[Lorric]

The best one I saw had to be that douchebag Light from Death Note, where you'd win with a single button-press by him using his book.

Hmmm... how does that work? Could you interrupt him whie he's writing your name? And the Death Note doesn't kill you right away, could you still win if you took him out before the timer runs out on you?

[Spoon]

it kills you right away if you want it to.

[Lorric]

it kills you right away if you want it to.

I presume you mean the Death Note, not the move. Yes it does, but you have to write specific instructions for it. However, I suppose Light could have done that before the match, but then, he could use the Death Note before the match too...

I found it:

Cheap! Good luck with that whoever it was who said they want to beat the crap out of him!  :lol:

[TrashMan]

I beg to differ

[Lorric]

Awesome!

He has a lot of moves, doesn't he? He appears to be invulnerable. I wonder if the Death Note will work on him... 

[AdmiralRalwood]

Awesome!

He has a lot of moves, doesn't he? He appears to be invulnerable. I wonder if the Death Note will work on him... 

Chuck Norris is invulnerable because he doesn't have a hitbox; the Death Note looks like it works via hitboxes, so no, it won't work on him. Which doesn't change the fact that there are still an entire slew of characters that win by deleting their opponent's "standing" state, making them lose without ever touching their lifebar. Nothing is more pointless than trying to find the cheapest character in MUGEN, because there are already five bajillion of them, and they're all at the most absurd power level it is possible to reach with a MUGEN character (whoever is in the P1 slot wins when two of those fight).

[Lorric]

Awesome!

He has a lot of moves, doesn't he? He appears to be invulnerable. I wonder if the Death Note will work on him... 

Chuck Norris is invulnerable because he doesn't have a hitbox; the Death Note looks like it works via hitboxes, so no, it won't work on him. Which doesn't change the fact that there are still an entire slew of characters that win by deleting their opponent's "standing" state, making them lose without ever touching their lifebar. Nothing is more pointless than trying to find the cheapest character in MUGEN, because there are already five bajillion of them, and they're all at the most absurd power level it is possible to reach with a MUGEN character (whoever is in the P1 slot wins when two of those fight).

Thanks.

Why does the 1p slot win?

[AdmiralRalwood]

Why does the 1p slot win?

Because two characters can't simultaneously delete the opposing character's standing state; one set of code gets executed first, and that's the first player in the list. The second character then can't delete the first player's standing state, because the code to do that is no longer there.

EDIT: Or, at least, that's how it used to work at one point. For all I know, some "advancements" in the "field" of "instant-win characters" may have led to double-KOs, but I think the fact that these characters still get created at all is beyond stupid, so I don't really keep up with it.

[Lorric]

Why does the 1p slot win?

Because two characters can't simultaneously delete the opposing character's standing state; one set of code gets executed first, and that's the first player in the list. The second character then can't delete the first player's standing state, because the code to do that is no longer there.

EDIT: Or, at least, that's how it used to work at one point. For all I know, some "advancements" in the "field" of "instant-win characters" may have led to double-KOs, but I think the fact that these characters still get created at all is beyond stupid, so I don't really keep up with it.

I see. Thanks.

I suppose they'd get old pretty fast, but these two I enjoyed seeing because I enjoyed watching Death Note very much, and I quite like the Chuck Norris jokes. Perhaps the story is similar for why people make them, because it amuses them.

[AdmiralRalwood]

Why does the 1p slot win?

Because two characters can't simultaneously delete the opposing character's standing state; one set of code gets executed first, and that's the first player in the list. The second character then can't delete the first player's standing state, because the code to do that is no longer there.

EDIT: Or, at least, that's how it used to work at one point. For all I know, some "advancements" in the "field" of "instant-win characters" may have led to double-KOs, but I think the fact that these characters still get created at all is beyond stupid, so I don't really keep up with it.

I see. Thanks.

I suppose they'd get old pretty fast, but these two I enjoyed seeing because I enjoyed watching Death Note very much, and I quite like the Chuck Norris jokes. Perhaps the story is similar for why people make them, because it amuses them.

By "these characters", I'm referring to the ones that I was talking about, that instantly win before the round even starts without any user input whatsoever. I really don't see the point (unlike "unbeatable joke characters" like Light, or Chuck Norris; I have Phantom of the Server's "Rare Akuma" in my character roster, for example).

[SypheDMar]

If a game is good it's worth playing competitively.

You sir, are why we can't have nice things.

It doesn't have to be one or the other. A game balanced to allow competitive play doesn't have to eliminate casual play. You can have both. Games are what you make them. Another person will play a game totally differently to how you will.

