KungKras said:
Mr Khan said:
KungKras said:
Mr Khan said:
I said, usually it's not a good thing and i'm usually pro-options, but i'd prefer the competitors to be spited before i get options
It was always like that whenever i wanted to play with friends. It absolutely had to be no items, final destination preferred, no weird (i.e. fun) stages allowed.
My resentment could have to do with the fact that i always lost in such matchups, especially if they were 1-on-1, but that does not mean i'm bad at the game because that is not smash bros
|
So you're taking an anti-competitive stance out of personal reasons?
You're entitled to your opinion, but a game with intuitive mechanics like Smash Bros deserve to be balanced. It wouldn't hurt sales to make it balanced, but doing the opposite has dissapointed people.
I don't get the bolded part.
|
Eh, i'm just ranting at this point. Point is i've dogmatized a vision of Smash Bros that's fundamentally opposed to the competitive one: a world where having to deactivate certain items and stages is a sign of weakness
I agree that balancing is important, i don't know how the discussion drifted away from that. The original statement was that Sakurai worked to balance the game in spite of the competitive scene, which i believe he largely did (Pit and Meta Knight aside, though the two of them lack in terms of really good launching moves even if they're broken in terms of being able to rack up damage), but balanced it in a way that the competitors disliked
Smash attacks are certainly biased in favor of certain characters as well (Olimar), but that's a debate for another day
|
That what I didn't like about Brawl. It was balanced in spite of competitiveness.
|
But balancing is competitive by nature, otherwise it's just being unbalanced, except for the line of thought that some hold regarding Mario Kart where it is "made fair by reducing skill," which is certainly not the case in either Mario Kart Wii or Brawl. The best players of Mario Kart Wii have the greater skill because they're forced to overcome random chance to move out on top. The competitive players of Smash Bros, however, void all uncontrollable variables
Now i'm again running the risk of falling into my own trap by saying that my way of playing the game is "better," which would make me as bad as they, but it's just science to say that someone who can triumph consistently in a world with variables is more skilled than someone who can triumph consistently in a world without them: the winning army general smarter than the chess grandmaster
