Discussion in 'Game Talk' started by _JaKE, Jan 4, 2006.
Nope. I think you're being just a bit emo over a small thing.
He wasn't really asking. Stop double posting, and use the edit button.
weve argued this AND proved it wrong, a newbv to gaming who has never seen a console in his life can beat a pro because he hit random buttons. luck.
your arguement witrh metroid prime involved telling us that the creaters called it and ADVENTURE game, so when we tell you the creaters of SC2 call it a fighter, you go to bush, you contradict your self
Do you really want to provide valuable evidence to those actually arguing in this thread evidence that you don't read or play games? Those categories I presented are the official categories that gaming companies use to specifically catagorize all games released to the market. Let me make this a whee bit easier for you to understand.
Namco, the freaking company who made, published, whatever the game of Soul Calibur II, taking into account all facets of the game, label said game as a 3D Fighter under the Action category. Pan's right about one thing. A random button-masher can beat one who's memorized every move in the game. Why? Unpredictability. Yep. It's not luck, it's the raw inability to guess what move is coming next.
I'll elaborate on why Soul Calibut is an Action game. You take on the role of a fighter and control their actions. This is a stable of every-single Action title on the market. This includes first-person shooters (Halo, Counterstrike, Metroid Prime, etc.), platformers (Mario, Jax, etc.), and fighting games (Soul Calibur, Street Fighter, etc.). You hit the button associated with 'weak punch' and your character throws exactly that. You hit the button associated with 'strong kick' and your character does exactly that. That's Soul Calibur II.
Is there some aspect of strategy involved? Duh. There is a thought process involved in every single game out there. There is more strategy involved in Soul Calibur II when two hardcore Soul Calibur fans are involved. When a hardcore fan meets a new player, strategy goes out the window because the new player will randomly push forward, backward, right, left, A, B, X, Y, L, R, and the C-stick (NGC version). You don't know what's coming at you, and you have to either hope you can sit back and try to take advantage of their lack of knowledge of join in the button-mashing.
Every freakin' game has strategy! On that same note, most games have action elements in the fact that 'action a' causes 'action b'.
This is a shrinking genre, primarily because most games can also be fit under another genre or better fitted there. Legend of Zelda is an excellent example here. Adventure games usually have a central hero and an expansive story. However, Legend of Zelda is also an Action, Puzzle, and Role-Playing game. It is labeled as an Adventure because of this mixture of genre in nearly equal proportions.
There is something interesting about Soul Calibur II that has it fitting in here where the original Soul Calibur would not. It's the adventure mode where you can earn gold to buy new weapons, characters, etc. There is not enough of a strong mixture here to warrant either a combination of genre or calling of anything else.
Story is a staple of the Adventure genre.
Cars. Lots and Lots of Cars. There are games, like Sonic Battle Adventure 2, that do have cars but belong to a different genre.
Games of this genre have situations or environments to solve in order to get through.
You said the same freakin' thing I said! You either can't read or didn't feel like reading. SquareSoft catagorized Final Fantasy VII, a severly over-rated game, as an RPG because you take on the role of Cloud and Company. RPG is more a marketing tool based on the sucess of table-top RPGs and the fact that this type of game tends to be Action, Adventure, Simulation, and whatever else might be added into random titles.
The Sims is the most popular example in this area. Really, every game simulates something. It's when a game dedicates itself, in majority, to simulation does it become a Simulation game.
There are violent sports out there, and street fighting is considered one...even if illegal. There are semi-legal forms of street fighting, such as kick boxing of the (questionably real) Ultimate Fighting Championship.
Soul Calibur, in the hands of truely hardcore fans of the series, likely is the ultimate Strategy game. However, there is far more to this genre than simply that. Why? There are dedicated Strategy games, there are games that simply emply a large amount of Strategy but rely more heavily on other genre, and there are games where Strategy is simply unavoidable.
StarCraft falls into the first category because you can beat ability with strategy. A single Zergling stands absolutely no chance against a single Dark Templar or Marine. A swarm of Zerglings, however, can over take either. Soul Calibur falls into the secont category because a block can stun and lead to a string of attacks, a specific move can counter and beat another, and jumping or distance can give a poweful advantage. However, desperation can win. Doing something incorrectly in mass quanties cannot, in most cases, deliver a win (as the example presented with the Zerglings). The Sims fall into the third, and final, category because you simply cannot avoid determing that a certain recourse is better than another in a certain situation.
