Poll: To everyone who has ever been mad at a camper, rusher, bunnyhopper, turtler, or something similar...

[Revolutionary]

I dont think many people will admit to playing to win. However alot of people just star to get really pissed off when they go on losing streaks, thus they start htis camping business.

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

Why have games become about winning all the time?

They haven't. I wonder why I have to explain this over and over again. The purpose of this thread isn't to tell anyone they're playing wrong. In fact, it's the opposite of that. You're perfectly within your right to play whatever way you think is most fun. The only thing I'm saying is that you should let other people have their fun as well. Your fun might not necessarily involve exploiting every aspect of the game to its fullest potential, but you have no right to tell others they should play the game your way, just as they don't have the right to tell you to play differently. That's all I mean to say.

The idea that there is no such thing as "cheap tactics" in a video game is absurd. I know I'm not the only one who feels a sense of honor when I'm playing online. If I kill someone with a grenade launcher or something, I don't really get that satisfying feeling I usually get, because I know it took no skill and he couldn't do anything to avoid it. Same with sitting in a corner, or using Commando, or any of the other various bullshit perks/weapons in shooters these days.

Surely other people play games with a 'code of ethics' of sorts, or a sense of honor and self-respect?

As explained above, it's perfectly acceptable to have a personal 'code of honor' when it comes to playing games. However, it's extremely arrogant to expect everyone else to play by your imaginary rules. You might think that a grenade launcher is not a fun weapon, but unless you're really dense I assume you know that 'fun' is subjective. That means that for some people, that same grenade launcher might be hilarious. The point isn't how you choose to have fun, the point is that you shouldn't negatively judge others who don't play by your arbitrary rules of 'honor'.

So, the old "It's in the game, so it isn't cheap" argument. Plus the "as long as they're having fun" new argument. The problem is, they're having fun, but this is causing us to NOT have fun. By the same reasoning, team killing is perfectly ok, because the people who do it are having fun.

I've seen this argument several times, and it's just plain wrong. Sure, if someone beats you that might reduce the amount of fun you're having, but at least they're not telling you you're playing the game wrong. They're not trying to tell you that your idea of fun is wrong. They're not trying to impose their imaginary honor system on you. That's the whole point. By labeling certain strategies as 'cheap' and expecting others to stop using them, you've become so arrogant that you expect others to adapt their game to your wishes. Losing is part of any game, whining about how the winners didn't deserve to beat you because they used a tactic you failed to defend against is juvenile and unsporting.

People that need to resort to only ever using the best (read: overpowered) guns, glitches and exploits are scrubs, end of story.

In other words, everyone who beats you is a potential target for incessant whining?

People don't play just to win. People play games to have fun. The scrub is not always playing to win. They want to have fun. Can you have fun losing? Of course. Also, these so called "mental rules" are not exclusive to each scrub. These guidelines of cheap vs. fair have been set down by those who are experienced. Most people who play are "bound" by them. The scrub does not break these rules because he wants it to be difficult. There is satisfaction in winning a long difficult battle. A tough fight is a fun fight to many. There is far less satisfaction in winning a battle quickly and easily. The toil and effort is what generates fun, not the ease or speed of victory.

What the writer was saying about the cheap tactics is also flawed. The cheap tactics aren't unfair because they're simply effective. They are unfair because abusing them can very much so unbalance the game in your favor in a way the game did not intend. In his example of the throw move in street fighter it is used as a counter against block. In this usage it is fair to use it since that is how it was designed. However, once you start using it repeatedly outside of that is when it gets cheap. This is because there is almost no way to defend against it since block cannot do so. The game didn't design it to be a all powerful spam move, it designed it as a simple counter to another tactic, but the cheap players go against this and abuse the power. The cheap players are going against the game's intentions.

The writer acts as if the scrub is some sort of idiot who won't explore the possibilities. Perhaps this is true in a way. But it's simply a fact that the scrub won't explore what it doesn't want to. If all scrubs were to explore the limits and become supposedly"good" players then competitive games would simply be constant spamming of the unfair tactics. There would be no fun, just cold efficiency. I firmly believe that there is no point in playing a game if you will not have fun. Fun is the reason games exist, not just for the sake of winning. To quote an old idiom "Winning isn't everything", there is honor, dignity, and of course fun.

