Gamer 'type'

[VeloZer0]

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

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.

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.

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.

[Rase]

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.

[NorthernChaosGod]

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.

[Depression Moon]

How is having a choice of different strategies random?

[Shiny]

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.

[NorthernChaosGod]

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?

[Jiro]

And there is you taking a definition far to literally.

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

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

?

[Slothy]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[VeloZer0]

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[ANGRYWOLF]

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...

[NorthernChaosGod]

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.