@Apollo10000 you don't have a point. You're talking semantics and it's meaningless. When people say they are casual players, they mean that they don't play in competitions, that they log in occasionally to have a game. They don't mean that when they play a game, they're not trying to win that game.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not just trolling with this ridiculous, thread-derailing argument over semantics.
At this point I think the two sides are arguing about different forms of "competitive". From my side of the argument, "competitive" is akin to "progamer". No game has ever been successful focusing solely on the "progamer" types.
SC:BW was HUGE as an esport and for the good portion of its life the balance changes were made in response to matches in KESPA.
@Apollo10000 you don't have a point. You're talking semantics and it's meaningless. When people say they are casual players, they mean that they don't play in competitions, that they log in occasionally to have a game. They don't mean that when they play a game, they're not trying to win that game.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not just trolling with this ridiculous, thread-derailing argument over semantics.
I have only responded in what the direction the thread has gone, someone brought up casual and enjoyment and I brought my thoughts to the fore ground, but no-one even you have shown why my views are "ridiculous", and I wasn't arguing semantics but the actual nature of the game and intention of playing it.
Anytime you play to win or compete, is a competitor, maybe I take the more literal meaning to heart, I'm not one for interpenetration or purposely misleading meanings.
Though I do love that your word is enough to say I don't have a point, even though you haven't countered, someone's got a high opinion of themselves.
also there's no such thing as a casual gamer in a inherently competitive game, if you play casually you're playing it wrong, also being something of nuisance to your team, play Sims if you want a casual game.
Semantics, pure and simple. The person you were responding to did not mean that they don't play to win when they play. You are either misunderstanding the term casual, or wilfully misusing it for argument's sake. I assume you've misunderstood it, so please take this post in the constructive manner it is intended.
Thanks ChrisAUS, that's what I like to hear. A game that has a competetive environment does not need to always be competetive, in fact, I don't know of any games that have survived(thrived) solely off being competetive. At the moment, the only part of NS2 that's any good is it's competetive side, but I don't have the time, or the care to play competetively, public games are so frequently bad that again, I don't have the time to gamble on whether it's going to turn out decently or not, so I play other games.
starcraft 1-2
call of duty UO/2/4
counter-strike -1.6
team fortress - all
quake -all
unreal 90s/2k4/whatever
dota 1-2
league of legends
smite
halo 2/3
gears of war 1
saints row 1
rainbow six
etc
Yes uneven/bad matches are upsetting but it's not the fact that the game is competitive, it's just the uneven matchup; a guy on the other team can be playing like it's a LAN final, while your team is just trying to have a good time
I stopped reading at the first game in your list...
At this point I think the two sides are arguing about different forms of "competitive". From my side of the argument, "competitive" is akin to "progamer". No game has ever been successful focusing solely on the "progamer" types.
I have no idea what you're saying here to be honest, and starcraft 2 replaces starcraft 1, while SC1 is a bit more "hardcore" SC2 is simply a replica of SC1 but with tons of improvements, so they took the first game and just added onto it /made it better, so everyone can swap to the second game
Compare cs original to css, it's not the same game, hence why people would stick with the original
Anyway you can continue this with me in PM, this is off-topic and I'm no longer going to de-rail
People's enjoyment shouldn't be of the behest of others, hence why I don't like the idea of people playing casually.
This is where I put in that random word: 'fun'. For you fun might be organising your team, double pressuring while you have a solo cap behind free of charge. For others it's logging in on a Friday night after a long week of work and trying to find the most random gorge tunnel locations they can.
It's a two-way street. Those players playing how they want to make you enjoy the experience less, yet if they were forced to play how you want to then they wouldn't be as entertained.
I also think that 'Fun' is a major factor in keeping people coming back to the game again and again, hours after hours. As much as I enjoy the scrimming/comp games I would give it up as soon as I was not enjoying it. To be honest I don't see a viable solution that can bridge the 'comp vs casual' style that's been going on in these forums lately, and how the game functions in general. Player count is too low to split people up via ELO/Matchmaking. Individual servers like Mavicks are probably doing the best they can, but that's really for regulars, not new-comers.
Your over-arching point is basically that in multiplayer games of any kind, players want to win. I agree with that. I just think that not everyone has the same mindset as you or me, or their version of the end goal is different.
So you had the time before, but not now. There you go your point invalidated, also there's no such thing as a casual gamer in a inherently competitive game, if you play casually you're playing it wrong, also being something of nuisance to your team, play Sims if you want a casual game.
Thanks ChrisAUS, that's what I like to hear. A game that has a competetive environment does not need to always be competetive, in fact, I don't know of any games that have survived(thrived) solely off being competetive. At the moment, the only part of NS2 that's any good is it's competetive side, but I don't have the time, or the care to play competetively, public games are so frequently bad that again, I don't have the time to gamble on whether it's going to turn out decently or not, so I play other games.
starcraft 1-2
call of duty UO/2/4
counter-strike -1.6
team fortress - all
quake -all
unreal 90s/2k4/whatever
dota 1-2
league of legends
smite
halo 2/3
gears of war 1
saints row 1
rainbow six
etc
Yes uneven/bad matches are upsetting but it's not the fact that the game is competitive, it's just the uneven matchup; a guy on the other team can be playing like it's a LAN final, while your team is just trying to have a good time
100% of games that last longer than 45 mins always end with aliens winning (see ns2stats)
Don't feed him!
