One of the most heated discussions you often find online is that of the arguments made for, and against, competitive gaming. Most people associate the aforementioned term with specific titles that are representative of their genre due to their striking popularity, i.e.: Overwatch, League of Legends, World of Warcraft, etc. While there is a lot to be said about those games and their impact on gaming as a whole, I will be referring to competitive gaming strictly in its own terms within the realm of Nintendo franchises and their respective communities.
First and foremost I need to explain a core concept: nearly anything can be enjoyed competitively, which is the reason why games that were originally not designed for such type of play are often enjoyed in tournament settings. This is the case of many Nintendo franchises, and none a better example than Super Smash Bros., which is the subject of many debates online due to its ambiguous status, with some people arguing it falls under the classification of a party game, and others arguing that it classifies as a fighting game. In my opinion the answer lies in that the highly-praised multi-brawler series falls under both categories, as its high customization features give it the unique property of enabling it to be both a party game and a fighting one, both casual and competitive. I.E: A “party-fighting game”, or brawler.
Cover artwork for Super Smash Bros. for the Nintendo 64
But okay, that’s enough about semantics, at the end of the day, the classification of a game matters very little compared to the main point trying to be made: playing competitively versus playing casually, and how one affects the other. You see, competitive games by their very nature often involve going toe-to-toe against a human player, with a “meta-game” often revolving around top-of-the-line strategies and mind games, with the ultimate goal in these situations being emerging victorious. Everybody likes to win but when players start abusing game mechanics beyond the scope of the original game’s direction it may seem like the fun of the game is being “drained” out of the game. In reality, nothing is further from the truth, for the people who thrive on competitiveness winning is the fun and getting closer to that goal is on itself a thrill.
The crowd that leans more on the casual side of gaming might be put off by this type of gaming behavior and go as far as considering it “toxic” or labeling the game and its fanbase as somewhat taboo, which creates two very real problems; firstly, it annihilates the fandom by segregating its users, and secondly, it sends mixed signals to the developers, as they become unsure of which crowd to please; those wishing for their game to be a simple fun-oriented experience with not much thought being put into it, or the more dedicated userbase wishing for a more complex meta-game.
So far I have been speaking in very abstract terms for the sake of setting a precedent but how about we start delving deeper into Super Smash Bros., which most will recognize as the poster-boy of segregated fanbases. As explained previously, the game has the quality that it can be played both as a party game and a fighting game, and at first glance, anyone can just say that the end-it-all-solution that will please both types of crowds is to merely shift the focus depending on the nature of the event and setting present. Turn all items on, randomize the nature of the game and make it an all-out-brawl for those looking for a party setting, while disabling any potential randomizer for the sake of equal footing and sticking to “Fox only, final destination, no items” when duking it out competitively. Sounds ideal, right? But this is glossing over what’s really important for the competitive folk, and that is the mechanics inherent to the game itself, which cannot be changed under normal circumstances (exceptions include modding and official updates from Nintendo).
The Super Smash Bros. series is often featured in competitive tournament settings, such as EVO, along with other fighting games.
You see, no matter how much Super Smash Bros. is to be customized the inherent issue with its new entries is that the mechanics that cannot be changed are those that genuinely matter to competitive players: the properties and data-frame of move-sets, as well as how the game controls and behaves. Further adding to this mayhem is the division within the competitive community itself, with a large portion of it living exclusively for Melee (the second iteration in this particular franchise, often regarded as the best game by a very vocal portion of the fanbase) and those who support the newest releases in the franchise. It is now painfully clear to see how confusing it may be to developers who listen to the input of the fans on how their upcoming sequels should be treated, with such a large division between players, their needs, their wants and their skill-set.
So what’s the solution? In my opinion, there is not exactly a clear cut one, but I think Super Smash Bros. 4 has the right idea. The game is a good middle ground between the more competitive Melee and the somewhat casual Brawl (the third entry in the series), while introducing new concepts that aid in making everybody happy, for example; eight-player versus mode for those looking for mayhem and a “For Glory” mode for players who thrive on playing competitively online, seeking to hone their skills. Naturally, there will always be people dissatisfied and those who are not generally happy with the direction the game is taking, but I think the large majority will agree that Nintendo found a good compromise in order to please both types of players simultaneously.
Super Smash Bros. 4 features a “For Glory” mode, allowing players to test their skills in a 1-on-1 setting.
And so, I would like to point out that many of the topics I have discussed so far warrant their own in-depth discussion, as well as mentioning to you, the reader, that I’m well aware neither fanbase is without fault (EVO 2018 may ring a bell to the well-versed amongst you), so I would like everyone reading this article to understand that this is meant to be taken at face value: a very brief overview of a topic that I find quite fascinating. This is also why I will be exploring more of these concepts in future material.
Thank you so much for reading my first article for Need Nintendo, and a huge shout out to our wonderful and infinitely-talented webmaster, for giving me a platform to voice my opinions. Stay tuned for my follow-up to this piece, in which I intend to discuss further in-depth the concept of a large skill-gap between players and why I believe that the skill-gap itself is not the underlying problem.
