6th April 2008, 12:17 PM
Tournaments are really boring. Not only do a lot of them turn off all items and force "final destination" in the name of some high ideal of "evening the playing field", a lot of them force everyone to use Fox. I'm not sure who the "new Fox" will be, but what's the point in joining a tournament that removes the majority of the game from the game? What am I testing here? My ability to play ONE scenario?
Oh yes, then there's the issue of how it's just "one on one". They could set up 4 player matches there, the games support that, but apparently they don't like the idea of someone doing the "sitting out and waiting" technique. That's a valid strategy, which fails if the others decide to focus on you.
No, I hate the average tournament mentality. They pick Fox because "he's the best in the game" (and they have legitimate reasons for saying so) but if you allow someone to play as, say, Ness, and they win, that's not because of cheating is it? Isn't it more like they are so good they can win with "lesser tier" characters?
Oh yes, then there's the issue of how it's just "one on one". They could set up 4 player matches there, the games support that, but apparently they don't like the idea of someone doing the "sitting out and waiting" technique. That's a valid strategy, which fails if the others decide to focus on you.
No, I hate the average tournament mentality. They pick Fox because "he's the best in the game" (and they have legitimate reasons for saying so) but if you allow someone to play as, say, Ness, and they win, that's not because of cheating is it? Isn't it more like they are so good they can win with "lesser tier" characters?
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)