What kind of gamer are you?

[_JaKE]

Then you assumed I would feel bad about what you wrote, but again, I chose not to be hurt.

LOOK DUMB**** IM NOT TRING TO INSULT YOU AND IM PROVING IMO WHY SOUL CALBUR ISNT STRATEGY, WHICH YOU CLAIMED IS. SO DONT GET ALL BITCHY WITH ME ASSHOLE!

 

[Revelade]

In any game there can be found some sort of strategy. Like your Soul Calibur 2 and the fact that you have different moves to counter, or block, or stop, diffent combos, or attacks. The main part, the main aspect of Soul calibur IS the fighting, thus a fighting game. Labeled under the fighting catagory.
Like i said, in any game there can be found strategy.
Examples of this would be: Goldeneye: Rogue agent. When you see a ceiling mounted turret, ror wall mounted turret, you can destroy it or hack it and make it turn on you enemies. that is a form of stategy. BUT, there is nop way in hell anyone can claim that it is a stategy game beause there is a hint of stategy in it.
Another example. NBA street, you can choose to drive through and take a behind the back hook shot or pass to a wide teamate and let him go for a far shot. Stategy. But noone can claim it a strategy game, it is a sports game. Because the main aspect IS sports!
So, when you claim soul Calibur to be stategy and wonder why the hell we think its a fighting game, ya its got stategy, but fighting is the game. Its what is based on and thus Soul Calibur two is a FIGHTING game.:loopy

That's a fun definition, but that doesn't allow strategy to be itself a genre.

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

The point of SC is to wear off the other player's hp and that is the goal. However, the process of doing that is determine on what you and your opponent chooses to do. You can keep spamming verticals throughout the game. I would think to myself that the counter to it would be sidestepping, so I would do that and I should be victorious.

According to the dictionary (dictionary.com) strategy is: "A plan of action resulting from strategy or intended to accomplish a specific goal." Now a strategic game should be focused on planning actions right?

In your example, tell me, is it harder to think of how you do it, or is it harder to actually aim at the turret and shoot it down? Like the dictionary says, strategy should be about planning or CHOOSING what to do, more so than doing it.

And as for your sports example, you really need to go into details. Claiming a game to be a sports game doesn't tell us anything. Then let me ask you, what is a sports game? What does that label mean? Does equal teams doing a task repeatedly in a time limit and whoever has the highest score at the end wins? Like Goldeneye, sports has choices to make, but a player that does flawless moves and does it quicker, wins. The player that controls the team better than the other team wins. It's the same case that it favors execution over choice, JUST like Goldeneye or CS.

Let me ask you, in chess, can a person move a pawn any better than another? Isn't the better player determined by where the player CHOOSES or PLANS to put the pawn?

And that's it. That's the essence of strategy. Choosing over doing. That is how the game should be determined.

And you can call it fighting or whatever, but ask yourself what makes a fighting game. Perhaps it's because each player (should) have equal chances to win? But then we must ask ourselves, is it the person that reacts the fastest? Or is it the player that does the correct reactions? Perhaps it's both, but it is strategy if the game is focused more on choosing the right reactions, over executing a reaction better than the other guy.

 

[Revelade]

Oh, I see. So, a war between a big army and a small army has no strategy at all. Even if the generals have equal skill, there's no equal chance of winning.

That definition blows, mate.

If a larger and a smaller army fought and did the same exact thing, obviously the larger army would win. If the smaller army CHOOSES to use tactics like baiting, the result would change.

If the smaller army was smarter, stronger or faster than the other enemy, the outcome would change. However, if both army had the same quality, expect size, than the larger army would win.

And an outcome that is already decided has no strategy. Is there strategy to drinking water?

Nice example, but you fail.

 

[Revelade]

LOOK DUMB**** IM NOT TRING TO INSULT YOU AND IM PROVING IMO WHY SOUL CALBUR ISNT STRATEGY, WHICH YOU CLAIMED IS. SO DONT GET ALL BITCHY WITH ME ASSHOLE!

Let me ask you, do you enjoy doing this?

