You will never be good at Melee again.

[Vigormortis]

But...but...I can. At least, I used to be able to.

I could do speed-runs of the original SMB with no deaths within a time frame of around four minutes. Granted, I probably couldn't do that well now-a-days as it's been a loooong time since I've attempted that sort of thing.

Honestly, it's all about just remembering where stuff is and knowing how long to hold the jump button.

I think the best time I have ever gotten is seven minutes

Seven minutes is still pretty damn good. A sight better than most people, even those that do speed-runs.

 

[Fappy]

But...but...I can. At least, I used to be able to.

I could do speed-runs of the original SMB with no deaths within a time frame of around four minutes. Granted, I probably couldn't do that well now-a-days as it's been a loooong time since I've attempted that sort of thing.

Honestly, it's all about just remembering where stuff is and knowing how long to hold the jump button.

I think the best time I have ever gotten is seven minutes

Seven minutes is still pretty damn good. A sight better than most people, even those that do speed-runs.

Mario Bros. is really one of the simplest games you can successfully speed-run in all honesty. All you need to do to get a good time is:

- Be good at the game
- Be familiar with the layout of 1-1,1-2,4-1,4-2 and world 8
- Be a boss in world 8 and one-shot the long jump in 8-3
- Know the 8-4 pipe maze

Since the game has straight forward short cuts and a very linear 2-D path you really just need to not fuck up. For MAXIMUM speed this means you have to rub your 8-bit balls against some angry plants' tongues, something I was never good at D:

EDIT: I also would stop in world 8 to get mushrooms because I would get hit occasionally. I also sucked at the final Bowser, so i would just suicide bomb him for the ax.

 

[Fishyash]

Ew, chain grabs and wavedashing.

Just the kind of Smash Bros player I despise.

I've never played Super Smash Bros. Can you describe to me what the hell I just watched?

Essentially, someone using game exploits.

Things that the devs didn't intend to be part of the combat, but every tourney player dog piled on because it makes them 'leet'.

Combos were a game exploit in Street Fighter 2. Sure, they were left in the game when discovered during testing (hmm... just like Sakurai said he left wavedashing in during testing).

Guess what happened?

Capcom makes combos an integral mechanic, on the other hand Sakurai literally took combos away from the game.

All I'm saying is, it's how those players enjoy their game. Just let them play how they want. I personally would find it very annoying if as a competetive player the developer for the game I was playing attempts to fight the competetive scene. I'm not even talking about the removal of wavedashing and L-cancelling, I'm talking about tripping.

How about, in Street Fighter 5, they remove combos, special move cancels and kara moves. Former glitches that became purposely designed integral mechanics of street fighter, instead of excuses for either casual players to whine about the competetive scene or for developers to think they are targeting the wrong audience.

I know it's kind of a different issue, but it kinda bugs me when people bash competetive scenes for games. The idea of "playing a game wrong" baffles me.

Forgot to mention, you are aware the video is a tool assisted speedrun right? Can you think of any games that involve glitches that TASers don't abuse when someone is speed running a game?

 

[theultimateend]

Ew, chain grabs and wavedashing.

Just the kind of Smash Bros player I despise.

Butbutbutbut that's how the pros do it Daystar!

Reminds me of how gay LoL has gotten since I last played. If you don't do everything according to the meta you're doing it wrong. Fuck e-sports.

No items!

Fox only!

Final Destination!

I admit, at one time I was guilty of two of those rules on the list. We were really competitive back then! Don't look at me like that!

Fox's down-B is OP as balls.

We only did no items but even that rule wasn't steadfast.

 

[Weaver]

Tool assisted things just don't impress me at all.

 

[geK0]

I competed in a smash bros tourney just for the lolz......I picked red yoshi and was wrecked so badly x D

 

[pilouuuu]

Sorry, I thought this was a thread about Ron Gilbert not making another Monkey Island. My bad...

 

[Fishyash]

Because of this; I wouldn't play a game like this unless it's played as it was intended. And because I think it's more impressive to see someone win when everything isn't exactly as they expect; the true mark of a good player is when they can win while adapting to ever-changing circumstances.

That notion goes against the idea of a fair competition.

The fact of the matter is, the reason smash bros got a competetive scene in the first place isn't the design. Already we've seen games like mortal kombat, marvel vs capcom and even teenage mutant ninja turtles on the SNES has a tournament scene.

All of these games were not designed with fairness within hardcore play, yet (maybe except TMNT which probably only has a small competetive scene) they grew some nice competetive scenes.

