If any of you use facebook, you've undoubtedly become aware of the "post a note containing 25 facts about you trend" which has taken the whole place by storm. Well, I decided to do it and, as a sort of joke, wrote a piece about my roommates' insistence on playing Smash Brothers with random character selection. Just wondering if anyone had anything to say about my analysis of the situation. And Icy, I realize I use some of your ideas in here, if you really want me to link you or take it down or something I will.
me wrote:25. No matter when you enter "room 22," there's a ninety percent chance that some videogame is being played, and at least a fifty percent chance that that game is Super Smash Brothers Brawl. Recently, certain avid players have been insisting that all matches be played with "random" character selections, despite the obvious fact that this makes the game less complex (as it removes a very important element of strategy from the game--the selection of one's character) and therefore less interesting. Apparently, this rule is enforced in order to make the outcome of the game less predictable, i.e. some people aren't winning enough to be enjoying themselves.
So the reasoning goes: "If I can't win when characters are chosen consciously, hopefully the random matchup will, by chance, hurt my opponent more than it will hurt me, thus giving me a better chance at victory."
Now, before you object and say (1) "but it's not about winning or losing, it's about having FUN," or (2) "we're just doing this to 'mix it up,'" or something equally asinine, let me set these objections straight.
(1) I'm sure no one reading this will object to the premise, "anyone playing a videogame does so, at bottom, for the purpose of pleasure." Yet they fail to realize, when they speak of "fun," that pleasure (see also: FUN) in a sport is derived from a player's nearness to victory. One says that a football game is "bad," and rightfully so, if the score is 44 to 3, and the loser is soundly owned at each and every opportunity. The loser is ashamed at their pathetic capabilities, and the winner feels as if he has wasted his time. The pleasure of victory and pain of defeat increase in proportion, then, to the nearness that separates victory from defeat. Thus, sports (which Smash Brothers, and all other competitive games where the result rests largely on reflexes, are), are ALL ABOUT winning and losing, because that is where the fun is.
(2) Does the winner of a close match ever wish that he had "mixed it up" beforehand, changing the rules of the game? No, it is always the loser, speaking out of the unbearable pain of his defeat. I suppose then, that it makes sense that "mixing it up" has been the norm recently, since in Smash Brothers there are always more losers than winners (whose victories are inevitably ridiculed on pathetic moralistic grounds--"He's not even playing the game!" "Stop teaming up!").
And, in clearing the objections, I've basically covered it. If one still feels the need to complain, perhaps about Luke's Metaknight, well, maybe we ought to realize that Smash Brothers might not, in fact, be the best game ever.