 

[Arkillo]

Good christ, don't triple post.

Second, theres not enough strategy in a fighting game like SC2 to warrent it a "strategy game". In fact, if anything, it's just a matter of reflexs and memorization. You may know everything about the mechanics of the game, but that doesn't mean it's a strategy game. Because of the fact that you can counter anything in the game with another move, does NOT make is a stragety game. Do you simply not understand that?

You do realize that if the above were true, that even PONG would be a strategy game, right?

 

[_JaKE]

That's a fun definition, but that doesn't allow strategy to be itself a genre.

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

yes thats YOUR definition....

The point of SC is to wear off the other player's hp and that is the goal. However, the process of doing that is determine on what you and your opponent chooses to do. You can keep spamming verticals throughout the game. I would think to myself that the counter to it would be sidestepping, so I would do that and I should be victorious.

though you admit the main point IS to wear his health down and kill, and stategize all you want, ill be doing combos while you plan the next move.

According to the dictionary (dictionary.com) strategy is: "A plan of action resulting from strategy or intended to accomplish a specific goal." Now a strategic game should be focused on planning actions right?

That said, you can say any game in the universe is a stategy. But you dont. You call a game what it has most of in it. FPS are called FPS because there is more shooting above any other.

In your example, tell me, is it harder to think of how you do it, or is it harder to actually aim at the turret and shoot it down? Like the dictionary says, strategy should be about planning or CHOOSING what to do, more so than doing it.

you can choose whether to take a couple hits and hack it, to grant you better odds, or immediatly shoot it down.

And as for your sports example, you really need to go into details. Claiming a game to be a sports game doesn't tell us anything. Then let me ask you, what is a sports game? What does that label mean? Does equal teams doing a task repeatedly in a time limit and whoever has the highest score at the end wins?

gawd a sports game it based on a certain sport whether it hocky or football, you play it the way the sport is played. OH YA theres stategy in that football game, you choose who to pass it to! comon man....

Let me ask you, in chess, can a person move a pawn any better than another? Isn't the better player determined by where the player CHOOSES or PLANS to put the pawn?

Because the entire game constists of stategy!!!!!!!!! therefore it stategy. now dont claim SC is entirly strategy...

And you can call it fighting or whatever, but ask yourself what makes a fighting game. Perhaps it's because each player (should) have equal chances to win? But then we must ask ourselves, is it the person that reacts the fastest? Or is it the player that does the correct reactions? Perhaps it's both, but it is strategy if the game is focused more on choosing the right reactions, over executing a reaction better than the other guy.

god in a fighting game, you sit there stategizing. and you will die. there is no time to think, accept combos. other than that ist whop can push botton better.

 

[TrongaMonga]

If a larger and a smaller army fought and did the same exact thing, obviously the larger army would win. If the smaller army CHOOSES to use tactics like baiting, the result would change.

If the smaller army was smarter, stronger or faster than the other enemy, the outcome would change. However, if both army had the same quality, expect size, than the larger army would win.

And an outcome that is already decided has no strategy. Is there strategy to drinking water?

Nice example, but you fail.

However, that's what chance is. A probability. The smaller does have a chance of winning, only by the sheer power of luck. There may be, or there may not be, strategy into it.

Strategy has little do to with equal, or different, chances of winning. It is merely and only the skill of the contestants that matter. And that doesn't define a thing. As you said, there is no strategy in drinking a glass of water. However, there can be contests of that. Both contestants have an equal "chance" of winning. But it's no strategy.

 

[Revelade]

Good christ, don't triple post.

Second, theres not enough strategy in a fighting game like SC2 to warrent it a "strategy game". In fact, if anything, it's just a matter of reflexs and memorization. You may know everything about the mechanics of the game, but that doesn't mean it's a strategy game. Because of the fact that you can counter anything in the game with another move, does NOT make is a stragety game. Do you simply not understand that?

You do realize that if the above were true, that even PONG would be a strategy game, right?