The reason for this is simple, it comes down to the basic rules within the game. The idea that you can fight the opponent 1vs1. Smash bros wasn't designed for this, but it was possible to have a fair fight, one versus one against another player, without any randomness within the game.

This one key factor, to be able to have a fair match against another player with fairly solid game mechanics, that fact alone is enough to spawn a competetive scene out of the craziest games imaginable. But for some reason, competetive smash players are attacked for putting some effort to building a competetive scene around their game.

As I hinted to in another post of mine in this thread, I think niche audiences should be catered to in some way when designing sequels, and that includes a competetive scene. Smash bros. is the only game with a big competetive scene that hasn't had a developer almost pander to them, and it baffles me.

EDIT: I'll also mention that what baffles me even more is that the smash community still hasn't given up on the game, hacking the game to try and make a suitable substitute for competetive play (I don't exactly agree with that idea though... it will never work because the competetive scene will always focus on the official version).

 

[Zeriphor]

Because of this; I wouldn't play a game like this unless it's played as it was intended. And because I think it's more impressive to see someone win when everything isn't exactly as they expect; the true mark of a good player is when they can win while adapting to ever-changing circumstances.

That notion goes against the idea of a fair competition.

The fact of the matter is, the reason smash bros got a competetive scene in the first place isn't the design. Already we've seen games like mortal kombat, marvel vs capcom and even teenage mutant ninja turtles on the SNES has a tournament scene.

All of these games were not designed with fairness within hardcore play, yet (maybe except TMNT which probably only has a small competetive scene) they grew some nice competetive scenes.

The reason for this is simple, it comes down to the basic rules within the game. The idea that you can fight the opponent 1vs1. Smash bros wasn't designed for this, but it was possible to have a fair fight, one versus one against another player, without any randomness within the game.

This one key factor, to be able to have a fair match against another player with fairly solid game mechanics, that fact alone is enough to spawn a competetive scene out of the craziest games imaginable. But for some reason, competetive smash players are attacked for putting some effort to building a competetive scene around their game.

As I hinted to in another post of mine in this thread, I think niche audiences should be catered to in some way when designing sequels, and that includes a competetive scene. Smash bros. is the only game with a big competetive scene that hasn't had a developer almost pander to them, and it baffles me.

EDIT: I'll also mention that what baffles me even more is that the smash community still hasn't given up on the game, hacking the game to try and make a suitable substitute for competetive play (I don't exactly agree with that idea though... it will never work because the competetive scene will always focus on the official version[/i].

I'm glad to see someone talking sense in this thread. Why are so many people in this thread mad at competitive smash bros? Why do they feel using game mechanics to gain an advantage is exploiting, and removing certain parts of the game invalidates it?

Competitive Magic: The Gathering is pretty well respected from what I've seen, and it does both these things. Only the latest 4-7 sets out of the dozens and dozens that have been released are allowed. Additionally, players only use the best cards printed. I really don't see a difference here.

 

[The Funslinger]

Ew, chain grabs and wavedashing.

Just the kind of Smash Bros player I despise.

He wouldn't do it if it wasn't effective. He's playing to win. No reason to hate him for it.

For the same reason Wesker in UMvC3 is effective.

Doesn't mean it's not cheap as fuck

agreed, there are just some games out there, where the programmer who made the character could not have known how much of a troll character they were making for years of rage quits to come.

Even though i'm guilty of doing "FD no items" in the past, i definitely not was one of those exploitative doucherockets who claimed to be all skill then used those tactics.

I think we're all guilty of the FD no items thing at least once

But then you realise the true spirit of the game is in the chaos of the stages and randomness of the items.

I have never done that.

I have never turned off items and then gone on Final Destination.

Most recently, I did Pokeballs only, with item spawn on very high. The chaos, man. Fucking hell...

Edit: Fixed. My baaaad.

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

That notion goes against the idea of a fair competition.

The fact of the matter is, the reason smash bros got a competetive scene in the first place isn't the design. Already we've seen games like mortal kombat, marvel vs capcom and even teenage mutant ninja turtles on the SNES has a tournament scene.

All of these games were not designed with fairness within hardcore play, yet (maybe except TMNT which probably only has a small competetive scene) they grew some nice competetive scenes.

The reason for this is simple, it comes down to the basic rules within the game. The idea that you can fight the opponent 1vs1. Smash bros wasn't designed for this, but it was possible to have a fair fight, one versus one against another player, without any randomness within the game.

