Gamer 'type'

A gamer in our context is typically someone who enjoys and play video games. But in recent times the phrase 'casual gamer' has come about to describe those who don't religiously spend hours upon hours every day playing video games; 'hardcore gamers'.

I'm wondering whether these two delineations are in actual binary opposition to each other. Does one have to be a casual or a hardcore gamer with no overlap? Is there a middle ground? And also, is one 'type' of gamer superior to the other? Are hardcore gamers justified if they scoff at casual gamers? Is it all dependant on how much you play? Or do the kind of games you play suggest what kind of gamer you are?

If you were to ask me if I was a hardcore gamer or not, a voice inside of me would want to reply 'yes', because I do usually play some variety of video game every day, but outside of the Final Fantasy series, I don't actually have a lot of games that you'd typically associate with the 'hardcore'. If you looked at my collection, you'd see fighting games, racing games, some sports titles and a few music-themed games. Of the current generation of consoles, I have a PS3, yet I don't own a game of the Uncharted series, I haven't played MGS4 or any of the CoD games. So I can't be a hardcore gamer, right? Or am I just a hardcore gamer who likes specific genres? Your choice of game shouldn't impede you from being considered a hardcore gamer over a casual gamer, otherwise those people on YouTube you can 100% Through the Fire and Flames aren't getting the recognition they deserve.

I should end this post before my ramblings become gibberish.
But taking into consideration what I've been saying, what kind of gamer are you; hardcore, casual, something in between, something else entirely? Or is the whole premise of distinguishing between hardcore and casual silly in the first place?

In my opinion, casual gamers have a method of playing games and sometimes play them. Hardcore gamers play games A LOT. But, I also think there are a few sub-categories of hardcore gamer. The first is the freak in a darkened room, removing himself from society because games are more fun. The second, and more common, are people that often play games competitively, such as the infamous MLG gamers. They play games and are very good at them, so much so that they are the "pros" of gaming. This category also has the less impressive hardcore gamer, who simply excels at one game or type of game and plays that type exclusively. I think this counts as a hardcore gamer even if they only play games as much as casual gamers.

Most people are something like myself, I think. The middle ground. I enjoy and play a variety of games, and can pick up any game and become good at it in a short amount of time. However, I'm certainly no pro, but I don't care because that's not why I play them.

I think everyone has moments where they become a Tier 3 hardcore gamer. Sometimes, we're enjoying a game so much that we put a bizarre amount of effort into it; taking notes, formulating plans etc. I've done this with Fallout 3 and Oblivion, trying to create a god-like character*. You could say I did the same with Halo 3 for a while, trying to get all the achievements (MUST. GET. KATANA. DON'T. KNOW. WHY. BUT. MUST.).

*I totally got it in Oblivion, for the record. 100% Resist Magicka and 100+% Reflect Damage. xD

I'd reserve the term 'hard-core' for people who play video games not often, but rather, with diligence. The kind that keep an eye on the fan translations, and rip out a nub from their SNES to play imports. The kind who don't cry foul when they lose in a competitive game. The kind who know... the truth!

:magus:

I definitely think there is a spectrum and it's not even a linear one. There are types of games you expect are only for the hardcore. But even among those there will be people who feel more hardcore than others because of how much time they spend in multiplayer or working on achievements while you might even have the types that would be considered casuals playing the game.

On the flip side, there are definitely more hardcore gamers that still play some flash games here and there or maybe even play Farmville type stuff on Facebook. Recall that there was a time long before FB and before a time when flash games were for housewives when only true "gamers" even bothered with such online games.



However, I'm a bit of a hypocrite too. My wife was talking about another teacher at school who was like "Oh yeah! I'm a gamer!" before talking about some version of pocket Sudoku she played occasionally. She'd even considered getting a Wii (she owned no consoles or portables... I suggested the DS over the Wii).

Of course, my wife and I both scoffed at the idea that this lady who played a tiny bit of Sudoku on some monochrome device she picked up at the Wal-Mart checkout line for $3 bucks was a "gamer."

Is that too harsh? Should gamer also include grandmas who do bingo or middle-aged men who sit around and play poker on Saturday nights. I just feel like the term gamer doesn't connote to include such things.

I certainly think you could have just one video game in your whole collection and still be a hard-core gamer. But I kind of associate it with how much time you spend playing video games, and how much effort you put into getting 'uber 1337' at those games, not how diverse of a gamer you are.

I would say I'm in the middle ground as well. For the most part I will end up playing a video game of some form daily or at least once every 2 days. I get relatively good at whatever I'm playing, and if I really like the game then I will start to look into the nooks and crannies of it. But I'm not freakishly good at games, and I don't buy the special edition game packs that come with little figurines and what-not.

EDIT:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yeargdribble

Should gamer also include grandmas who do bingo or middle-aged men who sit around and play poker on Saturday nights.

---

No, those kind of games are definitely not representative of what gaming is in this day and age. However if there's grown men playing D&D on saturday night then that's a different story.

I'm not sure that the terms themselves are the best which could be chosen, but I know that I am on the more 'hardcore' end of the spectrum. I've been playing games for over 20 years now, and I appreciate them as much more than simply entertainment (As a whole; many individual games are just entertainment, but so are many movies, books, etc.) I devote a majority of my free time to gaming, I generally don't limit myself to genres too strongly (Though I of course have preferences), I spend a considerable amount of my monetary resources on them, and they are not something I just "do" in the way I just happen across a neat TV show. It isn't merely that I play games, or play them a lot, or play certain genres. I play them with a knowledge of them going back a long way, an ability to desire to compare them and think critically about them, and they are a core component of who I am, for better or worse, a referential and experiential touchstone of what has made me me.

I don't really scorn 'casual' players per se. I do however scorn companies for pursuing them when, let's be quite honest about this, they have absolutely no brand loyalty or love of the industry. Wii Fit might be fun for some but if anyone honestly believes that housewives will sacrifice X, Y, Z to get it once the initial hubbub surrounding the Wii has passed, I challenge them to prove that assertion. I absolutely will still buy games despite being a student on a tight budget. Maybe I'm being an elitist jerkass but the reality is that I am an enduring customer who will stick with the industry, even if not a particular company, through thick and thin. But this is predicated on there being games I want to play, and I've seen nothing offered by Wii, Natal, or the PS3 motion controller that I require them for. I can do it all on a regular controller. So I do complain about the direction of the industry because it's somewhere I believe has little potential (And what potential it does have, in strategy and management games, is unlikely to be top of any priority lists). They are, in short, spending money on something I'd rather they didn't.

