I played this game with some friends over the weekend, maining as Ness, Lucas and Pikachu. I absolutely love PK Starstorm! (PK STAAAAARSTOOOORM! *pwned*)
Ness was a bit slow at the beginning, but I grew to love his baseball bat (SMAAASH! isn't just Smash Bros. specific, after all) and psychic prowess. I still wish his Final Smash was PSI Rockin' Omega instead of Starstorm, but I'll take what I can get. Lucas is a bit quicker and has Freeze as opposed to Flash, but I found nifty uses for that, including sending recovering opponents to a freezing doom.
Pikachu, well, I've played him before on Melee, so I'm used to his agility and electrical attacks and swiftly began utilizing them. It's still a challenge defeating Donkey or Bowser with him, though. I like his Volt Tackle Final Smash, but it was a bit hard to control.
Next up: Sonic, he can really move! Sonic, he's got an attitude! Sonic, he's the fastest thing aliiive!
“The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that the English language is as pure as a crib-house whore. It not only borrows words from other languages; it has on occasion chased other languages down dark alley-ways, clubbed them unconscious and rifled their pockets for new vocabulary. “
- James Nicoll
DPDarkPrimus wrote:To avoid the shockwave o' doom, you have to do a sidestep dodge (Z+down on the remote/chuk) three times, timed to dodge the shockwaves.
I've only dodged all three once, but I've dodged at least one of them multiple times.
I figured it's possible to do a standing sidestep for it, I just never managed it.
Of course, I have been playing with a half busted 3rd party Cube controller most of the time (With random down smash action!), so I that might also have something to do with it.
Praxis wrote:Am I the only one that could really tell that Subspace Emissary was written by the writer who did Kingdom Hearts? That whole last stages screamed "Kingdom Hearts". Entering the heart of the darkness, which is a dark purple world, and at the center you fight through corrupted versions of areas you visited through the rest of the game, and then ascend a staircase into the darkness leading to a platform in the middle of nothing where you fight a boss?
It's almost identical.
Oh, that last boss fight was amazing. It was a nightmare in co-op, every time he used that shockwave move that kills everything on the screen at least one of us died...
Yeah, I knew about it before I played the game, but SSE definitely has a very KH'y feel. It doesn't help that half of the time when people saw me playing as Pit, they looked and asked "Sora?"
As for Taby's Shockwave move, repreated airdodging seems to be the only reliable way to make it out of that one alive, and I've only managed to do it once in a blue moon.
Yeah, dodging down was the only way to survive, but with two people going at least one person died each time until the last use (in which we were out of lives and I was the only one left, I survived that one).
John Chris wrote:I played this game with some friends over the weekend, maining as Ness, Lucas and Pikachu. I absolutely love PK Starstorm! (PK STAAAAARSTOOOORM! *pwned*)
Ness was a bit slow at the beginning, but I grew to love his baseball bat (SMAAASH! isn't just Smash Bros. specific, after all) and psychic prowess. I still wish his Final Smash was PSI Rockin' Omega instead of Starstorm, but I'll take what I can get. Lucas is a bit quicker and has Freeze as opposed to Flash, but I found nifty uses for that, including sending recovering opponents to a freezing doom.
Pikachu, well, I've played him before on Melee, so I'm used to his agility and electrical attacks and swiftly began utilizing them. It's still a challenge defeating Donkey or Bowser with him, though. I like his Volt Tackle Final Smash, but it was a bit hard to control.
A few things to note for Pikachu. His down-B has much faster lag afterwards- no more wait before you can follow up and you can spam the attack rapidly for an edgeguard if someone is coming back high. And Pikachu's down-Smash's range is ridiculous and does a ton of damage.
Next up: Sonic, he can really move! Sonic, he's got an attitude! Sonic, he's the fastest thing aliiive!
YES. I only wish that song were in the game But Sonic Boom makes me happy.
So what are your guys opinion on the strongest/weakest characters. I don't have that much experience so I can't tell but looking for your guys opinions.
Brotherhood of the Monkey @( !.! )@ To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift. ~Steve Prefontaine Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.
ArmorPierce wrote:So what are your guys opinion on the strongest/weakest characters. I don't have that much experience so I can't tell but looking for your guys opinions.
Ah, he wants the tiers.
By my judgement (the Smash community is still debating to establish a final tier chart of their own):
Top tier characters:
Pikachu
Marth
Toon Link
Game & Watch
Maybe Snake?