SC2 has nothing to do with reflexes. If it was only about reflexes, whoever mashed first would win. Can you actually tell me any details about SC2 that would make it a masher? Or have you even played SC2 at all? And to you, it might be a strategy game, because that's just a label. I will say SC2 has many levels of countering and like the game developers have said, the person that reads the opponent better wins the game. Also, there are numerous similarities between it and chess and starcraft, which I also consider strategy games, such as equal chances of winning and advantage based on choices, not numbers or execution. That's enough to warrant it to be a strategy game for me.

Does my triple posting bother you? Too bad you allow it to.

Pong would NOT be a strategy game because it's based on reflexes. Like I stated before, a pure strategy game would have no difficulty in execution, but as long as the game is based on choices more on how you do something, in other words, the units you choose, more than how you use them in starcraft, it's a strategy game.

Label it a ewreaj game or a wrjrpie game, I don't care.

However, that's what chance is. A probability. The smaller does have a chance of winning, only by the sheer power of luck. There may be, or there may not be, strategy into it.

Strategy has little do to with equal, or different, chances of winning. It is merely and only the skill of the contestants that matter. And that doesn't define a thing. As you said, there is no strategy in drinking a glass of water. However, there can be contests of that. Both contestants have an equal "chance" of winning. But it's no strategy.

Nope. In a perfect situation where all factors are the same except size, the larger army would win. When you throw in properties such as terrain, ammo amount or whatever, then the equation changes.

A strategy game however, has equal chances of winning for both sides. Does white have any more advantage than black in chess? Is terran better than zerg in SC? I would not consider example of a larger versus smaller army a strategy game unless there were factors that balanced both sides out.

Naturally a larger army is better to have than a smaller one as you have more man power, which leads to more damage inflicted. However, once you add factors such as the smaller army doing more damage, and if that is enough to balance the chances of winning as close to 50/50 as possible, then there is strategy.

This is why battlecruisers don't cost 1 mineral. This is why 1 zealot can take on 3 zerglings. This is why broodlings are 150 mana. Opposing forces can be different as long as the chances of winning are as close to 50% on both sides.

yes thats YOUR definition....

Exactly. If your definition of a strategy game is 1 marine versus 1231239 battle cruisiers, so be it.

though you admit the main point IS to wear his health down and kill, and stategize all you want, ill be doing combos while you plan the next move.

Alright, do your combos. You probably want to launch me in the air, correct? Launchers are vertical attacks, so I would sidestep and proceed with a vertical of my own. So confident?

That said, you can say any game in the universe is a stategy. But you dont. You call a game what it has most of in it. FPS are called FPS because there is more shooting above any other.

You can use that definition. My definition of a strategy game differs because a strategy game has choice above execution, though there CAN be difficulty execution, as long as choosing is more important. With that said, that a player can beat another through micro, such as 5 marines beating another 5. However, no matter how good you are, a million zealots will ALWAYS lose to 1 wraith. I believe strategy games have situations that can not be solved by skill all the time.

you can choose whether to take a couple hits and hack it, to grant you better odds, or immediatly shoot it down.

It depends on how hard it is for you to aim. If you have aimbot in CS, the most difficultly you will have is choosing where you want to go or what weapon you want to choose. That's exactly the case in Starcraft. Every unit has aimbot, which makes victory determined by what you do with the units, not how you aim.

gawd a sports game it based on a certain sport whether it hocky or football, you play it the way the sport is played. OH YA theres stategy in that football game, you choose who to pass it to! comon man....

Again, if you were pro at moving your men where they need to be and can time tackles perfectly, you mastered the execution part to where the difficulty for you is choosing what you want to do. But is this true?

Because the entire game constists of stategy!!!!!!!!! therefore it stategy. now dont claim SC is entirly strategy...

It's a strategy game because you choose to label it that. I would label SC a strategy game because ALTHOUGH it does elements like micro that can change the outcome depending on player skill, player skill does not matter in situations like dark templar versus marines without detection. In other words, no matter how you control the marines, because the player CHOSE not to get detection, he loses.

god in a fighting game, you sit there stategizing. and you will die. there is no time to think, accept combos. other than that ist whop can push botton better.

