What kind of gamer are you?

[Revelade]

No one is saying that button mashing cant be countered. At least I don't think anyone is, but then again I'm not really reading half of the posts.

However, the best SC2 players can and has lost to a complete newb to the game even if they play to their best skill, because they are completely unpredictable. You bring up WC3 again. There is no way that one of the best WC3 players (playing like they normally would against the second best in the world) will lose to a new person. Will the new person be unpredictable? Of course, however there is no chance in hell that they will win, based simply on the fact that the pro has much more skill.

Oh really? If you're so confident, let's see a video of this happening. Actually, why don't you get me his phone number and call him to confirm this. Really.

Strategy games are always about Skill more than anything else. You can say the same about SC2, but you'de be partially wrong. There is some level of skill in the game, yes. But that skill can be countered be just being a random moron pressing random buttons, and getting lucky. The completely new person could end up getting two Ring Outs and winning the series. The same cannot be said about a true strategy game such as Ages of Empires. The new person simply doesn't have the knowledge or the skill to manage resources and tech properly that a pro does.

Skill is a vague term. Since we agree that chess is THE definition of strategy, I will refer to that. Chess has no effort on execution. It's a matter of picking up the piece and dropping it on a location. Does it take a pro to do this? What seperates a good from a bad player is CHOOSING WHERE to place the piece.

Now in Starcraft, obviously it's important to choose the right counter such as using lurkers against marines, BUT the execution is more important, which would be the micro. And we all know how micro decides battles.

You can press your random buttons, but I'll just spam my verticals and I'll win everytime. You have no basis on this "newb" vs. "pro" argument because you obviously aren't a pro and you haven't seen pros like Kageh actually lose to new players. There is no evidence to back your statements.

However, the only thing that a pro at SC2 has over a new person would be his extensive knowledge of the combos and the Rock Paper Siscors type of combat and perhaps how to execute a few moves (like counter breaks, or sidestepping or using the terrain to your advantage).

Exactly. It's not how fast he pushes a button, but knowing which buttons to press at every situation that determines the winner in SC2.

 

[Arkillo]

Moving a chess piece can be done by any player of any type. However, having the SKILL of proper placement determines weather or not it is a professional or uneducated move.

Do I follow the SC2 world championships? No. Why would I, it's rather boring to see to pros play fighting games, because all it comes down to is blocking blocking, sidestepping, blocking, and getting a lucky hit here and there until the time runs out. Is there stratgey in that? Yeah, I guess, however a new person could use the exact same strategy to accomplish the same thing.

You could say the same thing about WC3 or Starcraft, however the new player wouldn't have the proper skill or knowledge of the game to be able to win the match...

However, you are dense and won't let this rediculous statement end, because you're afraid to admit that you've been defeated by multiple users on here.

 

[_JaKE]

its true the thread will go on for pages because YOU cannot admt your wrong.

 

[Revelade]

Moving a chess piece can be done by any player of any type. However, having the SKILL of proper placement determines weather or not it is a professional or uneducated move.

Wow. Thanks for restating what I have said for the past couple pages.

Do I follow the SC2 world championships? No. Why would I, it's rather boring to see to pros play fighting games, because all it comes down to is blocking blocking, sidestepping, blocking, and getting a lucky hit here and there until the time runs out. Is there stratgey in that? Yeah, I guess, however a new person could use the exact same strategy to accomplish the same thing.

Then stop faking statements like "OOOH a pro got beaten and (keyword) HAS got beaten by a newb". I could say OH STARCRAFTS BORIN because things harvest blue stuff and build stuff and things die. You don't have proof, and even if you did, it wouldn't determine how the game plays for everyone else.

You could say the same thing about WC3 or Starcraft, however the new player wouldn't have the proper skill or knowledge of the game to be able to win the match...

Again, theorycrafting. Oh, if an asteroid came and hit the player I GUESS Starcraft's NOT A STRATEGY GAME, YAR. -_- Please make some sense.

However, you are dense and won't let this rediculous statement end, because you're afraid to admit that you've been defeated by multiple users on here.

An insult and saying I've been defeated. Since you can't counter my arguments, you resort to this. Pathetic.

Whine

This thread ends when you can bring a game that blows my definition of a strategy game.

 

[_JaKE]

My definition is simple: opposing forces have to be the same, execution has to be minimal to the point where choice is more powerful

"....execution has to be minimal...."

Execution is more important becuase to win you must wear the oponent down and make them die, there execution is not minmal. SC2 is a fighter.

"...to the point where choice is more powful..."


SC2 does not meet your definition of a strategy game, because choice is not more powerful, pushing buttons is, there is to much going on to choose what to do next, and is based on reflex. Reflex is not choice.

 

[bamthedoc]

its true the thread will go on for pages because YOU cannot admt your wrong.

He won't admit that he's wrong because he isn't wrong. I did get a smidgen angry with Revblade because it appeared that he either didn't read or understand my posts, but he did eventually post evidence to the contrary (upon challenging him to do so, at least).

