Competitive activities (sports, games, etc.) that aim for perfection rather than skill

glennmagusharvey

These really bug me.

One way this is represented is in fighting gamers' dislike for the Smash Bros. series, specifically as cited here.

The skill of good players should be their versatility and reactiveness to different environments and conditions.  Rather than rote perfection of some very limited set of circumstances.

Crimson

Except that in the context of SSB, things like items and stages add an element of luck into the game. In a competitive environment should be based on skill and skill alone. If Player A beats Player B because a Bob-Omb or something dropped in front of his feet and not because Player A is actually more skilled. That's why some people dislike the randomness of SSB and why tournament players try to remove as many variables as possible.

vandro

If it comes to the point where bob-ombs drop randomly in front of your feet, it's because neither of you have won in a sudden death, and I've never seen a tournament played with timed battles (more specifically, a tournament without a stock life limit). Your example falls short.

Crimson

That's not the point though. What I was talking about is a hypothetical scenario where a random element of luck tips the scale in the favor of a less skilled player.

It is true that with items turned off there is a remaining element of luck, that's true with any game. However if that element of luck can be circumvented (by turning off items or what have you), then in a setting where skill should be a deciding factor, then it is probably best to do so.

vandro

That hypothetical escenario is ridiculous, aside from some levels like pokéfloats, a lot of the moving stages just test your ability to fight without stable ground, to me, that's far more skillful than final destination fox only.

glennmagusharvey

You should probably play more than one match, as well.

This would both result in decreased luck factor as well as give a greater chance for opponents to learn each others' tactics and adapt to them.

glennmagusharvey

And yeah, I got really bored with Final Destination after a while, and I really can't understand why the people I played with never played levels like Flat Zone, Icicle Mountain, and Poké Floats.

In fact, given that they disabled those in random and never chose them voluntarily (they would even end matches that accidentally got into Flat Zone), I'm surprised they left in Onett.  Onett's major distinction is that you can't fall down off the level.  And that seems really unfair, if you're complaining about things like the motion of Icicle Mountain and Poké Floats and the small confines of Flat Zone.

That said, I can kinda understand how Flat Zone's very narrow confines would make matches end rather quickly, since they played with limited lives rather than time.

Magus

Stages aren't disabled because they're "too random", they're disabled because they give certain characters a huge advantage. For example, Shiek can trap people against the wall in Mushroomy Kingdom, killing them instantly.

"Perfection" doesn't have anything to do with it, anyway–if you drop a bunch of combos in Street Fighter but win because you read your opponent better, people will applaud you anyway.

And Poké Floats is awesome.

Ponicalica

«That's not the point though. What I was talking about is a hypothetical scenario where a random element of luck tips the scale in the favor of a less skilled player.»

This happens all the time.  In fighting games, there is by default an element of luck(or perhaps I should say nondeterminism) because of the dominance of mixed strategy.  Furthermore, even in abstract strategy games like Chess or Go, things like the players' mental states, their diets, their ability to sleep the previous night, etc. all end up playing a role and a better player will often lose to a worse one.  In fact, the Elo rating system used in chess and online gaming depends precisely on this--how much player X is better than player Y is based on the percentage chance that X beats Y.  Furthermore, if luck weren't a factor even in «less random» fighting games, games wouldn't be played in best-of-N series.

ClockworkUniverse

If they go to such lengths to eliminate luck, I've gotta wonder what they do if a player sneezes.

InsanityAddict

I can understand turning off  Final Smashes since some of them are nigh undodgeable even under the best of circumstances(Landmaster, f. ex.), but that doesn't even factor in the ability to get to that Smash first or whacking it out of your opponent. Many a skilled enough player won't get beaten just because the opponent has an item(heck, a good enough player can catch stuff being thrown at him in mid-flight). Then again, I insist on playing random all the time, so I more inclined to try and adapt to any and all circumstances instead of specifically gearing towards a certain mastery of a specific character.

glennmagusharvey

^^ Revote! match!