About the 'winning isn't everything', I don't disagree. Read what I've already written a dozen times in this thread.

About the rest, this may come as a shock to you, but "this isn't what the developers intended" is a load of bullshit. First of all, you're not a mind-reader. Unless the developers release an official statement that a certain move is bugged or overpowered and shouldn't be used or (far better) release a patch that fixes the perceived imbalance, there is no way you can be sure that they didn't intend for that to happen. And even if it wasn't intended, that doesn't mean it's bad. Bunny hopping, rocket jumping, juggling, move canceling, roll canceling, wave-dashing, Muta-stacking, and many other techniques originate from bugs or exploits, but became essential parts of the metagame, shaping the games they were a part of to become something greater. Hell, many of these examples have transcended their 'exploit' status and have become official parts of many games. The big point here is that it isn't your job to decide what's fair and what isn't. You can't tell other people what to do or not to do unless it's an official rule in the game, and official rules should be enforced by the game itself and the official developers and moderators. You have no right to tell others not to use a certain tactic just because you think it's cheap.

About the throwing bit, are you being serious? It's ok to throw in one situation, but it's not ok to throw someone a lot? That's perhaps the most stereotypically scrubby thing I've heard in this thread. If you can't defend against a throw, why should a better player not throw you? It's not that player's fault that you're bad at the game. If he's not allowed to use moves that you can't beat, then why would he want to play against you. I understand why you wouldn't want to play against someone who is better than you, but if you do and you get your ass kicked, it isn't his fault for winning.

I feel that if game developers wanted people to camp, they'd make maps where it was only one room, spawn everyone in a corner, and take away the ability to move. If you're gonna play a game, play the game.

Its not even really camping that bothers me. Its when people gloat about their win(if they do win) when all the did was sit in a corner.

Also, sniping doesnt mean sitting in one spot. People seem to think camping is ok if you have a rifle that has a scope on it. Proper sniping is done by shooting, then moving to a new position. People dont seem to understand that.

Again with the "the developers don't want this". Read what I wrote above. Also, if developers wanted people to camp they would make maps where there were certain specific spots where that facilitate camping. Oh wait, that's exactly what many of them do.

Also, if all they did was sit in a corner, and you know this, why couldn't you beat them? There's no easier to defeat player than a predictable player.

 

[Outright Villainy]

I usually play for fun, but I get mad when someone decries everything you do as cheap. For instance in team fortress 2, everyone moans about the scout's unlockable shotgun being cheap, even though really it's underpowered if anything. The thing with the gun is it's double barrelled and can kill unaware enemies much easier but is much worse in general combat. Instead of learning to watch their flanks and have an easy picking, they ***** and moan. Too many players just refuse to adapt to new strategies.

Worse still are people who complain about spawn camping in that game, when many capture points can be just a few feet from spawn. The spawn is protected until you open the door, you have a ressuply inside to fill your health and ammo, and with rudimentary team work, any 2 players could break out the entire team, but no, cheap tactic apparently. Why the hell would the offense let their enemies out unhindered if they're so close anyway?

 

[-Samurai-]

I feel that if game developers wanted people to camp, they'd make maps where it was only one room, spawn everyone in a corner, and take away the ability to move. If you're gonna play a game, play the game.

Its not even really camping that bothers me. Its when people gloat about their win(if they do win) when all the did was sit in a corner.

Also, sniping doesnt mean sitting in one spot. People seem to think camping is ok if you have a rifle that has a scope on it. Proper sniping is done by shooting, then moving to a new position. People dont seem to understand that.

Again with the "the developers don't want this". Read what I wrote above. Also, if developers wanted people to camp they would make maps where there were certain specific spots where that facilitate camping. Oh wait, that's exactly what many of them do.

Also, if all they did was sit in a corner, and you know this, why couldn't you beat them? There's no easier to defeat player than a predictable player.

