Super Smash Brothers Brawl

[Squeek]

Originally Posted by korny

It's safe to assume he won't get good at this game anyway.

Not good in the sense that I need to exploit glitches to compete one on one on Final Destination with items turned off with either Marth, Fox, or Falco, no.

[korny]

Awww he's still holding a grudge against his incapabilities and thinks that people need to use glitches to show him how much skill he lacks. How sad

[Matthew4444]

Originally Posted by l2awr

Grab it?

Yes. If you grab that spycam thing, it disappears and Snake falls, without any hope for recovery since he can't up+b again. Well, maybe he can, if you sacrifice 20% to use a grenade.


And regarding the ridiculousness of recovering through the use of grenades to the face: "In this world, trophies fight!" Clearly human logic need not apply. The idea actually becomes feasible though once you treat them as indestructible objects.

[l2awr]

Originally Posted by Matthew4444

Yes. If you grab that spycam thing, it disappears and Snake falls, without any hope for recovery since he can't up+b again. Well, maybe he can, if you sacrifice 20% to use a grenade.


And regarding the ridiculousness of recovering through the use of grenades to the face: "In this world, trophies fight!" Clearly human logic need not apply. The idea actually becomes feasible though once you treat them as indestructible objects.

I would sacrifice any % to live and have the chance to do more damage to my opponent or even kill him before I lose that stock. Thats just common sense.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by korny

Awww he's still holding a grudge against his incapabilities and thinks that people need to use glitches to show him how much skill he lacks. How sad

I have never heard of a wide competition that didn't require glitch abuse to do well in it. Please, show me a "well" known competitive player in a fight that doesn't involve abusing errors of design (and is also not played before said glitch abuses were discovered).

Now, how can you say that Squeek isn't good at the game just because he doesn't play by silly rules like "Final Destination only" or "no items" or "Fox only"? It would be one thing if you had seen him play or something, but the fact is that you haven't. As far as skill that is not built on abusing errors in programming, I'd guess that Squeek would be more than adequate. True, I'd bet that he'd get stomped by people who, to put it bluntly, cheat, but who cares? They're playing outside the boundaries of the game, and as such, a claim of having skill at a game due to cheating is null in my opinion. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who uses glitches to their advantage is no better than your common "hacker" (read: script kiddie) in any MMO. By using the logic of "everyone else is doing it, so it's ok"... well, just go to any MMO community and see how that logic flies in the face of other kinds of cheaters.

Incidentally, I really hope there is some means that will allow me to play online without getting stomped by cheaters (maybe having 2 separate multiplayer lobbies for "competitive" ie glitch abusers, and "casual" for players like me who would rather play the game as it was meant to be played). I'm fine to be beaten by people who are simply better than me, but being beaten by cheaters is just lame, even if those cheaters would have still beat me without cheating.

[Relambrien]

I can think of a couple really situational times when you would need more than one up-B to return to the stage as Snake, and the grenade thing can help with that. It is, however, HIGHLY situational. It's good to know you can do it, but it won't be particularly useful.

And like Squeek said, if you're that far off the stage, the knockback from the grenade itself is quite dangerous. I suppose that with practice, you could place it to be able to send you in a direction that doesn't kill you, but is it really worth it to do so? Probably not.

[korny]

Awww you too afro ?

[l2awr]

Let them keep that mentality. It doesn't affect my game =] Anyways I'm still going to post more things that look useful in game play to me.

Oh ya 4 players can latch onto sides for about 3 seconds and then jump off and attack or something. Sheik is one of them =]]

[Dark Sonic]

Bah, cheaters are merely just another obstacle to overcome. =3

I think I can find ways to combat the glitches through experimentation or experience or something like that. I just haven't had many games in general where I had to face someone who exploited glitches. Who knows; maybe I'll just use their cheats against them. XD

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by Dark Sonic

Who knows; maybe I'll just use their cheats against them. XD

I don't mean to bring up this argument again, but just so you know, this is exactly what these players would like.

I don't think it's much of a stretch to assume that most competitive players would love to see casual players beginning to learn the competitive playstyle. Most people over at SWF are more than happy to give advice to those willing to accept it.

[TS_SonicMaster]

Hehe, I'm not a casual gamer, I'm competitive, but I don't use glitches to play. I've beaten every single person who used wavedashing against me in melee in my town, of course to be yelled at for beating a "technique". How about you competitive people just play and win. Last I heard, competitive is wanting to play others and truely owning them to no end, with fair no glitch fighting. Have some honor when playing to make the bragging better in the end eh?

If I beat someone who was using hacks in an MMO to be the strongest player in the server of the game, by using better skill stratigies, I'd have some really great bragging rights there, understand? Same thing goes for melee. If the best player used glitches and you beat them in the opposite way, I'd say you'd be feeling pretty awesome.

[Relambrien]

No one seems to understand the distinction between casual and competitive in regards to Smash. In case you didn't notice, the terms are somewhat different than when used elsewhere.

