Zaradi's Prized Debate Tournament Quarterfinal - TN05 vs. Valkrin

The hard work and passion he has put into his arguments has made for a great debate. To begin, my opponent makes an immediate concession in that he agrees Super Smash Bros. for 3DS undoubtedly has a more expansive amount of unlockables. This is a major concession - he is, in essence, conceding that my arguments on long-term value and/or amount of content are accurate. My opponent attempts to counter by noting that experienced players may not find even the most difficult computer players to be fairly easy, and that the crux of Smash Bros. is multiplayer. To the first point, I would like to note the existence of amiibos, as I noted in round 1 - amiibos can be trained to level 50 and beyond, and have nearly won at least one tournament. [1] Amiibos will not be available for support on 3DS until February (when the New Nintendo 3DS launches),[2] but their upcoming release will significantly extend the difficulty of computers. In regards to the point of multiplayer, I return to my point earlier that Super Smash Bros. for 3DS has online multiplayer, while SSBM does not. This makes it much easier to enjoy Smash Bros. with others, be they strangers or friends. In regards to difficulty, I think me and my opponent are arguing on different fronts here. My opponent is arguing that SSBM's greater difficulty makes it undoubtedly a bigger challenge, whereas I am arguing the difficulty is the result of designer error (given that many of the things that made SSBM challenging, like L-cancelling and wavedashing, were removed in all later installments) and that, through the more expansive content and online options, SSB4 has the better experience. I am arguing Melee's challenge creates a game where a few fast characters are miles ahead of all other characters in terms of quality, while SSB for 3DS offers both a less difficult and more parsed challenge. In other words, it is difficult, but not intentionally so and not in a way that rewards unique play. SSBM undoubtedly offers a more challenging tournament experience - but tournament play is a niche that 99% of Smash players will never bother even attempting. SSBM's difficulty, then, rewards a certain type of play (tournament play) at the expense of most other play. Confusingly, my opponent attempts to argue the added complexity of characters like Little Mac and Robin is a bad sort of difficult - one that alienates casuals. I disagree; it is far simpler to understand a one-hit KO and learn to execute it than to learn how to L-cancel. In my view, these more complex characters are aimed at the tournament players - those people who will spent dozens of hours learning the game inside and out. Melee may have glitches like wavedashing, but SSB4 offers actual intended content in the more complex characters. In regards to the controller, my opponent and I will simply have to agree to disagree here. While I would argue all controllers have the potential to break when misused, I don't contest the point the GC controller is better. The question is 'how better' and 'is it detrimental', and I don't think there's been anything established either way there. With characters, my opponent concedes Melee does inherently value faster characters over stronger ones; he does not concede my argument on most matches inherently favoring a select few characters, however. While my opponent does note some players have learned to master lower-tier characters and can play competently with them, this does not negate my point on initial value - while Young Link could possibly beat Fox (like the video shows), Young Link - along with almost every character in the game - is at an inherent disadvantage to Fox. [3] Players can do a lot, but they can only do so much. My opponent then argues that Melee is decided by pure skill, whereas SSB4 is decided by the character. This is a silly argument to make; as I demonstrated, SSB4 is a very balanced game, while SSBM is not. Character arguably makes more of an impact in Melee than SSB4. Now, a SSB4 player will have to learn how to counter more characters, but is that a bad thing? I don't think so. It's quite exciting, really. Also, my opponent attempts to argue that SSB4's wider use of projectiles leads to more camping; I respectfully disagree here. Melee is well known for the prevalence of camping, specifically planking, among certain characters like Fox. [4] Planking, where a character repeatedly drops off and then grabs onto a ledge, is impossible in SSB4 as ledge-grabbing only grants invincibility the first time a player does it. [4] Similarly, edge-hogging (where a character holds on to a ledge to prevent another from using it) is common in Melee, but is impossible in SSB4. [5] Contrary to what my opponent says, camping is more difficult in SSB4 than in Melee. In the art style department, I think my opponent is correct in saying that art