Obvious troll...i mean serious, marines can get now Flamethrower and Grenade Launcher in the first 5 minutes and jetpack 2 minutes later...
Aliens are the weak part in this patch, not marines...
Yesterday i saw aliens dominate the map but marines clear the whole map with arcs, macs, grenade launcher and exos after 15 Minute of gameplay.
If marines lose in 250, they just play bad.
Aliens need way more teamwork in 250 then marines, but marines need teamwork too.
At this point I think the two sides are arguing about different forms of "competitive". From my side of the argument, "competitive" is akin to "progamer". No game has ever been successful focusing solely on the "progamer" types.
I have no idea what you're saying here to be honest
Obviously...
I'm tired of arguing with people who keep changing the argument in every post. ~X(
At this point I think the two sides are arguing about different forms of "competitive". From my side of the argument, "competitive" is akin to "progamer". No game has ever been successful focusing solely on the "progamer" types.
SC:BW was HUGE as an esport and for the good portion of its life the balance changes were made in response to matches in KESPA.
This isn't true at all. In fact, the last balance patch released for brood war came before it really became big in korea (I believe it was the 1.08 patch).
the misconception here is that BT was not designed with only competitive play in mind. A number of changes can be pointed to as being for casual players. For example moving the hatch ability to the hive so that commanders aren't forced to go shift first.
I've been playing 250. Before I could hold my own even though I wasn't the best. Now I just get butchered over and over. I know I can improve but I don't have the time as I'm a casual gamer. This means when I want to play a game it's not as fun. It's not the tech structure. I think those improvements are great. It's the movement. I can't hit aliens and I can't kill marines. And I don't know what I'm doing wrong. I could hit them before.
Well said. +1
If the wannabee pros didn't like 249 they should have made a pro-mod for them and let the rest of us casuals have fun with a game that was finally stabilizing. Oh well. Let this be a learning experience for all.
@Apollo10000 you don't have a point. You're talking semantics and it's meaningless. When people say they are casual players, they mean that they don't play in competitions, that they log in occasionally to have a game. They don't mean that when they play a game, they're not trying to win that game.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not just trolling with this ridiculous, thread-derailing argument over semantics.
What has this world become? Competitive doesn't mean competing in general, but only competing for some materialistic real life prize such as money.
Well, at least according to some people in this thread.
Let me tell you something, now I aint some "word expert" and haven't looked up the official definition of competitive, but this is how I've always seen what the term "competitive gaming" means:
A game where you have to compete against other people.
Now, people may disagree, but I'm fine with that, since that's how I see it, and thinking it that way instead of "a game where you compete for a materialistic prize" prevents these kinds of replies this thread is full of from happening.
And if you didn't figure it out, I also think that one can be a "casual competitive player", meaning that they play a competitive game- you guessed it -casually.
What has this world become? Competitive doesn't mean competing in general, but only competing for some materialistic real life prize such as money.
Well, at least according to some people in this thread.
Let me tell you something, now I aint some "word expert" and haven't looked up the official definition of competitive, but this is how I've always seen what the term "competitive gaming" means:
A game where you have to compete against other people.
Now, people may disagree, but I'm fine with that, since that's how I see it, and thinking it that way instead of "a game where you compete for a materialistic prize" prevents these kinds of replies this thread is full of from happening.
And if you didn't figure it out, I also think that one can be a "casual competitive player", meaning that they play a competitive game- you guessed it -casually.
I've given up trying to tell people this, but I'm being silly and ridiculous, for taking the meaning literally.
Though funny that only Chris(thumbs up to you) had any debating skills to actually try to counter my point of view.
The rest just bandwagon-ed, though the mob is such a fickle beast.
Some people seem to be confusing 'popular' game with 'competitive' game ... pretty sure Battlezone '98 1v1v1 is the most intense shizz I've ever played ... only there's about 1000 of us left alive who have ever done so - pretty obvious but LOTS OF PEOPLE COMPETING doesn't make your game 'competitive.' Like a boy scout Jamboree - lots of people, lots of competition, actual typical skill level = 11yr old. (nothing against the 11yr old gamers out there, I did better at that age at EOB I&II than I did at 22 or 34).
I've given up trying to tell people this, but I'm being silly and ridiculous, for taking the meaning literally.
Though funny that only Chris(thumbs up to you) had any debating skills to actually try to counter my point of view.
The rest just bandwagon-ed, though the mob is such a fickle beast.
Tries to be smartass, gets caught out, denies all knowledge of trolling while defending what he has denied doing. Nice, to the EA marketing department with you!
I've given up trying to tell people this, but I'm being silly and ridiculous, for taking the meaning literally.
Though funny that only Chris(thumbs up to you) had any debating skills to actually try to counter my point of view.
The rest just bandwagon-ed, though the mob is such a fickle beast.
