User:Semicolon/Treatise on the Existence of Tiers: Difference between revisions

Line 93: Line 93:
===Formation of tier lists===
===Formation of tier lists===


On the first point, this has most often been accompanied by the quote from designer Sakurai about how he did not want Smash Bros. to be competitive.  First, it should be noted that his quote was taken completely out of context.  All Sakurai said was that he himself was not a competitive person and did not want to design a game where the same person could win over and over simply by continuing to do the same moves.  Yes, Sakurai probably would never play in a tournament.  But that does not mean that others in the community cannot.  I reference any other form of art:  just because the artist meant for a singular concrete interpretation does not invalidate other interpretations.  To Sakurai, the fun in Smash comes from the randomness of stages like Spear Pillar and the plethora of items.  To others, it comes from heated competition, where it is simply your choices against another persons, without game-changing events getting in the way.  Is one way better than another?  No, of course not.  We may prefer the latter, but that is no reason to reject the former or vice versa. Quite simply, people are free to chose the way they want to play the game.  Therefore, there is nothing wrong with playing Smash Bros. under a tournament rule set just as there is nothing wrong with playing crazy games with lots of random things happening.
On the first point, this has most often been accompanied by the quote from designer Sakurai about how he did not want Smash Bros. to be competitive.  First, it should be noted that his quote was taken completely out of context.  All Sakurai said was that he himself was not a competitive person and did not want to design a game where the same person could win over and over simply by continuing to do the same moves.  Yes, Sakurai probably would never play in a tournament.  But that does not mean that others in the community cannot.  I reference any other form of art:  just because the artist meant for a singular concrete interpretation does not invalidate other interpretations.  To Sakurai, the fun in Smash comes from the randomness of stages like Spear Pillar and the plethora of items.  To others, it comes from heated competition, where it is simply your choices against another persons, without game-changing events getting in the way.  Is one way better than another?  No, of course not.  We may prefer the latter, but that is no reason to reject the former or vice versa. An example would be how the free-for-all timed match always comes up first upon Brawl selection, because it shows that Sakurai wanted the game to be spontaneous, not-to-competitive action. Yet he also put the Stock mode in to accommodate competition. Quite simply, people are free to chose the way they want to play the game.  Therefore, there is nothing wrong with playing Smash Bros. under a tournament rule set just as there is nothing wrong with playing crazy games with lots of random things happening.


Given that tournament play is acceptable, what then becomes unacceptable about tiers?  The general argument is that tier lists should not exist because they only exist for tournament play or that they simply continue to reinforce themselves.  For the first of those points, read the above paragraph again for the answer.  Yes, they only exist for tournament play because ''that is what they are intended for''.  As for the point on them reinforcing themselves, there is more to be said.  Yes, there exist players who switched to Meta Knight the moment the Back Room announced him as top tier and now refuse to play any other character.  But they are the small minority.  Given the inherent neutrality of a mirror match-up, top players will always be looking for the counter to the top tier characters.  Take, for example, Young Link in Melee.  He was a low tier character, but he also developed into the best Peach match-up in the game.  Players that consistently try to win are always looking for the best answer to each problem facing them.  Picking a main and secondary characters is not a simple dart board toss or a look at the tier list for top players.  They spend hours testing each character, discovering what that character is capable of and how they play them.  No player would ever say, well Meta Knight is bad against Diddy Kong (this a purely hypothetical match-up description), so I am just going to have to lose all my Diddy match-ups.  Instead, s/he would find another character to counter Diddy.  Maybe s/he would discover a new technique(s) with that character and vault them up the tier list, just like Chu Dat and the Ice Climbers.  By the nature of the fact that no character has perfect match-ups across the board, players will always being trying new things with other characters and constantly affecting the tier list.
Given that tournament play is acceptable, what then becomes unacceptable about tiers?  The general argument is that tier lists should not exist because they only exist for tournament play or that they simply continue to reinforce themselves.  For the first of those points, read the above paragraph again for the answer.  Yes, they only exist for tournament play because ''that is what they are intended for''.  As for the point on them reinforcing themselves, there is more to be said.  Yes, there exist players who switched to Meta Knight the moment the Back Room announced him as top tier and now refuse to play any other character.  But they are the small minority.  Given the inherent neutrality of a mirror match-up, top players will always be looking for the counter to the top tier characters.  Take, for example, Young Link in Melee.  He was a low tier character, but he also developed into the best Peach match-up in the game.  Players that consistently try to win are always looking for the best answer to each problem facing them.  Picking a main and secondary characters is not a simple dart board toss or a look at the tier list for top players.  They spend hours testing each character, discovering what that character is capable of and how they play them.  No player would ever say, well Meta Knight is bad against Diddy Kong (this a purely hypothetical match-up description), so I am just going to have to lose all my Diddy match-ups.  Instead, s/he would find another character to counter Diddy.  Maybe s/he would discover a new technique(s) with that character and vault them up the tier list, just like Chu Dat and the Ice Climbers.  By the nature of the fact that no character has perfect match-ups across the board, players will always being trying new things with other characters and constantly affecting the tier list.