a better way to test skill. The skills of individual players can be more reliably determined without items simply because their random nature necessarily obscures skill in many situations.

EDIT: Ah, I hadn't considered the point Great Handsome Oppressor just made. I suppose when I say skill I mean skills in the context of the absolute core gameplay, as in smashes and special moves and dodging and whatnot. Items, as I see it, are present in the game but aren't necessarily bound to its mechanics.

[DoNotDelete]

That's why I said it's my personal opinion that playing items-on is a better test of a brawler's skill/talent/whatever.

Items, as I see it, are present in the game but aren't necessarily bound to its mechanics.

Items had an influence on the mechanics/considerations of the roster so they kind of are bound to the game's mechanics as a whole.


There's the circular argument again.

[hotb]

Items had an influence on the mechanics/considerations of the roster so they kind of are bound to the game's mechanics as a whole.

citantionay needay

[Shoolis]

Get Bayonetta in Smash, let's push this game up to a T rating

[YCobb]

but why have bayonetta when we could have the master chief

[DoNotDelete]

Items had an influence on the mechanics/considerations of the roster so they kind of are bound to the game's mechanics as a whole.

citantionay needay

I'll give you that's probably more conjecture/reading between the lines on my part based on how a character like Sonic plays so differently with items off and with items on - admittedly I've taken that logic as a base and applied it to the roster as a whole without anything else to back it up (at least I can't find a direct quote from a developer that backs this up - at least not right now).

There are things to consider like the developer's dislike of the competitive community and their no-items approach though.

[Syobon]

I'd agree that the developers probably designed the game with items on in mind, but as we argued on the last page they didn't do a really good job of it.