Jump to content

Facehugger

TSS Member
  • Content Count

    123
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Facehugger

  • Rank
    Hugz <3

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Country
    Wales
  1. Given that your argument is riddled with poorly-masked sexism, a scramble for the moral high ground is not entirely appropriate, is it? At any rate, judgment occurs naturally when questionable posts are made.
  2. That is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. It is not irrelevant, as I have pointed out numerous times, it is most definitely relevant to this argument. Also, the logic behind something is not invalidated on a basis of 'can't be bothered'. Simply because you do not wish to use that definition, that doesn't mean the logic of the statement is voided. No, I am not. You and Blacklightning are the primary culprits of this, (At least Blacklightning outright acknowledged my viewpoint) You've spent god-knows how much time formulating posts, still refusing to contest my primary argument properly. (For the upteenth time, saying it isn't relevant to fighting games doesn't invalidate the notion as a standalone statement.) Actually, if you care to double-check, I did respond. In fact, I believe I stated several posts ago that I was somewhat off-base with that claim. Baring in mind what I've just said, who is the real ignorant one? You're the one harping on about a point I've already admitted I was out of line in making, and since then have responded to it again. Also, my point is completely relevant, as I have said before. It's the core of my goddamned argument, for goodness sake. Not entirely, but by this point, amusement is the primary driving force. I know what the term means, and use it as appropriate. The main example being, when a strawman is made. (Weird, I know.) I did not 'fall over myself'. I identified and explained the strawman clearly and concisely. Seriously, what was the purpose of this? It hasn't actually done anything detrimental to my case, or done anything to support anyone else's.
  3. Well, it takes multiple people to argue, and I certainly wasn't arguing with myself.
  4. No, I didn't. Your point was a strawman because I never once claimed that MLP was a fighting game. The difference here is, my argument isn't a strawman. My argument seems to be the only one getting misrepresented, because up until remy's recent post, no-one seemed to have a goddamned clue of what it was, and even when there was hope that my argument had finally been realised, it just devolved back into crap. Try harder.
  5. You know, it's funny how this comment immediately preceeds a lenghty post containing....more points which seem to miss the point. No, I am arguing that according to the literary definition of what a 'combo' is, that Brawl possesses some form of combo-based possibilities. I'm not the one making my opponent's argument to out to be different than it is. I'm not the one making strawmen. The definition is not irrelevant to this debate, and I am getting increasingly aggitated with people spouting butthurt crap about how the definition is 'irrelevant to fighting games!'. Even assuming your arguments are correct, I don't care. You're still trying to side-step one glaring flaw in your counterattack. You haven't disproved my initial statement, at all. All I can see here is more whining. In fact, whining about why my initial standpoint should be different is so ass-backwards I'd expect it of internet trolls and complete idiots, not you, Blacklightning. My assertion is obvious. In the context of this argument, my definition is very much relevant to the point I'm trying to get across, admittedly a simple point that should in a sense go without saying, but hey, so what if I need to beat people over the head before actual logic sinks in? Do you know what I find most ironic? Assuming you are correct. If I am an ignorant hypocrite for arguing about a different thing from you, then what makes you exempt, hmm? You are doing the exact same thing. I'm trying to convey my point as clear as humanly possible, and still get points launched which don't prove me wrong at all. All you are doing at this point is whining about shit that you are doing as well, so tread carefully. It's inherently pointless to rant at me for being a 'hypocrite' when the point is lost in transition, primarily because you too are being one, for the same fucking reason you used, no less. I'm trying to get people to challenge my actual argument, so at least I'm doing something about it, not sitting around like an angsty kid looking for the slightest excuse to argue needlessely with someone, and then become angry because you hopped into a debate without fully realising what you were arguing against, then growing butthurt because you were too stubborn to simply accept what my assertion was, and instead of pulling out with some semblance of dignity, opted instead to continue this string of strawmen and argumentative labels which, at the end of the day, still don't disprove the logic of my point. So, what exactly is the point? So now, not only are you still not contesting the statement on a logical ground which proves it false, you've become a hypocritical ass in transition. Congratulations, I hope it was worth it. Counterpoint that's relevant? I had to repeat my main argument multiple times because it hadn't sunk in from debating with you three. The ignorance is on you, and it is simply astonishing to me how you are attempting to maintian this guise of superiorty, when everyone who's been arguing against me has been making strawmen since this fuckin' thing began, turning a complete blind eye to your own fails and fallacies in the process. Oh, please return. Your argument collapsing on itself through ass-backwards and hypocritical points which, still fail to prove me incorrect, amuse me. OMG! Sense! The dictionary also told you what it meant, I just didn't ignore it. You see, the sentiment you use to make my victory seem ridiculous can also be used to make your loss seem even more ridiculous. Try harder. Even worse, you lost it. The nature of the assertion is such that it uses a specific source from which to launch it's logic. The problem with your rebuttal here is, it doesn't prove said logic incorrect. Using the literary definitino as a platform, Brawl has combos. Wether or not it is relevant to fighting games is in itself, irrelevant, but it is completely relevant to this argument, and it isn't unreasonable of me to expect that my opposition would try to actually invalidate the notion on a logical basis by proving the notion is false, or failing that, accept defeat instead of prolonging a tedious ass-hurt parade. It is not irrelevant. It is completely relevant to this current debate. I honestly find it pathetic that you hop into a debate, argue against something, and then whine incessantly that it's irrelevant. It's irrelevant to the topic, perhaps. Irrelevant to fighting games, perhaps. Irrelevant to the point I'm trying to get across and to this debate you willingly joined and persist with, no. Strawman.