Im fairly sure no developer has made a map for their game, and in the process said "This should be a good spot for a camper. I should make more like this.". Most campers find either corners, or some kind of glitched spot where they either cant be seen, or you cant be shot. Developers dont craft these maps so people will only see whats in the corner opposite them. Many of them are vast, with many areas, obstacles, and objects. Why would they bother building all that stuff if they expected you to stay in a single spot where you'd never see it?

Its not a matter of beating a predictable camper. Camp me once, shame on you. You wont camp me twice, because I'll shoot you through the wall(Or in some games, bring the entire building down). I'm just tired of having good kill streaks ruined by a person that refuses to take even one step out of the area they spawned in. I'm sick of working my way across the map, either undetected, or blasting everyone in my way, only to be killed by someone that hasn't moved in the past two minutes.

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

I feel that if game developers wanted people to camp, they'd make maps where it was only one room, spawn everyone in a corner, and take away the ability to move. If you're gonna play a game, play the game.

Its not even really camping that bothers me. Its when people gloat about their win(if they do win) when all the did was sit in a corner.

Also, sniping doesnt mean sitting in one spot. People seem to think camping is ok if you have a rifle that has a scope on it. Proper sniping is done by shooting, then moving to a new position. People dont seem to understand that.

Again with the "the developers don't want this". Read what I wrote above. Also, if developers wanted people to camp they would make maps where there were certain specific spots where that facilitate camping. Oh wait, that's exactly what many of them do.

Also, if all they did was sit in a corner, and you know this, why couldn't you beat them? There's no easier to defeat player than a predictable player.

Im fairly sure no developer has made a map for their game, and in the process said "This should be a good spot for a camper. I should make more like this.". Most campers find either corners, or some kind of glitched spot where they either cant be seen, or you cant be shot. Developers dont craft these maps so people will only see whats in the corner opposite them. Many of them are vast, with many areas, obstacles, and objects. Why would they bother building all that stuff if they expected you to stay in a single spot where you'd never see it?

Its not a matter of beating a predictable camper. Camp me once, shame on you. You wont camp me twice, because I'll shoot you through the wall(Or in some games, bring the entire building down). I'm just tired of having good kill streaks ruined by a person that refuses to take even one step out of the area they spawned in. I'm sick of working my way across the map, either undetected, or blasting everyone in my way, only to be killed by someone that hasn't moved in the past two minutes.

Actually, yes. That's exactly what they do. A good map caters to multiple playstyles. So there might be a high-up place that gives a good view of part of the battlefield for people who like to snipe, a bunch of tight corners for people who like the more close-up action, etc. Do you really think developers are so stupid that they don't realize people will camp in convenient spots?

And basically you're telling me that you're a poor loser. I understand that, but sooner or later you're gonna have to accept that getting killed is part of the game, rather than take it out on the guy who killed you.

 

[-Samurai-]

I feel that if game developers wanted people to camp, they'd make maps where it was only one room, spawn everyone in a corner, and take away the ability to move. If you're gonna play a game, play the game.

Its not even really camping that bothers me. Its when people gloat about their win(if they do win) when all the did was sit in a corner.

Also, sniping doesnt mean sitting in one spot. People seem to think camping is ok if you have a rifle that has a scope on it. Proper sniping is done by shooting, then moving to a new position. People dont seem to understand that.

Again with the "the developers don't want this". Read what I wrote above. Also, if developers wanted people to camp they would make maps where there were certain specific spots where that facilitate camping. Oh wait, that's exactly what many of them do.

Also, if all they did was sit in a corner, and you know this, why couldn't you beat them? There's no easier to defeat player than a predictable player.

Im fairly sure no developer has made a map for their game, and in the process said "This should be a good spot for a camper. I should make more like this.". Most campers find either corners, or some kind of glitched spot where they either cant be seen, or you cant be shot. Developers dont craft these maps so people will only see whats in the corner opposite them. Many of them are vast, with many areas, obstacles, and objects. Why would they bother building all that stuff if they expected you to stay in a single spot where you'd never see it?