"Competitive" refers to those people who learn and play the way tournament-goers do, including glitches/advanced techs/whatever you want to call them.
"Casual" refers to everyone else.

A competitive Smash player can be a casual gamer. A casual Smash player can be a competitive gamer. Casual Smash does not necessarily equate to casual gaming in general, neither does competitive Smash and competitive gaming.

That's generally the basic distinction, though there are some nuances that are impossible to explain and can only really be understood through immersion in the community.

You say you've beaten everyone who uses wavedashing against you. Good job. That means you realize wavedashing doesn't give a massive advantage to a person, and thus shouldn't be condemned simply for being a glitch/exploit, right? The better player still wins; wavedashing just opens up other options and strategies. If you can't take advantage of them, it's not like wavedashing will help you.

And no, competitive playing is not playing without glitches. It's playing the way that is most conducive to a competitive atmosphere (and this, I believe, refers to any sort of event called "competitive"), which just so happens to include wavedashing, L-canceling, etc. These aren't dirty tricks that subvert player skill and turn the game into a "who can wavedash the best" competition, apparently unlike Mario Kart DS. They augment player skill, thus helping competition. That's the distinction there.

The fundamental difference between casual and competitive Smash players (see the definitions above) is that competitive players will ignore everything except what's good for the competition. If it can be done, and helps competition, then it will be done. Things like Wobbling (an Ice Climbers infinite from Melee) were banned because they weren't good for competition. Things like intended play styles are not considered, because how the developers want you to play might not be the most competitive way to play, and these players have the most fun when playing as competitively as possible.

Casual players on the other hand, take more things into account, with the primary goal generally being fun rather than competition. They often restrict themselves from using glitches or otherwise unintended abilities or techniques, because the devs didn't want them to be used. These players are often of the mindset that competition causes more stress than entertainment, which it does for lots of people, and is perfectly fine. Thus, they won't sacrifice other things to improve competition. For instance, turning off items leads to a better competition, but if competition isn't fun, why turn off items? There's absolutely nothing wrong with this, as different people just enjoy different things.

Those who condemn one play style or another seem to poorly represent the styles' populations as a whole. From what I can tell, the guys over at SWF don't have a problem with casual players. They do, however, have a problem with people asserting that playing with items is the best and most fun way to play, or things like that. Casual players don't seem to be generally bothered by competitive players either, recognizing the difference in entertainment value for different people. It's just that the more vocal ones, sporting phrases like "tourneyfag" are the ones that are most noticed. Now, should a competitive player ever condemn a casual play style, then casuals have every right to be angry. It's just that most competitive players won't do that.

Yes, competitive players feel that the casual play style is "inferior" in terms of competitive value. No, they don't (on the whole) feel that it is any less valid of a play style for people to enjoy.
Casual players may not agree with how competitive players play, but they generally recognize that it's how they have the most fun.

I really just don't see what the problem is with "agreeing to disagree," i.e., recognizing that one may not appreciate another play style, but others do and that it's not their place to condemn it.

[Squeek]

Again, no. Just stop. This isn't black and white.

A 'casual' gamer is someone who plays like ten minutes a day.

A 'competitive' gamer is someone who practices on the same game over and over again whenever they can.

Someone decided to coin a term for those people (like me) who play games for long periods of time, yet don't want to compete. "Mid-gamers", he called it. Personally I'd just call us "gamers". No prefixes at all.

A game like Counter-Strike is a game that's Casual/Competitive only, really. You can't really play in-between with Counter-Strike. The game is designed to be a multi-player only game. If you're playing against bots, you're not going to be playing for very long.

When I get Brawl, I'm going to be playing all day to get through Subspace Emissary. Non-stop. Then when that's done, I'll be playing through Classic non-stop. If All-Star comes back, I'll be going through that. Then going through the bonus single-player things like multi-man melee, sandbag, and target test. Needless to say, I'm going to play the hell out of the game. Not something a casual player would do. However, I have no intention of joining an online brawl competition. Ever. Thus, I will never be competitive. I don't mind gaming against other [/i]gamers[/i], though. I'll join random online brawl matches. I'll join in on FFR events if we ever have them. I just don't care to compete.

To me, competition means taking part in an event where there is a winner and many losers. Usually an organized event. But that's just me.

[Relambrien]

I know you don't like quote wars, but since yours was a fairly long post, I think it'll be easier if I use a quote series here.

Originally Posted by Squeek

A 'casual' gamer is someone who plays like ten minutes a day.

A 'competitive' gamer is someone who practices on the same game over and over again whenever they can.

Exactly. But a casual Smash player isn't someone who plays like ten minutes a day, and a competitive Smash player isn't someone who practices over and over etc. I said that the terms were different, and they are.

Originally Posted by Squeek

Someone decided to coin a term for those people (like me) who play games for long periods of time, yet don't want to compete. "Mid-gamers", he called it. Personally I'd just call us "gamers". No prefixes at all.