Tries to be smartass, gets caught out, denies all knowledge of trolling while defending what he has denied doing. Nice, to the EA marketing department with you!
And you said what? Oh yea nothing, not even if the skill to be eloquent, sure cheap jibes can be fun, but in the end add nothing and mean nothing, also something that seems prevalent is people saying they're correct or have sussed it, but haven't made the effort to back up their statement and the above being a prime example, you may disagree of what I have written but at-least I try to give reasons for my views, but I guess saying one is right is just good enough, let's try it, I'm right get use to it, let's see how people like that.
Also the definition of trolling is to elicit a emotional reaction from people, which I'm not doing, another thing people seem not to know the meaning, though they're right because they say so.
Comments
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not just trolling with this ridiculous, thread-derailing argument over semantics.
SC:BW was HUGE as an esport and for the good portion of its life the balance changes were made in response to matches in KESPA.
I have only responded in what the direction the thread has gone, someone brought up casual and enjoyment and I brought my thoughts to the fore ground, but no-one even you have shown why my views are "ridiculous", and I wasn't arguing semantics but the actual nature of the game and intention of playing it.
Anytime you play to win or compete, is a competitor, maybe I take the more literal meaning to heart, I'm not one for interpenetration or purposely misleading meanings.
Though I do love that your word is enough to say I don't have a point, even though you haven't countered, someone's got a high opinion of themselves.
I have no idea what you're saying here to be honest, and starcraft 2 replaces starcraft 1, while SC1 is a bit more "hardcore" SC2 is simply a replica of SC1 but with tons of improvements, so they took the first game and just added onto it /made it better, so everyone can swap to the second game
Compare cs original to css, it's not the same game, hence why people would stick with the original
Anyway you can continue this with me in PM, this is off-topic and I'm no longer going to de-rail
This is where I put in that random word: 'fun'. For you fun might be organising your team, double pressuring while you have a solo cap behind free of charge. For others it's logging in on a Friday night after a long week of work and trying to find the most random gorge tunnel locations they can.
It's a two-way street. Those players playing how they want to make you enjoy the experience less, yet if they were forced to play how you want to then they wouldn't be as entertained.
I also think that 'Fun' is a major factor in keeping people coming back to the game again and again, hours after hours. As much as I enjoy the scrimming/comp games I would give it up as soon as I was not enjoying it. To be honest I don't see a viable solution that can bridge the 'comp vs casual' style that's been going on in these forums lately, and how the game functions in general. Player count is too low to split people up via ELO/Matchmaking. Individual servers like Mavicks are probably doing the best they can, but that's really for regulars, not new-comers.
Your over-arching point is basically that in multiplayer games of any kind, players want to win. I agree with that. I just think that not everyone has the same mindset as you or me, or their version of the end goal is different.
http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/9/9e/HA_HA_HA,_OH_WOW.jpg
Reduced to link only, this is not an imageboard. -Ironhorse
Obvious troll...i mean serious, marines can get now Flamethrower and Grenade Launcher in the first 5 minutes and jetpack 2 minutes later...
Aliens are the weak part in this patch, not marines...
Yesterday i saw aliens dominate the map but marines clear the whole map with arcs, macs, grenade launcher and exos after 15 Minute of gameplay.
If marines lose in 250, they just play bad.
Aliens need way more teamwork in 250 then marines, but marines need teamwork too.
Obviously...
I'm tired of arguing with people who keep changing the argument in every post. ~X(
Well said. +1
If the wannabee pros didn't like 249 they should have made a pro-mod for them and let the rest of us casuals have fun with a game that was finally stabilizing. Oh well. Let this be a learning experience for all.
+1
Well, at least according to some people in this thread.
Let me tell you something, now I aint some "word expert" and haven't looked up the official definition of competitive, but this is how I've always seen what the term "competitive gaming" means:
A game where you have to compete against other people.
Now, people may disagree, but I'm fine with that, since that's how I see it, and thinking it that way instead of "a game where you compete for a materialistic prize" prevents these kinds of replies this thread is full of from happening.
And if you didn't figure it out, I also think that one can be a "casual competitive player", meaning that they play a competitive game- you guessed it -casually.
I've given up trying to tell people this, but I'm being silly and ridiculous, for taking the meaning literally.
Though funny that only Chris(thumbs up to you) had any debating skills to actually try to counter my point of view.
The rest just bandwagon-ed, though the mob is such a fickle beast.
Tries to be smartass, gets caught out, denies all knowledge of trolling while defending what he has denied doing. Nice, to the EA marketing department with you!
And you said what? Oh yea nothing, not even if the skill to be eloquent, sure cheap jibes can be fun, but in the end add nothing and mean nothing, also something that seems prevalent is people saying they're correct or have sussed it, but haven't made the effort to back up their statement and the above being a prime example, you may disagree of what I have written but at-least I try to give reasons for my views, but I guess saying one is right is just good enough, let's try it, I'm right get use to it, let's see how people like that.
Also the definition of trolling is to elicit a emotional reaction from people, which I'm not doing, another thing people seem not to know the meaning, though they're right because they say so.