This may be the most brilliant thing you've ever said on HLP.

I'm surprised at the reaction against competitive Smash Bros. from this forum, considering that we took a military Space Sim and turned it into animes, comedies, horrors, RTS, a Tower Defense, a symphony, and an epic. I don't expect us to question Wings of Dawn or Transcend for creating a genre outside of the what FreeSpace 1 and 2 gave us.

There's nothing wrong with Smash Bros. being a party game. From time to time, I'll enjoy throwing items and cleaning house against three other players.  But I'm more passionate about Smash Bros. when I'm sparring with someone who can challenge me both physically and mentally. Super Smash Bros. Melee and Project M have both been able to provide these to the players.

[TrashMan]

Awesome!

He has a lot of moves, doesn't he? He appears to be invulnerable. I wonder if the Death Note will work on him... 

It would depend who hits first.

Chucks moves are specials that the player has to preform. Dunno about Light.

There are plenty of powerfull characters, but as long as they require stup time or can be stopped, it all good.

For example, Archer from Fate Stay Knight requires you to pull all seveal specials. Each special recites one part of his incantation. One the incantation is complete (the incantation verses carry over into the next round), Unlimited Bladeworks is activated and all of Archers attack change. His regular punches and kicks now each activate rains of swords and stuff. He can still be killed, but this makes him very powerfull. Oh, and UBW carries over in the next round!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQOIFIGR31o

Phoenix Ikki has 4 insta-kill moves, 3 of which require a lot of setting up (fill up the energy bar, active a special state that deplates it and marks a death skull, then fill it up again. You can fill up to 3 death skulls), and the 4th that can only be executed when near death. With timing they can be blocked or dodged, but if they hit - death.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t0B-qFRAHo

Kenshiro has the famous ATATATATATATATATA attack, that insta kills, but it's difficult to pull off and oyu have to be standing next to the opponenet. The other one kills the opponent in 30 seconds if it connects, but it's not easy to hit an opponent with it, since it always hits an exact spot a few meters in front of him, and can be dodged.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jev2myoPLW0


No-input ones are crap.


That said, there are several verison of Chuck, some having hitboxes.

Also, THIS is what happens when you try a Chuck Norris vs. Chuck Norris fight:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EDLijN2MVY
Pure brillinace by the coder.

[TwentyPercentCooler]

If a game is good it's worth playing competitively.

You sir, are why we can't have nice things.

It doesn't have to be one or the other. A game balanced to allow competitive play doesn't have to eliminate casual play. You can have both. Games are what you make them. Another person will play a game totally differently to how you will.

This may be the most brilliant thing you've ever said on HLP.

I'm surprised at the reaction against competitive Smash Bros. from this forum, considering that we took a military Space Sim and turned it into animes, comedies, horrors, RTS, a Tower Defense, a symphony, and an epic. I don't expect us to question Wings of Dawn or Transcend for creating a genre outside of the what FreeSpace 1 and 2 gave us.

There's nothing wrong with Smash Bros. being a party game. From time to time, I'll enjoy throwing items and cleaning house against three other players.  But I'm more passionate about Smash Bros. when I'm sparring with someone who can challenge me both physically and mentally. Super Smash Bros. Melee and Project M have both been able to provide these to the players.

There's a difference between playing against people that challenge you and turning it into some sick circus of an "e-sport."

[Phantom Hoover]

There's nothing wrong with playing the game competitively, there's everything wrong with demanding the game be designed for competitive play.

[Spoon]

I'm surprised at the reaction against competitive Smash Bros. from this forum, considering that we took a military Space Sim and turned it into animes, comedies, horrors, RTS, a Tower Defense, a symphony, and an epic. I don't expect us to question Wings of Dawn or Transcend for creating a genre outside of the what FreeSpace 1 and 2 gave us.

There's nothing wrong with Smash Bros. being a party game. From time to time, I'll enjoy throwing items and cleaning house against three other players.  But I'm more passionate about Smash Bros. when I'm sparring with someone who can challenge me both physically and mentally. Super Smash Bros. Melee and Project M have both been able to provide these to the players.

Don't get me wrong, I like competitive gaming and I like 'the sick circus of e-sports'. I just never quite understood how SSB Melee managed to become a competitive game. As that documentary said (something ive heard several times before), Nintendo is a terrible terrible company for the hardcore gaming crowd. They don't want to support tournaments and such. And its pretty clear that SSB Melee was purely an accidental hit for the hardcore crowd. They never intended that game to be played that way. Very evidently by how they seemingly tried their hardest to make Brawl into a 'casual' game.