This one key factor, to be able to have a fair match against another player with fairly solid game mechanics, that fact alone is enough to spawn a competetive scene out of the craziest games imaginable. But for some reason, competetive smash players are attacked for putting some effort to building a competetive scene around their game.

As I hinted to in another post of mine in this thread, I think niche audiences should be catered to in some way when designing sequels, and that includes a competetive scene. Smash bros. is the only game with a big competetive scene that hasn't had a developer almost pander to them, and it baffles me.

EDIT: I'll also mention that what baffles me even more is that the smash community still hasn't given up on the game, hacking the game to try and make a suitable substitute for competetive play (I don't exactly agree with that idea though... it will never work because the competetive scene will always focus on the official version).

You've made the mistake of assuming I care about fair play in a game like this.

I don't, by the way.

I don't play a game like this expecting a finely tuned experience to keep me from suffering an untimely in-game death; I do it for silly mayhem with people that I like. I don't care who wins, even if I'll try my best to do so myself. I don't think the game was ever meant to be taken this seriously - and make no mistake, a frightening number of people take it really fucking seriously - and it's not the developers' fault that people did, because that's not how they designed the game, and the people who want to take it seriously in spite of that shouldn't feel the need to be catered to and accommodated as a result. Things like the tripping were very clearly put in so you don't always know what's going to happen, and the fact that you can't turn it off seems to be an active effort to spite the people who do take it so seriously, and I think the game is better for it. People that don't like it should either get around it, or not play the game, because it wasn't made with their interests in mind. If they like the game that much, it shouldn't be a big deal to have to adapt on the fly. If not, there's really nothing left to discuss.

It's not worth getting worked up about regardless; it's a video game. It's supposed to entertain you. If it doesn't, you need to stop playing it. It's really that simple, even if people don't want it to be.

 

[Solo-Wing]

My best character is Pikachu. I doubt any one is better then me at Pika-

... i'll sit in the corner and cry now.

 

[Zeriphor]

Because of this; I wouldn't play a game like this unless it's played as it was intended. And because I think it's more impressive to see someone win when everything isn't exactly as they expect; the true mark of a good player is when they can win while adapting to ever-changing circumstances.

That notion goes against the idea of a fair competition.

The fact of the matter is, the reason smash bros got a competetive scene in the first place isn't the design. Already we've seen games like mortal kombat, marvel vs capcom and even teenage mutant ninja turtles on the SNES has a tournament scene.

All of these games were not designed with fairness within hardcore play, yet (maybe except TMNT which probably only has a small competetive scene) they grew some nice competetive scenes.

The reason for this is simple, it comes down to the basic rules within the game. The idea that you can fight the opponent 1vs1. Smash bros wasn't designed for this, but it was possible to have a fair fight, one versus one against another player, without any randomness within the game.

This one key factor, to be able to have a fair match against another player with fairly solid game mechanics, that fact alone is enough to spawn a competetive scene out of the craziest games imaginable. But for some reason, competetive smash players are attacked for putting some effort to building a competetive scene around their game.

As I hinted to in another post of mine in this thread, I think niche audiences should be catered to in some way when designing sequels, and that includes a competetive scene. Smash bros. is the only game with a big competetive scene that hasn't had a developer almost pander to them, and it baffles me.

EDIT: I'll also mention that what baffles me even more is that the smash community still hasn't given up on the game, hacking the game to try and make a suitable substitute for competetive play (I don't exactly agree with that idea though... it will never work because the competetive scene will always focus on the official version[/i].

I'm glad to see someone talking sense in this thread. Why are so many people in this thread mad at competitive smash bros? Why do they feel using game mechanics to gain an advantage is exploiting, and removing certain parts of the game invalidates it?

Competitive Magic: The Gathering is pretty well respected from what I've seen, and it does both these things. Only the latest 4-7 sets out of the dozens and dozens that have been released are allowed. Additionally, players only use the best cards printed. I really don't see a difference here.

Because standard is just ONE format of many in Magic. You can use every card in Vintage, almost every card (and all of them in the budget of 99% of players) in Legacy, last 20 or so sets in Modern, etc.

What Brawl and Melee tournament players do is force the tournament to be played one way and one way only. That's not a fun environment.

Except I can turn that right back on you. Final destination, no items is ONE format. If you don't like it play the format you enjoy.

 

[Fishyash]

You've made the mistake of assuming I care about fair play in a game like this.

I don't, by the way.

I only assumed it because I thought you were talking about scenarios where money was on the line, I wouldn't have made the comment otherwise.

