New Smash Bros?

[Facehugger]

By the literary definition of 'combo', Brawl possesses the ability for players to perform 'combos'

Hopefully this will break the fixation with grasping at straws. The above is my argument in a nutshell. Please proceed to contend this actual statement, with actual logical thought processes, without whining about me using a 'different definition' or insulting the credibility of my argument.

Oh, and implying Brawl is not a real fighting game in place of a logical counterpoint is a No True Scotsman, I believe. =)

Edited July 11, 2011 by Facehugger

[Carbo]

Oh, and implying Brawl is not a real fighting game in place of a logical counterpoint is a No True Scotsman, I believe. =)

Sakurai never intended for Smash Bros to be a real fighting game which is something he has stated a thousand times by now, and is why he made Brawl the way it is right now.

Do you honestly need more convincing than this? Because so far I've only seen you argue for the sake of arguing.

[Chooch]

By the literary definition of 'combo', Brawl possesses the ability for players to perform 'combos'

Hopefully this will break the fixation with grasping at straws. The above is my argument in a nutshell. Please proceed to contend this actual statement, with actual logical thought processes, without whining about me using a 'different definition' or insulting the credibility of my argument.

Oh, and implying Brawl is not a real fighting game in place of a logical counterpoint is a No True Scotsman, I believe. =)

Edited July 11, 2011 by Chooch

[Remy]

By the literary definition of 'combo', Brawl possesses the ability for players to perform 'combos'

[Facehugger]

Sakurai never intended for Smash Bros to be a real fighting game which is something he has stated a thousand times by now, and is why he made Brawl the way it is right now.

I've heard he's stated it wasn't meant to be a hardcore, serious competitive fighting game. I don't recall that being said. Even so, illogical.

Also, intentions =/= results

I'm not saying it is a serious hardcore competitive game, before you spin out of control and launch an angsty-wave of strawmen at me. This was a general sentiment.

Do you honestly need more convincing than this? Because so far I've only seen you argue for the sake of arguing.

No.

....Yeah.

And seriously, how many times does it have to be stated that the literary definition of a combo is completely irrelevant in the case of fighting games? It's like you don't even read the posts you respond to. We are talking about fighting games, the definition of combo should tie into the actual subject matter, thus the correct definition of 'combo' should be the one in relation to fighting games.

I thought my statement was pretty clear. Specifically the 'By literary definition', meaning exactly what it says. Other definitions aren't relevant to rebutting the actual logic of my post. In fact, whining about the definition choice is kind of why I made the prior post the way I did, so no use in getting aggrivated. Contest the actual sentiment of the point, or don't bother.

You want to shout fucking 'Strawman' every single time someone disagrees with you and makes an effort to post counter examples and you don't even notice what you're doing yourself. It's not a fucking No true Scotsman when my counterargument was against your bullshit claim that fighting games with combos devolve into button mashing. Give me a break.

Actually, it's still a No True Scotsman. You opted to convey that Brawl isn't a 'real' fighting game when faced with a counterpoint.

And no, I generally type 'strawman' when a 'strawman' is committed, funnily enough.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Facehugger

[Chooch]

Other definitions aren't relevant to rebutting the actual logic of my post. In fact, whining about the definition choice is kind of why I made the prior post the way I did, so no use in getting aggrivated. Contest the actual sentiment of the point, or don't bother.

The other definitions are relevant to the rebutting of the logic of your post because your post is illogical. In the context of fighting games, the literary definition of a 'combo' is never used. Why would the fighting game definition of the word 'combo' not be used where it is specifically designated to be used?

What you're saying doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Actually, it's still a No True Soctsman. You opted to convey that Brawl isn't a 'real' fighting game. My statement in this regard is irrelevant.

You have gone completely out of your way to entirely ignore the vast majority of the posts that I've made, only home in on that single statement and once again call fucking No True Scotsman when it isn't even applicable to main point that I was trying to convey. You said that other fighting games devolve into button mashing due to the inclusion of combos. I posted various counterpoints to said claim. How is that a No True Scotsman?