The Bottom Line
No two ways about it, Soul Calibur is more an Action title than a Strategy title. It does emply elements of Strategy, but those are only blatantly obvious in a hardcore v. hardcore setting, and, even then, a desperate and frustrated player can pull out a win over a concentrated and calm player. It's already been stated that those who've never even played Soul Calibur can beat an expert. I've done it. I did it three times in a row before I learned what buttons did what and tried to do exactly what you said Soul Calibur was and strategize. Then I love five times in a row because ability and knowledge beat lack there of. I got desperate, and I won again. I find I played the game better being a frustrated button-masher rather than a perfectionist planner.
I hope you all realize that I was the first one to say anything about being a button masher (newb) and beating a pro...Pan shouldn't get all the credit =(
I hope you realize your changing names has caught some people offguard, iMike >_< Fine. As iMike said, a 'newb' could beat a 'pro' through simple unpredictability. I won't say luck because that's cruel to both players.
Sigh, that's like saying just because a newb beats a pro in Starcraft, it's not a strategy game. Any button masher can be beaten, how? Mash verticals.
You say tomawto, I say tomayto. Really, do you really obey these rules set by some magazines? Do you realize they people, JUST like you or I? Obviously, I don't care what category they put in. They might have 2 thousand, but I'll stick with my own. Next, you'll be telling me just because Gamespot gave X game a certain score, that makes the game good or bad. Why do you choose to allow other people to decide your beliefs?
Like I said before, a strategy game, in MY terms has opposing forces equal in terms of chances of winning, counters beat skill, though it can have other factors, as long as the two I just mentioned remain dominant. Let's see, can a better aimer in CS be countered? Can a level 3 paladin beat a level 80 amazon in D2?
Telling me Soul Calibur 2 is not a strategy game just because it depends on the player skill is ridiculous. The knowledge of the players do not determine a genre. Then I could say Starcraft is not a strategy game because my dog was playing. Or everytime you or I play Starcraft, it isn't strategy because we aren't at the level of Boxer or Nada.
I never said Soul Calibur II wasn't a Strategy game, and that's what I'm saying. You either aren't actually reading or can't understand what is being said. I wasn't taking sides with either Pan, iMike, _Jake, or you (Revblade incase there's any confusion) because you all had valid points and invalid ones.
If you had actually read my statements, you would have seen that any game can be put into any category (or most thereof) if simply named by what is involved in said game. The market category for games is either thusly eliminated or made chaotic. I choose to use developers definitions of gaming categories because it makes it easier than generalizations.
I choose order over chaos. I present valid points as to why Soul Calibur can be put under each category as evidence that I actually played the game. My first post only pointed out that, though you had valid points, labeling it so was not what the developer wanted, nor what the market responded to. My second post was to try to get you to open your lazy eyes and read. This post is to point out your flaws in argument in a way that isn't half-tired insults.
GameSpot is good, but they most certainly aren't perfect. They like Legend of Zelda, and so do I. We agree on many points, but I can also say that we disagree. I just happen to like them because they can actually remain impartial. I'm willing to try a game they rate highly over a game that another site/magazine rates hightly because of this impartiality and the general, general, fact that we do agree more than half the time.
Tell this Revblade I would like to talk to him very much. He seems like a decent guy.
You say you be in chaos without definitions, yet your definition of an action game, "You take on the role of a fighter and control their actions." is very vague. You could say Mario, Zelda or Metroid games are action games. While this is helpful to you, I find this too vague to accept.
I also choose order over chaos with my definitions. Any game can be thrown into my categories as well.
Your main argument was that Soul Calibur II is not a strategy game because a new player can beat a pro player. However, this is possible with chess, Starcraft AND Warcraft III.
The skill of the player itself does not determine a genre. Otherwise, people who suck at certain games would constantly change labels. However, when counters beat skill, that's when you realize it's not about how good your are at something, because the counter will always beat it. And that is why I classify Soul Calibur II as a strategy game.
Are their moments where a new player can beat a pro? Sure. However, any game can have that; which doesn't make it prove anything.