I'd put Peach and Ike and MetaKnight and Pit at the next step of the chart.
I wouldn't say Snake is top-tier. His learning curve is way too high for that.
As an aside, Charizard is fucking insane in boss fights. 3 Rock Smashes in Normal difficulty will leave Master Hand with barely any HP.
Fragment of the Lord of Nightmares, release thy heavenly retribution. Blade of cold, black nothingness: become my power, become my body. Together, let us walk the path of destruction and smash even the souls of the Gods! RAGNA BLADE!
Lore Monkey | the Pichu-master™
Secularism—since AD 80
Av: Elika; Prince of Persia
Darth Yoshi wrote:I wouldn't say Snake is top-tier. His learning curve is way too high for that.
As an aside, Charizard is fucking insane in boss fights. 3 Rock Smashes in Normal difficulty will leave Master Hand with barely any HP.
His learning curve is high but his firepower blows everything away. His rolling attack, back air and up air have ridiculously large hitboxes as well, his forward smash is very powerful, and then there's the explosives to top it all off. Not to mention that his forward-running attack also has a ridiculously large hitbox.
I know this is about brawl but, I just had the most bullshit game ever. I was playing the original Smash Bros. on my computer (emulator). I was still adjusting to the controls so had the computers on level 6. Yoshi and Mario already got eliminated (stock). This was on the star fox level we are on the edge of the right side. I have a beam sword and Link is holding a box. I smash him with it just as I get hit with a box. Link gets sent flying I bounce off the ship and then I start flying away from it just as Link is getting back on the platform he hits me with the up B and I go flying and then game over. Sorry I just had to get that out. Fuck.
Darth Yoshi wrote:I wouldn't say Snake is top-tier. His learning curve is way too high for that.
As an aside, Charizard is fucking insane in boss fights. 3 Rock Smashes in Normal difficulty will leave Master Hand with barely any HP.
My brother (Pit) and I (Charizard) just cleared Boss Fights on Normal thanks to your strategy, he is a monster. He's completely nuts on targets that can't move, like the rhino thing and particularly Porky.
Your head is humming and it won't go, in case you don't know, the piper's calling you to join him
Praxis wrote:His learning curve is high but his firepower blows everything away. His rolling attack, back air and up air have ridiculously large hitboxes as well, his forward smash is very powerful, and then there's the explosives to top it all off. Not to mention that his forward-running attack also has a ridiculously large hitbox.
Power means nothing if you can't land any hits. Yeah, his tackle is cheap as hell, but most of his other power moves leave him vulnerable.
Qwerty 42 wrote:Just a hypothetical, couldn't Pokemon Change be used to avoid Tabuu's attack, just to reiterate how good Pokemon Trainer is at Boss Battles?
What'll probably end up happening is that the swap lets you avoid the first two, and then the thrid one kills you.
Fuck, man. Golden Hammers don't work on the Intense difficulty rewards. What kind of shit is that? Those are the rewards that I expect to save hammers for!
Fragment of the Lord of Nightmares, release thy heavenly retribution. Blade of cold, black nothingness: become my power, become my body. Together, let us walk the path of destruction and smash even the souls of the Gods! RAGNA BLADE!
Lore Monkey | the Pichu-master™
Secularism—since AD 80
Av: Elika; Prince of Persia
Praxis wrote:His learning curve is high but his firepower blows everything away. His rolling attack, back air and up air have ridiculously large hitboxes as well, his forward smash is very powerful, and then there's the explosives to top it all off. Not to mention that his forward-running attack also has a ridiculously large hitbox.
Power means nothing if you can't land any hits. Yeah, his tackle is cheap as hell, but most of his other power moves leave him vulnerable.
Qwerty 42 wrote:Just a hypothetical, couldn't Pokemon Change be used to avoid Tabuu's attack, just to reiterate how good Pokemon Trainer is at Boss Battles?
What'll probably end up happening is that the swap lets you avoid the first two, and then the thrid one kills you.
Fuck, man. Golden Hammers don't work on the Intense difficulty rewards. What kind of shit is that? Those are the rewards that I expect to save hammers for!
Do you lose the hammer in that case, or does it just do nothing?
Your head is humming and it won't go, in case you don't know, the piper's calling you to join him
Also, I'm weighing in my opinions on the issue of competitive gaming.
Frankly, metagaming irritates me. I saw a video link (posted either here, SA, or GameFAQs) where apparently a fighting tournament match involved a player hitting the right button at the right frame 3 times in a row. That is absurd, and completely unrelated to what a real-life situation would be like. I'm not saying that games need to have perfect correlation to real physics, but some semblance of reality needs to be established.