I should be the one calling No True Scotsman and strawman on you!

[N]o use in getting aggrivated

I'm honestly trying to be patient with you, but it's starting to become increasingly frustrating when I take the time to be as clear and concise as I possibly can with each of my counterpoints against what you've said and type out big long posts only to see that they've been ignored over and over again without any proper response to them.

If you aren't going to bother respecting me enough to actually read and acknowledge what I have stated then I'm not going to bother going any further. This is a complete fucking joke of a discussion at this point.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Chooch

[Pelly <3's U]

I don't really understand why a new smash bros topic has so much talk about brawl's competitive aspect.

Also chill, it's just a game discussion.

[Tornado]

I don't really understand why a new smash bros topic has so much talk about brawl's competitive aspect.

[Phos]

What I think is kind of funny about smash bros. is that even with its extremely simple control scheme they still somehow managed to make execution a problem. I can't reliably do tilts. This is not an isolated problem. You can map the C stick to do tilts, but if you try to tilt in the opposite direction from where you are facing, you just jab... in the direction you were already facing.

[Pelly <3's U]

I'd actually argue that Brawl's competitive aspect is logically the first thing that would (and arguably even should) be discussed when talking about a new SSB.

Its a very sore point that arguably represents a distillation of Nintendo's marketing strategy as a whole during the Wii's life time (though Mario Kart Wii is probably an even better example), and taking steps to make sure that the next game isn't intentionally sabotaged (for lack of a better term) for actual competition would be quite an olive branch in that regard. If Nintendo wants to make the Wii U appeal to the demographic that currently scorns them, putting up one of their main multiplayer franchises to the spotlight to show that they are through with their "everyone's a winner" silliness would be a home-run. Especially when that specific series marks the point where that game design philosophy went from annoying to infamous.

[/awaits bannination]

and I would agree with you if there was a consensus for the brawl's competitive appeal/lack thereof and people were using that to make a point with how they would like the new game to be...

and while some are, there's still a large level of posts that just are almost identical to posts made in brawl threads around the net, without any discussion of a new game. It's like people can't even get beyond arguing about brawl itself, and that's where the problem comes in.

[Thirsty Pocket]

I remembered how much fun I once had talking about what could and was in Brawl before the game was launched. Seriously, most fun a nintendo fanboy could have... So I went to a forum I haven't been to in forever( Nsider2 I think ) ...then rabid Geno, Fawful and Toad supporters appeared. The kind who think there should be no more characters in a certain series because they didn't play it. ( seriously this one dude wanted to do away with clones but said we should add Louie from Pikmin ) ...And then I remembered what stressful times they were too.

[Blacklightning]

there's still a large level of posts that just are almost identical to posts made in brawl threads around the net, without any discussion of a new game. It's like people can't even get beyond arguing about brawl itself, and that's where the problem comes in.

[Facehugger]

The other definitions are relevant to the rebutting of the logic of your post because your post is illogical. In the context of fighting games, the literary definition of a 'combo' is never used. Why would the fighting game definition of the word 'combo' not be used where it is specifically designated to be used?

Edited July 12, 2011 by Facehugger

[Blacklightning]

The only one who is missing the point is you.

You are arguing against the notion that Brawl doesn't have traditional combos, and your argument is based almost solely around a dictionary definition that doesn't even accurately represent a traditional combo - in effect, it is you who has been making a strawman this entire time. Nobody is arguing that it's impossible to "combo" in your completely irrelevant definition (hell, if it were impossible to execute any two actions in the very vaugest similarities in context to each other, it would be considered a largely unfinished and broken game), they're arguing that it's virtually impossible to combo in the sense that is defined by its own fucking genre, which it should be able to in some degree in the first place.

