Poll: Is it cheap, if it's in the game?
- Thread starter ExaltedK9
- Start date
Recommended Videos
First off, if your question is: Is it cheap, if it's in the game. Then yes should mean yes, and no should mean no. But no, if it's something that's programmed into the game then hopefully they balanced the weapon or strategy enough to work around it. I'm reminded of the XR-20 from Perfect Dark. Everyone complained when someone used it, since it was a one or two hit kill, and it could see through walls. But as long as you kept running they couldn't hit you, and the person would spend too much time tracking their target you could just sneak up behind them. If the gun is in the game, it's there for a reason. It's only cheap when you're getting killed by it, and when you figure out how not to get killed by it, you're a bad ass.
Yup. Honestly, I don't get mad at people who use cheap tactics like two piecing, I get angry at the game designers for making it possible to do stuff like that.Plauged1 said:
For example, chainsaws are, in my opinion, fine if you have snuck up on someone and are just using it as a guaranteed kill, or if you are trying to actually shoot someone and they get too close.
However, Epic screwed up when they decided that you could be shot 3 times point-blank with a shottie and it wouldn't lower your chainsaw unless you were hit in the head.
Hell, once I actually downed someone who then chainsawed me and fell down and immediately stood up when he was done.
Seriously, Epic, what the hell.
EDIT: the above applies to Gears 2, obviously. It's why I only really play Gears 1 multiplayer...
I don't believe that a cheap trick is a cheap trick if it was built into the game, such as standing up on a bluff (which might I add can be accessed by the enemy) in Warhammer pvp as a sorcerer and pelting people with AoE and other various spells that rain death from above. Not my fault you don't understand the concept of gaining the higher ground on a ranged character, even less my fault you don't turn around and pelt me right back. But I digress.
No calls something a cheap trick unless it is being used against them, more often than not they are angry they did not think of it themselves. When confronted with someone saying I used something cheap I just respond by saying "I'm sorry you feel that way, but maybe if you played like that you would do just as well." Leave it at that and go on your merry way, ignoring them only makes them even more angry, I prefer to leave them un-ignored so they can vent themselves and not have a stroke. The ones I do ignore are the ones that get their buddies to spam you into oblivion, that's when they've taken it to far.
No calls something a cheap trick unless it is being used against them, more often than not they are angry they did not think of it themselves. When confronted with someone saying I used something cheap I just respond by saying "I'm sorry you feel that way, but maybe if you played like that you would do just as well." Leave it at that and go on your merry way, ignoring them only makes them even more angry, I prefer to leave them un-ignored so they can vent themselves and not have a stroke. The ones I do ignore are the ones that get their buddies to spam you into oblivion, that's when they've taken it to far.
A difficult question to be sure. There are times in many video games where a particular weapon/move/tactic proves itself superior to other options. While it stands to reason that this clearly indicates what one OUGHT to do, it also stands to reason that such a scenario probably wasn't intended at the outset by the developers. In most cases, the advantage is often theoritical anyhow and generally only has a minor impact on the game.
Still, is it cheap to use something that is known to be more powerful than other options? Not exactly - one would have to be silly or looking for a challenge to do otherwise. Often the accusations of something being "cheap" are delivered by a player looking to sooth a bruised ego, and ought be taken with a grain of salt. That said, once one develops the skill necessary to excell without exploiting a balance issue, then relying on the crutch only hinders their ability to grow as a player.
Exploiting flaws in a game however is almost certainly going to be cheap. In the TF1 days, a bug allowd spys to move at full speed while feigning death, which made them nearly impossible to hit and kill. The famous exploits in Gears of War ruined the game (and it's sequal) for me as skill alone was no longer a determining factor but rather who would exploit most efficiently.
Still, is it cheap to use something that is known to be more powerful than other options? Not exactly - one would have to be silly or looking for a challenge to do otherwise. Often the accusations of something being "cheap" are delivered by a player looking to sooth a bruised ego, and ought be taken with a grain of salt. That said, once one develops the skill necessary to excell without exploiting a balance issue, then relying on the crutch only hinders their ability to grow as a player.