Super Smash Bros. thrives on being able to avoid the precise metagaming of other titles through the use of insanity and limited movepool. The competitive scene wants to remove that insanity in order to create the semblance of fairness. They want, in short, to make SSB into the sort of game that every other fighter is, and give it the inherent weaknesses of other fighters. Other fighters are a science, more math than anything else, and it alienates gamers. It's randomness, the idea that you don't know exactly for certain what will happen next, that makes a game fun. That's why people don't like spoilers for films/books/games, because it takes the fun out of it because they know what's coming up.
It's fun in shooters, or in movies, to watch a stream of missiles fly into a room, but one guy somehow survives. It isn't fun, on the other hand, to simply ban whatever mechanism he survived by. We need randomness for the sake of continuing fun. Metagaming is really what's kept people alienated from the industry for so long.
Now, that being said, I just don't get Hanenbow. Maybe I need to play there more often, but I wind up dying for reasons I don't understand.
As well, there are some items I could definitely see the case for banning. One is Superspicy Curry, which I don't think I need to explain. Another is the Smash Ball. I know a lot of people were really excited for how the smash ball would shape the scene, but I think it was mishandled. They spawn at a rate to rival salmon. And they're really not balanced at all: it's really only apparent when you're playing as Link/ Metaknight/ Pokemon Trainer or whoever that everyone else has a final smash which functionally amounts to "press b to win."
But to return to my main point: SSBB is fun. There's no need to make a science of something that was never meant to be one. I'm not saying "YOU GUYZ CAN"T HAVE TORNAMENTS," but it's annoying when people come over to play and basically say "FD only, no items." To quote, ironically, Scrooge: "You keep Smash in your way, and I'll keep it in mine."
Hopefully the online for Brawl changes how that works out. Now that people are forced to use items, play on different stages, and play against characters other than Peachmarthfoxfalco, people can see that there is a skillset associated with "casual" Brawl as well.
Your head is humming and it won't go, in case you don't know, the piper's calling you to join him
I agree with just about everything but the Smash Ball.
I've found that in timed matches, while it can garuntee a kill (or three, if you're lucky), it's by no means a game breaker. I've seen people lose all the time, even after getting their Final Smashes off and tagging everybody.
Not an armored Jigglypuff
"I salute your genetic superiority, now Get off my planet!!" -- Adam Stiener, 1st Somerset Strikers
I was having difficulty unlocking Wolf. Took 3 tries. On my third, I decided to Kirbycide him. It worked. Suck him in, walk off the edge. Game.
"preemptive killing of cops might not be such a bad idea from a personal saftey[sic] standpoint..." --Keevan Colton
"There's a word for bias you can't see: Yours." -- William Saletan
This item dispute is definitely another variation on the classic gaming divide of playing to prove your skill versus playing for the experience. Obviously there's some overlap, but I would guess the sort of player who bans items in Smash Bros. is also the kind of person who can't stand Mario Party. I tend toward the experience side, if you drop me and a player on Final Destination with no items, it might be a hard fought fight but I know how this story ends. What's exciting to me in a game like this is the chance that a previously ordinary stage goes to hell when everything twists upside down or one player suddenly grabs a great item. What do you do now?
As Qwerty touched on though you can make the case that some Final Smashes tilt too far in the other direction. Powerful items like the pokeball or the beam saber are tremendous assets, but a skilled player can dodge or play a more defensive style to survive. It makes sense that there would be a trade off between a character having weaker moves + a more powerful final smash and vice versa to balance it, but I haven't really discovered a balance like that yet.
I'm going to make a case for competitive play, but remind people that competitive play does not mean you have to turn off all items, ban all the interesting stages, and only play with fox and marth. But there's reasons to limit some of the options and reduce the variables of gameplay, especially because those changes would actually foster an atmosphere where more players are viable and more interesting matchups are likely.
Certain stages benefit certain characters--that's a fact. Bridge of Eldin, for example, benefits Pit, Fox, Falco and Snake a lot more than it does Bowser, King Dedede and Donkey Kong. Denying that some characters have huge advantages based on stage choice is ridiculous, since it's an obvious fact. Try telling me that Bowser and Pit are both equally matched in New Pork City. If all stages are on, especially with items, I can't effectively compete on many of them as some characters, so those characters begin to fade away in terms of desirability. Bad!