On the other hand I'm not some neckbearded mouthbreathing troglodyte who thinks that any game less complex/difficult than their chosen ambrosia is for, at best, cultureless philistines. I honestly don't understand people like the inhabitants of No Mutants Allowed, RPGCodex, or that one person I saw over at the Space Empires V forum who declared in as many words than anyone who likes any game less complex than SEV is retarded.

Yeah, I'll echo that last bit of MILF's statement. I hate the types of people who think you're a puss if you don't turn the game to ultra-hard-nightmare-rape mode on your first play through to make you more of a man.

I also don't inherently have trouble with casual gamers or gaming. I don't think gaming is heading for another collapse like that of the early 80s. I think the industry is not only strong and larger, but it's more diverse. I'm also aware that the casual games that take nothing to produce and bring in huge revenue are good for hardcore gamers at large. This puts money into the pockets of the companies that supply budgets for the more serious games that core gamers want. It's just like how EA makes a ton from their sports titles every year. I couldn't give two s**ts about those games, but they do provide scaffolding for games like Dead Space.

I'm actually pretty annoyed with the doomsayer hardcores talking about the plague that is casuals. As long as the producers don't turn 100% of their resources (i.e. income largely from casual games) to the production of casual games, I'm fine. They should be smart enough to understand the importance of diversification so I don't see this happening. I hate digging through shovelware as much as the next guy, but it's it comes with good and bad.... and hey...some retailers are refusing to carry some of it... so yay!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mo-Nercy

I should end this post before my ramblings become gibberish.
But taking into consideration what I've been saying, what kind of gamer are you; hardcore, casual, something in between, something else entirely? Or is the whole premise of distinguishing between hardcore and casual silly in the first place?

---

Oh I'm something else entirely. I may dump around 20-30 hours into gaming a week, but I don't think I'm hardcore. Cause I don't look down and berate people for playing games differently. And my idea of hardcore gamer kind of over lap with those Stop Having Fun Guys.

Not only that, but Hardcore gamers have super tight nostalgia goggles on and everything past there favorite game/system/character has ruined gaming forever. I've been playing games since I was four. I'm almost 22 years old now, that's 18 years. I've learned a few things, but most importantly is to take games as they are instead of comparing it to every other game you've played. It's more enjoyable that way. Second most important thing is to not let anyone influence your opinions about a game or genre you like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vermachtnis

Oh I'm something else entirely. I may dump around 20-30 hours into gaming a week, but I don't think I'm hardcore. Cause I don't look down and berate people for playing games differently. And my idea of hardcore gamer kind of over lap with those Stop Having Fun Guys.

---

I don't necessarily think that all hardcore gamers are like that though. Certainly there is a large sect of them that think they're god's gift to gaming (and they're usually the same one's who have big fan-boy console wars; I mean, I'm a Sony man, but I'm not going to make a fudging 10 minute video blog about it). But if you ever speak to some of the really highly recognised Tekken tournament players, or see their posts on the Zaibatsu forums, then they're actually pretty down to earth, and are often willing to give advice to less advanced gamers.

Casual = newfag
Hardcore = oldfag

Either way they're fags. Lol.


In all seriousness though, it's definitely more of a spectrum than anything else. I wouldn't exactly say I'm hardcore, at least not anymore, but I'm not really casual. I play lots of different games and spends lots of time on them, not necessarily very consistently though. If all you play is Wii, you're probably a casual. If all you play is Rock Band/Guitar Hero, you're probably a casual. Even if you're really good and/or play a lot of those, that wouldn't really make you a hardcore gamer because that's only one small aspect of gaming.

I'm an all around gamer. I play everything from Wii Sports to Halo to RPGs that require countless amounts of your time. I am better at certain games than I am at others. For instance fighting games . It's probably because games like Street Fighter, Virtua Fighter, and Mortal Kombat are the first games I ever played along with Sonic and Mario of course. Playing so many types of games is great because I don't get bored playing one type of thing.

I think of casual gamers as people who like to play games as a more social thing and that's why I think Wii appeals to them more maybe. Hardcore gamers are apparently the ones that play on insane modes and actually care about getting as many Xbox gamer points as they can. I don't really have much of an opinion about casual gamers, but people who consider themselves hardcore annoy me.

How do I annoy you?

Like that ;o.

I think you're casual if you play a game that is instantly fun there and then, and when you quit the second something isn't fun anymore.

Hardcore gamers are those that put up with hours of boring crap to excel at the game later. Like Disgaea grinding. Or WoW grinding for that matter. Maybe practicing an FPS because it's fun to win against others, even if the actual practice isn't fun.

These are of course not absolute definitions of either terms, but probably at least *one* definition of them.

Hmm...I'm not quite sure what my own definition is. I would consider myself a "gamer" but when asked if I would join the gamer's club here at the university, I said no because I didn't think I'd fit in with the other "gamers."

Both terms are obviously meaningless.

At the DICE convention/conference last week (the week before last?) David Crane (Pitfall) and David Jaffe (God of War) were on a panel about casual and downloadable games. They remarked that the majority of the games in the 1970's and '80's were actually casual because they were targeted (and succeeded in attracting) people from all age and gender groups outside of teenage and young adult males. I remember when I was young, it was my Dad who got me into the NES, and when he wasn't there, my mom could get me into a game of Mario and play some of it with me. Neither of them could be bothered to play games today.

At the same time, the term "hardcore" gamer is a joke. 10 years ago, I thought a "hardcore" gamer was someone heavily involved in the mod scene, who could set up and run their own server on Half-Life/Counter-Strike with bots and a custom map list. Someone who played or made fan translations of unreleased JRPG's was hardcore (like Kentarou said).

Saying MLG gamers are hardcore is an even funnier joke. MLG and GameBattles gained popularity with Halo and Call of Duty, who's aim assist is so blatant it compromises the ethos of their multiplayer modes (When your cross-hair is moving on its own on an enemy who's behind cover, you're not playing a great competitive game anymore). CAL and OGL are what I would consider real "hardcore" professional gamers.

The mainstream gaming media would have you believe someone who plays SmackDown vs. Raw, Halo, Madden, and Call of Duty is a "hardcore" gamer. I actually like those games, but it is hard for me to imagine that they aren't as casual as it gets. People like to term Wii owners and Facebook gamers as casual gamers. They're not - they're not "gamers" to begin with. They're people who consume various different mediums, some of books, some of movies, some of music, and some of games. The Wii is only as popular as it is because of the "Oprah effect". Once that group finds the newest exercise routine, or cooking appliance, or mainstream author, their Wiis will be in the dumpster next to their Twilight books and Michael Moore documentaries.

