Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
How much credit featureless games of Smash Bros gets.
So, me and a friend were commentating on a tournament of Brawl at our school's video game club. You know the deal: Final Destination (or Battlefield, if the spectators are lucky), No Items, Fox Only A very small pool of characters. We try and be excited over the thing, until all we're able to do is that VideoGameDunkey style of voice over where we get every character's name wrong on purpose.
And then it happens. We kind of realize just how... borked the entire attitude over Tourney Level Smash is. First of all, the camera makes obvious what the game was designed for: Absolute random chaos across the entire stage (something Smash Bros. perfected to the point of beauty, in my stupid opinion). While the entire fight usually uses about 10% of the screen, and at most 30% when everyone's flying around, the camera's all going "HEY, LOOK AT THIS, UP HERE ON THE TOP PART OF THE SCREEN, NONONO, HERE, TO THE LEFT". The camera was not designed for 1v1 vanilla as shit combat and it shows. It's pretty much in constant Samurai Shodown zoom out mode throughout.
Second, there's just not a lot going on with everyone's move list. especially not the aerial ones, which is apparently what everyone loves doing. It's going at too fast a speed with very little in the way of move variety (the lack of items seriously hurts here), and then the aforementioned presentation problem regarding the game focusing on everything but the fight, even on a stage that has nothing going for it.
But hey, that's just like, my opinion, man. You can get whatever you want out of your game, play it anyway you want, i have no business telling you how to play etc.
Just kind of a shame that I can't find matches with people the way I want is all. Everyone always has to play via bland tourney rules. Oh well. Not like it's my game of choice anymore Anyway. Back to 3rd Strike.
Comments
A vanilla as shit 1v1 slapfight has its place (some of the most satisfying matches I've had were very technical no-frills duels), but yeah, most of the game's fun comes from chaos.
We'd usually turn off stuff like Starmen and anything else we deemed reducing the game to boring keep away while they were in effect, but other than that none of my friends were shy about items.
Pokeball is always the item EVERYONE goes after, even if there is that chance it will be a Goldeen or Wobbuffet.
^^ That's what makes it so fun :V
^ Beautiful :')
SSB doesn't have the complex combo inputs of other fighting games, but instead you get the versatility of mixing your attacks as you see fit. This often means there's more to react to, because unlike heavily traditional fighting games, seeing an adversary's attack doesn't mean that you can now predict what will come after it. That said, other fighting games have been mixing it up; I have fond memories of how fluid Soul Calibur 2 was, and how the game was less about the perfect execution of preset combos, but improvising combos on the fly. Blazblue has an attack chaining system based on a set of revolving inputs (that is, any square attack links to any triangle links to any circle links to any X).
I really appreciate it when fighting games go out of their way to be more versatile and fluid, which is probably why I like SSB a lot. Probably also because, with the inclusion of Marth and Whoever Is In This One, it's the closest thing to a Fire Emblem action game (why hasn't this happened, again?).
I do enjoy how simple and uncluttered SSB's core gameplay is. I'm glad that there's no need for that quarter circle or pretzel BS in the series. Although everyone insisting Wavedashing was a feature really gets me cringing.
I'm excited for the new one, especially since it will have a handheld version.
I'd be lying if i said I had no plans to buy it.
Combo systems tend to annoy me. Like, the more recent Soul Calibur and Mortal Kombat games will have a small set of arbitrary combo sequences that work because shut up, but there's no actual broader structure to clue you into it, and they tend to be disconnected from your standard moveset -- you just have to look them up and memorize arbitrary shit.
I liked the Blazblue system, and I really liked the Killer Instinct Gold one. It wasn't just "do these", it was a very unambiguous scaffold you could build on freely the moment you understood the pattern.
Why do competitive players feel they need to suck the fun out of everything? Seriously I've played in tournaments where people complaining about Meta Knight were told to just stop being shit at the game.
Well, the idea of competition seems to involve the honing and isolation of skill, and the chaos of having tons of random items flying around -- while it makes for great spectacle -- is a drawback for people who are trying to prove their skill.
Perhaps if Smash tournaments gained a bigger audience, you'd see more items-enabled gameplay.
But really, what does proving your skill at a ridiculously specific and boring scenario in what is essentially a party game that was never meant to be played that way actually do (beyond showing that you're just that obsessed with winning, of course)?
Why do people compete at archery, speed-skating, or Rubik's cube solving? Those are all ridiculously specific and arguably boring scenarios that people train specifically for just to be better than other people who train specifically for them as well.
ITT: butthurt scrubs
In all seriousness, just don't frequent any places where tourneytards gather. Plenty of competitions out there for casuals.
I once played with some of these more no-items-final-destination type of people; that's actually where I got my first Smash Melee experience. It's still a decently fun game without that randomness inserted. And they were willing to play an assortment of characters.
That said, one of them noticed (and not in a bad way) that I was, thanks to being a noob, unintentionally inserting more chaos and unexpectedness into their games. My unconventional use of tactics meant that usual counters didn't work well. Of course, being a noob, I was pretty easy to defeat one-on-one, but when you have a free-for-all with four players, unexpected G&W side-Bs and pikachu thunderbolts from out of nowhere can really throw off everyone's rhythm.
That's a false dichotomy. All of your examples are neither boring and are all being used to their fullest capability. A better example would be getting a thirty-six-by-thirty-six Rubik's Cube and only solving one four-by-four grid on the corner with speed. Or archers having sights, gloves, and composites banned because there's only one true longbow. Or even speed-skating with only one brand and model of skate, and with only one running technique.
Oh, so your complaint isn't about it being boring, but rather, it's about it being needlessly constrained.
Because I find watching Smash (at least Melee) battles, even between competitive individuals, with no items, on Final Destination, roughly the same as interesting as watching those activities. I mean, it IS flashy, but it is also monotonous after a while.
"But really, what does proving your skill at a ridiculously specific and boring scenario in what is essentially a party game that was never meant to be played that way actually do (beyond showing that you're just that obsessed with winning, of course)?"
It's fun. There's just something about a 1v1 with no items on a gimmick-less stage that really gets the blood pumping, especially when it comes down to the wire. Hell, at times it can even get more chaotic than a "normal" smash with items and whatnot.
For me, it's not really about "winning" so much as it is about fighting skilled players.
There are better games to exhibit and show that skill.
I know. That doesn't mean that I still can't get that from Smash.
Besides, most of the people I've met irl play Smash, so it's a lot easier to set up a competitive match with that game than it is for something like say, Guilty Gear.
Is Guilty Gear a platformer fighting game?
If not, Smash also has the distinctive feature of being a platformer fighting game.
Guilty Gear is just a fighting game, no prominent platforming elements.
Though despite the distinctive element I think it's a less conducive environment for exhibiting skill.
Well it's a different type of skill. The tactical possibilities in a standard (is "linear" the right term?) fighting game are much more limited so the emphasis is on knowing how and when to draw from a mental library of skill combos, while in Smash there's a lot more emphasis on movement, including dodging and recovery -- keep in mind that if you're nimble enough you could survive indefinitely as long as you avoid a ring out.