The existance of items benefits smaller, faster characters. Pikachu, Metaknight, and goddamn Sonic are all way more likely to reach a given item more quickly that a slower, heavier character. Slower are often Large characters and so also suffer from a larger hit profile from thrown items, which do extreme amounts of damage. Furthermore, Slow and Large characters are often Power characters too, and so gain the least from the addition of beam swords, fans, bombs and so on. If you leave all of them on, you favor more of these same kinds of characters over others, and diminish the advantages of some, making them less favorable and less likely to be chosen. Bad!
Certain characters, like Snake, Ness, Lucas, etc... are all very good at chasing down Smashballs. Snake's nikita will kill a smashball in a single hit, as well as being a guided projectile. This makes smashballs favor one character over another in general, and the effect is not even either. Metaknight is quick but has some trouble killing it. Once he finally does, his smash requires a foe within arm's reach to begin it. Compare that to Snake's, or Ness' or Lucas' final smash, which not only consume some screen space in snake's case (covering up the battle) but also giving them a massive killpower boost likely to clear the stage. Compare Kirby's (doing about 40 damage to whoever is in moderate range, as well as dropping some small food items) to Marth's (instant kill on any one person you successfully target--easy to do) to Pikachu's (massively fast flying deathball zipping around in a guided path). By leaving Smashballs on anything but low or off, you make it far easier for some characters to continually reverse the flow of battle with an extremely low cost-to-benefit ratio. This makes it disadvantageous to choose certain characters, especially the ones that can't kill the smashball easily or the ones that have a smash that's too weak to be viable. This makes them less choice in an environment were Smashballs are common, and further decreases the viable pool of characters. Bad!
You add these all up and often the characters who already felt mediocre overall (Bowser, Luigi, etc) recieve huge hits against them while some that were already quite powerful (Lucas, Snake, Pit, etc) become extremely dominating. Obviously, the game is fluid and what seems like a poor situation to be in can change rapidly, and player skill matters quite a bit, but to say that the game is perfectly balanced as it is in all circumstances is incorrect, and so someone who is expecting a fair fight is entitled to feeling unfairly treated by the stage or the random number gods if they lose a fight based on bad luck. However, if they repeatedly lose fights because they are plinked from long range, or can't get the items, or whatever the situation is, you're going to start removing the fun value for them, and if they complain about it, they've got a point. And suddenly natural selection has kicked in, and only the fittest survive.
Maybe they just suck, and they'll be playing you as Ike and complaining about how overpowered Mario is or something, and then they're just moronic. But if your buddy is playing DK, you're playing Falco, you've got items on and Rumble Falls pops up... you can bet that he's in a LOT worse shape than you, regardless of skill level.
So I think that making the game more competitive-friendly also makes it more fairness-friendly. I honestly find it hard to believe, or justify, that someone could play a game without items and find it boring or unexciting or too orderly. If you are then someone isn't playing aggressively enough, that's all I can say--two characters slugging it out, juking around, dodging, throwing... there's a lot of very fast-paced action there. If both players are fighting hard, the game won't be boring or slow, and it will have plenty of options for chaotic frenzied action when it's 4-player.
If you want people to play less defensively, take it off stock. Make it points--points encorage aggressiveness, which adds to fun and lets people get in hits without punishing the loser (or enabling team-ups). Remove the most aggrivating levels (Norfair, Spear Pillar) or the most unbalanced levels (Bridge of Eldin, New Pork City) depending on the way you guys play. You'll also make MORE characters available if you reduce the number of partially unfair stages, which will reduce the amount of Fox/Marth/Sheik action you encounter. Once people can actually hope to compete as Bowser, or R.O.B. or whoever, you're more likely to see those characters show up.
Basically, there's no good solution for it. Ask your buddies--unless you want to go Pro, those are the only people whose opinon about smash matters. If all of you love to play with Smokebombs and Assist Trophies turned on High, hell, have at it. But if someone feels that certain levels and the items and smashballs are giving them a harder time than someone else, they might have a legitimate complaint. Nobody likes getting murdered over and over again because they can't even get to their enemy, and nobody likes to lose because of some random thing. But a few items and most of the stages on, that'll keep things just crazy enough to make sure the real combat is plenty fierce.
Qwerty 42 wrote:Also, I'm weighing in my opinions on the issue of competitive gaming.
