 |
| No Items. Fox Only. Final Destination. |
And you know what, they're probably right.
Sort of.
GAMES WITHIN GAMES
The version of Smash Bros that the tournament players play is not the same game that you typically play when you play Smash Bros.
I'm not talking about hacked versions, limited versions, NTSC or PAL versions, demo versions, or any other fundamentally different piece of software. I'm talking about the rules that they play by. Hell, the rules anyone plays by.
Typically, in tournaments, they ban all items, and most stages. Every time you switch the 'on' or 'off' for an item or stage, or change any setting, you have altered the rules that you are playing by. And the fundamental base of all games are rules.
What makes Chess what it is? The strategies, movements, everything arises because of the rules of Chess. But if you alter the rules, you create a new version of Chess. And with no rules, Chess just becomes Calvinball. The same is of a videogame.
The variant of Smash Bros Brawl I play at home is different than the psuedo-tournaments I do for my anime club. That version is very different from the version they play in "real" tournaments - which has no items, only two players at a time, 3-stock, and a complicated stage selection system that I don't quite understand.
WHAT'S TIERS GOT TO DO WITH IT?
I acknowledge the existence of Tiers, or at very least that some characters will win more often - within the particular variant of Smash Bros that the tournament scene has created. Do Tiers exist outside of these rules? Most likely - but maybe not?
Smash Bros, in its purest form, where all items and all stages and all characters are allowed, is pretty damn close to Calvinball. A match can dissolve into a whirlwind of chaos and this particular track from Rebuild of Evangelion 2.0 becomes pretty fitting.
Tourneys create a particular game where it's only two players at a time, only three stock, no items, and such forth. A game with items is very different than a game with items, four players is very different from two players.
Here's an example: Sonic vs. King Dedede
Sonic is fast, but he lacks KO power. Dedede might not be fast, but he's got power -- part of an issue in Smash Bros is when a character lacks KO power, they are at a distinct disadvantage when it's one-on-one.
But let's try another theoretical match - Sonic in a 4-player match.
Now it's a different game - Since everyone's fighting everyone, players can pit the weaknesses and strengths against each other. Sonic can wait for the heavier characters to have high damage before dashing in and stealing a KO, for example. (can you tell I like Sonic?) . Naturally, other characters can exploit various situations, using the 'collision' mechanic to prevent other players from approaching, dodging attacks and allowing them to hit other players, and such forth.
And mix in items, and a whole host of new situations can arise that can work out for all sorts of characters in many ways - battering items can extend the attack range of characters and give "KO power" to those who don't, the bunny hood can help characters with poor recoveries and speed, and throwing/shooting items give projectile attacks to those who otherwise wouldn't. While a random element is introduced, that's just the nature of (this version of) the game. An argument could be made that reacting to ever-changing situations and playing your opponents off of each other takes even more skill.
I do concede that some items and some stages are pretty 'cheap' or obnoxious. (Hammers, Mario Bros. stage, etc)
TL;DR - I have a theory that the game is more balanced if (certain) items are included.
For those who care, a link to a revised version of the particular ruleset my anime club uses/used.
Some context for the above ruleset:
I needed a set of rules for a club that meets for only 4 hours, most of the players are 'casual' players (and I'm a 'casual' player myself), and there's roughly only 90 minutes to 2 hours of time just for videogames. We had a tourney a while back using 'traditional' tournament rules and it lasted waaaaaaay too long. I came up with a ruleset that would encourage fast-paced play, pump people through, and have four people playing at a time, and not allow for prolonged matches.
We've only done one tourney using these rules, but it was well-received and the tournament easily fit within the 90 minutes of videogame time, with some extra 'freeplay' time left over!
Some context for the above ruleset:
I needed a set of rules for a club that meets for only 4 hours, most of the players are 'casual' players (and I'm a 'casual' player myself), and there's roughly only 90 minutes to 2 hours of time just for videogames. We had a tourney a while back using 'traditional' tournament rules and it lasted waaaaaaay too long. I came up with a ruleset that would encourage fast-paced play, pump people through, and have four people playing at a time, and not allow for prolonged matches.
We've only done one tourney using these rules, but it was well-received and the tournament easily fit within the 90 minutes of videogame time, with some extra 'freeplay' time left over!