In case the message hasn't gotten through to you yet, you aren't even arguing about the same thing everyone else is, yet you claim to be factually correct in a field that isn't even remotely related. This is an obvious fallacy to such an extent that I'm honestly convinced you've only been doing it to troll the whole time, because no sane man would maintain that level of sheer, outright hypocritcal ignorance for such a prolonged period of time and not notice something was slightly amiss.

I'm done here. When you take your head out of your ass, stop acting so stuck up and make some kind of attempt to make a counterpoint that's actually relevant to the argument, I might come back.

[Remy]

By the literary definition of 'combo', Brawl possesses the ability for players to perform 'combos'

Sure. Brawl allows players to before literal combos as in sequences of moves. Like most other video-games containing more then one action. If you want to claim some kind of debate based victory here take it, congratulations, you won the word definition debate. The dictionary told you what it meant, great.

Counterpoint: "Within the realm of the fighting genre, the literally definition of "combo" is irrelevant, as the word itself has a different more specific definition, established in it's infancy and this definition is the one used when discussion fighting games. for your benefit:

In fighting games, combo specifically indicates a timed sequence of moves which produce a cohesive series of hits. The combo requires that an initial hit connects. This hit is then followed by an often predetermined sequence of other hits, each of which leaves the opponent unable or almost unable to block or otherwise avoid the following hit(s) in the sequence. Technically, it is described as the recovery animation for an attack being shorter than the hitstun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combo_(video_gaming)

By this definition, Brawl does not possess any that are viable as the characters attack recovery animations are longer then the time hit opponents spend in hitstun, therefore disallowing effective comboing. Opponents being hit in brawl can usually escape after one hit, and more often then not with how Brawl dodges and rolls work, punish you.

By this accepted definition, which is what we were using in the topic before you dragged in a second, completely irrelevant definition from a dictionary, Brawl does not have combos.

Yes, yours is the literary definition, but so are these

• 
  
  
• a motorcycle with a sidecar attached
  
• a small jazz or dance band. Compare big band.
  
  

The Jazz band one seems to be hilariously listed on every online dictionary I google'd, so I'm guessing you skimmed that one for the sake of your argument.

regardless, both of these have no more relevance to fighting games then your definition.

The reason this is relevant to the topic is I for one would like to see the return of said combos in the next smash brothers game, it adds flavour to fighting, usually lends towards a more rewarding, offensive style of play and brightens up the monotony of jab wars.

[Tornado]

Now, I'll say it again.

By the literary definition of 'combo', Brawl possesses the ability for players to perform 'combos'

Note: (Again) Whining that I haven't used the definition you want me to do does make the statement incorrect.

A combo:

That obviously means MLP is a fighting game just like Super IV guys!

[Facehugger]

The only one who is missing the point is you.

You know, it's funny how this comment immediately preceeds a lenghty post containing....more points which seem to miss the point.

You are arguing against the notion that Brawl doesn't have traditional combos,

No, I am arguing that according to the literary definition of what a 'combo' is, that Brawl possesses some form of combo-based possibilities.

and your argument is based almost solely around a dictionary definition that doesn't even accurately represent a traditional combo - in effect, it is you who has been making a strawman this entire time.

I'm not the one making my opponent's argument to out to be different than it is. I'm not the one making strawmen.

Nobody is arguing that it's impossible to "combo" in your completely irrelevant definition (hell, if it were impossible to execute any two actions in the very vaugest similarities in context to each other, it would be considered a largely unfinished and broken game), they're arguing that it's virtually impossible to combo in the sense that is defined by its own fucking genre, which it should be able to in some degree in the first place.

The definition is not irrelevant to this debate, and I am getting increasingly aggitated with people spouting butthurt crap about how the definition is 'irrelevant to fighting games!'. Even assuming your arguments are correct, I don't care. You're still trying to side-step one glaring flaw in your counterattack. You haven't disproved my initial statement, at all. All I can see here is more whining. In fact, whining about why my initial standpoint should be different is so ass-backwards I'd expect it of internet trolls and complete idiots, not you, Blacklightning. My assertion is obvious. In the context of this argument, my definition is very much relevant to the point I'm trying to get across, admittedly a simple point that should in a sense go without saying, but hey, so what if I need to beat people over the head before actual logic sinks in?