Its not a matter of beating a predictable camper. Camp me once, shame on you. You wont camp me twice, because I'll shoot you through the wall(Or in some games, bring the entire building down). I'm just tired of having good kill streaks ruined by a person that refuses to take even one step out of the area they spawned in. I'm sick of working my way across the map, either undetected, or blasting everyone in my way, only to be killed by someone that hasn't moved in the past two minutes.

Actually, yes. That's exactly what they do. A good map caters to multiple playstyles. So there might be a high-up place that gives a good view of part of the battlefield for people who like to snipe, a bunch of tight corners for people who like the more close-up action, etc. Do you really think developers are so stupid that they don't realize people will camp in convenient spots?

And basically you're telling me that you're a poor loser. I understand that, but sooner or later you're gonna have to accept that getting killed is part of the game, rather than take it out on the guy who killed you.

Actually, I take loses just fine. You cant win them all, and I certainly don't expect to. I've actually played quite a few matches in several games over the years that I've lost, and yet it was more fun than winning. A fun match is a fun match, win or lose.

I should also point out that I've never insulted someone over a game that didn't insult me first. I let my scores do the talking for me.

Since we're gonna pretend we know each other, I'm could assume you're one of those people that constantly camp. You get tired of people calling you "bad" or a "camping nub/scrub" or whatever other unoriginal classic gamer insult people use, and you're tired of trying to justify your "playing style", so you decided to post this here.

As a person that's made probably close to 100 maps for several different games, I can honestly say I've never created a section that was intended for camping. High ground is for a good watch spot, yes. Its not made to sit in the entire round. Running towards your opponent(s) is going to get you far more action than sitting in a corner, and waiting for people to come your way.

Obviously our views on the subject differ, and that's fine. To each their own.

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

Actually, I take loses just fine. You cant win them all, and I certainly don't expect to. I've actually played quite a few matches in several games over the years that I've lost, and yet it was more fun than winning. A fun match is a fun match, win or lose.

Good for you. If that's the case, I fail to see your problem.

I should also point out that I've never insulted someone over a game that didn't insult me first. I let my scores do the talking for me.

Again, great going. I still don't see why you feel the need to complain about campers if this is true.

Since we're gonna pretend we know each other, I'm could assume you're one of those people that constantly camp. You get tired of people calling you "bad" or a "camping nub/scrub" or whatever other unoriginal classic gamer insult people use, and you're tired of trying to justify your "playing style", so you decided to post this here.

First of all, you obviously haven't been reading what I wrote if you think I use the word "scrub" as an insult. If you're willing to join a discussion, please do try to find out what it's about first.

Second, you're half right. I did indeed post this because I'm sick and tired of people who think they've got the right to tell me how to play. I haven't really been into shooters since Jedi Knight 2 though, and that wasn't really a game suited to campers so, no, I'm not a camper myself. As it says right on top of the first post, I made this thread because I was getting annoyed by the incessant camper/bunnyhopper/whatever hate threads that seemed to pop up around that time. I'm not trying to 'justify' any particular playing style, I'm just telling people like you to grow up and accept that different people have different ways to have fun, in stead of throwing a fit whenever someone doesn't play by your imaginary code of conduct.

As a person that's made probably close to 100 maps for several different games, I can honestly say I've never created a section that was intended for camping. High ground is for a good watch spot, yes. Its not made to sit in the entire round. Running towards your opponent(s) is going to get you far more action than sitting in a corner, and waiting for people to come your way.

News at eleven, the fellow who hates camping doesn't put camping spots in his maps.

I'm sure you can see why this isn't an argument.

Obviously our views on the subject differ, and that's fine. To each their own.

My point exactly. To each their own. I just hope you realize that doesn't mean "to each their own except the people who use strategies that I do not like". That's the whole point of this thread. The sooner you realize that, the less reason I have to disagree with you.

