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

[The Wooster]

I'd like to start off by stating that the 'playing to win' is indicative of the self righteous wankery that makes highly competitive gaming completely repulsive to me (my experience being mostly in the 2d fighter fields) but (buuuuuut) it's not wrong.

There are however a few caveats I would like to add.

The difference between a 'legitimate strategy' and a character/game mechanic that is "broken" as decided by the competitive gaming community often completely arbitrary. Often self declared 'hardcore' gamers will argue that any mechanic available to both players is fair game, except Akuma in Street Fighter 2, Juggernaut in MC2, Metaknight and various other arguably overpowered characters often banned from tournament play.

The argument that any tactic is valid even if it was unintended by the developers (an interesting point certainly as even such a fighting game staple as the combo was originally an unintended side effect) assumes that every game has a dedicated and competent design team. Sadly that's not the case. In a well game abuse of a game mechanic can change the face of the game completely. In a less competently made game they lead to stagnation. Eventually killing the game.

The article and the OP argue that one persons sense of fun is just as valid as another's as they've both paid for the game. I respectfully disagree. Some users have fun by disrupting the game itself or by breaking game mechanics so that other people can't enjoy the game. Sometimes in order to win, other times just for shits and giggles. Games, even the most competitive need a community to function. Satisfying a disruptive few over the many is a sure fire way to kill a game's community.


Finally I'd like to add that thought I play games to win (specifically MW2, TF2 and Blazblue) I generally follow a gentleman's code while gaming. If I'm dominating a less experienced player with one character I switch. I don't trash talk. I offer advice if a player can't figured out how to beat a particular tactic. I'm polite and friendly and while I enjoy winning, I get more satisfaction out of a hard-won victory (Even if I have to penalize myself) than an easy one.
In the long run I think i'd prefer it if more gamers tried to be like me than Mr fucking Hardcore.

 

[GLo Jones]

Very nice find OP, I had this similar view, and was looking for a good way to put it into words. But here it is! Brilliant.

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.

But you have no idea how some people feel, they could easily find that to be 'fun'. So who are you to complain? They're enjoying an aspect of the game, if you find it that annoying, then you're merely annoyed by that aspect of the game, not the players utilising it.

Edit: I've just re-read my post, and while I realise you weren't actually complaining about those players, my point kinda still stands.

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

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.

I agree that they design games for people who use strategy, but who's saying that camping isn't a viable strategy. There are games that take measures to prevent camping, either passively by making maps ill-suited to camping or actively by requiring players to capture victory points or flags or whatever. In those cases, camping is punished by losing the game, because it rewards a more active play-style. But if the game does include 'camping spots' and doesn't somehow discourage sitting in one spot for five minutes in a row, I don't think you can say "the developers never wanted people to camp".

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.

Well, no. Part of my point is that these rules cannot be enforced. That's what the last part of my first post is about. If you want to have these 'honor' or 'fairness' rules in the game, and you think they're necessary for the enjoyment and quality of the game, contact the people who can actually do something about it. Until that happens, your rules only apply to yourself, and you shouldn't be yelling at others because they play the game differently.

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.

'Skill' is somewhat of a subjective thing here, because what is 'skill'? Is it winning the game, or is it doing many difficult things? You might argue it takes more skill to kill a player with a pistol than with a rocket launcher. It's probably more difficult, yes. But if you lose the game again and again because you keep using the pistol, how does that make you skilled? Would you call a chess player skilled if he tried to take on the Queen using his own King? I certainly wouldn't. As pointed out in the article I quoted in the first post, this kind of notion of 'skill' isn't relevant. And if you can beat the rocket launcher with a pistol that's good, but what is it then that makes the rocket launcher such a 'cheap' option if you can beat it with a pistol?

The 'scrub rules' change the game into something it's not. You might aquire a lot of skill within those rules, but that skill is irrelevant if it means you get defeated by a 'less skilled' player in the 'real' game. There's no point in being the master of the Shoryouken if you still get taken out by a player who just uses 'no-skill' throws to beat you.