Of course some people want you to believe that games have finally broken into the mainstream after years of oppression (because their salaries depend on it).

But, again, there were "casual" demographics in the 1970s and 80s.... :tongue:

That was more than 30 years ago though and I don't think you know what a gamer is . It's someone who plays games. Casual and hardcore are separated by their input hours and dedication.

Personally speaking, I do consider myself as a lapsed gamer, seeing how I was and still am an arcade-type.

Yes, I do play:

Arcade:

--タツノコ VS Capcom: Cross Generation of Heroes
--Marvel VS Capcom: Clash of Super Heroes
--Dance Dance Revolution
--GuitarFreaks & drummania
--beatmania
--pop'n music

Wii:

No More Heroes 2
Tatsunoko VS Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars
Resident Evil: The Darkside Chronicles
Wario
Arc Rise Fantasia*
Metroid: The Other M*

DS:

Luminous Arc 2
Steal Princess
Final Fantasy III
The Legend of Kage 2
DBZ: Attack of the Saiyans
Phoenix Wright: Justice for All
Megaman ZX Advent
Pokemon Heart Gold*
Golden Sun*

*Technically, they're not out yet, as of this post; I'm just waiting for their releases.

However, with this talk of "hardcore", here is my personal opinion:

To be called a "hardcore gamer" ...in America, you MUST be any of these:

--a camper
--a Zerg rusher
--or, if you play Marvel VS Capcom 2: New Age of Heroes, you MUST pick either Cable, Sentinel, Magneto, or Storm religiously.

i dont think there is a "hardcore" or "casual" gamer, just the amount time spent playing video games. However if you turn into a zombie and lose most if not all your social skills and can only talk to your friends about stats, bosses, end-game crap stuff like that etc, then I think they have a problem. People who say "lol" in person annoy the crap out of me as well. stupid "1337kiddies". ¬_¬

I subscribe to the Angry Joe definition of a Gamer.

A gamer is a person who is passionate about what it is they do. A gamer is the one who is waiting in line release day. A gamer will argue and debate what games are good and what ones are not, and have many reasons as to why. A gamer is the type of person who enjoys the smell of a freshly opened game case.

I don't really get why someone who just plays games from time to time can be called a gamer. Would you call every person who goes to watch a movie a movie buff? Would you call someone who drinks every so often an alcoholic? Would you call a 30 year old man who punched out a 15 year old kid for being a dick an ass kicker?

No my friend, you would not. :mad2:

I think a mix of NeoCracker and Mirage's explanations (very overlapping) would be about perfect.

It would seem that, from most of the replies I've read, there's actually more disdain directed toward hardcore gamers than casual. Hardcore gaming carries with it that stereotyped notion of having little to no social life, living off instant noodles and playing in complete darkness on the hardest difficulty modes. There's no denying that there are people like that out there, but as Quin noted (and I agree with him), all of us at some stage lapse into a phase of hardcore gaming whenever something really appeals to us. But then there's the added variable of the game itself. Is my girlfriend, who plays the Sims daily and designs her own custom content, a hardcore gamer? I wouldn't say so.

But we're all looking at this from inside the box, because obviously, we're all gamers. I have no doubt that someone who doesn't play games would look at me and think I'm a hardcore gamer. To them, the definition of a hardcore gamer is someone who's been playing video games since they were kids and that's most of us.

your sig doesnt help with that post Mo! makes you look even sadder!

Your sig makes me sad too. Almost 800px? What were you thinking?! xD

i was thinking of breaking the walls! i should get around to adjusting the sig though... but yeah gamer types, generalization of hardcore or causal gamers only because of advertising and stereotyping such as Nintendo saying it's made the Wii available to everyone (which it is) but also pumping a large amount of crap-ware games onto its platform so kids can play it and their parents looking and seeing that their kids playing with a fake dog or is actually moving around instead of just sitting on the sofa controller in hand. i'm not saying hardcore gamers lack the social skills but its the few that are who make others stereotype the rest of "hardcore" gamers. With a lack of social skills, hygiene issues and/or having hair they think is cool but everyone hates it (because of their hygiene issues) talking about games 24/7 and saying things like "lol" and "pwn". Another sort of people that ruin the image of "hardcore" gamer is the addicts like the recent news story of another couple not feeding their baby instead feeding an e-baby (i think it was in N-Korea). so game addicts and stubborn unwilling-to-change social inept people that play games ruin it for the rest of the people that are "hardcore" hence giving them a bad image.

There is no way to define "hardcore" and "casual" as there are many things that we could use to measure what defines a "hardcore" or "casual" gamer such as amount of games played or amount spent or even genre of game. But for me if we has to use a measure I would take time, like a person drinking, having one drink doesnt count as an alcoholic, having a few drinks over a week also doesn't mean they're an alcoholic, drinking everyday might mean they're an alcoholic, moreso if they drank by themselves everyday with no reason. With that if a person plays a game once in a while and not spend more than a few hours (if that) that could be the low end of casual, moving along the scale of playing a game every day for a few hours (eg farmville or animal crossing) that could start moving towards the middle-ish area of being more casual than hardcore . Then theres playing a game everyday for extended periods of time (say 5-6 hours a night) which I'd say be more hardcore than casual. Penultimately theres playing a game everyday straight after work/school and not doing anything else. Finally theres playing a game all day every day with other people (WoW addicts). Of course like the alcoholic thing, one factor could be when leaning towards more the "hardcore" end of the scale, the player starts playing alone even though it's multiplayer, they don't interact or communicate with other players and start to lose their social skills and scream at their monitors all the time. So casual > hardcore > addict.

just my two pennies

If people think MLG is really hardcore, then you have got to be kidding. The real hardcore groups are those that keep the competitive scene up with their love of the game and less about the money/contracts those guys put up.

I usually say a hardcore gamer is someone who is willing to spend time in any type of game and then excel at it in some way. It doesn't mean you have to be the best of the best, but if you have enough of a passion for it and stick with the game to know it, then you are hardcore imo.

Casual gamers usually play it just to pass the time, or etc. I am casual on many games like FPSs, RPGs, or etc. I am neither great at these games nor do i excel and intend to do so. However when it comes to fighting games that are 2-D i am more willing to spend time to learn the in&outs, as well as higher competitive play. So i am hardcore in that aspect and spend alot of time in fighting game boards and arcades.

So Hardcore - willing to spend the time to learn the game inside out and really push the game to the limit, and Casual would be anyone who isn't but enjoys playing the game. This can span over multiple genres, but thats usually how i see it.

