Bear with me gentlemen but this topic of bravery vs. cowardice (which boom has referred to as a “downward spiral”) in smash64 is neither a passing trend nor a mere joke. It is a deep psychological pitfall that challenges many of us daily and reaches back through history. So bear with me and humor some lengthy musings by Teflon Ron on this most philosophical and contentious ongoing debate. If cowardice leads to victory, and bravery leads to defeat than dissolution sets in. This is because the concept of “the hero” is inverted and the most archetypal narrative known to man is dismissed. The hero is typically an unmoving fixture, prominent and consistent while the villain is retreating, hiding, and intermitent. Gilgamesh is a good example of a typical early hero, always hand-to-hand, exposed, with long hair flowing. But reality diverges from the stories we tell and in the case of the sumerian soldiers of mesopotamia (the very culture that invented Gilgamesh) they were ridiculed by their enemies for wearing helmets to battle because helmets were considered to be for cowards. The helmets won them their dominance in reality. Mongolians reigned supreme because they perfected kiting the enemy or attacking while retreating. Imagine how enraged the British were by the guerrilla tactics of the colonists. Hit and run prevailed, our country was born and all thanks to a kind of cowardice. I think about this with Tupac and Jay-z. Tupac was constantly provoking enemies without fear of retaliation while Jay played it cooler with the beef. Pac gets killed and Jay inherits the world of hip-hop. So if nice-guys finish last, or brave-guys finish last than what is the point of having honor or bravery? This is the dilemma. If you’re the kind of man that cannot reconcile societies’ psychopathic demands with your personal moral code than there will be distress. Inotherwords, if you have to play shitty to win and your too proud to lower your standards than it seems the only solution is to just quit. But if smash is a microcosm for life, and quitting smash is logical for honorable men, than does this mean irl the honorable man has no place in society? This idea that one must familiarize oneself with evil or give up is the dead end of this conundrum and indeed it is the exact suggestion of Nick Pascarella earlier when he said “Dude but one day when you lose you should stand up emotionless and just kill yourself on stream. I bet it would get a bunch of views.” The choice between violating one’s personal code and quitting will cause dissonance no matter how trivial the pursuit and i think the vitriol of this post and posts like it are testament to that. But cowards winning and heroes becoming martyrs is not the final conclusion though it may seem that way. As we zoom out to an evolutionary perspective bravery begins to regain value despite the common benefits of safe play. Lets take the penguin for example. All birds are intrepid, but penguins seem especially so for where they have ended up. This is because phenomenally penguins will sometimes break from their flock and just wander off into oblivion. Often times the wandering brave penguin will just die alone in a vast Antarctic landlock, or will swim out to an area bereft of food. But evolutionarily the penguin species is given one of these brave explorers per batch because it was what got the penguins to their safe niche in the first place. This is why some of us are more brave than others, because the diversity of impulses works to benefit the whole. Some must hold back while others are compelled to step into the unknown. It is the same with smash. Many of the basic pro-techniques originated as risky Isai behavior only to evolve into today’s standard or safe play. So in contests of man vs. man cowardice seems optimal. In cases of man vs. self or man vs. nature bravery is necessary. So to be a coward is good for you individually and to be brave is good for the group. That’s pretty obvious I guess. But lets play out this dichotomy in smash64. To be a defensive camper is to win. To be aggressive and flashy is to promote smash 64. But here is the problem for someone like Nicholas John: when he chooses brave play it is not the same as when Isai or the Speziale bros choose brave play because Nick J does not get streamed like they do. So flashy aggressive play is only altruistic if the community is watching, but if your just playing pool matches aggressively and losing and the only thing the community sees are your stats than there really is no point and the Speziale bros are right. If the only person watching your cool flashy play style is the defensive player defeating you than you’ve wasted your heart. But still there is hope and this solution is not my own. It comes from Isai. This could be helpful for you Nick: Doubles. This way you can play with another aggressive player and the pain of losing to pussy cowards will be displaced between you and your teammate. Or you can team up with a campy bitch and treat your opponents to a half-portion of their own medicine. Or you can team with a campy bitch and you may even begin to see value in defensive play. There is less running away in doubles and if your flashy style demands viewership you will be guaranteed to have at least 3 players bare witness to your style per match.
So in conclusion, aggressive play helps the game, defensive play helps to win. It’s as if aggressive players bake the cake and defensive players eat it. Only the greatest offensive players can make the cake and eat it too, the rest of the badasses must bake for the sake of the rest. So it makes sense if you or Joey or Tommy wants to quit when you feel you put in more effort but get out less. It makes sense until you remember your role as the type of player that makes the game fun. There would be no advanced techniques and therefore no smash community without aggressive play. You are appreciated for how you lose when your aggro, almost as much as when you win. The defensive player is not always afforded this consolation.