Thats why I never quite got the crowd for SSB Melee. Its not being 'played the way it was meant to be played'

[Lorric]

Why does the 1p slot win?

Because two characters can't simultaneously delete the opposing character's standing state; one set of code gets executed first, and that's the first player in the list. The second character then can't delete the first player's standing state, because the code to do that is no longer there.

EDIT: Or, at least, that's how it used to work at one point. For all I know, some "advancements" in the "field" of "instant-win characters" may have led to double-KOs, but I think the fact that these characters still get created at all is beyond stupid, so I don't really keep up with it.

I see. Thanks.

I suppose they'd get old pretty fast, but these two I enjoyed seeing because I enjoyed watching Death Note very much, and I quite like the Chuck Norris jokes. Perhaps the story is similar for why people make them, because it amuses them.

By "these characters", I'm referring to the ones that I was talking about, that instantly win before the round even starts without any user input whatsoever. I really don't see the point (unlike "unbeatable joke characters" like Light, or Chuck Norris; I have Phantom of the Server's "Rare Akuma" in my character roster, for example).

Heh. Okay, now I see.

If a game is good it's worth playing competitively.

You sir, are why we can't have nice things.

It doesn't have to be one or the other. A game balanced to allow competitive play doesn't have to eliminate casual play. You can have both. Games are what you make them. Another person will play a game totally differently to how you will.

This may be the most brilliant thing you've ever said on HLP.

I'm surprised at the reaction against competitive Smash Bros. from this forum, considering that we took a military Space Sim and turned it into animes, comedies, horrors, RTS, a Tower Defense, a symphony, and an epic. I don't expect us to question Wings of Dawn or Transcend for creating a genre outside of the what FreeSpace 1 and 2 gave us.

There's nothing wrong with Smash Bros. being a party game. From time to time, I'll enjoy throwing items and cleaning house against three other players.  But I'm more passionate about Smash Bros. when I'm sparring with someone who can challenge me both physically and mentally. Super Smash Bros. Melee and Project M have both been able to provide these to the players.

What a nice thing to say.

I too am surprised. Good example with the ways Freespace has been made into diferent things. So which is which? Anime is Wings of Dawn, is Comedy JAD? Horror is Transcend, RTS I think the Homeworld thing did that? Tower Defence no idea. Symphony, no idea. Epic, Blue Planet?

The best such example I know of is Warcraft 3, what mods have been created for that. Some things made are simply lighthearted, others serious, especially in the case of Defence of the Ancients, which is a great example of the game not being played "the way it is supposed to be". Still others have pulled the game right out of it's genre. The game itself has it's single player campaigns, and also it's competitive side with serious money up for grabs for the best players.

For me, if they made a game (talking about Smash Brothers now) which satisfied both competitive gamers and casuals, they can do it again. They don't HAVE TO, but it sounds like if they don't, then they lose those customers to Melee and Project M.

-

@ Trashman

Thanks for the links. I'll check those out later. I already checked the 2X Chuck one and I agree, brilliance on the part of the coder.

-

I'm surprised at the reaction against competitive Smash Bros. from this forum, considering that we took a military Space Sim and turned it into animes, comedies, horrors, RTS, a Tower Defense, a symphony, and an epic. I don't expect us to question Wings of Dawn or Transcend for creating a genre outside of the what FreeSpace 1 and 2 gave us.

There's nothing wrong with Smash Bros. being a party game. From time to time, I'll enjoy throwing items and cleaning house against three other players.  But I'm more passionate about Smash Bros. when I'm sparring with someone who can challenge me both physically and mentally. Super Smash Bros. Melee and Project M have both been able to provide these to the players.

Don't get me wrong, I like competitive gaming and I like 'the sick circus of e-sports'. I just never quite understood how SSB Melee managed to become a competitive game. As that documentary said (something ive heard several times before), Nintendo is a terrible terrible company for the hardcore gaming crowd. They don't want to support tournaments and such. And its pretty clear that SSB Melee was purely an accidental hit for the hardcore crowd. They never intended that game to be played that way. Very evidently by how they seemingly tried their hardest to make Brawl into a 'casual' game.

Thats why I never quite got the crowd for SSB Melee. Its not being 'played the way it was meant to be played'

Spoon, I think it simply comes down to the fact it's a good game, and pulls in characters from all sorts of genres and top games to attract people. It also is a straight up player vs player game. If a game is good enough, people will sink many, many hours into it, and the competitively inclined will see the ultimate way to enjoy the game as to test themselves against other such players. It seems perfectly natural and understandable to me. Don't let the cuteness cloud your vision, when you strip away all the packaging, look at what you're left with. I've watched some videos once on Youtube of high level players duking it out, and I thought it was fun to watch, fast, furious, explosive action.