That, and hardcore gamers do things like normal people too. I mean just look at this!

Top SFIV player Justin Wong Karaokes with his friends X3

YouTube - Chris Hu Show Ep 2: Karaoke 5/5

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoCracker

A gamer is a person who is passionate about what it is they do. A gamer is the one who is waiting in line release day. A gamer will argue and debate what games are good and what ones are not, and have many reasons as to why. A gamer is the type of person who enjoys the smell of a freshly opened game case.

---

I'm all those things and that's the best smell ever as far as I'm concerned.

For me hardcore more has to do with the approach to gaming than the time spent, or games played. When I play a game I just about always try to improve and get as good at it as I can. I note every mistake I make, and try and find ways to be better next time.

I don't play a very large range of games at all, and in the last few years I haven't been logging a whole lot of total time. But I still consider myself a very 'hardcore' gamer.

Back when I played WoW I wasn't very motivated by getting better gear, not did I have a lot of spare time to play, so I was somewhat far behind on the gear progression. Instead of just treating the game as a mindless grind I used the time I did play to improve & learn my class inside and out I was usually told how remarkably good I was for the gear I had. Despite the fact that other people were investing dozens of hours more a week than I was, I considered myself more 'hardcore' than them because I was applying myself to the game more.

MLG gamers (as far as Halo goes) are whiny sacks of :bou::bou::bou::bou: and deserve no respect. Seriously? I can only use the Battle Rifle? All of the other weapons are for n00bs? I can't use the Hayabusa helmet 'cause those are for BKs and n00bs? Go smurf yourself with your overinflated ego.

I'm an arcade gamer first and foremost.

In other words, I'm a masochist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Momiji

MLG gamers (as far as Halo goes) are whiny sacks of :bou::bou::bou::bou: and deserve no respect. Seriously? I can only use the Battle Rifle? All of the other weapons are for n00bs? I can't use the Hayabusa helmet 'cause those are for BKs and n00bs? Go smurf yourself with your overinflated ego.

I'm an arcade gamer first and foremost.

In other words, I'm a masochist.

---

Same here; heck, my gateway to gaming was the arcade!

Yeah, in relation to what I said earlier, to be called a "hardcore gamer" in Korea, you MUST be a Zerg rusher. :tongue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Momiji

I'm an arcade gamer first and foremost.

---

Me too. Certainly, it's not where I began, but it's where I inevitably end up these days if I've got a bit of coin.

Initial D, Tekken, Soul Calibur, Dance Dance Revolution was high school in a nutshell. So much money wasted =D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quin

The first is the freak in a darkened room, removing himself from society because games are more fun.

---

>>> Thats me :bounce:..:luca:

Few comments:

I think it's easier for a female to say she's a "gamer" than a guy to. When a guy says it, they are interrogated how much they actually play and what not. But if girl says, "Yeah I play Halo on Live". Then people tend to think, "Oh wow she is a gamer!" Without asking her how much she plays or what rank or blah blah all that. That's how it seems to me.

Secondly, people always classify it into, casual gamers, and hardcore gamers. I think the middle "Gamer" is well what should be middle ground. When I think Casual gamers I think the person who got a wii and plays mariocart occasionally. I think of a gamer as someone who plays games and beats them but they wont obsess like crazy. A hardcore gamer is someone who gets every achievement for every game and spends most their time working on said achievements.

That's my opinion on casual vs hardcore :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Momiji

MLG gamers (as far as Halo goes) are whiny sacks of :bou::bou::bou::bou: and deserve no respect. Seriously? I can only use the Battle Rifle? All of the other weapons are for n00bs? I can't use the Hayabusa helmet 'cause those are for BKs and n00bs? Go smurf yourself with your overinflated ego.

I'm an arcade gamer first and foremost.

In other words, I'm a masochist.

---

What the hell. They even think the shotgun is a noob weapon? That's like one of the most beastly weapons in the game. Someone comes around the corner and you just POW.

I know right?

My theory about MLGtards is that since there are weapons stronger than their precious Battle Rifle, they decided that you're not allowed to use them.

Kind of like the basement dwellers who limit characters, stages, and items in Super Smash Bros.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freya

I think it's easier for a female to say she's a "gamer" than a guy to. When a guy says it, they are interrogated how much they actually play and what not. But if girl says, "Yeah I play Halo on Live". Then people tend to think, "Oh wow she is a gamer!" Without asking her how much she plays or what rank or blah blah all that. That's how it seems to me.

---

Wat

I find that it's exactly the opposite, even I would do it. If I find a guy that says he plays games, the only thing I'll ask is what games he plays so that maybe we can play together. If a girls says the same thing, the first thing I'd ask if it was Wii/RB/GH out of skepticism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shiny

What the hell. They even think the shotgun is a noob weapon? That's like one of the most beastly weapons in the game. Someone comes around the corner and you just POW.

---

That's the entire point, MLG is about skill and strategy. Shotguns kills are easy kills.

Wouldn't a truly skilled player be able to avoid being ambushed by some n00b with a shotgun?

It's not about skill and strategy, it's about being a pathetic control freak. Heaven forbid someone use a weapon that has existed since the beginning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Momiji

Wouldn't a truly skilled player be able to avoid being ambushed by some n00b with a shotgun?

---

I was thinking the exact same thing. It's not the weapon that makes someone a n00b or 1337, it's the gamer themselves. I don't know a lot about MLG, but restricting the choice of weapon to just one in an FPS seems as silly as telling people who play fighting games competitively they can only use their face to press the buttons because it's too easy to use fingers. And only n00bs use their hands to play games.

*facepad*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Momiji

Wouldn't a truly skilled player be able to avoid being ambushed by some n00b with a shotgun?

It's not about skill and strategy, it's about being a pathetic control freak. Heaven forbid someone use a weapon that has existed since the beginning.

---

It depends really. If the weapons are well balanced so perhaps the shotgun excels in one area but is a bad choice in other circumstances, then it should be fair game. If it's good to the point of being the best option by a wide margin in every situation then it's stupid to allow it's use in competition because it actually limits potential strategy to one option: use the shotgun or you'll lose. Kind of like not allowing Akuma in the original Super Street Fighter II Turbo makes it feasible to win with another character because he's actually that broken.

Now I don't know enough about Halo to know if that's the case, but it sounds more like they're trying to limit the potential options so that there's only one option available to everyone and the competition comes from reflexes, and luck. Limiting a game full of options to just one is stupid because you're either removing viable options, thus reducing the use of strategy and tactics, or the game is so poorly balanced that you have to do it to make it marginally viable in a competitive setting. If it were the latter case then you might as well just compete in a better game.