I don't play a game like this expecting a finely tuned experience to keep me from suffering an untimely in-game death; I do it for silly mayhem with people that I like. I don't care who wins, even if I'll try my best to do so myself. I don't think the game was ever meant to be taken this seriously - and make no mistake, a frightening number of people take it really fucking seriously - and it's not the developers' fault that people did, because that's not how they designed the game, and the people who want to take it seriously in spite of that shouldn't feel the need to be catered to and accommodated as a result.

As I mentioned, it's not about how the game is designed, it's the simple fact that you can have a fair one on one/two on two match is how the game got its competetive community in the first place (combined with the fact it's a good game). And as long as that is possible, there will always be people concerned about fairness when playing this game. Maybe not all the time, but until it is impossible to disable items, it's not gonna happen, and there is nothing Sakurai can do about it. I don't think they should be catered to because they're entitled to be, I just don't understand why it even needs to be an issue in the first place. Why is the competetive scene an issue? Why is it a problem? It doesn't somehow damage your enjoyment of the game does it?

Even with that though, I still don't understand why the competetive community hasn't given up and just moved to better fighting games.

Things like the tripping were very clearly put in so you don't always know what's going to happen, and the fact that you can't turn it off seems to be an active effort to spite the people who do take it so seriously, and I think the game is better for it. People that don't like it should either get around it, or not play the game, because it wasn't made with their interests in mind. If they like the game that much, it shouldn't be a big deal to have to adapt on the fly. If not, there's really nothing left to discuss.

It's not worth getting worked up about regardless; it's a video game. It's supposed to entertain you. If it doesn't, you need to stop playing it. It's really that simple, even if people don't want it to be.

I still don't see what is gained by sakurai from trying to implement things like tripping. Shoo-ing away niche audiences does not magically attract the "intended" audience. I would have thought making a comprimise would be the best decision, it wouldn't be hard, the community would lap it up, and it would probably have boosted the game's publicity up even more. It would attract people who are into other fighting games.

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

I still don't see what is gained by sakurai from trying to implement things like tripping. Shoo-ing away niche audiences does not magically attract the "intended" audience. I would have thought making a comprimise would be the best decision, it wouldn't be hard, the community would lap it up, and it would probably have boosted the game's publicity up even more. It would attract people who are into other fighting games.

They're not interested in attracting those people; they want the game to be played and enjoyed as they intended, and feel the people who cry for things to be as fair and predictable and streamlined as possible undermine the experience. I can respect that.

 

[Zeriphor]

Because of this; I wouldn't play a game like this unless it's played as it was intended. And because I think it's more impressive to see someone win when everything isn't exactly as they expect; the true mark of a good player is when they can win while adapting to ever-changing circumstances.

That notion goes against the idea of a fair competition.

The fact of the matter is, the reason smash bros got a competetive scene in the first place isn't the design. Already we've seen games like mortal kombat, marvel vs capcom and even teenage mutant ninja turtles on the SNES has a tournament scene.

All of these games were not designed with fairness within hardcore play, yet (maybe except TMNT which probably only has a small competetive scene) they grew some nice competetive scenes.

The reason for this is simple, it comes down to the basic rules within the game. The idea that you can fight the opponent 1vs1. Smash bros wasn't designed for this, but it was possible to have a fair fight, one versus one against another player, without any randomness within the game.

This one key factor, to be able to have a fair match against another player with fairly solid game mechanics, that fact alone is enough to spawn a competetive scene out of the craziest games imaginable. But for some reason, competetive smash players are attacked for putting some effort to building a competetive scene around their game.

As I hinted to in another post of mine in this thread, I think niche audiences should be catered to in some way when designing sequels, and that includes a competetive scene. Smash bros. is the only game with a big competetive scene that hasn't had a developer almost pander to them, and it baffles me.

EDIT: I'll also mention that what baffles me even more is that the smash community still hasn't given up on the game, hacking the game to try and make a suitable substitute for competetive play (I don't exactly agree with that idea though... it will never work because the competetive scene will always focus on the official version[/i].

I'm glad to see someone talking sense in this thread. Why are so many people in this thread mad at competitive smash bros? Why do they feel using game mechanics to gain an advantage is exploiting, and removing certain parts of the game invalidates it?

Competitive Magic: The Gathering is pretty well respected from what I've seen, and it does both these things. Only the latest 4-7 sets out of the dozens and dozens that have been released are allowed. Additionally, players only use the best cards printed. I really don't see a difference here.

Because standard is just ONE format of many in Magic. You can use every card in Vintage, almost every card (and all of them in the budget of 99% of players) in Legacy, last 20 or so sets in Modern, etc.