I think the main point here is that there's not necessarily anything scrubby about bringing a pistol to a rocket-fight (In fact, any good player should do that every once in a while, even if just to see if it's a viable path to victory). The only thing I'm arguing again here is the attitude that just because one player doesn't like rocket launchers, he then starts telling other player that they're noobs for using rocket launchers. That's the main difference between me and the people this thread is directed at. Yes, we're both whining. But I'm not the one telling people how to play their game.

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

I'd like to start off by stating that the 'playing to win' is indicative of the self righteous wankery that makes highly competitive gaming completely repulsive to me (my experience being mostly in the 2d fighter fields) but (buuuuuut) it's not wrong.

There are however a few caveats I would like to add.

The difference between a 'legitimate strategy' and a character/game mechanic that is "broken" as decided by the competitive gaming community often completely arbitrary. Often self declared 'hardcore' gamers will argue that any mechanic available to both players is fair game, except Akuma in Street Fighter 2, Juggernaut in MC2, Metaknight and various other arguably overpowered characters often banned from tournament play.

You raise an important point, but one that I feel is not directly relevant.

See, the main difference between tournament rules and 'fairness', 'honor', and 'cheapness' rules are three very simple things.

First of all, the people who set these tournament rules are not contestants in those tournaments. While the rules might be compiled from player feedback, there's never a case where one tournament player decides the rules for the tournament itself.

Second, tournament rules are publicized by the people organizing the tournament. Everyone who wants to participate in the tournament has to abide by those rules or get disqualified. Every single player on the field knows those rules and has agreed to them before starting the game, and the playing field is completely level because the same rules apply to everyone.

Finally, tournament rules are enforced. Enforcement is, as I've mentioned before, the most important line between 'game rules' and 'imaginary rules'. If you break a tournament rule, you get disqualified. Simple as that. If a games developer started banning people for using 'cheap weapons' (or, more logically, simply removed or rebalanced those weapons), then it's obvious that they aren't meant to be used. Otherwise, it's all part of the game.

The argument that any tactic is valid even if it was unintended by the developers (an interesting point certainly as even such a fighting game staple as the combo was originally an unintended side effect) assumes that every game has a dedicated and competent design team. Sadly that's not the case. In a well game abuse of a game mechanic can change the face of the game completely. In a less competently made game they lead to stagnation. Eventually killing the game.

If a certain aspect of the game really is ruining the rest of the game, and if the devteam really doesn't intend to fix it, then that really sucks. The problem is that there are only two things you can do in such a case.

You could quit the game. I realize this is not the ideal option, but then again this is far from the ideal game. A poor game that's poorly supported as well might not be worth wasting your time on, even if it does have potential.

Or, you could move to a private server. I've mentioned this several times before, but I think private servers are a Big Deal. It's part of the reason I've been pretty vocal in other threads about multiplayer games that remove this option. On a private server, you can simply ban everyone who you think ruins the game. Again, enforceability is the key.

The article and the OP argue that one persons sense of fun is just as valid as another's as they've both paid for the game. I respectfully disagree. Some users have fun by disrupting the game itself or by breaking game mechanics so that other people can't enjoy the game. Sometimes in order to win, other times just for shits and giggles. Games, even the most competitive need a community to function. Satisfying a disruptive few over the many is a sure fire way to kill a game's community.

I personally don't condone messing with someone just to ruin their fun. That's not playing to win, that's not playing for fun, that's just being a jackass. But I won't pretend to know when someone is trying to mess up my game or when using a 'cheap' weapon is just their way of trying to win (unless you're talking about stuff like teamkilling which is obviously playing to lose on purpose, and has about as much to do with playing the game as not playing at all).