Mario Sunshine. Action>Platform>3D
Metroid Prime. Action>Shooter>First-Person
Legend of Zelda. Adventure
The first two series listed and your first paragraph prove you didn't even read my statement, thus not justifying your post with my own.
Ironically I could say the same to you.
My definition of a strategy game is a game where every opposing side is equal in terms of chances of winning and counters will beat skill everytime. I believe this narrows the numbers of game drastically.
You said, "any game can be put into any category (or most thereof) if simply named by what is involved in said game". However, CS does not fit in my strategy category because though both players do have an equal shot of winning, there are no counters to player skill. Diablo 2 does not fit in my category because obviously the player is stronger than the monsters.
This disproves your theory that any game can be put into every category. If you would have said some games can be put into categories it would be correct, but you would be saying something we already know.
Want to know what I define Metroid and Zelda as? I definie Zelda as a puzzle game because the majority of the game is spent inside dungeons solving puzzles. The enemy AI does predictable patterns and isn't a threat once their weakness is figured out. The trouble becomes figuring out things and that is why I coin it a puzzle game.
I'd say Metroid AND Mario are platforming games. Why? They involve the player going across environmental obstacles. Enemies are present, but they aren't a challenge because they each have a fundamental flaw that can be exploited. In metroid, every upgrade you get allows you to take on new obstacles, whether it's the spider ball, super bomb or rockets. In Mario, later stages have more obstacles, whether it's flying platforms or underwater mines.
I'm not saying there isn't combat or reflexes used in these games. I'm saying they take a backseat, while platforming is center stage.
I suppose that means that a specific Diablo II character build will always beat another specific character build. The last time I played, this was not true and strengths and weaknesses almost constantly changed. You are not taking every aspect of the game into consideration.
That was all I was trying to point out to you. You go and automatically assume that I'm taking sides against you and with Pan, iMike, and _Jake. I saw an extreme white v. black, right v. wrong battle going on, and it seemed extremely stupid to me. Why? Valid and Invalid points aside, it became a very childish battle of "I'm right, and you're wrong." To dismiss what I say as simple "words" when I'm pointing out how your definitions leave much to be desired then saying the same applies to mine is moronic.
I'll now use the following quote as a proving point.
That's StarCraft in a nutshell, and Soul Calibur's antithesis.
Player A and Player B have an equal number of resources, manufacturers, and constructors available at the start. Player A builds for a rush while Player B builds defense and plans to sit it out and conserve resources. Player A rushes with low-cost units in mass number. Player B has tightly packed units in an effective mix of melee and stand-off combat as well as having the higher ground. The rush just got countered.
In this, an expert will always beat a new player. The expert will know effective resource management and proper unit counters. The new player will try to get to the most awesome, elite unit to own the competition (in regular speech).
Considering that we've established that randomness can beat perfectionism, it seems that your standpoint is on perfectly solid ground. An expert and a newcomer are on equal footing. This, however, is rarely if ever luck. That assumes that the newcome had absolutely no chance of winning and some random glich helped him along.
In Soul Calibur, as with any other fighting title, each character is presented and preset with a specific set of moves. Some of those moves require specific button combinations which can be difficult to pull off. I've pulled off most of my combinations through random chance and button-mashing tactics. I've often seen where certain characters make absolutely horrible match-ups and luck often is the road to victory.
I can't remember any match-ups, but I have seen it. A miscalculated kick, punch, or combination lead a severely outmatched character for the win. It's one of the few methods of victory, sometimes.
In anycase, you're exactly right about one thing. It's you're defintion. It's just too bad for you that the rest of the gaming comunity, especially the developers, will never agree with you because they believe specificity (sp?) is best suited to theirs.
Action games have a focus on buttons accomplishing something. Fighters. Shooters. Platformers.
Adventure games focus on a hero story.
Driving games focus on some form of driving.
Puzzle games focus on moving things around to solve something.
Role-Playing games focus on following a character of group of characters around are further emphasized by being required to collect items (armor, weapons, etc.) to complete the story.
Simulation games focus on simulating something. Farming. Life. Civilization.
Sports games focus on...a sport.
Strategy games focus on moving characters around and countering.