"Screw balance, get better." Is my stance most of the time, the only exception I make is really, really broken characters like Akuma. Cause then people are just using him to win. And I'm with Momiji, people make up all these stupid rules about balance cause they don't want to learn how to play right. They found a way they can win and force it down your throats. Everytime I hear balance, I die a little inside. They're more interested in winning than having fun. Even beating them with a lower tier character like Peach will cause them to call Shenanigans. You can't win with them, they're boring bitter people who are only measured by their online accomplishments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivi22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Momiji

Wouldn't a truly skilled player be able to avoid being ambushed by some n00b with a shotgun?

It's not about skill and strategy, it's about being a pathetic control freak. Heaven forbid someone use a weapon that has existed since the beginning.

---

It depends really. If the weapons are well balanced so perhaps the shotgun excels in one area but is a bad choice in other circumstances, then it should be fair game. If it's good to the point of being the best option by a wide margin in every situation then it's stupid to allow it's use in competition because it actually limits potential strategy to one option: use the shotgun or you'll lose. Kind of like not allowing Akuma in the original Super Street Fighter II Turbo makes it feasible to win with another character because he's actually that broken.

Now I don't know enough about Halo to know if that's the case, but it sounds more like they're trying to limit the potential options so that there's only one option available to everyone and the competition comes from reflexes, and luck. Limiting a game full of options to just one is stupid because you're either removing viable options, thus reducing the use of strategy and tactics, or the game is so poorly balanced that you have to do it to make it marginally viable in a competitive setting. If it were the latter case then you might as well just compete in a better game.

---

That's the thing though. There really aren't any broken weapons in Halo (well, Halo 3 at least). The shotgun's blindingly obvious weakness is that it's absolutely useless when you're not shooting them at point-blank. The rocket launcher may be considered overpowered, but that's why you only get 4 shots with it.

The Battle Rifle, on the other hand, functions very well at close and long range, being a pseudo-sniper rifle-- and if you're good at using it, 4 shots to the head will drop the opponent. So as you can see, the MLGtard's favorite weapon is, of course, the one that can be considered 'broken' by many! :p

The same argument goes with Super Smash Bros. The elitist 'pro' group will restrict a bunch of stages, characters, and not allow items at all, because they can give the user a cheap win. But... that's kind of the point. Check the Encyclopedia Dramatica article for 'tourneyfag' and you'll see what I mean. (Due to it being incredibly NSFW I won't link to it.)

Now in games like Pokémon, I can understand some of the restrictions, like restricting the use of uber-tier Pokémon, the sleep clause, etc., but these rules exist to keep the game from becoming monotonous and boring. If everyone used the strongest Pokémon or put all of your Pokémon to sleep during a battle, that'd be pretty boring.

Personally theres like two types of Smash players, some that like playing the game with items(which might devolve into mostly item usage) and some that like the game that involves the two character's movesets more. Neither are wrong.

I consider it wrong when one person forces you to play with their smurfed-up rules, however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Momiji

That's the thing though. There really aren't any broken weapons in Halo (well, Halo 3 at least). The shotgun's blindingly obvious weakness is that it's absolutely useless when you're not shooting them at point-blank. The rocket launcher may be considered overpowered, but that's why you only get 4 shots with it.

---

I was mostly making the point that there are legitimate reasons occasionally to ban certain game aspects in a competitive setting. I wasn't trying to say there was a legitimate case for it with Halo, and just from the sounds of it with banning a shotgun I doubted there was. There are very rarely times where banning anything is necessary to give a competitive game variety, or avoid random chance winning over actual skill.

For what it's worth, I feel the same way about people who play competitive TF2 (even though I don't) and require a certain class makeup on each team, or ban the Sandman baseball bat for scout. If some team makeups are better than others then it'll all come out naturally anyway and people will use what works for their team. And if someone doesn't like getting stunned by a baseball that hits them in the head I suggest they learn to dodge better.

Most things done in the name of keeping a game skill based are a load of crap. But anyway, I think we're probably a little off topic now so I'll leave it at that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Momiji

Wouldn't a truly skilled player be able to avoid being ambushed by some n00b with a shotgun?

It's not about skill and strategy, it's about being a pathetic control freak. Heaven forbid someone use a weapon that has existed since the beginning.

---

There isn't a defense against a guy around a corner with a shotgun...

There isn't a defense from being shot in the head from halfway across the stage with a Battle Rifle, either...

Shoot back and strafe, duck, hide behind cover. You don't get shot and go down instantly with a BR.

You'd be surprised how fast you fall.

Besides, you can just avoid common ambush places and that'll cut out 90% of your shotgun deaths right there. It's not cheap when you have to practically stand on top of them for it to work.

I think the biggest problem people have is that in close quarters as soon as they lock eyes with a shotgun wielding opponent they are almost always screwed, skill regardless. Never mind the actual lack of foresight that got them in that situation, the moment of helplessness is enough to make a lasting impact, and provokes a 'violent' to someone who builds so much of them self on their ability to play the game.

I'm all for custom rules people use to make the game more fun. If you find a game more fun w/o a certain weapon included, and can find others who also like to play that way, more power to you. Just don't assume that the skill set that you like the game to be based around is the only one of value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VeloZer0

I'm all for custom rules people use to make the game more fun. If you find a game more fun w/o a certain weapon included, and can find others who also like to play that way, more power to you. Just don't assume that the skill set that you like the game to be based around is the only one of value.

---

I don't think anyone would really argue that. But when playing a game competitively (as in for titles or money) such rules are stupid. Either play the game the way it was made or compete in a different game. Reducing strategic options in friendly play is fine, but it has no place in competitive play where the best players should win, not the ones who whine too much if people don't play by their rules.

If you want to set up a league that plays by your own rules, all the power too you. If I like watching people slug it out with battle riffles better than with all the weapons available why is it wrong for me to hold a tournament with those rules? I agree that players shouldn't be setting the rules, but the governing body organizing the titles or money in question should be completely free to reward whatever behavior they see fit.
The problem, as you said, is when you start thinking that your custom rules are how the game was intended to be played.

I virtually never play FPS games, so I don't have a lot of firsthand experience on this. I'm just going on general life experiences of elitism, of which this seems to be a classic case.