What Brawl and Melee tournament players do is force the tournament to be played one way and one way only. That's not a fun environment.

Except I can turn that right back on you. Final destination, no items is ONE format. If you don't like it play the format you enjoy.

Try finding a tournament that allows certain characters, or the smash ball, or items at all. It isn't gonna happen. Accepted tournament format is one way, and one way only. Meanwhile, my local store has Legacy tournaments on Wednesday, Modern on Thursday, Standard on Friday, and Commander on Saturday.

That's because those formats don't support a fair matchup due to random chance and problems with the game's design. If you want unfair games then you're going to have a hard time finding accepted tournaments for it.

 

[Zeriphor]

I still don't see what is gained by sakurai from trying to implement things like tripping. Shoo-ing away niche audiences does not magically attract the "intended" audience. I would have thought making a comprimise would be the best decision, it wouldn't be hard, the community would lap it up, and it would probably have boosted the game's publicity up even more. It would attract people who are into other fighting games.

They're not interested in attracting those people; they want the game to be played and enjoyed as they intended, and feel the people who cry for things to be as fair and predictable and streamlined as possible undermine the experience. I can respect that.

You can respect adding a mechanic to a game that almost entirely removes a mode of play for that game? No, that isn't good design. Good design is allowing a game to be enjoyed however a group chooses to. Be that competitive skill based games or crazy fun time thousands of bobomb games.

 

[Fishyash]

I still don't see what is gained by sakurai from trying to implement things like tripping. Shoo-ing away niche audiences does not magically attract the "intended" audience. I would have thought making a comprimise would be the best decision, it wouldn't be hard, the community would lap it up, and it would probably have boosted the game's publicity up even more. It would attract people who are into other fighting games.

They're not interested in attracting those people; they want the game to be played and enjoyed as they intended, and feel the people who cry for things to be as fair and predictable and streamlined as possible undermine the experience. I can respect that.

I personally can't support the idea that there's a "wrong" way to play a game. I wouldn't mind if a developer did this by accident, but as you said, Sakurai definitely did it on purpose. Catering to multiple audiences should be praised, not fought against.

In regards to your streamlined comment, I don't really like streamlining games, comparing street fighter 2 to street fighter 4, I would consider SF2 broken and SF4 anti-broken (boring).

However, also in regards to your streamlined comment, I feel Brawl has been streamlined anyways. It feels slower and floatier than Melee, people live too long. They took the (what I consider) "good bad bugs" away, and then they add tripping, something that adds nothing to the game. Brawl is just boring in comparison, that I rely on the items to have any enjoyment of the game, while in melee it doesn't matter whether I have items or not.

 

[theultimateend]

Ew, chain grabs and wavedashing.

Just the kind of Smash Bros player I despise.

He wouldn't do it if it wasn't effective. He's playing to win. No reason to hate him for it.

For the same reason Wesker in UMvC3 is effective.

Doesn't mean it's not cheap as fuck

It's not cheap it's just strategy, if you think you can do it go to a tournament and give it a shot.

I'd never play in a tournament because of just this type of meta bullshit.

Making the other 99% of the game irrelevant because the 1% beats everything else is just ridiculous.

Oh cmon, it's really cheap right? Just use those strategies and you'll be OP right? Oh man maybe you can even use top tier characters,you'd be unstoppable

Of course I can't compete with tournament players, never said I could.

Doesn't mean I can't criticise the gameplay ethic behind it all.

We had all sorts of tournaments in high school that didn't involve this sorta stuff.

I was a bit bummed because the year after I left a duo at my school won the Smash Bros tournament at PAX. They were shit which told me the rest of the competition at PAX that year must have been real bad or just real unlucky .

However, also in regards to your streamlined comment, I feel Brawl has been streamlined anyways. It feels slower and floatier than Melee, people live too long. They took the (what I consider) "good bad bugs" away, and then they add tripping, something that adds nothing to the game. Brawl is just boring in comparison, that I rely on the items to have any enjoyment of the game, while in melee it doesn't matter whether I have items or not.

Boring is a generous word for that game.

Melee was fun just about any way you sliced it.

Brawl is fun if you enjoy battling the level more than your friends.

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

You can respect adding a mechanic to a game that almost entirely removes a mode of play for that game? No, that isn't good design. Good design is allowing a game to be enjoyed however a group chooses to. Be that competitive skill based games or crazy fun time thousands of bobomb games.

Yes, I do, and that's all I have left to say on the matter.

You'll survive, trust me.