This is the exact mentality I don't understand. Am I really restricted to playing a sub-par game if nobody else feels like playing properly? Should I just play a bit worse so everyone on my team and the opposing team isn't offended by my desire to play to the best of my abilities?Twenty Ninjas said:I used to act like a tryhard in TF2. Ending a game on Badlands in like a minute with a scout before anyone got a chance to understand what the hell was happening. That was fun.
And I don't blame the other players for "being bad" either. Truth is, if I wanted to play supercompetitive TF2, I would have moved to a server with better players.
Tryhard is a legit term. When everyone around you is dicking around and you're the only one using pro strats trying to get perfect scores, you're a tryhard.
The thing I don't get is why you care. If your satisfaction in a game depends mostly on how much praise you get from people, why don't you use a subpar setup, do good with it, and prove to everyone that you're also good when you're not serious? Oh what's that? You can't be good unless you use the current FOTM bullshit OP stuff?
Then you're not good.
Also, there's another assumption I don't like in there. I play exactly how I want, I don't use the most OP combinations or strategies. In fighters I play the fighters I like (Abel in SFIV, Q in 3rd Strike... who is absolute bottom on the tier lists) and that doesn't stop me from doing well. When I suck I still play those characters because that's how I have fun.
My satisfaction doesn't depend on the praise. My satisfaction comes from being able to take a moderate amount of pride in my abilities and progress. That satisfaction is just lessened when I see what a negative impact it seems to have on everyone else. I realise it's only a game and that I shouldn't take the spiteful responses of unknown online players to heart but I don't understand why being good at a game is almost as polarising as being awful at one.