So last night a friend of mine directed me to a YouTube video of a Super Smash Bros. Melee match. It was pretty impressive, featuring some excellent Link-on-Marth action. Unfortunately, my attitude soon soured as I read the user-posted summary of the video:
This is not the first time my stomach has turned in response to the antics of the self-proclaimed Smash Bros. elite. I know it's unhealthy at best to actually take anything said on YouTube, of all places, seriously, but this is word-for-word the kind of shlock I have been reading all over the Internet for years.
I do not doubt that this "Ken" character is indeed quite good—enough people online worship him to convince me of that. Why, however, such vitriol? Why the need to proclaim his superiority in such an aggressive manner, while simultaneously berating virtually every single SSBM player on the planet for even suggesting that they may have comparable ability?
Indeed, this attitude is far more prevalent than it should be. One can scarcely begin a conversation about Smash Bros. before the maniacs come out of the woodwork, and opinions on every possible side are comically extreme. No-item stage-limited play is the only true way to be competitive. Anyone who plays without items is perverting the game and their skills are meaningless. Smash Bros. itself is, as a friend of a fellow N-Sider staff member so eloquently put it, a "shallow, vapid, shit game."
Each camp's self-righteousness and relentless evangelism serve only to ruin things for the rest of us. It's an important point: these people aren't representative of the entire community at all, but they are unfortunately the most vocal. While I love to play Smash Bros. competitively, I hesitate to proclaim myself a competitive player due to the name the most rabid elitists have made for the classification.
Smash Bros. is truly a series defined by its flexibility. Virtually every facet of the game can be customized, allowing those who hate certain items or stages to turn them off outright, and letting others continue to play with them in whatever fashion they wish. The outright declaration that any particular variation of these rules is invalid is pure folly. One could argue that eliminating certain stages and items makes the game less random, and thus more conducive to a true test of skill. At the same time, one could claim that the ability to avoid and adapt to random occurrences is a large part of what defines an excellent player of the game.
The thing about these opposite viewpoints is that they are entirely compatible. There is no grand Smash Bros. authority that lays down decrees regarding what is and isn't the right way to play the game. Even a single person could find immense pleasure in playing on a flat stage without items one day, and on a hectic one with items on the next. They both require different sets of skills, and neither is less engaging if approached with an open mind.
That said, one is entirely allowed to prefer a particular style of play over another. I am not attempting to tell anyone how they should enjoy the game. Rather, I'm suggesting that those who do prefer a style of play shouldn't immediately assume that it's the only valid option. More importantly, they should be more civil in their judgments of those who hold differing views.
"Competitive" and "casual" have, unfortunately, become demeaning terms when spoken by members of opposing factions. For a particularly elitist competitive player to claim that someone else is a casual one carries with it a heavy implication—that because their styles of play do not agree with one another, the other individual can't possibly be interested in competitive play. Such a claim is ludicrous, of course, as true competition can be found in any ruleset, as long as its champions share a passion for it. Nobody has the right to define competition by their own preferred characteristics, and deem all those who object to be casual players.
Allow me to address the unnamed poster of the YouTube quote that tops this editorial directly: if you absolutely must continue to spout this kind of elitist drivel, kindly refrain from signing the "smash community" as an author. The Smash Bros. community is millions-strong, and contains a wealth of good-natured gamers who would love nothing more than to have an excellent battle, regardless of its conditions or participants. I suspect even those players in the video you champion would be uncomfortable with the way you biblify them at the expense of all others.
There's been enough bickering, anger, and elitism between Smash Bros. fans to last us all a lifetime. With Brawl around the corner, let's see if we can't try and have a fresh start. In Masahiro Sakurai's own words, whether we win or lose, let's enjoy a hearty laugh, and move on to the next round.
They are good, you aren't. We don't care about your opinion on how good or bad they are, they would beat you. Stop even think you would stand a chance. Ken is considered the best in the world, he would maybe get beaten by some people, but not people like you, unless you're called PC chris, KDJ or M2K, he proved his skills over and over for soon 7 years in many MLG's and national tournaments, winning more than $50 000 US just by playing this game. Plus he lives in california. Auto Win.
-[alias removed] and the rest of the smash community.
-[alias removed] and the rest of the smash community.
This is not the first time my stomach has turned in response to the antics of the self-proclaimed Smash Bros. elite. I know it's unhealthy at best to actually take anything said on YouTube, of all places, seriously, but this is word-for-word the kind of shlock I have been reading all over the Internet for years.
I do not doubt that this "Ken" character is indeed quite good—enough people online worship him to convince me of that. Why, however, such vitriol? Why the need to proclaim his superiority in such an aggressive manner, while simultaneously berating virtually every single SSBM player on the planet for even suggesting that they may have comparable ability?
Indeed, this attitude is far more prevalent than it should be. One can scarcely begin a conversation about Smash Bros. before the maniacs come out of the woodwork, and opinions on every possible side are comically extreme. No-item stage-limited play is the only true way to be competitive. Anyone who plays without items is perverting the game and their skills are meaningless. Smash Bros. itself is, as a friend of a fellow N-Sider staff member so eloquently put it, a "shallow, vapid, shit game."
Each camp's self-righteousness and relentless evangelism serve only to ruin things for the rest of us. It's an important point: these people aren't representative of the entire community at all, but they are unfortunately the most vocal. While I love to play Smash Bros. competitively, I hesitate to proclaim myself a competitive player due to the name the most rabid elitists have made for the classification.
Smash Bros. is truly a series defined by its flexibility. Virtually every facet of the game can be customized, allowing those who hate certain items or stages to turn them off outright, and letting others continue to play with them in whatever fashion they wish. The outright declaration that any particular variation of these rules is invalid is pure folly. One could argue that eliminating certain stages and items makes the game less random, and thus more conducive to a true test of skill. At the same time, one could claim that the ability to avoid and adapt to random occurrences is a large part of what defines an excellent player of the game.
The thing about these opposite viewpoints is that they are entirely compatible. There is no grand Smash Bros. authority that lays down decrees regarding what is and isn't the right way to play the game. Even a single person could find immense pleasure in playing on a flat stage without items one day, and on a hectic one with items on the next. They both require different sets of skills, and neither is less engaging if approached with an open mind.
That said, one is entirely allowed to prefer a particular style of play over another. I am not attempting to tell anyone how they should enjoy the game. Rather, I'm suggesting that those who do prefer a style of play shouldn't immediately assume that it's the only valid option. More importantly, they should be more civil in their judgments of those who hold differing views.
"Competitive" and "casual" have, unfortunately, become demeaning terms when spoken by members of opposing factions. For a particularly elitist competitive player to claim that someone else is a casual one carries with it a heavy implication—that because their styles of play do not agree with one another, the other individual can't possibly be interested in competitive play. Such a claim is ludicrous, of course, as true competition can be found in any ruleset, as long as its champions share a passion for it. Nobody has the right to define competition by their own preferred characteristics, and deem all those who object to be casual players.
Allow me to address the unnamed poster of the YouTube quote that tops this editorial directly: if you absolutely must continue to spout this kind of elitist drivel, kindly refrain from signing the "smash community" as an author. The Smash Bros. community is millions-strong, and contains a wealth of good-natured gamers who would love nothing more than to have an excellent battle, regardless of its conditions or participants. I suspect even those players in the video you champion would be uncomfortable with the way you biblify them at the expense of all others.
There's been enough bickering, anger, and elitism between Smash Bros. fans to last us all a lifetime. With Brawl around the corner, let's see if we can't try and have a fresh start. In Masahiro Sakurai's own words, whether we win or lose, let's enjoy a hearty laugh, and move on to the next round.