 

[Wolfram23]

Nice article link. I agree completely. In MW2, there's so many examples to use... one time in a Demolition game the opposing team (3 or 4 clan members) were all using RPGs and grenades with abandon. Sure, it's crappy being constantly blown up, but it's a totally legit and in this case highly useful strategy since your ennemies MUST group up to some extent around the cases you're trying to blow up. I just realised we weren't going to get the case and changed my tactic to try and get around them and get some kills... at least it maintained a little fun (also I noob tubed them back)

Another instance was just last night in a FFA match. Some guys - maybe 3 of them - decided it would be great to use pistols. I think, great go for it have fun! Good luck! But then they start getting really pissed at the other 3 or 4 people still using machine guns. Calling people "fucking tards" "assholes" and other terms, all because we wouldn't use strictly pistols. All I could think was from this article "Man, these guys are such SCRUBS!" lol. Not to mention that if I pull out a pistol I don't even have akimbo on any of them - only on my Rafficas but these guys were also screaming "No machine-pistols!" lol. Basically, it was pathetic.

 

[-Samurai-]

Second, you're half right. I did indeed post this because I'm sick and tired of people who think they've got the right to tell me how to play. I haven't really been into shooters since Jedi Knight 2 though, and that wasn't really a game suited to campers so, no, I'm not a camper myself. As it says right on top of the first post, I made this thread because I was getting annoyed by the incessant camper/bunnyhopper/whatever hate threads that seemed to pop up around that time. I'm not trying to 'justify' any particular playing style, I'm just telling people like you to grow up and accept that different people have different ways to have fun, in stead of throwing a fit whenever someone doesn't play by your imaginary code of conduct.

What I'm getting here is; I'm not "grown up" because I don't like how some people play, but you're "grown up" because you can't accept that I don't like how some people play?

If you're so big on allowing people to have their opinions and ways, why'd you even start this thread? Let people think what they will, and leave it alone.

Some people don't like how others play. The sooner you "grow up" and "accept" that, the better.

Hypocrisy is a beast of a thing.

 

[Bek359]

OP is a Stop Having Fun Guy, and they are just as irritating to play against and as toxic to a competitive gaming environment as a pure Scrub.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StopHavingFunGuys

Yes, I linked there.

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

Second, you're half right. I did indeed post this because I'm sick and tired of people who think they've got the right to tell me how to play. I haven't really been into shooters since Jedi Knight 2 though, and that wasn't really a game suited to campers so, no, I'm not a camper myself. As it says right on top of the first post, I made this thread because I was getting annoyed by the incessant camper/bunnyhopper/whatever hate threads that seemed to pop up around that time. I'm not trying to 'justify' any particular playing style, I'm just telling people like you to grow up and accept that different people have different ways to have fun, in stead of throwing a fit whenever someone doesn't play by your imaginary code of conduct.

What I'm getting here is; I'm not "grown up" because I don't like how some people play, but you're "grown up" because you can't accept that I don't like how some people play?

If you're so big on allowing people to have their opinions, why'd you even start this thread? Let people think what they will, and leave it alone.

Some people don't like how others play. The sooner you "grow up" and "accept" that, the better.

Hypocrisy is a beast of a thing.

I certainly won't deny being a hypocrite, but I don't believe that's the case here. You see, I'm not telling you that you need to have a certain opinion. You're allowed to have an opinion, even if it's an ill-supported one. I don't agree with your opinions and thus will argue against it (a little lesson: arguing against a point doesn't mean you think the point should never be made, just that you disagree with the point). I'm not trying to impose my views on you, I'm just pointing out what I perceive as flaws in your arguments.

The point I've been trying to make this entire thread (which you probably would've noticed if you bothered to read) is that you're entitled to your fun, but so is everyone else. It's ok for you not to like certain tactics. It's not ok to expect other people to stop using those tactics just because you don't like them.

I'm not trying to tell people how to play. I'm trying to tell people to stop trying to tell other people how to play.

The "grow up" comment was because you, and many others with you, seem to have this childish notion that everything revolves around you, and that others are expected to cater to your arbitrary rules about fairness and honor. You might hate camping, another person might hate rocket launchers, another person might hate rushing, another person might hate automatic rifles, and yet another person might not hate anything as long as it helps him win. You can either choose to whine at each all day other for being cheap noobs, or you can agree to disagree and just play the game in whatever way you choose without bothering the rest about it.

The choice is yours.