Finally I'd like to add that thought I play games to win (specifically MW2, TF2 and Blazblue) I generally follow a gentleman's code while gaming. If I'm dominating a less experienced player with one character I switch. I don't trash talk. I offer advice if a player can't figured out how to beat a particular tactic. I'm polite and friendly and while I enjoy winning, I get more satisfaction out of a hard-won victory (Even if I have to penalize myself) than an easy one.
In the long run I think i'd prefer it if more gamers tried to be like me than Mr fucking Hardcore.

I salute you.

I'm not being sarcastic or anything. If what you say is true then you're a nice guy, and god knows gaming can use a couple more of those. There is absolutely nothing wrong with playing like that. But I'm assuming that following a gentleman's code doesn't mean you expect everyone else to follow your code as well, and that "I don't trash talk" also means "I won't whine at people for using a cheap character/weapon/strategy." If that's the case, we've got nothing to disagree about.

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

[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.

It seems your main argument has become that I used the word hypocrite to describe myself. However, I mentioned right after that that what I posted in this thread wasn't hypocritical. That you choose to interpret my words in a way that is obviously different from the way I intended them is no small part of the reason I'm being this condescending towards you. I keep mentioning how you don't seem to be reading what I wrote because you seem to take the genreal idea of a post and then put a spin on it that suits your argument, rather than just reading what I wrote.

To explain in more detail what I meant, it's my belief that hypocrisy is nature's own little way to keep us humans relatively sane. I believe that everyone -everyone- is a hypocrite. However, being a hypocrite doesn't mean you have to be hypocritical all the time. I'm well aware that I'm whining at whiners, but the main point of it has been the same throughout this thread: This thread is aimed at people who demand others to play a certain way. I tell people to stop whining, but I never tell people how to play. That's the only difference between my whining and their whining, and that's what I'm getting at.

 

[Bosola]

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.

Indeed. It's rare that a well-balanced game will offer 'exploits' that you have no way to deal with. Is the camper there continually killing you? Try not rushing him from the front for the seventy-second time, outflank and out-think him. Is the demoman camping a chokepoint? Just uber, or use a scout to create a diversion. Or, spawn from the other location and take him from behind. Is a spy bothering you? Try actually spychecking once in a while, rather than instituting a spyban that results in stalemate central when sentries become effectively unbreakable. Think it's terribly 'noobish' for that Pyro to keep ambushing you? It's your own damn fault for not paying attention to what's going on!

If the people taking you out really are so 'unskilled', put your money where your mouth is and demonstrate your superior abilities. Now, of course, there are exceptions, where you are offered no opportunity whatsoever to counter. But these are actually quite rare, not least in TF2, where you have your own bunker, and a spawn space difficult for the enemy to hold when faced by a determined and coordinated team. Demo spawncamps, for instance, are actually quite trivial to deal with when there's only one demoman - an uber, or a distracting scout can completely ruin his day.

Also, BISHOPS AN QUEENS ARE OP. REAL PROS UZE KNIGHTS AN PAWNS ONLY

 

[Acidwell]

Well i may be missing something here but if you are playing to win then you aren't really playing for fun since you will do anything even stuff that lessens everyone elses enjoyment of the game.
I know people here are saying that using aim-bots etc isn't included in the game to win idea but surely if you follow the logic of the policy then thats where you end up, it is only people not wanting to sound like assholes for promoting cheating that put that barrier on it to make it seem reasonable.
I have put in a fair amount of time on mw2 and on a good day i can easly get 25 - 28 for 10 but that doesnt mean that everyone should hide in a corner with a shotgun just because they are losing.

 

[Hurr Durr Derp]

Well i may be missing something here but if you are playing to win then you aren't really playing for fun since you will do anything even stuff that lessens everyone elses enjoyment of the game.

There are obviously limits to 'playing for fun'. If the other team likes winning, does that mean you should lose? Of course not. Should you restrict yourself to weak weapons only? You can choose to do so, but it means not playing the game to its fullest potential. And so on. The point of playing to win isn't to exploit everything you can exploit, it's just to untilize every tool the game gives you to win.

