|
|
Post by BulgarianMenace on Jul 11, 2009 15:01:23 GMT -5
www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.htmlMost serious gamers have already read this. I remember the first time I read it. I was still a scrub back then. It was a little hard to accept at first, but by the time I finished the article my mindset had been fundamentally changed and it really has helped define me as a gamer today.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheLegendaryBroly on Jul 11, 2009 15:32:02 GMT -5
nice article it's a must read 4 scrubs..........I AM LEGEND!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by BulgarianMenace on Jul 11, 2009 16:23:31 GMT -5
no broly, you are not legend. you are...OVERCOMPENSATING!
|
|
|
|
Post by TheLegendaryBroly on Jul 11, 2009 16:37:09 GMT -5
again it's my quote so...........I AM LEGEND!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by srini on Jul 11, 2009 22:36:17 GMT -5
I disagree with the whole ONLY playing to win thing. For example, SVR09 was a very glitchy game. There was this finisher which made you fatally damaged. You could be owning the other guy, bam, he does a quick finisher, you're dead. Is there any fun in winning that way? I don't think so. I'm sure Hanz subscribes to my philosophy too. If being a "scrub" means you are a sub par player, how come we defeated most of our opponents?
In LOTR, I really don't like the idea of jump canceling, cause it looks ridiculous. I'm not saying it doesn't take skill to jump cancel, but it just takes away from the experience of the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by UntowThet on Jul 12, 2009 7:09:48 GMT -5
The theory appears sound on the surface but on the whole, seems a bit contradictory. Glitches and "cheap moves" are okay but using intended overpowered characters is not? That kind of goes against the whole "play to win" philosophy in general. Besides who wants to play JUST to win?
Presumably this article goes on the basis that winning is fun - winning isn't fun ALL the time. If you keep winning at something repeatedly, you'd get bored without some challenge or incentive.
|
|
|
|
Post by BulgarianMenace on Jul 12, 2009 9:16:35 GMT -5
the idea is that you use whatever you can so long as it is not gamebreaking. The example of akuma is incredibly extreme and the game devolves to either choose akuma or lose.
wtf are you talking about?
because the majority of people out there are also scrubs.
Also, being a scrub really is more about the mentality you have.
it goes on the basis that you should always seek for self improvement. You could be losing because the person you are playing is better than you, but if you have a play to win mentality you will be enjoying it because you won't be thinking "cheap" you'll be thinking "wow, this is guy is good, let me look at what he's doing and how I can adapt my own game to improve."
|
|
|
|
Post by rizen33 on Jul 12, 2009 10:24:40 GMT -5
To me, the article made a lot of good points (I keep thinking of a manual on warfare in general as I read it). What you said above also reminds me of what Josh Waitzkin's said was the key to his success, which is continual incremental progress (continually making small improvements). Josh became a grand master chess champion in his teens and has won several national and international tai chi push hand competitions (the movie "Searching for Bobby Fischer' was based off of his life).
|
|
|
|
Post by srini on Jul 12, 2009 11:22:04 GMT -5
Bm relax man! Why ya snappin at me?
Anyway, when I say "it takes away from the experience of the game". I like to watch the scenery as I play, think of the story behind each map, etc.. That's why I'd like everything to be as realistic as possible. No fun doing something the actual characters wouldn't have done. Yeah, I'm a geek.
And you can't say the majority of the players were scrubs or not. Have you played the game? In fact, many of them started exploiting the glitches, soon me and Hanz were one of the few people who actually played fair, and enjoyed the wins.
Rizen, to me, this game isn't really competitive. To Josh, improving his chess game any way he could was a necessity. It was his work. But this is a game, and I'd rather enjoy it that meticulously try out different strategies, do things that make me look stupid etc..
|
|
|
|
Post by BulgarianMenace on Jul 12, 2009 11:38:12 GMT -5
Yes, because in lotr there were actually mages on the battle field, or warriors with flaming swords, or people who could go invisible.
The game itself is so far from the source material that if you don't want to do anything "the actual characters wouldn't have done" then you would pretty much have to restrict yourself to plain melee with scouts and warriors and not use mages at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizen33 on Jul 12, 2009 11:44:22 GMT -5
"To Josh, improving his chess game any way he could was a necessity. It was his work."
He takes this mindset in other areas of his life as well (as I said above with Tai Chi, and he's also currently going for a black belt in Brazilian Jui Jitsu). Josh started playing chess as a little boy, and it certainly wasn't a necessity then (and he still played at a very high level at that early age).
Each one of us here on this board are unique and different, you may not see this game as potentially competitive but others would disagree. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, since again we each have a different and unique perspective.
|
|
|
|
Post by hanzrimer on Jul 12, 2009 12:48:55 GMT -5
I really could agree with Srini any more. I'm sorry, I believe my "morals" or whatever when playing a game makes me a good sportsmen, feels even better when I apply these morals and I still when, and if I lose at least I know I've kept them. In games if there is a clear over powered character I never pick them. Me and Srini go back to other games so I can back me up on this. I agree the jump canceling is an effective way of playing, it also looks lame as well and when did Gandalf ever do that any way? I'm sure you'll have some comeback for this which is fine, I most likely won't reply because I pretty of said what i wanted to say, but to me a play who just plays to win is the ultimate scrub.
|
|
|
|
Post by thebountyhunter on Jul 12, 2009 13:13:42 GMT -5
i think the point of jump cancelling is just a trick and a very effective one at that. i doubt some orc or human in the heat of battle would stop and say " i look like an idiot " people dont care what they look like as long as they get the job done. gandalf never did jump cancelling bc in a fight, did u ever see him use magic? apart from 1v1 sarauman not knce did he use a spell featured in the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by BURNZILLA47 on Jul 12, 2009 13:24:43 GMT -5
I'm not sure if jump canceling was ever intended to be a core style of mage gameplay but players discovered it and learned to exploit it. They probably didn't guess that scouts would be rolling all over the place (equally stupid looking) in CTR either. For every mage that jump cancels, there's a scout who can time the backstab right or a warrior who can critical ax em in the air. Mages didn't really need anything else to give them more of an advantage, yet there it is so the rest of us who prefer not to take the easy win just have to find a way to work around it which will make us better players. I think the game is more balanced than I initially gave it credit for. Are mages still overpowered? Most certainly, but there are probably some mages that think that warriors are overpowered too now that we have so many more proficient warrior killing machines on the field. We just learned how to deal with mages.
|
|
|
|
Post by hanzrimer on Jul 12, 2009 13:35:35 GMT -5
I'm not sure if jump canceling was ever intended to be a core style of mage gameplay but players discovered it and learned to exploit it. They probably didn't guess that scouts would be rolling all over the place (equally stupid looking) in CTR either. For every mage that jump cancels, there's a scout who can time the backstab right or a warrior who can critical ax em in the air. Mages didn't really need anything else to give them more of an advantage, yet there it is so the rest of us who prefer not to take the easy win just have to find a way to work around it which will make us better players. I think the game is more balanced than I initially gave it credit for. Are mages still overpowered? Most certainly, but there are probably some mages that think that warriors are overpowered too now that we have so many more proficient warrior killing machines on the field. We just learned how to deal with mages.[/quote Well said. And again, I pretty much agree with everything |
|