Frankly, metagaming irritates me. I saw a video link (posted either here, SA, or GameFAQs) where apparently a fighting tournament match involved a player hitting the right button at the right frame 3 times in a row. That is absurd, and completely unrelated to what a real-life situation would be like. I'm not saying that games need to have perfect correlation to real physics, but some semblance of reality needs to be established.
Super Smash Bros. thrives on being able to avoid the precise metagaming of other titles through the use of insanity and limited movepool. The competitive scene wants to remove that insanity in order to create the semblance of fairness. They want, in short, to make SSB into the sort of game that every other fighter is, and give it the inherent weaknesses of other fighters. Other fighters are a science, more math than anything else, and it alienates gamers. It's randomness, the idea that you don't know exactly for certain what will happen next, that makes a game fun. That's why people don't like spoilers for films/books/games, because it takes the fun out of it because they know what's coming up.
It's fun in shooters, or in movies, to watch a stream of missiles fly into a room, but one guy somehow survives. It isn't fun, on the other hand, to simply ban whatever mechanism he survived by. We need randomness for the sake of continuing fun. Metagaming is really what's kept people alienated from the industry for so long.
So, essentially, your definition of fun should be everyone else's? People who prefer to play the game fairly based on skill and enjoy the intensity of a close match between two players of equal skill are somehow wrong and people who enjoy the randomness are right?
Get off your high horse and stop knocking the competitive players.
But to return to my main point: SSBB is fun. There's no need to make a science of something that was never meant to be one. I'm not saying "YOU GUYZ CAN"T HAVE TORNAMENTS," but it's annoying when people come over to play and basically say "FD only, no items." To quote, ironically, Scrooge: "You keep Smash in your way, and I'll keep it in mine."
Again- your definition of fun may be different from someone else's. Generally, my rules of Smash is this: No items and neutral (non-moving) stages for 1v1, all items on and any stage is fair game on 4 way FFA because there is no semblance of fairness anyway. If someone is coming over to your house and refuse to play with items with other people, well, I don't agree with that- that's a case of being snobbish. But saying that people who have that preference are taking the fun away from the game is of an equal level of snobbery.
When items are turned off, Brawl in the hands of an experienced player can become as deep and balanced as a game like Street Fighter. Some people ENJOY playing the game as a science, pitting skill against skill. If you think they're not having fun, then go talk to them sometime. Go to an actual tournament. I got involved in the tournament scene about a month ago and these people enjoy the game more than anyone else I've ever been around.
Hopefully the online for Brawl changes how that works out. Now that people are forced to use items, play on different stages, and play against characters other than Peachmarthfoxfalco, people can see that there is a skillset associated with "casual" Brawl as well.
So people being forced to play the game YOUR way is preferable to you being forced to play the game SOMEONE ELSE'S way.
That is what you said, is it not? If someone comes to your house and wants to play with no items, they suck. If a group of people who enjoy playing with no items are forced to play with items even when all of them would prefer not to, good, they need to be forced to play the game your way.
Wow, I'm convinced. Best argument I've ever heard.
I'm mostly pointing out the flaws in your post, because some of them really struck a nerve. I play the game both ways- I play with items for my casual friends and no items among my rivals and peers at the game, and no items with the tourney crowd, and I enjoy the no items 1v1's more than anything else. Covenant provided a case for no items, so I'm not bothering to address it- just point out how biased your post is.
Qwerty 42 wrote:Do you lose the hammer in that case, or does it just do nothing?
Nothing happens. Usually when you try to break open a reward a confirmation box pops up asking if you really want to use the hammer. With the Intense rewards, you get a click and that's it. It's a good thing I've got 7000 coins saved up, because All-Star is going to suck.
As far as Smash Balls go, seeing as your first instinct to go chase them down, it lets opportunistic wankers like me get in free hits while everyone else is distracted.
In other news, I've finally managed 100% for SSE. Now I just need to start another game and get the Peach-storyline cutscenes.
Fragment of the Lord of Nightmares, release thy heavenly retribution. Blade of cold, black nothingness: become my power, become my body. Together, let us walk the path of destruction and smash even the souls of the Gods! RAGNA BLADE!
Lore Monkey | the Pichu-master™
Secularism—since AD 80
Av: Elika; Prince of Persia
Qwerty 42 wrote:Also, I'm weighing in my opinions on the issue of competitive gaming.
Frankly, metagaming irritates me. I saw a video link (posted either here, SA, or GameFAQs) where apparently a fighting tournament match involved a player hitting the right button at the right frame 3 times in a row. That is absurd, and completely unrelated to what a real-life situation would be like. I'm not saying that games need to have perfect correlation to real physics, but some semblance of reality needs to be established.