It depends on how fast you can think. If it takes you a minute to realize that sidestepping beats verticals, that's your problem. If I can think that fast and counter, than that's my benefit. Some people can remember better than others. It's normal. Push a button better? Do you see a difference between pressing a button lightly or hard on the screen? It's not how you push the same button, but WHAT BUTTONS YOU CHOOSE TO PRESS. Oh, and I'm not angry, I'm just capping for emphasis.

 

[Arkillo]

SC2 has nothing to do with reflexes. If it was only about reflexes, whoever mashed first would win. Can you actually tell me any details about SC2 that would make it a masher? Or have you even played SC2 at all? And to you, it might be a strategy game, because that's just a label. I will say SC2 has many levels of countering and like the game developers have said, the person that reads the opponent better wins the game. Also, there are numerous similarities between it and chess and starcraft, which I also consider strategy games, such as equal chances of winning and advantage based on choices, not numbers or execution. That's enough to warrant it to be a strategy game for me.

I can load up SC2 on Xbox anytime I want, pick up Spawn, and use his hover/missle attack over and over and over, and you would not be able to win, based on the fact that I started mashing buttons and had quicker reflexes once the match started.

Face it, you will not win this arguement with me. I am not wrong on the matter of this.

 

[Revelade]

I can load up SC2 on Xbox anytime I want, pick up Spawn, and use his hover/missle attack over and over and over, and you would not be able to win, based on the fact that I started mashing buttons and had quicker reflexes once the match started.

Face it, you will not win this arguement with me. I am not wrong on the matter of this.

Explain how do you "win" an argument to me.

Anyway, I have no idea what you are talking about since I don't have Xbox SC2, nor do I have a Crapbox (oops my opinion). Anyway, the way you spam that move would be the same if I did it to you. But the fact is that you CHOSE to do that move out of 100 other moves. And there is a limit to how many buttons the game registers based on how many is inputted. So 8 buttons a second is the same as 6.

Let me go to Gamefaqs to see if this move can not be countered...

http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=2000100&topic=25672459

Yep. I can sidestep and then bust out my moves on you. So there, your example doesn't work and your argument fails.

 

[Arkillo]

Negative. If you know how to sidestep properly, you won't lose with Spawn using that move.

You're right, I'de CHOOSE to use that move out of the 56 or so that Spawn has, however you CHOOSE to counter everything with a proper counter. See where I'm going? Theres no way you can say that the game is a strategy game, because it's clearly just another 3d fighter.

 

[Revelade]

Um, you haven't proven anything other than every move can be countered in SC, therefore every move has a weakness. It goes to show no matter how fast you do that move, it can be countered by sidestepping. The moral of that is that despite despite doing that move as best as you can, there are somethings skill can not make up. Strategy places choosing over execution. This further proves my point.

 

[TrongaMonga]

Nope. In a perfect situation where all factors are the same except size, the larger army would win. When you throw in properties such as terrain, ammo amount or whatever, then the equation changes.

A strategy game however, has equal chances of winning for both sides. Does white have any more advantage than black in chess? Is terran better than zerg in SC? I would not consider example of a larger versus smaller army a strategy game unless there were factors that balanced both sides out.

Naturally a larger army is better to have than a smaller one as you have more man power, which leads to more damage inflicted. However, once you add factors such as the smaller army doing more damage, and if that is enough to balance the chances of winning as close to 50/50 as possible, then there is strategy.

So what do you call the victory of the smaller army by using exactly the terrain and weather conditions to their advantage? Luck? No, that is strategy. There is almost no strategy when both armies are exactly equal. It's just a clash, and then it's up to luck to decide.

And even if the conditions are exactly equal, theres still is a chance for the smaller army to win. It all depends on the capability of the commanders.

Like chess. A player with fewer pieces still has chances to win if he knows what he's doing. And knowing what you're doing is called strategy.

There has been many a time when a smaller army defeated a larger army by the sheer power of strategy.