On an odd note...I'm watching this as I watch the comedy of Seed of Chucky. Oh my goodness! This movie is hilarious! It might be why my defintions seem so...short...or off...or something.
The irony is that through the button mashing, you begin to start doing percise moves and eventually incorporate strategy into games. I was never into fighters, because I hated having to press/type buttons in a certian order just and with speed just to pull off a hit that can be easily countered. I also hate those people who use the same move over and over just to beat someone. Like when I played Tekken 3 with one of my friends, he would use TrueOgre all the time and use his unblockable Flame Breath.
I really wouldn't consider learning the moves a hard thing, compared to say Tekken or Street Fighter.
Many moves are just pressing a direction twice then a button. Grabs are just two buttons. There are stances and such, but again these are easy to do.
I wouldn't say it's hard to do, but it's hard to memorize every move. My point is that doing the move is easy, but you have to know WHAT it does.
Combos really aren't needed or used in SC2 than games like Tekken or Street Fighter. With that said, it is easier on newcomers.
As for SC, I've seem replays of pros like Nada beaten by a old fashioned cannon rush. Weaker players usually lose to stronger ones, but it is NOT impossible for them to win.
Soul Calibur's antithesis? It actually fits that definition perfectly. Both players at the beginning have an equal chance at winning. There might be an imbalance, but not to a point where you can say "Oh, he's using Maxi, he's going to lose.", unlike SSBM. And counters DO beat skill. Perhaps someone is using mainly vertical moves. Again, you sidestep and attack. I don't get what you are saying here.
Anyway, it's more like everyone you listed, plus a few others like Tronga and whoever. I was tempted, but I haven't said any insults, so I hope everyone here walks away peacefully.
I'm fine standing with my definition alone. I believe they are correct and that's all that matters in my case. You can believe in your definitions and as will I.
I NEWB CANT BEAT A PRO IN STARCRAFT!!! cus its strategy, which SC2 isnt!
play warcraft, there is no way in hell a newb can beat a pro, its impossible, yet its is possible in SC2
yeah, no newb can beat a pro. Not even I have a snowballs chance in hell to beat a Pro in WCIII, and I'm argueably the best on BAttleforums.
Alright, so you say a game can't be a strategy game because a newb can beat a pro. It's possible that a newb can beat a pro in any game, but the chances would be very low. Anyway, how would you know if that's possible? Do you consider yourself a pro? Have you ever played a SC2 pro? This example is too vague. Just because your little brother beat you doesn't make a game change it's genre. You aren't a pro. And just because you happen to lose to poor players, does it apply to everyone? I can play SC and win against my friends because I practice moves and tactics.
The people I don't play with don't button mash and even if they do, they are easily countered. Like I said, button mashing will fail every time against someone who constantly uses vertical attacks. Vertical attacks are the fastest, strongest and longest ranged moves in the game. The natural counter would be to sidestep, but mashing will fix you in one place.
dude have you played warcraft? if you have YOU SHOULD KNOW, there is no way in the whole fugging world a fugging newb can beat any fugging pro!!! IT JUST INSANE TO EVEN THINk a newb can pull something...IM lieing? dumbass if you play chess can a newb beat a pro? i think not.
We are going on the grounds of speculation, meaning my beliefs against yours. Let's go back to factual evidence, aka the world of sense.
Yes, I have played Warcraft and in fact, I have been on the RT ladder several times. I consider myself a player with poor micro, but I can in fact beat players level 30 through my strategy that I use, which I dub necrorush or necrowagon.
As for chess, I consider myself a competent player, but I have lost to others through mistakes such as losing key pieces or castling at a bad time. My experiences do not account for the rest of the world as with yours. So let's drop this pro vs. newb thing because it's not the game that determines the skill, it's the player.
If there is a chance for a player to beat another player, technically, there is a chance for a newb to beat a pro, albeit a small one. This applies the same way to SC2. My experience of SC2 comes from playing with my friends and watching pro videos. One of my friends spams 66B, or forward forward vertical with Zasalamel in SC3. Now if I button mashed, I would lose every time because that move is insanely fast and throws my character into the air. The only way I CAN counter that would be to block, lower block and commence attacking. This is just one example how button mashing can and will be countered.
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.
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.
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).
Separate names with a comma.