There's no way to play a game where everyone gets 100% of the enjoyment. There will always be winners and losers. The point is just to not impose your way of having fun on everyone else.

I know people here are saying that using aim-bots etc isn't included in the game to win idea but surely if you follow the logic of the policy then thats where you end up, it is only people not wanting to sound like assholes for promoting cheating that put that barrier on it to make it seem reasonable.

There's one very important difference here. Using a 'cheap' weapon means you're just using what the game gives you. Using aimbots or wallhacks means you use something to change the nature of the game.

I've heard people complain about "this isn't the way the devs intended to play the game", but they never offer solid arguments for this claim. In the case of hacks and aimbots, there's one very clear argument: The aimbot simply isn't part of the game.

I have put in a fair amount of time on mw2 and on a good day i can easly get 25 - 28 for 10 but that doesnt mean that everyone should hide in a corner with a shotgun just because they are losing.

Of course it doesn't mean they should, but it also doesn't mean they can't. If you're the best player in the world but you can't beat a guy sitting in a corner, you're obviously not the best player in the world. If sitting in a corner with a shotgun is their last-ditch effort to beat them, you can prove your superiority by beating them anyway. Complaining about it proves nothing other than your inability to deal with a shift in strategies.

 

[Theron Julius]

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.

I agree that they design games for people who use strategy, but who's saying that camping isn't a viable strategy. There are games that take measures to prevent camping, either passively by making maps ill-suited to camping or actively by requiring players to capture victory points or flags or whatever. In those cases, camping is punished by losing the game, because it rewards a more active play-style. But if the game does include 'camping spots' and doesn't somehow discourage sitting in one spot for five minutes in a row, I don't think you can say "the developers never wanted people to camp".

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.

Well, no. Part of my point is that these rules cannot be enforced. That's what the last part of my first post is about. If you want to have these 'honor' or 'fairness' rules in the game, and you think they're necessary for the enjoyment and quality of the game, contact the people who can actually do something about it. Until that happens, your rules only apply to yourself, and you shouldn't be yelling at others because they play the game differently.

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.

'Skill' is somewhat of a subjective thing here, because what is 'skill'? Is it winning the game, or is it doing many difficult things? You might argue it takes more skill to kill a player with a pistol than with a rocket launcher. It's probably more difficult, yes. But if you lose the game again and again because you keep using the pistol, how does that make you skilled? Would you call a chess player skilled if he tried to take on the Queen using his own King? I certainly wouldn't. As pointed out in the article I quoted in the first post, this kind of notion of 'skill' isn't relevant. And if you can beat the rocket launcher with a pistol that's good, but what is it then that makes the rocket launcher such a 'cheap' option if you can beat it with a pistol?

The 'scrub rules' change the game into something it's not. You might aquire a lot of skill within those rules, but that skill is irrelevant if it means you get defeated by a 'less skilled' player in the 'real' game. There's no point in being the master of the Shoryouken if you still get taken out by a player who just uses 'no-skill' throws to beat you.

I think the main point here is that there's not necessarily anything scrubby about bringing a pistol to a rocket-fight (In fact, any good player should do that every once in a while, even if just to see if it's a viable path to victory). The only thing I'm arguing again here is the attitude that just because one player doesn't like rocket launchers, he then starts telling other player that they're noobs for using rocket launchers. That's the main difference between me and the people this thread is directed at. Yes, we're both whining. But I'm not the one telling people how to play their game.

Actually I can respect this response, albeit I don't agree with it. It's a satisfactory way to get me to at least understand your philosophy. I have only one problem: I don't consider camping an unfair tactic! Anyone who can't kill a camper after the first few times they've died is already too much of an idiot to be legitimately good by anyone's rules, scrub or not.

