Best. Article. Ever.

I agree with the author of that article. If playing to win isn't important, then why is there a scoreboard? And if a move or action is "cheap", then why does the game itself allow it to be done?

Not just in "the game" either. In life overall too.

Personal affrontery is only 0/10?!? Did this not affront you? ;D

Lets see here...

My overall jab at this column is that it runs almost completely contrary to my own personal experience. This dude says "Hit em with everything you have and if they can't learn or otherwise deal with it then they suck" which runs contrary to reality. In practice, such a stance just scares off potential players and doesn't work without a (what I would consider) large playerbase to being with.

I believe that in a game like Halo where one pull of the trigger accomplishes the same rocket death, that there is no real form of 'holding back' as the game is just way to lethal to screw around, so rockets away! Soul Calibur 45 or Street Fighter 9th Inning are a different story as at the very least, I as a player can simply not choose my best character when the new guy plops in his quarter allowing him the familiarization time needed to form a decent foundation.



'lambe[/i] - Your post was closest without going over, which means you win the dinette set.

Me and Cranky Kong differ, but agree on the deffinition of 'good player'. He says Dude 'A' Roll Cancels (a bug in Capcom vs. SNK 2 which allows a certain green-skinned monster to pass unharmed through projectiles) as much as possible and his opponent, Dude 'B' sucks the beast bagel if he can't hang. Dude 'A' wins using a bug that was never intended by the creators therefor he is the Superior Player. I belive that the superior player is the one that knows and aplies their own abilities aptly. I'll use myself as an example, I can react to new situations and damaging tactics very quickly which has saved my flag more times then not. Dude 'A' throws the piss out of Nightmare, but around the 3rd time I start seeing how Dude is doing his damage and react accordingly with several Earth Divides and drop kicks.

I agree with what makes a good player good. I disagree on what makes a scrub a scrub.

gryphon[/i] - The age old question of 'why does the game allow it to be done' can be answered with 'simple human error'. I shall site the examples of the Halo pistol and the entire game of Marvel Vs. Capcom 2. Bungie themselves said they messed up a variable or something that caused the pistol to dominate multiplayer, but not enough folks complained so they left it in. As for the later, MvC2 is the buggiest fighter in modern history. The most mundane of manuvers can cause the arcade cabinet to lock up and your characters vanish. This is caused by crappy coding and not nearly enough beta testing so by all means abuse it. Nothing says "I R SUPERIAR" like not being able to be damaged further thanks to a code crappage.

As for why we keep score...thats a toughy. I'd say without 'score' or some other score-like goal all competitive games would be Grand Theft Auto. Seemingly endless and an utterly pointless waste of time.


Eun[/i] - Yes. Anyone who abided by the Pistol Truce (LOL) is a scrub, I'm not saying I'm not one of the 99.9% of people that doesn't understand cellular mitosis or whatever the hell that ass was talking about. I'm saying that by the article's definition, not everyone that is defined 'scrub' because they choose to play within the inteded bounds of the game is an 'inferior player'.

He is equating winning with using any strategies (read 'bugs) that don't soft reset the game 'being the better player' for the sake of 'furthering the competion pool'. I pose that you can 'further the competition pool' by 'staying within the inteded bounderies' of the game and not relying on (and I quote) blatant 'coding loopholes' to achive your win thus affirming your phalic size and your status of Superior Player.