Protip, if you want to make a statement you know nothing about, keep it short so it's not as easily exposed, first off, there is no serious competitive community for Mario Kart. Second, it's true that Smash Bros and Pokemon were not firstly designed for competitive play, but things change and both those series became much deeper mechanically than their first entries. Smash Bros Melee was not meant to be played competitively, but it's mechanics were still incredibly deep and became eventually so exposed that the series became the second biggest competitive fighting game series. Heck why are characters in Smash 4 constantly getting patches to balance the characters if they're still aren't meant for tournament play? As for Pokemon, dude have you played any of the games since the first and maybe second gen? The mechanics have gotten so much deeper it's obvious much of it is designed around competitive play. There have been made so many new moves since gen 3 that are pretty much useless in single player mode, but useful as hell in competitive play. That along with a plethora of abilities, dual types, and that the Pokemon company holds official championships, it's clear they want the competitiveness to be a huge part of the franchise.
There may not be a 'serious competitive community for Mario Kart' but there are still tournaments and competitive scenes for it. Heck, I've even spectated MK8 tournaments before. MK8 actually had a decent scene, with many players that took the game seriously (see MKboards). They even had clan wars and such, you can see many of these featured on youtube if you're in equal disbelief.
Melee is fine, I spoke generally. Melee released how many years ago? Smash 4 is the most popular right now (more registrants at evo, and even at my locals, people play Smash 4 over melee, typically).
Additionally, just because characters in Smash 4 are 'getting patches to balance their characters' doesn't mean that the game is very well designed for tournament play, it just means that some consideration has been thrown in that direction. If these patches are so beneficial, then tell me why a character like Palutena is considered to have an unfavorable matchup against three quarters of the cast? Look at tournament standings, a consistent set of characters are winning ever major. It's simply not like games like Tekken, or Street Fighter where it feels like the tier list is continually adapting, and anyone can suddenly take the crown (e.g. gamerbee rising to the top with Adon, Luffy rising with Rose).
As for Pokemon, yes I still play it, but there are so many things that also work, against competitive play. IVs, EVs, make competitive play and designing teams less accessible, more focused on preparation than actual battling and strategy. Pokemon Showdown is a lot of fun because you can create your Pokemon with any stats, so there is emphasis on strategy rather than prep work, but official Nintendo organised tournaments do not allow that, so it's a tedious process. In regards to the actual gameplay? It's still a glorified game of rock paper scissors that features a significant number of guess work (reads) and random elements (misses). It's not consistently determined by a players individual ability significantly enough. The only reason games like this even work at a competitive level is because of the supplementary systems (tiering, ban lists) that the community have created surrounding the game. I simply feel that if you have to modify the ruleset so extensively to craft a competitive platform then it would have perhaps been easier to accept that the game simply was not designed with that purpose in mind from the outset, and move forward.
Why play a games like that at a competitive level which requires extensive community moderation to retain sustain as a playable competitive platform, and doesn't get enough support from its developer to sustain as a career esport? That's my opinion on these games.
Ironically I actually run a Smash 4 scene in my city. I run it because I like the people that play it and the tournament atmosphere, even if I don't like the game all that much (we also feature SFV, which I do enjoy). I do enjoy Smash from time to time, but I do not feel confident that the game is designed for competitive play so I feel that to take the game seriously is very restrictive (in respect to character selection) and tedious. In a competitive game I like to feel confident that whatever character I pick, I could theoretically still become the best. I don't feel that way on Smash as I feel against an equally skilled opponent, the better character will win. There are simply too many unfavourable matchups and that stems from the fact that the game isn't very well designed for competitive play. Don't get me wrong this isn't exclusive to Nintendo's games. It happened with Marvel 2 also, and I even feel that MK is a sort of lowest-common denominator fighter.
As for your snide remark at the start of your post, nothing I posted was objectively wrong, merely my opinion. You did not need to be rude, yet you chose to be. If you wanted to debate you could have done so politely and I'd have been more receptive. While we're exchanging 'protips', perhaps check the thread your posting in before getting all sensitive. I will not waste my time reading or responding again if you chose to take that route. The thoughts I posted here were posted here because they are controversial, I am aware of that, yet I am open minded and happy to consider your counter arguments if you present them respectfully.