Anyway I'm done; I do hate arguments that get to too large of a scale. It's simply a difference of philosophy and opinion. There will always be the scrubs and there will always be the people using the cheap moves, nothing written here will change that. Well, good luck!

 

[Acidwell]

I've heard people complain about "this isn't the way the devs intended to play the game", but they never offer solid arguments for this claim. In the case of hacks and aimbots, there's one very clear argument: The aimbot simply isn't part of the game.

I have put in a fair amount of time on mw2 and on a good day i can easly get 25 - 28 for 10 but that doesnt mean that everyone should hide in a corner with a shotgun just because they are losing.

Of course it doesn't mean they should, but it also doesn't mean they can't. If you're the best player in the world but you can't beat a guy sitting in a corner, you're obviously not the best player in the world. If sitting in a corner with a shotgun is their last-ditch effort to beat them, you can prove your superiority by beating them anyway. Complaining about it proves nothing other than your inability to deal with a shift in strategies.

They will never take out things like grenade launchers because of the uproar it would cause from so many people if they did. I don't have much of a problem with people who actually can't beat others but the main problem is people who have skill and know all the cheap spots and just camp there because they think its funny. This makes up the majority of the campers in the game. This is why people find them annoying.

 

[maxenzo2]

what gamestyle??? are you crazy??? if everybody decides do camp,the match is a total garbage,there´s nothing wrong on being camper(its more easy to make points killing campers),as long as you change your tactics so the match speed and combats dont die.

 

[DoomyMcDoom]

I agree with the OP on so many levels... however the thing is, sometimes "limiting" yourself by not using certain available tactics... such as spawn camping... my most hated of all tactics to counter, though sometimes it is fun to creatively counter the situation.

I never spawn camp, simply because i detest the use of it against me... but i never whine and complain when it is used against me.
I just don't do it, because I know i could, and i know it would work in some situations near flawlessly... but it removes the challenge element to it... i mean even without using such tactics i still manage to place high on scoreboards on some servers of some games...

but I see it as a matter of principle, and it seems not to hurt my performance, in fact by limiting myself thusly i have found more interesting and creative tactics come forth that stump and or infuriate people who get stuck in an old way of doing things... like for campers there are grenades...
of course i can counter the grenade counter in some games by simply just rushing out of my spot and mowing them down when i hear the pin being pulled... not saying I "camp" or anything in fact I always move after firing once or twice, whether i make a kill or not. simply because if i don't they come looking and i get them from a vantage point overlooking my original location. and because it prolongs one's survivability as a sniper or stealthy player in general.

fun... I say limit yourself in whatever way you wish, except in your creativity in developing new tactics, after all sure there may be a gun that people would tote as cheap... but those who do so are too busy whining when they should be figuring out a way to beat those who use it and or some tactic involving it, breaking the game-breakingness of it and reinstating the fun aspect for themselves... unless it's a hack, an exploit of a glitch (which though some may say use it because it'll make you win... I say don't because there are likely consequences stated in the EULA, or TOS that nobody ever seems to read before blindly hitting accept so they can get to playing... which sometimes ends in a ban, which ends your fun pretty fast, and winning for a bit because of it, becomes slightly less worth your while)

I agree that one shouldn't whine or insult people over such issues, but when you look at it from my standpoint even that comes down to a person's morality, who's to say that casually jabbing someone or ribbing them in an insulting way maybe hinting to some underlying insecurity of their personality when they use those tactics might throw them off or allow you to catch them unawares and end their spree... I wouldn't lower myself to being a douche and using derogatory or inflammatory words to state my dissatisfaction with a person's choice in tactical execution... I far prefer bullets grenades and a good knife in the spine (in-game of course), to put paid to my irritation. works better and makes you look like less of an immature, hateful and seriously socially retarded jerk...

hope this puts my opinion clearly, after all I agree with the sentiment. but to deem it as a complete and infallible truth or defining statement of clear revelation, would be too much.
there are always deeper things in all situations to analyze.

after all one trains better when they restrain themselves and push against self made barriers... physically speaking working out, lifting weights doing resistance training and such. mentally speaking by analysis and breaking down of formulaic AND nonstandard problems both ordinary and extraordinary.

just my 2(billion) cents, sorry for being long winded, i don't post often so it seems to flow extra heavy in the few that i drop in.