I believe it to be more of a mindset than a lifestyle. People tend to think casual gaming as not gaming very often. I tend to think of it as people who play lighter games with less meat that are just in it as a distraction. Whereas the hardcore gamers actually care about the games and the industry and the majesty of the experience. I have the mindset of a hardcore gamer. But I don't game very much. I cringe at the thought of being considered a casual gamer because I only delve in once in a while. A leisurely pace I suppose. But the people I think of as casual gamers are the ones who play Sims and WoW. And they can play those games for HOURS. But those games are nothing to me. Just mindless filler. Time wasters. Entertaining maybe. Sometimes. But still. The hardcore gamer will always go for the action or adventure games with meat. And that's me. Even if those times are months apart

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoCracker

I subscribe to the Angry Joe definition of a Gamer.

A gamer is a person who is passionate about what it is they do. A gamer is the one who is waiting in line release day. A gamer will argue and debate what games are good and what ones are not, and have many reasons as to why. A gamer is the type of person who enjoys the smell of a freshly opened game case.

---

I don't wait in lines on release day. I don't have the time nor the money to do this. Also the closest gaming store is in a neighbourhood where being out at midnight will probably result in a mugging or assault.

I don't argue and debate, but I will chat to the few gamer friends I have about what games I liked.

Yeah, I like the smell of a freshly opened game. I also like that with my textbooks for school. I like the smell of new cars too. I just like the smell of new things.

I'm still calling myself a gamer. Even though, according to this definition, I never really have been. Oh well, who cares about labels right :monster:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jiro

I'm still calling myself a gamer. Even though, according to this definition, I never really have been. Oh well, who cares about labels right :monster:

---

Oh yeah! Look at your sig!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyk

I cringe at the thought of being considered a casual gamer because I only delve in once in a while. A leisurely pace I suppose.

---

I also think a variable between hardcore and casual is in the time devoted to the hobby. Unlike you, I don't really mind being considered a casual gamer these days because I know I have much less time to do it than I did, say, in high school days. I'm much more strapped for cash now as a uni student now too, so I'm more likely to be re-playing FFVIII on PSP than shelling out for CoDMW2.

I suppose, in a way, most hardcore gamers will become casual gamers at some stage. It's not necessarily permanent, it's just that in life, as you mature and move onto new things, these certain things may need to take priority over your gaming. I'd love to play The Sims for hours, tbh, I think the game is awesome (2 moreso than 3) but I also need to finish this essay, tidy up my resume, buy a pink tie for that themed birthday party on the weekend and book those reservations to make up for the anniversary I forgot about.

If gamer 'type' is more of a mindset than a lifestyle, I guess I'm still hardcore, but otherwise, evidence would suggest I'm more casual than anything else. Or I'm in that middle ground somewhere because I guess 'casual' gamers don't play FFVIII on the bus on the way to uni. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VeloZer0

If you want to set up a league that plays by your own rules, all the power too you. If I like watching people slug it out with battle riffles better than with all the weapons available why is it wrong for me to hold a tournament with those rules? I agree that players shouldn't be setting the rules, but the governing body organizing the titles or money in question should be completely free to reward whatever behavior they see fit.
The problem, as you said, is when you start thinking that your custom rules are how the game was intended to be played.

I virtually never play FPS games, so I don't have a lot of firsthand experience on this. I'm just going on general life experiences of elitism, of which this seems to be a classic case.

---

Like I said, I have no problem with people playing friendly matches by whatever rules they choose. And by extension, if someone wants to start their own tournament where people have to play by those rules then all of the power to them. The thing is though, that as far as I'm concerned, a tournament should be about competition amongst players, and any rules in place should foster competition and strategy. Banning every weapon except the battle rifle may be interesting to some (usually those who can't win if you allow more weapons), but it stifles competition and strategy rather than supporting it. It removes valid competitive options from the game eventually whittling the gameplay down so that only one style prevails.

It'd be like having a Street Fighter tournament where people can only play as Ryu, or a Starcraft tournament where ever player has to play Terran. Or to use a real world example, imagine a baseball game where the only pitch a pitcher can throw is a fastball. The only people who will genuinely find that preferable in a competitive environment are those who can't win without special rules in place. If something doesn't give an unfair advantage then there's no reason to ban it. Players should simply be forced to adapt to new strategies as they would in any competition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vermachtnis

"Screw balance, get better." Is my stance most of the time, the only exception I make is really, really broken characters like Akuma. Cause then people are just using him to win. And I'm with Momiji, people make up all these stupid rules about balance cause they don't want to learn how to play right. They found a way they can win and force it down your throats. Everytime I hear balance, I die a little inside. They're more interested in winning than having fun. Even beating them with a lower tier character like Peach will cause them to call Shenanigans. You can't win with them, they're boring bitter people who are only measured by their online accomplishments.

---

I can't believe you think that that making balance tweaks is unnecessary. I don't see how it's wrong for someone wanting characters to be better. You must don't play with Viper in SF4 her worst match ups have to be Zangief and E.. Honda. In these match ups Zangief doesn'tgnearly have to work nearly as hard as Viper to win. If he can knock Viper down he can win pretty easily by standing over her and doing pile drivers or lariats. Not much Viper can do in that situation. Her choices are waking up with a block if you expect a lariat or do a BK if you expect him to pile drive. Neither of these are reliable options as there's only a 50% chance of you being correct.

Basically the fight consists of her just trying to keep Zangief as far away from her as possible and punishing him when he smurfs up. Viper smurfs up a couple of times and it's looking grim for her. That fight isn't any fun.

Peach being low tier first for me, thought everyone in Smash had a fair chance of winning, minus the ol' Jig.

If you have a field and a stack of equipment you can chose to play any sport you want. It is like saying (American)Football players just changed the rules to soccer because they didn't like having to run for extended periods of time.

Quote:

---

Banning every weapon except the battle rifle may be interesting to some (usually those who can't win if you allow more weapons), but it stifles competition and strategy rather than supporting it. It removes valid competitive options from the game eventually whittling the gameplay down so that only one style prevails.

---

It stifles strategy in one way, but it greatly expands the strategies that involve the battle riffle.

To throw out another real world example, whitewater and flatwater paddling. A whitewater paddler has to learn and use all sorts of behind the head and backwards strokes to do their sport effectively. A Flatwater paddler goes straight and fast, only using one type of stroke. You can say that Flatwater paddlers are just limiting the amount of skill they have to learn, but after spending countless hours and drills just working on this one motion a Flatwater forward stroke is miles ahead of a whitewater forward stroke. There is less variety to develop, but that just means the effort is spent on focus and specialization.

Quote:

---

Or to use a real world example, imagine a baseball game where the only pitch a pitcher can throw is a fastball.