 

[Kolossov]

I agree with Hurr Durr Derp here, although the whining isn't a problem as far as I'm concerned. UT3 is my favourite online game, and I play to win. If people complain it just adds satisfaction since it shows that my success in the game is getting to them. More mature players just get over their annoyance and get on with it.
If a certain admin on a server wants me to play the game their way, fair enough since it's their server, but if they are punishing spawnkilling or camping then they can play their neutered, care-bear version of the game without me ; )

 

[Radeonx]

I play for fun.

Sometimes I win, which is okay so long as I had fun.
And sometimes I lose, which is okay so long as I had fun.
You see, I like to do this weird thing called enjoying videogames.


But yeah, pretty interesting thread OP.

He's a madman!
[small][small]A madmaaaaaaaan![/small][/small]

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

The idea that there is no such thing as "cheap tactics" in a video game is absurd. I know I'm not the only one who feels a sense of honor when I'm playing online. If I kill someone with a grenade launcher or something, I don't really get that satisfying feeling I usually get, because I know it took no skill and he couldn't do anything to avoid it. Same with sitting in a corner, or using Commando, or any of the other various bullshit perks/weapons in shooters these days.

Surely other people play games with a 'code of ethics' of sorts, or a sense of honor and self-respect?

As explained above, it's perfectly acceptable to have a personal 'code of honor' when it comes to playing games. However, it's extremely arrogant to expect everyone else to play by your imaginary rules. You might think that a grenade launcher is not a fun weapon, but unless you're really dense I assume you know that 'fun' is subjective. That means that for some people, that same grenade launcher might be hilarious. The point isn't how you choose to have fun, the point is that you shouldn't negatively judge others who don't play by your arbitrary rules of 'honor'.

I may be "arrogant" for assuming everyone should play by the rules I set in my head, but I find it hard to believe that ANYONE finds playing against Grenade Launchers or Commando scrubs "fun" in MW2. That's the whole point of the game, for everyone to have fun. These individuals abusing broken stuff in the game ruin the fun of every player they meet online. That's what I call being selfish, which is a whole lot worse than being arrogant.

 

[Space Spoons]

I had some points to make here, but I think they've already been explained in greater detail by previous posters.

All I have to contribute is this: If you can't beat a guy who sits in the corner throwing Hadoukens for 99 seconds, you deserved to lose.

 

[Theron Julius]

People don't play just to win. People play games to have fun. The scrub is not always playing to win. They want to have fun. Can you have fun losing? Of course. Also, these so called "mental rules" are not exclusive to each scrub. These guidelines of cheap vs. fair have been set down by those who are experienced. Most people who play are "bound" by them. The scrub does not break these rules because he wants it to be difficult. There is satisfaction in winning a long difficult battle. A tough fight is a fun fight to many. There is far less satisfaction in winning a battle quickly and easily. The toil and effort is what generates fun, not the ease or speed of victory.

What the writer was saying about the cheap tactics is also flawed. The cheap tactics aren't unfair because they're simply effective. They are unfair because abusing them can very much so unbalance the game in your favor in a way the game did not intend. In his example of the throw move in street fighter it is used as a counter against block. In this usage it is fair to use it since that is how it was designed. However, once you start using it repeatedly outside of that is when it gets cheap. This is because there is almost no way to defend against it since block cannot do so. The game didn't design it to be a all powerful spam move, it designed it as a simple counter to another tactic, but the cheap players go against this and abuse the power. The cheap players are going against the game's intentions.

The writer acts as if the scrub is some sort of idiot who won't explore the possibilities. Perhaps this is true in a way. But it's simply a fact that the scrub won't explore what it doesn't want to. If all scrubs were to explore the limits and become supposedly"good" players then competitive games would simply be constant spamming of the unfair tactics. There would be no fun, just cold efficiency. I firmly believe that there is no point in playing a game if you will not have fun. Fun is the reason games exist, not just for the sake of winning. To quote an old idiom "Winning isn't everything", there is honor, dignity, and of course fun.

About the 'winning isn't everything', I don't disagree. Read what I've already written a dozen times in this thread.