Exploiting flaws in a game however is almost certainly going to be cheap. In the TF1 days, a bug allowd spys to move at full speed while feigning death, which made them nearly impossible to hit and kill. The famous exploits in Gears of War ruined the game (and it's sequal) for me as skill alone was no longer a determining factor but rather who would exploit most efficiently.
If you're not actually cheating, then my policy is "There is always an answer. Someone camping? Be more careful - they aren't moving, they should be easy targets. Someone spamming you with a Zerg Rush constantly? get better at recon. Someone beating your ass with a cheap spam in a fighting game? learn to block it.
The good players are the ones who say "Wow, that's pretty cheap, I should learn how to beat it."
It's just the bad ones that make a real stink about it, because they don't feel like learning how to overcome something.. they like to play in their little bubble.
The good players are the ones who say "Wow, that's pretty cheap, I should learn how to beat it."
It's just the bad ones that make a real stink about it, because they don't feel like learning how to overcome something.. they like to play in their little bubble.
It's only cheap if they are abusing small flaws and glitches, like repeatedly tripping your opponent in Mortal Kombat, or telling your friend in 1v1 TF2 that you are a going to have a sniper war, then you backstab him as a spy.
Someone got mad at me in Warcraft3 because of where I built my base in Kodo tag. He thought it was too cheap of a place. Tactics ftw.
Stealing kills from allies=bad. Helping allies in the fight=good.
In Armor Core 4, my friends and I have a mech called elCheapo. He's armed with 4 rocket launchers, and can boost forever. Luckily, he sucks when facing actual players, but if he didn't, it would be very friggin cheap.
Someone got mad at me in Warcraft3 because of where I built my base in Kodo tag. He thought it was too cheap of a place. Tactics ftw.
Stealing kills from allies=bad. Helping allies in the fight=good.
In Armor Core 4, my friends and I have a mech called elCheapo. He's armed with 4 rocket launchers, and can boost forever. Luckily, he sucks when facing actual players, but if he didn't, it would be very friggin cheap.
I use the infinite rocket launcher on RE5, meaning boss fights are a breeze, and people whinge at me saying you shouldn't play the game with it, and that I can't play properly.
But to obtain it, you need to complete the game in under 5 hours, soo....
But to obtain it, you need to complete the game in under 5 hours, soo....
Wait, wait, wait... You got attacked for using a shotgun at close range?!? That's one of the stupidist things I've ever hearedmadbird-valiant said:
Riiiiight...course not.SharPhoe said:
Still though, you alot of times end up with n00bz who complain about your using things that are intended to be there (not exploits...at least not on multiplayer). I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that the chainsaw bayonet from GoW2 was put in there by the developers, and meant to be used.
Same goes for Anders from halo Wars. All it is is a strategy.
These aren't exploits, they are intended to be in the game. If the devs put them into the game then i would guess that they are meant to be used. Anyone who complians about being beaten with them is just a sore loser.vdgmprgrmr said:
Just like people complain when somebody uses a chainsaw bayonet in GoW2, or, God forbid using the shotgun up close! listed above.
This brings to mind a game of Magic with my friend. He believes he has made the best deck ever and that no one would win against it. I played against him using my artifact deck. I won the first round and he told me it was a bad game and that I had to admit his deck was better. I disagreed. He won the next round and shoved it in my face, then I won the third round. At which point he said blue artifacts was cheap. The point is, these people probably believe that they have the best strategy there ever was, but anything that they didn't plan for that could beat it is unfair.
If it ruins the fun of the game for others then don't use it. If it's something that can be easily countered like building anti-air units against Anders then it's fine.
it depends, in the case that you stated no. BUT in the case of sf4, kens shoryuken spammed=very darn cheap, this is due to sf using priorities and that damn uppercut having supper high priorities as well as a few invicible frames on startup