[SypheDMar]

I'm surprised at the reaction against competitive Smash Bros. from this forum, considering that we took a military Space Sim and turned it into animes, comedies, horrors, RTS, a Tower Defense, a symphony, and an epic. I don't expect us to question Wings of Dawn or Transcend for creating a genre outside of the what FreeSpace 1 and 2 gave us.

There's nothing wrong with Smash Bros. being a party game. From time to time, I'll enjoy throwing items and cleaning house against three other players.  But I'm more passionate about Smash Bros. when I'm sparring with someone who can challenge me both physically and mentally. Super Smash Bros. Melee and Project M have both been able to provide these to the players.

Don't get me wrong, I like competitive gaming and I like 'the sick circus of e-sports'. I just never quite understood how SSB Melee managed to become a competitive game. As that documentary said (something ive heard several times before), Nintendo is a terrible terrible company for the hardcore gaming crowd. They don't want to support tournaments and such. And its pretty clear that SSB Melee was purely an accidental hit for the hardcore crowd. They never intended that game to be played that way. Very evidently by how they seemingly tried their hardest to make Brawl into a 'casual' game.

Thats why I never quite got the crowd for SSB Melee. Its not being 'played the way it was meant to be played'

Lorric said most of what I would've said, but I'll add one more point. Despite the developers' intentions, Smash Bros. Melee is extremely competitive and technical with an ever-changing metagame. That's why, after all these years, it's still so fun and deep. It's not the developers who decide how a game should be played. It's we the players. Compared to Super Smash Bros. 64 and Brawl, both of which have a dying community, Melee is still going strong.

Here's another example. Star Craft is (depending on who you ask) a great game. Yet I doubt that Blizzard expected it to be played as a Korean national pastime for over a decade as a 1v1 micromanagement clickfest. The only difference is that Blizzard (and later Blizzard-Activision with Star Craft 2) supported the community-made phenomenon.*

I apologize if I mistake some of the forum posters' intentions as dismissive when you don't mean to. Following the Smash Bros. Melee tournament scene since 2005 has made it quite difficult to not be biased. I thoroughly enjoy watching and emulating the best Melee players dukiing it out over watching the Chicago Bulls disappoint for another season.

*I've never owned, watched, nor followed Star Craft in my life, so I hope I'm not wrong. I really can't imagine that the devs created Star Craft as a competitive singles game since Major League Gaming and the idea of eSports hasn't been around in the US yet.

[TrashMan]

It's not the developers who decide how a game should be played. It's we the players.

Can't agree with that.

When a developer makes a game, he makes it with a certain playstle or experience he wants to convey - in other words there is a "proper" way to play it. For example, Amnesia is meant to be a game of hiding and runnign away from monsters, beign pwoerless and feelign dredd. If a glitch exists that makes you invulnerable or a mod that adds guns is made, that doens't make either of those the right way to play.

The players can influence how it CAN be played. Not how it should be played.

[Scourge of Ages]

I don't think that's quite what he meant by that, Trash. It's more a question of now how the game is played, itself, but more a matter of how people want to enjoy the game.

Take for example the game, Oblivion.

The game was designed so that players can go straight for the story missions, or can wander around doing side quests or whatever. They can be a fighter, a mage, a rogue, a brawler. They can be good or evil or both or neither. But all of those choices are built into the game, you might say those are all the way that it's "meant" to be played.
But different players will take enjoyment in different ways, that may have never been envisioned by the developers. Some players might choose to play it like a survival sim, foraging for food and shelter and avoiding conflict. Some might play it like an exploration game, refusing to fast-travel or even break into a run so that they feel immersed. Some may use it as the ultimate role-playing game, where their character actually acts like a person would inside the game. Each of these, while allowed by the game engine, were probably not intended to be the "right" way to play the game. That doesn't make them wrong, just different.

[AdmiralRalwood]

It's not the developers who decide how a game should be played. It's we the players.

Can't agree with that.

When a developer makes a game, he makes it with a certain playstle or experience he wants to convey - in other words there is a "proper" way to play it. For example, Amnesia is meant to be a game of hiding and runnign away from monsters, beign pwoerless and feelign dredd. If a glitch exists that makes you invulnerable or a mod that adds guns is made, that doens't make either of those the right way to play.

The players can influence how it CAN be played. Not how it should be played.

You're right in that the possibility of doing something doesn't make it the "right" way to play, but conversely, doing something the developer didn't intend doesn't make it the "wrong" way to play, either.