And the Smash community coined a term for people like you. They placed you in the "casual" category. Everyone who doesn't fit the competitive description is, in the eyes of the Smash community, casual. Because of this, the term "casual" doesn't have the same connotations as it does elsewhere. The term means something very different when referring to Smash, and it isn't anything to take offense to. People recognize that there are those within the "casual" category that play hours on end, like you. The word "casual" does not imply "Clueless, horrible player" when referring to Smash, as it might in other games or situations.

Originally Posted by Squeek

To me, competition means taking part in an event where there is a winner and many losers. Usually an organized event. But that's just me.

Then you'll understand when I tell you that the Smash community's view of "competition" is quite different. What you describe is a subset of competition as a whole, which is basically a contest to see who is the best. With this as the primary goal, rather than mutual fun (because fun is inherent within that goal for these players), then it can be described as "competition."

[zidart]

i seriously gonna do something... if i see as snake/bowser playing like that on-line i will either throw them an item or just hit them hard (those things are useless anyway because even pit can recover a lot)

[Squeek]

Relam: That's not fair at all. How does a community of a few hundred people get to define a community of 6 million+ individuals? Just because they play the game "competitively", they have all the say in the world?

You act like you guys wrote the code for the game. Damn, man.

So basically, there can be someone who's played the game more than you, is better than you, and actually worked on the development team for Melee, yet is a "casual" smash player because he doesn't care to attend a competitive tournament?

[Relambrien]

You misunderstand me. I was pointing out the differences between the competitive Smash community's term, which, as something of a member of that community, I choose to use for this situation, and the general definition of the term.

Your definition of "casual" vs "competitive" isn't any less valid than that of the competitive Smash community; I was merely highlighting the intended definition so as to avoid misunderstandings.

When I say you're a casual Smash player, I don't mean to say that you're a "don't really care about the game" person who only plays occasionally. Rather, I mean to say that you have disdain for competition, because that's the definition of the term "casual" the way I'm meaning it to be used here. I've been trying to get that point across, but it seems I haven't been doing a very good job of it. That's completely my fault.

[DigitalS3r4ph]

Squeek's at it again, I see.


Welp,




I tried the game at a friend's house earlier today...and yeah, it's safe to say that it rules face.

[tsugomaru]

Squeek, you know what you could do. You could quit complaining about people who do abuse glitches. You have already said that you don't care for public online play, so I honestly doubt that you would care whether or not you lost a match or two to glitch abusers, and win five or six against those who don't. The one game where a person abuses a glitch isn't the one that will make you hate SSBB and you know it.

For FFR competitions, I can already spot the people who would abuse glitches at any possible moment if it were to give them an upper hand in the battle. You can argue however much you want here on FFR, but nothing will changed their minds. 12awr isn't going to suddenly say, "Hey! You're right Squeek! I promise to never abuse glitches again and I will try to win all my tournaments, which will earn me a bunch of cash for playing games the fair way!" If you were to play in FFR competitions, then just win the game the cool way, by just playing with the style you used, all the more bragging rights when you do win.

Relam, you can choose to separate the gamers into two easy categories. "Competition-Goers" and "Gamers". The "Competition-Goers" play in tournaments in order to win money while "Gamers" play games because they want to have fun. However, that's not to say that only one category of gamers may have fun, both will. If you want my input, these are just dumb labels with arbitrary definitions. Being labeled one label or the other wouldn't change my attitude towards gaming or one sort of gamer. If we were to have a SSBM competition amongst my friends, I'll more than willingly go, whether or not I win whatever prize we pooled money for. I wouldn't completely hate going to these tournaments because I believed that they are the cesspools of gaming. I wouldn't hate a tourney-going friend when I'm playing against him because he goes to tourneys. What label do I get? Oh wait, it doesn't matter, I'm playing games all the same.

~Tsugomaru

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by tsugomaru

Relam, you can choose to separate the gamers into two easy categories. "Competition-Goers" and "Gamers". The "Competition-Goers" play in tournaments in order to win money while "Gamers" play games because they want to have fun. However, that's not to say that only one category of gamers may have fun, both will. If you want my input, these are just dumb labels with arbitrary definitions. Being labeled one label or the other wouldn't change my attitude towards gaming or one sort of gamer. If we were to have a SSBM competition amongst my friends, I'll more than willingly go, whether or not I win whatever prize we pooled money for. I wouldn't completely hate going to these tournaments because I believed that they are the cesspools of gaming. I wouldn't hate a tourney-going friend when I'm playing against him because he goes to tourneys. What label do I get? Oh wait, it doesn't matter, I'm playing games all the same.

I completely agree with you of course, but like you said, there needs to be SOME way to refer to the separation of groups. I used the words I use normally, and attempted to define them as best I could. I'd prefer not to have to change my language use unless it becomes apparent that mutual understanding is impossible unless I do, and I expect that others follow this same principle.