Recently in the land of Smashboards, there has been a rather interesting discussion going about. The subject: Banning.
Now Banning something in the game isn't too uncommon. Many stages are considered unfair or able to be exploited by certain characters, thus earning them the victory through this exploitation. Items themselves have been removed from all competitive forms of play, since it is seen as not only a distraction and crutch by some, but also the complete and total removal of an assured victory just because a bomb appeared right as the victor attacks, blowing up and costing them their win.
However, never before in any of the Smash games has a specific character been targeted for the Ban, in this particular case, that of Kirby's advisably and sometimes ally, Meta Knight. The claim seems to run that the Star Warrior is just too good of a fighter, capable of fighting all opponents as well as being the main choice for both newbies and pros alike.
Now, while I cannot say whether or not that this character has enough reason behind him to be removed from the roster of selectable characters, I can say that it's still too early to really determine if it should happen since Brawl has only been released for little over half a year. As any competitive player can tell you, the Meta game can change time and again once some one uses a strategy that wasn't used before, or finds something that the creators hadn't intended.
Now, while we can't depend on that to happen and bring other characters to the forefront, I say that only if this trend continues on until at least a year of the games release can a Banning even be thought of. Really, though, Meta Knight seems to die to my Wario Waft every time.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
That's silly. Meta-Knight is good, but ban-worthy? Come on, world.
I didn't see anyone banning Fox or Falco in the Melee era of wavedash/shine-spamming. It's too early to go about banning characters.
Unless we ban everyone but Ganondorf. What a riot that would be.
Post a Comment