 

[Arkillo]

Um, you haven't proven anything other than every move can be countered in SC, therefore every move has a weakness. It goes to show no matter how fast you do that move, it can be countered by sidestepping. The moral of that is that despite despite doing that move as best as you can, there are somethings skill can not make up. Strategy places choosing over execution. This further proves my point.

Good lord, I have never met someone as dense as you. Unless I talk about myself, but thats a whole nother bag of tricks. Is there some strategy in SC2? Of course, like I've been saying all along. However, if you look at it that way, there is strategy in every game out there. Any many upon many of them have much more indepth "strategy" than SC2 does. Do you get what I'm saying?

 

[Revelade]

So what do you call the victory of the smaller army by using exactly the terrain and weather conditions to their advantage? Luck? No, that is strategy. There is almost no strategy when both armies are exactly equal. It's just a clash, and then it's up to luck to decide.

And even if the conditions are exactly equal, theres still is a chance for the smaller army to win. It all depends on the capability of the commanders.

Like chess. A player with fewer pieces still has chances to win if he knows what he's doing. And knowing what you're doing is called strategy.

There has been many a time when a smaller army defeated a larger army by the sheer power of strategy.

Like I said before, in a given situation where every factor was EXACTLY the same except the size of the army, and both armies were in conflict, the larger army would win, every time. I'm not going to bother arguing this.

When you say weather conditions or terrain, that differs from both armies. One army might have higher ground, the other might have more rain. When you have something that unbalances the equation, the chances of a same outcome lowers. Therefore it would be possible for the smaller army to win, which is EXACTLY WHAT I SAID before.

You then contradict yourself when you say there is a chance to win when every condition is equal through the capabilities of the commanders. Um, if every condition was the same, why would the intelligence of each commander differ?

A strategy game has the probability of winning for both sides to be as close as 50/50 as possible. Please prove me wrong.

You are arguing something I agreed with you a long time ago.

Good lord, I have never met someone as dense as you. Unless I talk about myself, but thats a whole nother bag of tricks. Is there some strategy in SC2? Of course, like I've been saying all along. However, if you look at it that way, there is strategy in every game out there. Any many upon many of them have much more indepth "strategy" than SC2 does. Do you get what I'm saying?

You really need to meet more people then. What you seem to be arguing is that the level of strategy in SC2 is the same as any other game. That is certainly not true. Again, strategy is about choice, which MUST be more important than player execution skill to be considered a strategy game.

Example, terran against terran should have a 50/50 chance of each side being victorious, if both were controlled by computers, therefore the same level of micro, correct? Now let's place terran with yourself and the other terran with Nada (who happens to be one of the better players out there). Would the 50/50 chance of winning still stand? I assume that 9/10 or even more, he would rape you. This is imbalance due to player skill. This means Nada wins because he's faster at doing the same thing as you are, therefore he's better. Because he has a higher level of this skill than you, he beats you.

Now let's have a situation where he is using a zergling and you have a dark templar. No matter how skilled he is, your DT will always rape his ling. Why? Is it because of skill? No matter how much he moves around, he can NOT hit the DT. This is because of choice; this is because of strategy.

So the question is, do YOU understand? Or are you going to waste your time writing insults that you hope will make me feel bad?

 

[Arkillo]

What? I mean, seriously. You're going off about SC and some dude named Nada, and why a DT beats a zergling...SC is a strategy game. RTS. The S stands for "Strategy". SC2 is a fighting game. Not a RTFS. Which would be Realtime Fighting Strategy. I'm not agruing that the level of strategy in SC2 is the same as any other game, I'm agruing that SC2 doesn't have enough strategy in it to warrent it being called a strategy game.

What you seem to be missing is this. A newb that has never played SC2 can beat a player that has been playing for years based off simple luck and abuse of a cheap move. The same cannot be said of Starcraft, or any other true Strategy game. If someone is deemed the best player in the world at a strategy game, theres no way a newb will get lucky and beat them. However, the opposite can be said of SC2. I've won plenty of tournaments on that game with plenty of the characters, yet every now and then someone will challenge me that has never played before and get lucky and beat me, because they find some loophole in the RockPaperSiscors type of game it really is.