  6. I've heard he's stated it wasn't meant to be a hardcore, serious competitive fighting game. I don't recall that being said. Even so, illogical. Also, intentions =/= results I'm not saying it is a serious hardcore competitive game, before you spin out of control and launch an angsty-wave of strawmen at me. This was a general sentiment. ....Yeah. I thought my statement was pretty clear. Specifically the 'By literary definition', meaning exactly what it says. Other definitions aren't relevant to rebutting the actual logic of my post. In fact, whining about the definition choice is kind of why I made the prior post the way I did, so no use in getting aggrivated. Contest the actual sentiment of the point, or don't bother. Actually, it's still a No True Scotsman. You opted to convey that Brawl isn't a 'real' fighting game when faced with a counterpoint. And no, I generally type 'strawman' when a 'strawman' is committed, funnily enough.
  7. By the literary definition of 'combo', Brawl possesses the ability for players to perform 'combos' Hopefully this will break the fixation with grasping at straws. The above is my argument in a nutshell. Please proceed to contend this actual statement, with actual logical thought processes, without whining about me using a 'different definition' or insulting the credibility of my argument. Oh, and implying Brawl is not a real fighting game in place of a logical counterpoint is a No True Scotsman, I believe. =)
  8. Do you not press a sequence of buttons in rapid successions to launch large combos in these fighting games? Because I believe that was one of the cornerstones of the arguments used against me. Admittedly, I was out-of-place and should have phrased my sentence differently with the inclusion of 'can'. However, my fighting game experience is limited, but aside from SSB, other games seemed to degenarate into button-mashing. Strawman. I'm not trying to use combos to justify any percieved notion of how serious and competitive Brawl is, I'm merely making the point that they are there. Look forward to it. No True Scotsman. Really? You're going for that?
  9. That's funny, I could have sworn that people are complaining because there are definitely elements of the film which are sub-par. I'm sick of this viewpoint that if someone exudes negative sentiment towards something, wether they provide justification or not, they are automatically shunned as B'aaaaaaww'ing for no good reason, or following the masses. I still have incredibly mixed feelings about the film, but being a Decepticon fan at heart, that is understandable I guess.
  10. Just looked up the Dictionary to double-check. Combo = combination. As I said, a combo of attacks is still a combo of attacks wether an enemy takes each sucessive blow or not. The only difference is that the former was a combo that landed.
  11. I will grant that some of the characters were forgettable. I still don't know who that red Autobot is with the razorblades running up his arms, nor can I remember if Ratchet was even in the film. I also can't recall the names of the two small Autobots.
  12. I have encountered very few attacks in Melee that cause any significant ammount of enemy-incapaciation that clashes with Brawl. Tell me, what are these combos you speak of that only Melee possesses? Because from playing both games, they are fundementally similar, and matches boiled down to who made use of the best individual moves in any given moment over the opponent, throughout the match. Now then, I'll assume you mean combos in combining a character's moveset to pull of chains of attacks/manouvers. This is most definitely possible in Brawl, as such I am finding it hard to see where exactly it is you are coming from in this debate. What exactly constitutes as a 'true' combo? You seem to be creating sub-categorisation for the sake of dividing the two games, when both in-fact possess the possibility of combo attacks. ...So the fact that your opponent doesn't sit there and take it while you mash away at buttons bothers you? This whole thing is null and void anyway, it is possible to combo in brawl. Surely a game where characters recover faster and retalliations come quicker, is the title where aspects of your character matter more, as you must think faster on your feet and take into account every individual move your character possesses in order to generate an advantage over your opponent. It boils the game down to a more tense, match-off of initiation, counter-move, then counter-counter move, which hit harder than most other games, as opposed to catching your opponent in a combo and holding them for ridiculous ammounts of time. As I said, this makes it more difficult to generate advantages over the opponent. Combos are possible, but I'm glad that they aren't the major area of concentration. I much prefer the game where it is of the utmost importance what both players are doing second-by-second, which is how Brawl tends to play out, as opposed to games which emphasise the combo-ing element, and one player tends to end up sitting there waiting for the initiator to finish mashing his buttons, which happens frequently. Brawl is somewhat unique in this regard in that, more of your move-set tends to matter, and every decision seems to carry a greater weight, and possible consequence, and must be made quickly.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.