About the rest, this may come as a shock to you, but "this isn't what the developers intended" is a load of bullshit. First of all, you're not a mind-reader. Unless the developers release an official statement that a certain move is bugged or overpowered and shouldn't be used or (far better) release a patch that fixes the perceived imbalance, there is no way you can be sure that they didn't intend for that to happen. And even if it wasn't intended, that doesn't mean it's bad. Bunny hopping, rocket jumping, juggling, move canceling, roll canceling, wave-dashing, Muta-stacking, and many other techniques originate from bugs or exploits, but became essential parts of the metagame, shaping the games they were a part of to become something greater. Hell, many of these examples have transcended their 'exploit' status and have become official parts of many games. The big point here is that it isn't your job to decide what's fair and what isn't. You can't tell other people what to do or not to do unless it's an official rule in the game, and official rules should be enforced by the game itself and the official developers and moderators. You have no right to tell others not to use a certain tactic just because you think it's cheap.

About the throwing bit, are you being serious? It's ok to throw in one situation, but it's not ok to throw someone a lot? That's perhaps the most stereotypically scrubby thing I've heard in this thread. If you can't defend against a throw, why should a better player not throw you? It's not that player's fault that you're bad at the game. If he's not allowed to use moves that you can't beat, then why would he want to play against you. I understand why you wouldn't want to play against someone who is better than you, but if you do and you get your ass kicked, it isn't his fault for winning.

I never say I am the one making the rules. No single person does. There is no Moses descending from Mount Sinai to deliver the commandments of gaming fairness. What is cheap and what isn't is established by people who experiment and find out. I went quite out of my way to say this. You are partially correct, however. A few of these rules are created by the scrub himself personally, but this is a simple code of honor which you seemed to approve of. I also will concede I went too far with the throw section, but I was simply making an example of what I believed the creators intended. Somehow I really doubt that the creators of the game really wanted you to simply spam a single action to win. They don't design games to be won with a single button, they design them for people to use actual strategy. You're right, though, I can't read minds but I can make a guess.

You also seem to believe that the scrubs enforce the rules. We both know they can't. There is nothing anyone can do to stop the "skilled" players. The rules themselves are intangible, they can't do anything. They do not need to be followed and if you don't no one can do anything about it. There is only your own honor and dignity holding you back.

To counter your response I pose a question. Are the "skilled" players really skilled? Some of the supposed "skilled" players really are skilled, but most are using these tactics to get an advantage they couldn't get before. They use the cheap moves to compensate for a lack of skill they had under the scrubs' rules. The entire point of your argument regarding the cheap moves seem to be that they spur advancement, but do they really? Why bother advancing anymore if you can beat almost anyone in a brutally easy manner? Since the majority of people haven't evolved to become one of your "skilled" gamers, the current "skilled" gamers will have no challenge to spur this advancement. There is no point in advancement if there is no further challenge that would demand it. Anyway, does it not take skill to defeat an enemy in their own environment? Truly skilled gamers are the people who can restrict themselves within the scrubs' rules, yet still know how to counter the cheap moves. Yes, that was probably the most scrubby thing you've ever read.

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

That's the whole point of the game, for everyone to have fun.

Not necessarily. Some people treat it primarily as competitive ground to beat others and feel a sense of accomplishment for winning.

Do you really get that sense of accomplishment after beating someone by abusing something that is quite obviously overpowered and/or broken? To use the MW2 example yet again, do you REALLY feel you've outskilled someone when you kill them with a Noob Tube? I know I don't, which is why I very, very rarely use a Grenade Launcher. I'd rather use skill to beat my opponents, rather than leaning on a crutch to achieve victory "at all costs" as the OP states.

 

[-Samurai-]

[EDIT] I'm not going to bother. Your pathetic, ignorant insults show you've got nowhere else to take this. You simply cant handle someone having a different opinion.

In the future, I hope you realize that if you cant prove a point without being a hypocrite, you have no point to prove.

 

[SweetLemonade]

Playing shooters,like say team fortress 2 dont make you rage so much,becouse of the different ways you can play.
So of course i play for fun.