 

[Revelade]

What? I mean, seriously. You're going off about SC and some dude named Nada, and why a DT beats a zergling...SC is a strategy game. RTS. The S stands for "Strategy". SC2 is a fighting game. Not a RTFS. Which would be Realtime Fighting Strategy. I'm not agruing that the level of strategy in SC2 is the same as any other game, I'm agruing that SC2 doesn't have enough strategy in it to warrent it being called a strategy game.

What you seem to be missing is this. A newb that has never played SC2 can beat a player that has been playing for years based off simple luck and abuse of a cheap move. The same cannot be said of Starcraft, or any other true Strategy game. If someone is deemed the best player in the world at a strategy game, theres no way a newb will get lucky and beat them. However, the opposite can be said of SC2. I've won plenty of tournaments on that game with plenty of the characters, yet every now and then someone will challenge me that has never played before and get lucky and beat me, because they find some loophole in the RockPaperSiscors type of game it really is.

Again, you repeat yourself.

Why don't you actually take time and READ what I write, instead of just looking at the flashy words? Since I actually read yours isn't it only fair?

I completely doubt you have even played SC2 nor even know what a guard impact is. Perhaps a noob beats a pro. But there's always a chance of that happening in any game, given what's given to each player is equal in terms of power.

You don't even understand how SC works, because there IS, in fact a rockscissorpaper system in there as well. Lurkers smoke marines, marines smoke scouts, scouts smoke lurkers. Saying there's no countering in SC is like saying aiming is not a part of CS.

I'm saying strategy games are games that player skill can NOT beat counters. You say that it's possible for a noob to beat a pro in SC2, but ya know what? That's possible in any game, so I fail to see what you're trying to prove there. Finally, you say SC2 has little strategy because it uses rockpaperscissors method, but you fail to realize that SC has been doing that for years.

Why do you bother dragging this on when you have nothing to prove?

 

[Wing Zero]

b/c we are old fashioned and dotn want to think a classic game is anything else then what it is
personlly i think its just another fighting game if it pits a charater vs a charater, with an arena, with a 60 30 90 ooly second time limit, 2 health bars. im am no way going to say its strats. it is just a fighting game and im still oblivious

 

[TrongaMonga]

Like I said before, in a given situation where every factor was EXACTLY the same except the size of the army, and both armies were in conflict, the larger army would win, every time. I'm not going to bother arguing this.

When you say weather conditions or terrain, that differs from both armies. One army might have higher ground, the other might have more rain. When you have something that unbalances the equation, the chances of a same outcome lowers. Therefore it would be possible for the smaller army to win, which is EXACTLY WHAT I SAID before.

You then contradict yourself when you say there is a chance to win when every condition is equal through the capabilities of the commanders. Um, if every condition was the same, why would the intelligence of each commander differ?

A strategy game has the probability of winning for both sides to be as close as 50/50 as possible. Please prove me wrong.

You are arguing something I agreed with you a long time ago.

But I never said I disagreed. All I said is that I think your definition blows. It's too ambiguous.

Well, actually, I disagree in one thing. Equal armies, with equal commanders, most times would end in a tie. The commanders would do the exact same actions, and the armies would fought the exact same way. There's no real strategy in it... Well, there would be some, because strategy, after all, is how you manage your resources (by resources, I mean everything.).

 

[Emperor Pan I]

Rock paper scissors does not mean something is a strategy game. RPS, is pure luck, where you have a 33.33~ chance of winning. In a fighting game, you have counters to a mov,e but the game moves far to fast to execute anything to the extent that you do in a strategy game. Strategy games entail a general battle plan, with not only units, but varying other factors. A fighting game is based on nothing more than combos, button mashing and button memorization. There is no set battle plan, you really can't have a battle plan. Characters really arn't diverse to any large extent.

Strategy offers something else. It offers you a before and/or after in which you can see exactly the fallacy in your army, in your overall perform.