He has his defintion, and he is fully welcome to it. I agree with him on several points because of the valid...ness present in them. The primary invalid...ness (gah...I know there's a more "real" word :gonk: ) of Revblade's statements is that the developers do not agree with his definition(s), and definition(s) are already very well established in the gaming community.

The problem with saying "You're wrong, and I'm right!" in this instance is the very fact that everybody has different viewpoints of the same thing. All I did, and tried to show all of you, was how his appointment of games in the current developers' standpoint would lead to a chaos in the current gaming community. You, sir _Jake, are wrong on several things as well. Revblade's not wrong because you disagree. He's not wrong because the majority or wholality (real word?) of the gaming community disagrees with him. He's simply in his own definition bubble.

I call Legend of Zelda an RPG because you take on the role of Link in an expansive story and garner friends and enemies through your actions using your sword to defend allies or defeat those who stand against you. I call Soul Calibur II a Fighting game because there is little to no story behind it and the central focus is on knocking your opponent out.

I could care less if he agrees or disagrees with me, but I can certainly see his standpoint on defending his point of view. [Also. _Jake. As much as I support the first ammendment's protection of the freedom of speech, do your research before calling GW Bush an idiot. Capiche? Why? I could call it the pot calling the kettle black, and I'll end it at that. Capiche? Politics, first and foremost, do not belong in a gaming forum (such as Nintendo gaming discussion) unless it is bashing Hillary Clinton for trying to shut down the GTA developers because they forgot to remove a certain codec and didn't report the result of inputting a code to unlock nudity to the ESRB. The small sized items were irrellevant, off-topic chatter.]

Anyway... I'll further specify the type of games I enjoy. I like a game with a strong, central storyline. I like, generally, a good read. I like games like Tales of Phantasia, Tales of Symphonia, Crono Trigger, Legend of Zelda, Metroid Prime, Pokemon XD: Gale of Darkness, Digital Devil Saga, Nocturne, Xenosaga, Skies of Arcadia, and so forth. For the most part, they tend to be labeled as RPGs by developers.

 

[Revelade]

"....execution has to be minimal...."

Execution is more important becuase to win you must wear the oponent down and make them die, there execution is not minmal. SC2 is a fighter.

"...to the point where choice is more powful..."


SC2 does not meet your definition of a strategy game, because choice is not more powerful, pushing buttons is, there is to much going on to choose what to do next, and is based on reflex. Reflex is not choice.

Good, actually words worth reading.

Let me explain what I mean by minimal execution. When you do something, first you must choose to do it, then do it. In a strategy game, choosing is the hard part, but doing it should be easy.

Say I want to move in chess. Well, I'd have to choose from 16 pieces and what each piece can do. Doing it however, is simple as picking up the piece and dropping it on a square.

Likewise, in SC2, if I see him sidestepping, I have to think, what counters that. I would think horizontal or sideway attacks do. Then I would simply press the horizontal attack button, or in the cube's case, the A button. This proves that execution is minimal compared to choice.

As for the choice issue, let me bring up a situation. Let's say your friend was great at sidestepping. Every time you tried using a vertical attack, he would sidestep. Well, now you would think what counters sidesteps? Then you would say oh, sideways attacks do. So then you press the A button and no matter how well he sidesteps, the attack will hit him. That proves that counters will beat skill.

 

[_JaKE]

to bam the doc, i never said shit about bush, see for yourself,

to revalde. there no way we can end this because we all have diff definitions, though we both strongly hold by our own definitions, this is going no where fast. good day.

 

[Revelade]

My intentions are not to insult anybody, but to show what I label something as and why I do so.

I do appreciate your open mindedness doc and it doesn't matter to me if every insists on following the traditional definitions.

Just like what happened, right as I posted my response to Jakes, bams already came up before it, and that's why I often double post.

I guess this is over. Unless you want to keep going...

 

[bamthedoc]

You said it on Page 3, but your post has since been edited by you. I should probably say the same to Revblade, but *shrug* meh.


Oddly, it said I was the last one to post, but yours was last in order. Heh. I've been playing since Nintendo was a baby gaming company, and I've really never paid any attention to labels given by developers. It wasn't until I was old enough to logically associate games that I liked to a specific developer-labeled genre that I even cared. I don't always agree, but, then, we all have different ways of seeing things.

 

[Wing Zero]

can we get a big ass split plz u guys talked so much that it could been a new thread

 

[_JaKE]

threads in the forums should be like this with posts longer than 5 word and somewhat inteligent arguement ect.

 

[Venice_native]

I have no reason to split, it is valid disucssion and they're doing a rather fine job at it. Activity is no burden.

I enjoy Any Zelda or Mario games, which would fall under adventure.

 

[Emperor Pan I]

My intentions are not to insult anybody, but to show what I label something as and why I do so.

I do appreciate your open mindedness doc and it doesn't matter to me if every insists on following the traditional definitions.

Just like what happened, right as I posted my response to Jakes, bams already came up before it, and that's why I often double post.

I guess this is over. Unless you want to keep going...

You know there is an edit button right.