In case the message hasn't gotten through to you yet, you aren't even arguing about the same thing everyone else is, yet you claim to be factually correct in a field that isn't even remotely related. This is an obvious fallacy to such an extent that I'm honestly convinced you've only been doing it to troll the whole time, because no sane man would maintain that level of sheer, outright hypocritcal ignorance for such a prolonged period of time and not notice something was slightly amiss.

Do you know what I find most ironic? Assuming you are correct. If I am an ignorant hypocrite for arguing about a different thing from you, then what makes you exempt, hmm? You are doing the exact same thing. I'm trying to convey my point as clear as humanly possible, and still get points launched which don't prove me wrong at all. All you are doing at this point is whining about shit that you are doing as well, so tread carefully. It's inherently pointless to rant at me for being a 'hypocrite' when the point is lost in transition, primarily because you too are being one, for the same fucking reason you used, no less. I'm trying to get people to challenge my actual argument, so at least I'm doing something about it, not sitting around like an angsty kid looking for the slightest excuse to argue needlessely with someone, and then become angry because you hopped into a debate without fully realising what you were arguing against, then growing butthurt because you were too stubborn to simply accept what my assertion was, and instead of pulling out with some semblance of dignity, opted instead to continue this string of strawmen and argumentative labels which, at the end of the day, still don't disprove the logic of my point. So, what exactly is the point? So now, not only are you still not contesting the statement on a logical ground which proves it false, you've become a hypocritical ass in transition. Congratulations, I hope it was worth it.

I'm done here. When you take your head out of your ass, stop acting so stuck up and make some kind of attempt to make a counterpoint that's actually relevant to the argument, I might come back.

Counterpoint that's relevant? I had to repeat my main argument multiple times because it hadn't sunk in from debating with you three. The ignorance is on you, and it is simply astonishing to me how you are attempting to maintian this guise of superiorty, when everyone who's been arguing against me has been making strawmen since this fuckin' thing began, turning a complete blind eye to your own fails and fallacies in the process.

Oh, please return. Your argument collapsing on itself through ass-backwards and hypocritical points which, still fail to prove me incorrect, amuse me.

Sure.

OMG! Sense!

Brawl allows players to before literal combos as in sequences of moves. Like most other video-games containing more then one action. If you want to claim some kind of debate based victory here take it, congratulations, you won the word definition debate. The dictionary told you what it meant, great.

The dictionary also told you what it meant, I just didn't ignore it. You see, the sentiment you use to make my victory seem ridiculous can also be used to make your loss seem even more ridiculous. Try harder.

congratulations, you won the word definition debate.

Even worse, you lost it.

Counterpoint: "Within the realm of the fighting genre, the literally definition of "combo" is irrelevant, as the word itself has a different more specific definition, established in it's infancy and this definition is the one used when discussion fighting games.

The nature of the assertion is such that it uses a specific source from which to launch it's logic. The problem with your rebuttal here is, it doesn't prove said logic incorrect. Using the literary definitino as a platform, Brawl has combos. Wether or not it is relevant to fighting games is in itself, irrelevant, but it is completely relevant to this argument, and it isn't unreasonable of me to expect that my opposition would try to actually invalidate the notion on a logical basis by proving the notion is false, or failing that, accept defeat instead of prolonging a tedious ass-hurt parade.

which is what we were using in the topic before you dragged in a second, completely irrelevant definition from a dictionary, Brawl does not have combos.

It is not irrelevant. It is completely relevant to this current debate. I honestly find it pathetic that you hop into a debate, argue against something, and then whine incessantly that it's irrelevant. It's irrelevant to the topic, perhaps. Irrelevant to fighting games, perhaps. Irrelevant to the point I'm trying to get across and to this debate you willingly joined and persist with, no.

That obviously means MLP is a fighting game just like Super IV guys!