---

Yes, but (hypothetically) imagine a day long ago where the pitcher could throw from several different places. By limiting him to one place pitchers were then forced away from thinking of strategy of where to throw from to developing new kinds of pitches because they couldn't mess with the other variables.
And if they could only throw fastballs, you can damn well bet that the level of fastball throwing would increase in a hurry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Depression Moon

I can't believe you think that that making balance tweaks is unnecessary. I don't see how it's wrong for someone wanting characters to be better. You must don't play with Viper in SF4 her worst match ups have to be Zangief and E.. Honda. In these match ups Zangief doesn'tgnearly have to work nearly as hard as Viper to win. If he can knock Viper down he can win pretty easily by standing over her and doing pile drivers or lariats. Not much Viper can do in that situation. Her choices are waking up with a block if you expect a lariat or do a BK if you expect him to pile drive. Neither of these are reliable options as there's only a 50% chance of you being correct.

Basically the fight consists of her just trying to keep Zangief as far away from her as possible and punishing him when he smurfs up. Viper smurfs up a couple of times and it's looking grim for her. That fight isn't any fun.

Peach being low tier first for me, thought everyone in Smash had a fair chance of winning, minus the ol' Jig.

---

That's not quite what I meant, but that was my bad for not clarifying. Tweaks are alright, if it's to make one character do better. I haven't played Street Fighter 4, but by giving Viper a couple of moves to help against Zangeif wouldn't be bad. However, taking moves away from Zangeif so he won't be such a threat is my problem.

That's what I hate, most of the time when people talk about balance, they mean taking stuff away from other characters. I'm sorry you were too good, so now your nerfed. It's the same complaint I have against dynamic difficulty. Instead of having you learn to play better, they fix it so you can win.

Quote:

---

That's what I hate, most of the time when people talk about balance, they mean taking stuff away from other characters. I'm sorry you were too good, so now your nerfed. It's the same complaint I have against dynamic difficulty. Instead of having you learn to play better, they fix it so you can win.

---

That is the one thing I hate the most about MMOs is that everyone demands stuff get 'fixed' as soon as they get beaten by something a few times. A good quote to remember: "I am Rock, Scissors is balanced, nerf Paper"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jiro

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoCracker

I subscribe to the Angry Joe definition of a Gamer.

A gamer is a person who is passionate about what it is they do. A gamer is the one who is waiting in line release day. A gamer will argue and debate what games are good and what ones are not, and have many reasons as to why. A gamer is the type of person who enjoys the smell of a freshly opened game case.

---

I don't wait in lines on release day. I don't have the time nor the money to do this. Also the closest gaming store is in a neighbourhood where being out at midnight will probably result in a mugging or assault.

I don't argue and debate, but I will chat to the few gamer friends I have about what games I liked.

Yeah, I like the smell of a freshly opened game. I also like that with my textbooks for school. I like the smell of new cars too. I just like the smell of new things.

I'm still calling myself a gamer. Even though, according to this definition, I never really have been. Oh well, who cares about labels right :monster:

---

And there is you taking a definition far to literally. :p

The only part you really need to focus on is the first line, about gamers having passion. ;P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VeloZer0

It stifles strategy in one way, but it greatly expands the strategies that involve the battle riffle.

---

It doesn't expand the strategy for the battle rifle though. All of the same strategies it had before still apply, it's just more useful in situations where another weapon easily countered it. Without banning any weapons you have to be aware of the situations where yours excels and where it doesn't, understand the trade off, and play accordingly; either by carrying a weapon that makes up for the battle rifles deficiencies, or by avoiding situations where you have the disadvantage. What little you gain in terms of strategies that now work more often that didn't before is far outclassed by the strategic possibilities you give up. Losing the element of having to be ready for different possibilities removes strategic layers and replaces it with pure reflex and hand eye coordination.

Quote:

---

Yes, but (hypothetically) imagine a day long ago where the pitcher could throw from several different places. By limiting him to one place pitchers were then forced away from thinking of strategy of where to throw from to developing new kinds of pitches because they couldn't mess with the other variables.

---

That's not the point. The point is the game has rules that have been established by it's creators. Some may have to be made later to account for broken situations the original creators didn't intend (akin to patching a game) but that's not the same as arbitrarily changing rules because you think they're unfair.

Quote:

---

And if they could only throw fastballs, you can damn well bet that the level of fastball throwing would increase in a hurry.

---

But then the game becomes one of being able to hit the fastest pitch possible, but you always know what it will be. By limiting the pitcher to one pitch you remove the need for the batter to predict what's coming next, removing strategic layers from the game and reducing pitching and batting to a game of who's faster and stronger, not who can read the situation and their opponent better.

Quote:

---

By limiting the pitcher to one pitch you remove the need for the batter to predict what's coming next, removing strategic layers from the game and reducing pitching and batting to a game of who's faster and stronger, not who can read the situation and their opponent better.

---

That was my point. Anticipation skill required is reduced, speed and strength required is increased. The technique of throwing and hitting fastballs would also be further refined just by virtue of the fact they are thrown 3 times as often (total guess on the x3, I don't know anything about baseball)
If you found this more or less interesting to watch it would be up to you. Naturally it would change to the point where the largest amount of people found it interesting. Personally I don't think they could make baseball any more boring anyways :p

Quote:

---

What little you gain in terms of strategies that now work more often that didn't before is far outclassed by the strategic possibilities you give up.

---

Once again, I say that is a personal choice.

Quote:

---

Losing the element of having to be ready for different possibilities removes strategic layers and replaces it with pure reflex and hand eye coordination.

---

Sure some strategy is eliminated, but I can guarantee that if you knew that every opponent had a battle rifle you would play differently in different situations. When you are adapting your behavior I call that adapting your strategy. I will agree with you that on the whole it probably involves less thinking, but I also put forward that it introduces thinking in a new direction. Also consider that maybe these people aren't playing these FPS games for strategic thinking elements.

Quote:

---

That's not the point. The point is the game has rules that have been established by it's creators. Some may have to be made later to account for broken situations the original creators didn't intend (akin to patching a game) but that's not the same as arbitrarily changing rules because you think they're unfair.

---

If a game creator came to me and told me I was playing their game wrong I would tell them to f*** off. To me they are just like a architect who designs a playground (architect seems overly professional for something like that. Or do they just give it to the architectural interns that hey don't like?). Just because you intended for it to be fun a certain way doesn't mean you can claim some self righteous monopoly on how is the best way to enjoy it.