style and soundtrack are tastes that should be left to the player to decide. I accept my opponent's idea to drop these two arguments. Next my opponent argues that the competitive scene for SSB4 is not just nascent, but virtually non-existent. Unfortunately this is the case right now, as SSB for Wii U has taken much of the attention away. However, I don't think it is unfair to count it out - as I noted, there are many unique stages that would be excellent for tournament play. My opponent notes that many tournaments ban custom moves. I do concede this is the case, but some do allow them, and I contend those that do will become the norm in the long run. Audiences and players alike love a fluid, growing metagame, and custom moves ensure that there is always a possible alternative. I do contest my opponent's claim that most custom moves are useless for tournaments, however - while I won't go into specifics (as that would take up too much room), it's a baseless claim. Why are most custom moves useless? With regards to critic reviews, I think my opponent has kind of backed himself into a corner here - he says he's not appealing to authority by saying Melee got better reviews, but simply showing most critics liked it better. Take that as you will. My opponent sums his own argument into three legs: Fastness, Competitive scene, and hard work. I think I've demonstrated the first one is a negative, both from the perspective of the game's creator to how the game is fast to it's own detriment by making fast characters so much better than strong ones. In the competitive scene, I think we can agree Melee has the edge, but tournaments are a very niche market that the vast, vast majority players won't ever deal with. And with hard work, I've demonstrated SSB4 has the edge in diversity of characters and parity of characters; whereas Melee favors speed almost exclusively, strong characters are capable competitors in SSB4. The difference between SSBM and SSB4 is that it is now more likely for players to try to learn a strong character than in Melee, where the drawbacks are many and the benefits are relatively few. Before I conclude, I want to bring up some arguments and points my opponent has not responded to. The fact these arguments have gone to can be considered a concession to their merit:R2:*SSB4 has virtually all of Melee's game modes in addition to a number of brand-new modes. *SSB4 includes Mii characters, with a potentially infinite amount of characters to create. *SSB4 features a leaderboard, Global Smash Power, which makes it more fun to compete for high scores in single-player mode because you can increase your leaderboard score. R3*Many fundamental elements of Melee's competitive scene, like L-cancelling and wavedashing, were not intentional inclusions and were removed in all future installments. *Handheld game consoles are always weaker than home consoles. *Playing SSBM online is of dubious legality, requires a powerful computer and the potential list of opponents are much, and there are much fewer than the millions of possible online opponents in SSB4. To conclude - throughout this debate, I have focused on demonstrating Super Smash Bros. for 3DS is a better game than Super Smash Bros Melee. I've done so by demonstrating it has more game modes, more characters, more stages, more unlockables, and impressive new features (like custom moves and equipment), as well as online multiplayer; I've also demonstrated that it is a fairer game, removing many of Melee's glitches as well as removing bad elements like edgehogging and planking. My opponent, in contrast, has focused almost entirely on one area: tournament play, a niche market that most Smash Bros. players will never be involved in. If this were a debate on which game is better in the competitive scene, I think it's fairly clear Melee would win - however, this is not a debate on that topic. Rather, it is a debate on which game is better, period. By focusing so much on tournament play, my opponent has neglected so much of what makes a game good. He's dismissed the value of unlockables and single-player play in general, while noting the general appeal of SSB's multiplayer - however, this argument turns against him when one notes SSB4 has online player, while SSBM does not, meaning is much easier to enjoy the multiplayer of SSB4 (ie. the key part) than it is of Melee. In essence, my opponent's case simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny, while much of mine remains intact or not even touched. As I have upheld the resolution and fulfilled my burden of proof, while my opponent has not, a vote for PRO is warranted. With that, I turn the debate back over to Con for his final round. I very much look forward to seeing it! References:1. . http://kotaku.com...2. . http://www.idigitaltimes.com...3. . http://www.ssbwiki.com...(SSBM)4. . http://www.ssbwiki.com...5. . http://www.ssbwiki.com...;