Strawman. Edited July 12, 2011 by Facehugger

[Tornado]

Strawman.

Congratulations! You just unintentionally invalidated your entire post.

Which is exactly what I expected you would do, and was exactly why I posted that.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Tornado

[Facehugger]

No, I didn't.

Your point was a strawman because I never once claimed that MLP was a fighting game. The difference here is, my argument isn't a strawman. My argument seems to be the only one getting misrepresented, because up until remy's recent post, no-one seemed to have a goddamned clue of what it was, and even when there was hope that my argument had finally been realised, it just devolved back into crap.

Try harder.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Facehugger

[Remy]

Even worse, you lost it.

Was I arguing it?

[Facehugger]

Was I arguing it?

Well, it takes multiple people to argue, and I certainly wasn't arguing with myself.

[LunarEdge]

im going to be honest. As a neutral party, I didn't want to say anything because these little arguments you guys are going back and forth with was pretty amusing at first to say the least. I'm not a mod or anything but now it's just getting retarded and sad. You guys obviously are not going to see eye to eye and what's suppose to be a friendly discussion has turned into "strawman" this or "Scotsman" that. Also, does it really matter if Brawl or any smash game had combos? You can hit a player multiple times, lets drop it at that.... WHO CARES!!

I'm not trying to backseat mod but I will make a suggestion... just drop it and lets get back to the discussion at hand, a possible new smash brothers game .

Edited July 12, 2011 by LunarEdge

[Chooch]

I am arguing that according to the literary definition of what a 'combo' is, that Brawl possesses some form of combo-based possibilities.

It is not irrelevant.

The definition is not irrelevant to this debate

Using the literary definitino as a platform, Brawl has combos.

t is completely relevant to this argument

In the context of fighting games, the literary definition of a 'combo' is never used.

Your statement is correct providing we actually bother to use the literary definition, but it is still entirely irrelevant to what we are discussing. We are discussing fighting games and as such, the fighting game definition is what is applicable and reasonable to use. It is the definition that is actually relevant to what we are discussing.

I'm not the one making my opponent's argument to out to be different than it is. I'm not the one making strawmen.

Yes you are. In fact you are the main one who is.

You said that other fighting games devolve into button mashing due to the inclusion of combos. I posted various counterpoints to said claim.

You still have not made a proper response to those.

You've entirely ignored the majority of the post that I am referring to and keep harping on a point that isn't relevant to the one that was the core of said post.

Even assuming your arguments are correct, I don't care.

If that's the case then that means you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Strawman.

*sigh*

If you want to continue discussing this just PM me or something. I don't think we should drag this topic down any further.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Chooch

[LunarEdge]

If you want to continue discussing this just PM me or something. I don't think we should drag this topic down any further.

Finally. Smartest post I've seen all day in this topic anyway

Edited July 12, 2011 by LunarEdge

[-Robin-]

If you want to get extremely technical, combos do exist in Brawl. There's just not nearly as much, nor are they as noticeable as in Melee.

Sonic can combo into any of his aerials aside from Back Air from his Spin Dash to Spin Dash Jump chain at low to mid percents, and then that same chain combos into Back Air at high percents. Sonic can also chain two Down tilts together into a grab/Up tilt, or Up throw into an Up tilt, at 0%. Samus can combo her Down Air into her Fsmash at low percents, and her Zair into her Charge Shot at mid percents. Sheik can combo her ftilt into damn near anything. Zelda's Up Smash combos into itself at 0%, and if Zelda gets a dtilt on anyone around 50%, she's getting 40% for free because of her dtilt lock and finishing it up with Dash Attack, Dsmash, Usmash, or Fair. Fox is notorious for his Dair -> utilt/grab/Usmash combos.

And so on. The combo game is just more restrictive in Brawl, only accessible through a handful of moves, and some can be adjusted and affected due to the way the opponent DIs (Directional Influence), whereas in Melee, a lot of moves combo with no chance to DI.

Edited July 12, 2011 by Razor Wind