/end

 

[Edwin Smith]

I have read that before. And honnestly, I still hold the same opion now as when I read it in the first place: the guy who wrote it seems far too considered about winning. He likes to win at all costs. No guts, no glory, no 'honour', just a win. He seems like the kind of guy who would SLG if he got the chance, or kill his teamates for their weapons if he feels they are scrubs undeserving of "wasting" that gun.

It is not the winning that he/we find fun. But the playing to win. We would rather lose to a hard opponent that beat a scrub. The guts and the glory are going up against a hard opponent who gives you a challenging game. A scrub who dosent know how to play is worthless. However I will give them the honour of playing me.

 

[DividedUnity]

I really could not be arsed to read that wall of text. The issue is simple so im not too sure what all that could possibly explain. Im just gonna say what I think about the issue. If there are features which players can exploit in a game such as an overpowered weapon then they have every right to do so. If this causes unfair advantages it is the develoeprs job to take care of it. Whining about how that guy is a "noob" isnt going to fix the problem. Only sending a message to the devs will fix that if they even bother to.

If you dont want to deal with "noobs" play in private matches with your friends. Games are meant to be fun and to be truly honest people whining about "noobs" or "noob tubers" makes a game alot less fun than being killed by some overpowered weapon does. The (noobtuber, camper etc) provides a challenge for me. All that complaining does is give me a headache as well as everyone else in your team.

 

[Edwin Smith]

If newb tubing is the best tactic then use it and we shall see if you get a a100% win percentage.

 

[MetaKnight19]

I tend not to care if I win or not. I play for fun, which some MW2 players I played against (and with) seem to have forgotten. After one match earlier, someone who was on my team sent me a message saying, and I'm quoting here, IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. So I messaged him back saying 'Enlighten me as to why I'm an idiot'. Although he was one of these types who scream down the headset if they so much as get a scratch.

 

[scotth266]

I'll have to disagree with the article. There are certain TACTICS (such as camping) in games which can be employed legitimately, and if the opponent falls for them its their fault. Of course, if the game is imbalanced in some way (an untouchable camping spot), then there's reason to be upset (with the developers), but the tactic itself is sound.

ABUSING the tactics, however, is reason for people to rage at other players. Say that a sniper camps in an untouchable spot. This automatically qualifies him as a douchebag: not because he is camping, but because he is abusing the (broken) mechanics of the game. Just because a developer didn't EXPECT you to exploit something, or failed to notice that it could be exploited, doesn't mean that it is fair to do so.

There is a VERY social aspect to gaming, and part of that social aspect is an expectation that the game you are playing is fair to both sides. If the developers failed to make the game balanced (aka Super Smash Bros), players will still go into it expecting a fair fight, and they will attempt to enforce rules they feel makes it fair (no Smash Ball/Meta Knight, for instance.) Also, if one player abuses the rules/mechanics of the game in order to win, that is AND SHOULD BE considered cheating simply because YOU ARE NOT PLAYING THE GAME THE WAY IT WAS INTENDED TO BE PLAYED. Consider bunnyhopping. Oh yeah, it's in the game: but it wasn't meant to be. Bunnyhopping is an unpatched glitch.

Of course, you can make it not-cheating by simply playing against other players who bunnyhop: but the second you use bunnyhopping against a player who either can't do it, or refuses to, you have broken the social contract of gaming, and deserve all the insults you receive.

 

[Auric]

I didnt even bother reading it.

But generally, campers/similar make the game less fun, and thats all that matters IMO.

Though, i often camp myself, and its fun. But what you have to realize is that your fun, often ruins the fun of others.