Super Smash Bros. thrives on being able to avoid the precise metagaming of other titles through the use of insanity and limited movepool. The competitive scene wants to remove that insanity in order to create the semblance of fairness. They want, in short, to make SSB into the sort of game that every other fighter is, and give it the inherent weaknesses of other fighters. Other fighters are a science, more math than anything else, and it alienates gamers. It's randomness, the idea that you don't know exactly for certain what will happen next, that makes a game fun. That's why people don't like spoilers for films/books/games, because it takes the fun out of it because they know what's coming up.
It's fun in shooters, or in movies, to watch a stream of missiles fly into a room, but one guy somehow survives. It isn't fun, on the other hand, to simply ban whatever mechanism he survived by. We need randomness for the sake of continuing fun. Metagaming is really what's kept people alienated from the industry for so long.
So, essentially, your definition of fun should be everyone else's? People who prefer to play the game fairly based on skill and enjoy the intensity of a close match between two players of equal skill are somehow wrong and people who enjoy the randomness are right?
Get off your high horse and stop knocking the competitive players.
But to return to my main point: SSBB is fun. There's no need to make a science of something that was never meant to be one. I'm not saying "YOU GUYZ CAN"T HAVE TORNAMENTS," but it's annoying when people come over to play and basically say "FD only, no items." To quote, ironically, Scrooge: "You keep Smash in your way, and I'll keep it in mine."
Again- your definition of fun may be different from someone else's. Generally, my rules of Smash is this: No items and neutral (non-moving) stages for 1v1, all items on and any stage is fair game on 4 way FFA because there is no semblance of fairness anyway. If someone is coming over to your house and refuse to play with items with other people, well, I don't agree with that- that's a case of being snobbish. But saying that people who have that preference are taking the fun away from the game is of an equal level of snobbery.
When items are turned off, Brawl in the hands of an experienced player can become as deep and balanced as a game like Street Fighter. Some people ENJOY playing the game as a science, pitting skill against skill. If you think they're not having fun, then go talk to them sometime. Go to an actual tournament. I got involved in the tournament scene about a month ago and these people enjoy the game more than anyone else I've ever been around.
Hopefully the online for Brawl changes how that works out. Now that people are forced to use items, play on different stages, and play against characters other than Peachmarthfoxfalco, people can see that there is a skillset associated with "casual" Brawl as well.
So people being forced to play the game YOUR way is preferable to you being forced to play the game SOMEONE ELSE'S way.
That is what you said, is it not? If someone comes to your house and wants to play with no items, they suck. If a group of people who enjoy playing with no items are forced to play with items even when all of them would prefer not to, good, they need to be forced to play the game your way.
Wow, I'm convinced. Best argument I've ever heard.
I'm mostly pointing out the flaws in your post, because some of them really struck a nerve. I play the game both ways- I play with items for my casual friends and no items among my rivals and peers at the game, and no items with the tourney crowd, and I enjoy the no items 1v1's more than anything else. Covenant provided a case for no items, so I'm not bothering to address it- just point out how biased your post is.
Dude, relax. I'm not saying that people should stop playing how they want, I'm saying that I don't understand the mentality behind no items play. I even specifically said: "I'm not saying "YOU GUYZ CAN"T HAVE TORNAMENTS," but it's annoying when people come over to play and basically say "FD only, no items." To quote, ironically, Scrooge: "You keep Smash in your way, and I'll keep it in mine." "
Your head is humming and it won't go, in case you don't know, the piper's calling you to join him
I'm not saying that people should stop playing how they want, I'm saying that I don't understand the mentality behind no items play. I even specifically said: "I'm not saying "YOU GUYZ CAN"T HAVE TORNAMENTS," but it's annoying when people come over to play and basically say "FD only, no items." To quote, ironically, Scrooge: "You keep Smash in your way, and I'll keep it in mine." "
The mentality is that we actually enjoy playing it as a science. The crazy randomness can be fun at times, but when the game has the depth to potentially rival street fighter, relying on perfect timing and thinking three steps ahead of your opponent, letting that go to waste is sad.
There's nothing like two skilled Smash Bros players going at each other. You try to predict every motion and the speed at which you have to react is staggering. It's a blast.
But Sonic Boom makes me happy.
Your head is humming and it won't go, in case you don't know, the piper's calling you to join him