I'm a recreational gamer, if I had to think of some way to describe myself. I game mostly with friends, often as a background element while hanging out and talking. Even with single player games there can be four of us in watching and talking about something entirely unrelated, or I'll be playing DS while talking with a friend playing Battlefield. I play a lot of videogames, but I'm always social about it. I personally find the terms "hardcore" and "casual" to be stupid and (like most labels) created to give insecure people a undeserved sense of superiority.

When battles are supposed to be me vs. you and not me vs. you vs. random chance, I think it's completely fair to take away certain elements.

Why are you people complaining so much? You don't have to play by those rules and you're grossly exaggerating said rules to begin with.

How is having a choice of different strategies random?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NorthernChaosGod

There isn't a defense against a guy around a corner with a shotgun...

---

Yeah there is. It's called hit them in the face with your pimp hand before they blast you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Depression Moon

How is having a choice of different strategies random?

---

General statement to include rules for Smash Bros. and other fighters as well as Halo.

Secondly there are multiple strategies, you are aware that the BR isn't the only weapon available, yes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoCracker

And there is you taking a definition far to literally. :p

The only part you really need to focus on is the first line, about gamers having passion. ;P

---

I ignored that bit purely because I couldn't argue with it :monster:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NorthernChaosGod

There isn't a defense against a guy around a corner with a shotgun...

---

1) Back-pedal + shoot/grenade
2) Jump + sticky grenade
3) Jump over his head + assassinate
4) Shotgun him first
5) Die and get him next time

:D?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VeloZer0

That was my point. Anticipation skill required is reduced, speed and strength required is increased. The technique of throwing and hitting fastballs would also be further refined just by virtue of the fact they are thrown 3 times as often (total guess on the x3, I don't know anything about baseball)

---

But there's my point. When you remove strategic lairs you make a game less competitive, and far less interesting. You could be the fastest and strongest hitter in the world, but if you can't predict what pitch is coming, recognize it early, and react in time to make contact then you'll never make it as a professional player. If every pitch is a fastball then there is no strategy. And no, refining technique is not strategy. Skill is important, but if that's all their is then a game isn't a good competitive game.

Quote:

---

Once again, I say that is a personal choice.

---

Personal choice in that it's up to you if you want to dumb a game down, but removing viable choices arbitrarily always makes a game less strategic, competitive, and less rich in the experience.

Quote:

---

Sure some strategy is eliminated, but I can guarantee that if you knew that every opponent had a battle rifle you would play differently in different situations. When you are adapting your behavior I call that adapting your strategy. I will agree with you that on the whole it probably involves less thinking, but I also put forward that it introduces thinking in a new direction. Also consider that maybe these people aren't playing these FPS games for strategic thinking elements.

---

Like I said earlier, removing other options will make those you keep more effective in situations that they weren't before. That doesn't mean they weren't viable before, it just means they're moreso now. But that doesn't make the experience any richer. If you were to limit a game to one weapon then every situation becomes one of who can react faster. The only strategy involved would be in predicting where your opponent is and will attack from, and how you'll move in a firefight but those were always part of the game. Again, physical ability isn't the same as strategy, and any time a game is reduced to one or two best strategic options (which will always happen if you reduce the viable options to one or two weapons) makes a game less competitive. In other words, the game is less about skill and more about luck in being the first one to pull the trigger. When said situation exists in a professional gaming situation (which is what I've been talking about) it is undesireable. As far as professional gaming is concerned, there is no reason to reduce the skill involved except to make it easier to win for those who can't cut it when playing the game at a high level.

Quote:

---

If a game creator came to me and told me I was playing their game wrong I would tell them to f*** off. To me they are just like a architect who designs a playground (architect seems overly professional for something like that. Or do they just give it to the architectural interns that hey don't like?). Just because you intended for it to be fun a certain way doesn't mean you can claim some self righteous monopoly on how is the best way to enjoy it.

---

Again, I'm talking about playing a game (whether it's a video game or a sport) in a proessional setting. If all you're doing is changing rules to make the game more fun for you and your friends then go right ahead because no one, not even the creator of the game, is going to give a crap. But if you're playing it in a professional competitive situation, then the best way is the way it was designed, if not because the game offers more strategic layers, then because enforcing arbitrary rules can get messy and needlessly complicate things.

I'm just not seeing the fundamental difference between professional and recreational gaming (other than the obvious one of getting payed). To me professional sport if just like recreational sport, with the difference that there are people paying to see/sponsor such event. Naturally since people can make a living on it they have free time to elevate their game, but I see the difference between a pro and amateur as a difference in scale not type.

Quote:

---

Personal choice in that it's up to you if you want to dumb a game down, but removing viable choices arbitrarily always makes a game less strategic, competitive, and less rich in the experience.

---

Are you this hostile to the idea of changing your play mode to something that involves more strategy than the game default? Too me (who plays very little FPS) the genre is already vary far to the skill side of the skill:strategy ratio. So a little more doesn't really seem all that earth shattering to me.

Quote:

---

And no, refining technique is not strategy. Skill is important, but if that's all their is then a game isn't a good competitive game.

---

No it isn't, but it is another element of the game. The 100m Dash is the most watched event in the Summer Olympics, and that is a 100% skill / 0% strategy event. I don't think anyone would say athletics isn't a good sport because there is no strategy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NorthernChaosGod

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Depression Moon

How is having a choice of different strategies random?

---

General statement to include rules for Smash Bros. and other fighters as well as Halo.

Secondly there are multiple strategies, you are aware that the BR isn't the only weapon available, yes?

---

Oh you were talking about items in Smash? Yeah some of those items randomly spawning can be unfair in a competition. I know there's more than the Battle Rifle in Halo, I had the impression that you were thinking that it makes the competition more fair by just restricting players to one weapon, like someone else said that would be like only letting players play with Ryu in SF.

I don't think so.

I think it's the type of games chosen and the amount of time spent on them.

Of course gamers can can exhibit all of the various character types as well..from friendly and outgoing to introverted and antisocial,

I've run into some of the antisocial types on other forums...:roll2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Depression Moon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NorthernChaosGod

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Depression Moon

How is having a choice of different strategies random?

---

General statement to include rules for Smash Bros. and other fighters as well as Halo.

Secondly there are multiple strategies, you are aware that the BR isn't the only weapon available, yes?

---

Oh you were talking about items in Smash? Yeah some of those items randomly spawning can be unfair in a competition. I know there's more than the Battle Rifle in Halo, I had the impression that you were thinking that it makes the competition more fair by just restricting players to one weapon, like someone else said that would be like only letting players play with Ryu in SF.

---

God no, if that were the case I'd never get to use my baby, the sniper rifle. :love: