Slashdot Mirror
On Gamers Whining About Cheese
Thanks to GameSpot for its editorial discussing the fine art of 'cheesing', and the annoyance of those who complain about it. The write explains of 'cheesers': "These gamers (either intentionally or unintentionally) use the same moves or tactics over and over again [in games such as Soul Calibur II or Top Spin] to defeat opponents and, as a result, are often treated as the redheaded stepchildren in gaming circles." However, he argues: "Repetitive moves and tactics can become annoying, but what irritates me more are the people that whine about them", and concludes by suggesting: "The challenge then, for those who prefer to take the high road, is to find ways to beat them... Don't get mad. Get better." But is whining actually a good, natural part of videogaming?
> But is whining actually a good, natural part of videogaming?
Is anything good and natural about gaming?
SURELY NOT!!!!!
"Losers always whine about their best. Winners go home and f*ck the prom queen" Gamers should grow some balls and not whine. This just helps feed the stereotype that the majority of gamers are 13 year old bitches who spend too much time playing games online and can't handle being schooled by another player and are reduced to speaking l33t in order to seem cool and elite.
-Dipster
Yeah, I just played king of fighters against a friend on the PSX, and in one of the fights he used a character he knows well, and I heard the exact same 'yihaaa' and me getting hurt around 8 times in a row, same happens when I play against some other, not-so-smart people at games like Mortal Kombat 2/3, anyone else remembers sitting there holding the controller while the enemy freezes, jumps to you, upper cuts and jumps back?
Anyway, these kind of tactics are usually annoying, but that same friend I just played KoF against can usually beat them, I usually play fair and not 'cheesy' in MK trilogy, but after him beating me around 30 times in a row with almost any character (even nightwolf o_O) I resorted to being cheesy and still failed, so one day I hope to be as good as he is to be able to beat even the button mashers and the cheesy people and everyone MOUAHAH!!...uh, yeah.
But is whining actually a good, natural part of videogaming?
No, whining is a good, natural part of being a human being. No matter the circumstances, we need to have something we can whine about or we are unhappy (and end up creating artificial problems so we can whine about them).
That said, I can understand people whining about cheese. If someone just acts following a tight formula (that in most cases wasn't even made by them, they found it on a FAQ site) he's somewhere around the capacities of a script kiddie.
However, if they are capable of doing more than just cheesing (and just prefer not to because it just works, not because they are too dumb to do something more challenging), then more power for them and learn how to play (and stop whining because you are not able to counter a tactic that has been used against you several times in a row)!
Note that the writer didn't offer an effective counter-strategy to spawn sniping/camping. I can't speak to the other "cheese" moves he's talking about, but I can certainly understand why people complain about spawn camping. The reason why it is universally reviled is because it degrades the quality and enjoyment of the game. When the game comes down to who can spawn camp the best, then it's really no fun at all. The solution to spawn camping is temporary invincibility. That is, a newly spawned player cannot be injured for 5-10 seconds after spawning unless he or she engages in an offensive attack. (This last part is to stop those that are newly spawned from tipping the balance of power in reverse.)
Absent such technical solutions, admins are free to kick or ban players they see as using cheap moves, and players are free to discontinue playing with those they feel can't play fair. There is no a priori reason that video games have to be anarchistic. What does this mean? Well, it seems the writer of the article assumes that just because something can be done in a video game, that it is perfectly acceptable to do so. But I disagree. Suppose I was playing a real-life tennis match with Sampras, pulled out a gun, and shot him in the knee. Would my subsequent win (assuming I wasn't arrested or handcuffed) be honest or fair? Certainly not.
Similarly, just because we are used to being able to get away with anything in video games doesn't make those things we get away with right. There are already rules against automated helpers in most games. There is thus no reason to assume that just because an action is possible in a game that it should be allowable or rewarded.
OMG! YOU SUCK! What kind of a post is that? GO AWAY YOU n00b!
*WHINE*
I'd like to freely admit to abusing the hell out of the one great combo I know out of tea party Mitsarugi's hugh repitior. The salty tears of another easy victory are far mor mild and delicious than any wine.
That's right, I'm just not any better than that. And so it was with Jago and killer instincts. Now someone will be advised to leave the cheap shit at home if they play me in Vitual On 2. I'm better than that. A lot better. At best they'll make me mad enough to make the fights far more short and much less fun. Because a finely honed understanding of a game's nuances nearly always trumps good timing and mastery of a couple of the more useful tricks.
I'll admit it, I'm a whiner when it comes to cheese. The way I see it is this. If there is a game where cheese is possible. For example, a fighting game. Then the design of the game is flawed. Now if its like a tournament or something with a prize, all is fair cheese away. But when you're playing with friends the idea is to have fun. If everybody just does the cheese move what's the point? There's no fun there, it's just plain stupid. Everyone lines up to push the same exact buttons as the previous guy, and if they don't push those same exact buttons they lose because the cheese is unstoppable. (I know its not always unstoppable, but often it might as well be ).
So, if you have a poorly designed game in which cheese exists and you want to play it with friends and have fun. Don't do the cheese or you're going to ruin everyone's fun. If there is a cheese whore in the current group of gamers you must play a game that has no cheese. So as a whiner even though I'm saying with my mouth "Stop that you cheesy whore!" what I really mean is "ok, this game sucks and has bad design, but we can have fun with it anyway if we don't do the cheesy crap. Losing isn't a big deal fanboy, pick a different character for once".
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
Gamers seem to think up an endless number of terms for ridiculing those who beat them, "cheeser" and "camper" being just two.
If anything, I think these people are letting themselevs be fooled by the game. The whole point of introducing the possibility of loss in a game is to leave the player with a feeling of being treated unfairly. But it is not so.
I think the point when these gamers can admit to defeat and say "I got owned" is the point when they'll start enjoying the game.
The skill required to counter "cheesy" moves often requires more skill than either player actually has. If the "cheeser" had more skill he wouldn't spam one move. If the "cheesee" had more skill he wouldn't be suckered into being killed by it.
(Cue "WELL DUH!" from the article)
The thing is, skill isn't acquired immediately. It's not like you can just "get better" as the article suggests and start kicking ass. If that was the case everyone would be tournament-level material. It takes time, and in the meanwhile, you're faced with a "cheesy" move you can't find a way around.
Plus, fighting a "cheeser" isn't going to increase your skill in the least: The only thing you're going to learn is how to win by spamming one move.
The first time I played Soul Calibur II was the first time I had played any kind of fighting game since Mortal Kombat. And I kicked ass.
Let's face it, these games require very little skill, and this is no accident. There are purposefully two ways to play: one for beginners who aren't even sure which button is kick and which is punch, and one for the people who spend all their time memorizing combo moves. But the thing is, the beginner's technique is often more powerful than any advanced player's most complex combo attack!
Is this a flaw? No, it's definitely a feature, but perhaps it's a feature that a player should be able to turn off. How about customizable rulesets like in Worms? This is an obstacle that can easily be circumvented if the players really want it. But for now, it is part of the game, like it or not.
I have been a casual gamer for about 9 years. I have *always* been by far the worst among the people I play with, at least until a couple of years ago. I never objected to losing, since I knew I was bad at it, and was likely to lose a lot--UNLESS the person who fragged me was camping.
Even when playing against someone of totally unknown relative ability, I don't mind losing so long as they adhere to the same standards as me, which are unwritten rules of polite gaming: don't cheat, don't camp, don't cheese. I enjoy the game, even if I'm losing horribly, but if the reason--whether or not it's the only reason--I'm losing is because my opponent uses cheesy techniques, then it's not so much fun, because the point of those techniques is to never give you a chance to do anything, and thus removes any element of fun from anyone but the cheeser.
I would guess you either never play games, or you are one of these cheesers simply trying to defend your right to keep beating us without having to learn to really play the game.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
"I'm certainly not above all this. Sometimes I can ride a move or two all the way to victory, and it makes me smile... The challenge then, for those who prefer to take the high road, is to find ways to beat them... Don't get mad. Get better."
What a load of crap! This guy just likes to exploit flaws in games for his own advantage. He knows damned well that there are often no effective counters to the cheese moves he's so fond of -- that's why he uses them. He's no better than the people who hop, run, and jump for three hours at a time in FPS games (exploiting the flaw that your character never tires from such acrobatics).
Moral of the story: People suck. They rationalize that whatever they do in the game is okay, whether it's bunny-hopping through FPS games, repetitive moves for which their is no counter, or 60 keystroke macros.
yes, it's bigotry.
But...
this kind of comment really pisses me off...
You proved the bigots right!
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
If these "cheesey" moves are so terrible then why are they in the games in the first place?
Because the games had unforseen consequences to their designs and implementations. That's like saying "if the Code Red worm is so bad, why was Microsoft build in a vulnerability to it in the first place?"
Unless someone is actually cheating, you should STFU.
Someone who abuses a flaw in a game design is cheating.
A better approach, however, may be to use your fist instead of your words to let them know they suck. Many people might do it because they want to here you whining and whatnot, but it might not be worth it if it gets physical.
Then again you could just refuse to play with cheesetards.
Trust Your Technolust
> Someone who abuses a flaw in a game design is cheating.
Is someone who abuses a loophole in the legislature breaking the law?
I would suggest no, though perhaps the law ought to be updated. They are definitely not acting with integrity though...
SURELY NOT!!!!!
It's part of the game, I say. Only the evil, spawn of satan spawn campers have anything aginst them. Geeting sniped every time you go to the enemy base? Try another route, or run in groups so some of you make it to kill the sniper. There isn't really a anti-spawner technique yet, but a throwing kinfe usually works...
SAILING MISHAP
"I can't speak for other redheads, but this kind of comment really pisses me off."
...and there you have the reason for why people think you have a temper. You do. But just for you, we'll make it "stepchild with a different hair color than either the mother or father leading one to wonder whether or not a third party was involved in the conception of said child, and whom is treated poorly by the other members of the family because of his differing hair color and questionable parentage."
and...
"It really doesn't surprise me that redheads have a stereotype of having fiery tempers"
Feel better? If not, you have issues that may require a beer or two to fix.
Whenever I hear of whiners, it brings me back to MK2's heyday. I used to hear people WHINE all the time that if you threw (use throws) that it was cheap and cheesy. This is a pure case of bitchy whining. Hey dopey, if you stay in one spot, crouched and blocking and I'm able to walk right up to you and throw you, I think you need to revise you gameplay tactics :)
Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!
Spawn camping can not be exercised of the team you are trying to camp are aggressive. I frequently play a video game called Team Fortress Classic(a conversion of Team Fortress for Quake for Half-Life :)) where everyone spawn in one or two places most of the time. In the game you have distinct offense/defense roles.
Sometimes a team will put more(all) people on defense than offense, that way the other teams defenders will get bored and go off to the enemy team - not for capping flags though, that's up to the offense, but guess what: They spawn the camp looking for easy kills instead. Yep, that's how it is. On bad servers anyway.
Seems to me that Whining, whether its about cheese or church, is just a shitty, godawful, annoying, painful, crappy, blow-hard thing to do.
Quit WHINING so much people! The Culture of Complaining is weak!
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Most of the early Savage games were predictable; rush forward, get mines, build, and put up some towers to protect what you've built. Specific maps had "the way" to win. Anything else was ignored. After about a month, the commanders figured out that this didn't always work...other commanders were being quite inventive. Sneeky warriors would hide, build a garrison, and use that to attack as a group...swamping the enemy's defenses. Games are now either a few minutes long or up to a good 2 hours. Individual achievements matter; if you don't take out that tower by any means possible...your team won't win! If you don't stand on that bridge and defeat 5+ opponents...your base may fall.
So, the one cheesy move? Bunny hopping in hand-to-hand combat; jumping up and down repeatedly. It takes the skill out of fighting and makes the game much less intesting to play. Players are regularly banned (temporarily) from servers if they do it and don't stop.
Side note: It's only $20 now. Was $40. Servers are fairly well populated, and games of 30-60 are common. Plays on Windows or Linux -- both server and clients.
Trailer video
Gameplay video
Download playable demo
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
In my view, if you're continually beaten by someone doing the exact same thing, maybe you need to learn a new tactic to deal with it. Remember what doing the same thing and expecting different results is a sign of? Stupidity.
Well, I for one do appreciate a fiery redhead -- YAH BABY! YAH!
watch out - you know how they are when they drink.
Keep your packets off my GNU/Girlfriend!
Having played at probably over 100 fighting game tournaments at 8 on the break and other arcades on the east coast during the peak of fighting game popularity (ie 1994 - 1997) I can tell you that all fighting game tournaments come down to a combination of skill, and exploiting an overpowering move or character. Players that refused to embrace a top-tier character never won tournaments and usually were the ones who bitched about cheese. Players that won tournaments could usually play with any character, but embraced the cheesy/exploitable strategies that went with the game. For example:
Mortal Kombat 2 - Most players used Jax (Ground pound was over powered) or Millena (Jump away and air throw sai all day).
Street Fighter Alpha 2 - Most players used Chun Li (insane damage on custom combos) or Ken (alpha counter with glitched range which made it too long)
X-Men vs Street Fighter - People would constantly fly off screen with storm and use her "float" move to stay off screen to charge their super meter then come down, use a super, and fly back off screen.
Killer Instinct - there were a number of infinate combos in KI, which I saw used in tournaments plenty of times.
All in all I see the same crap playing games online today. Go play any FPS and 80% of the players are running around with whichever weapon is overpowered, not to mention the ones that run maphacks, aimbots, etc. Log onto a MMORPG and who usually has the most money? The people who are duping, macroing, or just exploiting stuff in game. A good example is in Star Wars Galaxies, a Jedi who uses their powers in front of any other player is subjected to instant PvP. This means Macroing any of these powers to gain experence while you are AFK is suicide. So, what the Jedi's do is they go inside a large house with a balcony, climb to the top where no one can get them and AFK macro there. While using their powers inside the house would push them outside with a temporary enemy flag to everyone, for some reason on the balcony they are immune. So that is where they camp and level.
The point is, any game with 2 players that isn't co-op is going to have exploits/cheese and the players who exploit the cheese along with having skills in the first place are always on top of the heap.
It means the game is unbalanced. Sure, it's annoying when a player takes advantage of an unfair situation, but that's annoying in any context (I'm certain Musashi Miyamoto's opponents got mad at him for positioning his back to the sun, breaking their swords with dirty tricks and driving them over rocks to get them to fall down).
The point of competitive video games is to defeat your opponent using any means that are within the game rules which are hard-coded. If the rules as they stand offer an unchecked advantage when you pick a certain avatar or whatever, that's a flaw of the game. I wouldn't even call it dishonorable to "cheese". By definition, any good player that uses effective techniques is cheesing.
Actually, it's a reference to Little Orphan Annie; the full expression is 'he/she was smacked around like a red-headed stepchild.'
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Whine complements cheese, it doesn't get rid of it.
The best way to get someone to break an annoying repetitive pattern is to change your strategy to account for theirs. Most "cheese" only works if you follow an expected pattern - ie you have to be playing in earnest while the cheeser just runs through his standard script. If you are required to make the first move, stand still or run away even. If the cheese requires some power-up, deny them that power-up. If it only works with a certain character, pick that character too and do the same thing. Etc...
Take a game like SubSpace. It's fun, sorta addictive, and you get blown to bits several times a minute. You spawn again four seconds later (at least in the zone I usually play), and all is good.
Except there are a select few whiners. There are people that can use fifteen-twenty minutes whining about ONE spawn kill - which, probably, was only a spawn kill because they didn't shoot first.
Why do people do this? I dunno, probably an integral part of the human psyche. Some people use the same strategy over and over, some people whine about, now we sit here whining about the whiners ... See, it's a vicious circle. :)
There is no real solution to it. I dare say there is no game (with any sort of versus mode, that is) where cheesing doesn't save your ass constantly. Of course, a cheesy strategy might be overcome by an even cheesier one. So find it. Read a FAQ if you have to.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Cheesing is simply another strategy for kicking opponent's asses. It might not be the most desirable method, or the one that requires the most skill, but it's still a strategy nontheless.
I was just pointing out what I thought was a gross overreaction, and a comical one at that. I mean, seriously-- getting "really pissed off" about someone having a stereotype of you as "having a temper" is pretty silly in a circular sort of way.
If it will make you feel better, go ahead and mock my racial heritage. Do it all you want! Don't feel bad about it, either, because IT DOESN'T MATTER. What matters is that we recognize the qualities in individuals, and don't get so worked up about it that we end up removing things like "master/slave" and "red-headed stepchild" and "white men can't jump" from our historical and linguistic record. No amount of wishing these things had never been said will make it so-- but you can remove any hurt such a remark may have by simply not giving it that power.
If someone doesn't attack you personally, then don't take it personally.
If you want an "obvious injustice," you might want to look a little farther than your own horizon. If you think the red-headed stepchild remark is an obvious injstice, you might want to look to the Rwandan genocide, or the massive disparity in Redhead-American vs. African-American salary, Apartheid, or the Holocaust. *those* are obvious injustices. Being the butt of jokes is true for everybody, whether your a stiff, awkward, greedy white guy, a "fiery" redhead, an overweight american, a messy bachelor, a gay guy who knows how to decorate, or an old woman who drives too slow, etc... I think it gets spread pretty evenly. If we can't poke fun at eachother without it erupting into this sort of hatred, what does THAT say?
And as to the beer thing, that was unintentional. I really meant that having a couple of beers might be a good way to relax and get over it. See what jumping to racist conclusions gets us? You take an innocent remark like that, and we're so touchy THAT gets labelled racism.
I never actually understood this phrase "redheaded stepchild" - does it really have to do with temper? If so, it seems like the stepchild part is weird and unnecessary. I always thought it meant somebody/thing that was treated poorly and unwanted, but I don't know why redheaded stepchildren would fare worse than any other color-haired stepchild in that regard.
In other words, I would like to close by saying that red hair is hot. Unless you're a guy in which case... never mind, red hair is still hot, I'm just not very likely to kiss you.
In post-9/11 America, the CIA interrogates YOU!
The phrase is older than that, and as far as I can tell, origin unknown, but has recently become fairly popular again. The Golden Smog song a few years back probably helped its prominence.
I've found one older reference - Little Orphan Annie came out in 1932 in its first incarnation, but this play was published in 1931 (from a google search):
| AUTHOR: George, Charles, 1893-1960.
| TITLE: The red-headed stepchild,
| a comedy-drama in three acts,
| PLACE: Chicago,
|PUBLISHER: T.S. Denison & company
| YEAR: 1931
| PUB TYPE: Book
| FORMAT: 108 p. 18 cm.
| SERIES: Denison's select plays
There are a lot of uninformed highly-rated posts already so hopefully I can shed some light.
Regarding shooting Pete Sampras to win in tennis: You wouldn't win the match! That's not legal within the limits of the game. Spawn camping is legal in several FPS games. Maybe the games were designed so poorly that this is the best tactic. If that's the case, you should do it better than your opponent if you want to win. If that means the game is not "fun" anymore, then play a better game. Possible within the rules of a game by definition DOES mean allowable (including exploiting bugs). Competitive games are about winning within the rules of the game... if you make up your own rules about honor, you are playing a different game that you've made up && you have no basis in reality or even agreeable reason. Scrubs cry "unfair!" but they just need an excuse to soften the blow that they can't defeat a simple tactic or that their game does not stand up well to serious competition. Do you want to win or whine?
Regarding Soul Calibur II requiring very little skill: Think again. Soul Calibur II was designed to have a more gradual learning curve than most other fighters on purpose to be easy to pick up but don't kid yourself in thinking your "beginner attacks" could in any dreamworld be "more powerful than any advanced player's most complex combo attack". You are way off base. If this is your opinion, I know I could defeat you 63/0 with one hand. Enter a competition to test your theory rather than replying with some anecdotal evidence about your living room experiences.
Regarding "cheese" practitioners having the capacities of "script kiddies": What do you say to someone who wins tournaments against the best players in the world with your so-called "cheese"? That they have no skill? They may have the best execution skill of anyone on the planet && also the best understanding of the game to know the greatest tactic (which could be a simple one). You're right that a simple tactic is often easily defeated so anyone wishing to win should figure it out but just because a tactic seems simple doesn't mean it's not the best thing (which you should do too && do better if you want to win).
Regarding fighting a "cheeser" isn't going to increase your skill in the least: Of course it will increase your skill if you constantly experiment with all the tools (moves) at your disposal in order to find the best counter. In Soul Calibur II particularly, almost every move in the game (including throw attempts) can be parried (called Guard Impact in SC2 terminology) which was designed in as a balancing feature. If you know when someone will attack next, you have the advantage. Studying even a simple tactic in order to either emulate or defeat it does make you a better player. You explore areas of the game you might not have needed to otherwise. Isn't this obvious?
Regarding "riding a move or two all the way to victory" as the same thing as "exploiting flaws in games": If a game has a design flaw, then it is not a good game. Get over it. If there are moves in a game that are arguably the best tactics, you will learn, practice, && execute them consistently if you want to win. Your fake morality about some arbitrary realism element in FPS (players not getting tired from jumping) is foolish. Jumping is a fair part of those games. If you think games should penalize jumpers with noticable fatigue, write such a game && play it. Otherwise, you're just making up your own weird rules that most reasonable people wouldn't even agree are right. Are you playing a game? What are the rules of THAT game? I'm not asking what you think the rules SHOULD be or what you wish they were. Nobody knows your made up rules except you && I bet your rules change even on you once you start getting beat by some other tactic. Learn to play the real game.
My close friend, David Sirlin, has written four popular articles on this
My "twitch" reflexes aren't very good. This means that I -really- suck at close-quarters combat in most first-person shooters. So, I grab the sniper rifle and head for the hills. It's amazing how many bunny-hoppers will sit still for a head shot as soon as they think nobody's watching.
The thing is, I make no secret of this. In fact, I don't like "perfect" sniping spots. If you can't hit me, the game's no fun. I think the UT "lightning gun" was a beautiful compromise for snipers. My goal is to make people cringe and cower every time they enter an area with an overhead vantage point. Their extra paranoia (often justified) slows 'em down enough that I actually have a chance when I do come down to ground level.
My preferred vantage point is on the top floor of a level within sight of the elevator or top of the stairs. That means that I have to watch my back and be ready whenever I hear the elevator. It also means that when I reveal that strategy after the game, the guy who was hit with half a dozen head shots -really- kicks himself. >:-)
--
When I played Archon on my Commodore 64, I was able to kill every piece on the board with just the unicorn. So I did. All the time.
Against human players, I could basically do the same thing (well, until they caught on). But, once they killed my unicorns, I was screwed, since I had no more cheese.
If there's an easy-but-powerful move in a game, the best thing you can do is learn how best to counter it.
I've put a great many hours into Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter, Soul Calibur, Q3A, etc., and in all those games, there are "cheesy" moves, but they're not unbalancing for a hardened fighter.
OTOH, there are times when there's a bug in a game that gives one side an advantage. Eg. In EA's NHL 93 or 94, if you circled the goal while being the player defending the "bottom" goal (IIRC, could be the other way 'round), the goalie would get "stuck" and leave the goal wide open every time. And being a console game, no patching :-/
But bugs that benefit one side are rare, and anything that's not a bug is fair game.
Yes, even spawn point sniping! If some jerk is sniping spawn points, fucking punish him. There's no reason you can't say, "Hey everyone, gang up on FUckfAce until he quits spawn point sniping!"
Besides, any time spawn point sniping is beneficial enough to win a match, said match simply wasn't intense enough. Don't whine like a pussy, get better!
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Redheads are stereotyped as tempermental (fiery) and more likely to anger a parent. I've known a few that fall into that stereotype, but also a couple that don't (one of them is so mellow he reminds me of a pothead more than redhead). Once you meet one that hits the stereotype, though, you know where this phrase comes from. I have a scar on my arm from being bitten by one to prove it - I had grabbed her arm to buy a few seconds of time for a friend so we could see a picture that she didn't want us to see (and believe me, the only person who thought it was a big deal was her and it certainly wasn't worth the look).
The stepchild part is because stepchildren are more likely to be abused, because they're not the father's (or mother's if the mother is the abuser) own flesh-and-blood. I had heard this part originated from a study on abuse, but I don't know where or when such a study was done.
And your analogies to real life are ridiculous. In real life tennis or whatnot, there are rules. Shooting someone in the knee is against the rules. If you did that in a real match, you'd be disqualified, and then arrested. In an FPS, the rules are built into the game and breaking them would consist of using an aim bot, turning off clipping, seeing through walls, etc., all which require modifying the game in some manner.
Now don't get me wrong, an admin is free to add rules to the game, or even remove rules! If you want to ban spawn camping on your server, more power to you. In fact, it's not a bad idea, as it will force the pathetic campers to get better, and when everyone is better, cheesy tactics won't work so well anymore. Similarly, if you want to allow disabling of clipping and seeing through walls, well, have fun with that.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
If you're in a tournament or something where the entire goal of the game is to win at all costs, that's one thing. Cheese away. But when you're having a friendly game with somebody, it's just no fun to be repeatedly pinned to the wall and destroyed. Eventually, that person's just not going to want to play anymore. Just a thought. And I just realized that "pinned to the wall" could be taken any of a few ways.
What is the natural history of the infamous red-headed stepchild? Where did this line of homo sapien subspecies arise? Ireland? Madagascar?
Vote in November. You won't regret it.
How about the kids that played Mortal Kombat and used Scorpion's harpoon attack or played Street Fighter II, chose M. Bison, and used the Psycho Cruncher and slide kick.
Many fights were started at my local arcade for such instances. And people wonder why the arcade is dying.
Well, I play alot of games online, and I get to experience alot of gamers. I even run a small gaming guild online. I have always liked to play games against other people, and I usually try to be competitive. I've found that you can always identify newer players because they, uniformly, belive the following things:
1. You have the rules of the game, that everyone knows, and in a computer game they cannot (usually) be broken.
2. In addition to the rules of the game that are clearly laid out, there is another subset of 'unwritten rules' that act much like a code of honor.
3. Each new player has his own little version of these unwritten rules, and cries foul each time that their own version of the rules is broken.
4. These new players that play by two sets of rules consistently, and without fail, LOSE. ALL THE TIME.
Such players will continue to lose until they see the light, and move on to the next level of gaming: playing only by the game's rules rather than their own.
I.E. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CHEESE
Now, I don't know about you, but I dislike losing. If your goal when you play a game online is to make up some sort of imaginary rule-set for yourself and the other people you are playing with, and then proceed to bitch and moan when these rules are violated, then go right ahead and do so. I won't stop you. In fact, I will aid you by becoming the person you can bitch and moan about.
However, if your goal in playing online games is to experience the evolution of learning that good games put the player through; to practice the process of ability refinement, knowledge, and experience in a game; to just become better, then you might want to put that childish subset of rules behind you and step into a truer gaming experience.
I firmly believe that games are thorougly healthy pursuits, and that in them you can practice many of the skills that make you successful in real life in a short amount of time. That is why I still play them, and that is why I try to play every game I play well.
Perhaps thats why you lose consitantly. Because you believe in an artificial standard in games. In a RTS you'r problbly the one who says "20 min no rush", in a fps your problbly claiming "everyone is hacking". Most campers have limited ability. Camping in death match means you'll likly get out paced by everyone else in kills, while in a team enviroment thier servince a purpose guarding somethign important. as for spawn camping, it's rather difficult to keep well stocked and spawn all the spawn points. Don't like spawn camping, play CS. No power ups to camp, spawns are too far away, and if you camp an area your more or less doing your job and likly to get shot in the back by a flanker.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
SC and SC2 are interesting examples, because they contain an anti-cheese technique, the Guard Impact, or GI.
The idea is, if a player uses the same move over and over and over again, their timing will become regularized. If his opponent takes notice of this, he can attempt to press towards and Guard at the same time to perform a GI, parrying the attack. This leaves the attacker wide open for a heart-stopping half-second, and the defender can then launch a counter-attack the only defense to which is performing another Guard Impact.
It's a little more complicated than this (low hits must be GI'd low, and there's also a feint version that uses back+Guard), but that's generally how it works. Even some unblockable moves can be GI'd, as can throws. And throws have their own escape move as well.
SC 2 had easier GI timing than SC 1, while still making it difficult to pull off. However, most casual players don't know they exist, and even some people who play the game a lot are either ignorant of them or think they're unimportant. In fact, they can seriously rule. One GI can be enough for a sharp player to go from being behind to winning.
One comment the commentator made was on the difference between how Korean and American players deal with cheese tactics. He said that the American would probably say "OMG!! This cheese is so imba! Nerf it! NERF IT!!!!!" while the Korean would probably say "Ok folks, there's this new cheesy strat going around. What's the best way to beat it?"
There are two main points that this comment brings up.
- First, many pro players are most likely accucstomed to cheese exposure that they see it as a normal part of the game. As one guy once said, "If it's in the game, it's in the game."
- And second, this got me thinking as to how other cultures deal with this. Starcraft is so huge in Korea, it's practicaly a spectator sport. I would assume that many cheese strats have popped up in public pro matches here and there. Of course, not being able to speak any asian languages, I cannot be certain as to what they say about certain imbalances in competitive games.
But I guess the main point that I'm sure others have pointed out, is that the only thing more annoying than cheese, are the people who do nothing but bitch about it.No one likes losing but there are different ways to lose. You can lose to a legitimately better player who is faster and more knowledgable about the game as a whole. That is a fair loss. Or you can lose cheaply. To someone that just sits there and has fast reflexes but thats it. They know one move and can do it faster than you can react. That is a cheap kill. The best way to deal with these people is to refuse to play against them. Tell them they are cheap players and find another opponent.
I'm all for a fair fight. I have no problem losing in a fair fight. But I refuse to play with people who win because of a glitch in the game or some other unfair advantage. I don't call that cheese, I call it cheating. If a game lets you drive through a brick wall that doesn't mean you should drive through the brick wall to win a round. That is not cheese, that is cheating.
I wonder if the soldiers that were storming the beaches complained about the germans in the bunkers with MG-42s shooting them before they got off the boat...
I hate Nazi spawn-campers.
They way I see it, you have some people to whom winning will always be the most important thing, and those people will employ the most efficient means to achieve that end. Tough on all of us.
In my experience it's possible to use a proven repetitive tactic to achieve a "win" condition in lots of games. Yie-ar-Kung-Fu was the first game to teach me that. It's a personal decision as to whether you want to employ that tactic. The "win" payoff may exceed the "boredom" problem of the game no longer being challenging. It's not cheating, but it's not always fun.
A lot of the time you need to experiment a lot to find the right move or moves. Many times, these are exploits of unforseen conditions in the game world, weaknesses, or at worst, actual bugs. Finding and exploiting these within the rules of the game world can, in itself, be a skill. Sometimes it's just dumb luck. Either way, these tactics are usually far from obvious.
Online games carry an exponential risk of these "exploits" being perpetuated. As more and more users participate simultaneously in the game, people actively watch and copy successful tactics they see being employed. The first time I played Diablo online, I had been instructed on how to "dupe" items within about an hour of play. I might never have discovered this flaw left to my own devices.
A less serious example was the first few games of RtCW I played - mp beach was the first place I saw the Allies jumping on one another to vault the beach wall. This may have been forseen by the designers but I doubt it. It meant that, as Axis, you needed to be ready for it - fast. Is this a "cheesy" tactic? Borderline, I think.
This issue stems mainly from the fact that most on-line environments are permissive in their approach. In other words, if it's possible to do something, then it's allowable/acceptable. I think that's just a challenge that all players need to accept.
If you want to be vocal about it, tell the people who can rewrite the game to make the tactics unlawful be making them impossible, or "nerfing" their effectiveness (the idea of respawn temporary invulnerability made elsewhere in this thread is a good one). In-game bitching about it (unless you can poll for the offender to be kicked) achieves nothing and usually quickly degenerates into a pissing contest - making the issue worse, not better.
Personally, I like the idea of giving players the maximum amount of freedom to explore possibilities in the game to find effective tactics. The best games, however, are ones in which there are no single tactics or routines which cannot, ultimately, be countered or prevented.
jroop
I definitely agree. The problem with most people who complain about cheese is that they find one tactic they can't immediately find a counter for, rush to the assumption that the game is unbalanced, and then demand everyone quit using that strategy. The problem is that most of the time the game *isn't* unbalanced (at least not in the way they think), and that good players can counter these "cheese" tactics with their eyes closed. I play a tabletop game called Mechwarrior:Dark Age. There are many in the online fan community who complain loudly about a "cheese" tactic called "artillery turtle." Problem is, artillery turtles are very easy for good players to beat. Occasionally people will show up at local tournaments with armies built around these tactics, assuming that since people on the net say it's unbeatable, it must be good. Myself and a few other players just smash them without much thought, then explain to them why those tactics don't work. We've tried explaining this to people online, but the response we usually get is that whoever we were talking with just repeats their complaints more loudly, rather than trying to debunk what we're saying. At this point, we find it much easier to just defeat these people at tournaments, and try to ignore their whining as much as possible.
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
If you're losing to someone in a game and find them to be a one trick pony, doesn't that say more about your ability as a player than theirs? That is, if they can beat you with the same trick again and again, why should they tip their hand and show you any of their other tricks?
Generally, I find "cheap" to be gamerese for "I lost, but I don't want to admit that someone better beat me." Obviously, genuine game bugs are a (rare) exception.
So? Go sue someone, you oversensitive moron.
I don't get very many opportunities to play against human opponents, but I can get VERY good at playing against the computer. The problem that the computer has is that it's often very susceptible to very simple and easy to do moves. Dead or Alive is a prime example of this. I was able to easily beat the computer over and over with just a jump kick. My cousin wasn't able to easily beat the computer. However, when a human opponent came up, for the lack of a better term: I got my ass kicked. Almost every time. Same thing happened in Soul Caliber 2. In MvC2 I can easily beat the computer to the point that I stopped improving, but any human opponent with any skill killed me (I don't remember the last win I pulled off).
I'd personally like it if the computer characters had AI that changes personality. Take the beta testers, and use thier styles to shape various AI setups. It'll make the player be more well rounded and fill holes in thier style.
When it comes to playing the computer, being cheesy is just too easy.
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
Instead of presenting a counter-argument, you're already attacking my credibility. What's up with that?
If you can't beat a person who relies only on camping or on cheesy techniques, why should you expect to do so? Camping and cheesing are legitimate and good techniques that present a real challenge to some players. Like yourself. Demanding that players stop using these techniques is like demanding a handicap.
I've seen your other posts on this topic, and you seem to have an interesting take on the word "flaw." People who abuse bugs are indeed cheating, but your view is absurdly wide. Constantly jumping because characters don't get tired? Give me a fuckin break.
As long as you're only whining about camping in deathmatch games, I'm fine with it. What really pisses me off is whining about camping in team-based games! Uh, hello people, that's not "camping" that's "defending." I'm not "camping the flag" I'm defending it to keep it from getting taken! That's part of the design of the game!
I've gotten accused of camping for defending a power node in Unreal 2004 Onslaught mode, and it boggles my mind. Why *wouldn't* our team want to defend power nodes? Especially the important one at the middle?
Anyway, rant over.
Comment of the year
I suppose camping is a derivative of Cheesing here.
:^)
Personally, I'm a camper. I like dark maps, dark corners, boxes to hide behind, etc. And I just love catching the same person 3 times in a row in the exact same spot. They spawn, run into room, I get them from behind box. They respawn, run into room, I get them from behind same box. They respawn, run into room, I get them from behind same box. Then they tell me I've got no skill
I play warcraf III a lot. I use strategies with a lot of variety because I bore easily. But thinks liek hero rushes of even zerg rushes in Sc I can beat with my eye closed because I grown past the point where i'm vulnerable to that. Thus they go for a short term gamble to try to gain an atvantage later and it ussualyl back fires. I'd love to see the expression of the faces of the players who just lost 12 zealots in a 3v3 to me and my 1 sunken. Or when I lay the smack down on a team of hero harrassers with my 1 tower and my puny lich. There are conters in most well thought out games.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
I've seen your other posts on this topic, and you seem to have an interesting take on the word "flaw."... Constantly jumping because characters don't get tired?
Good example. The designers of FPS games like UT2003/4 gave players the ability to run, walk, jump, and crouch. They gave them the ability to stand still as well. Obviously, they did not design the game with the intent that people would run and jump continuously. If I wanted to play a game where the "targets" jumped wildly in all directions at high speed, I would have purchased something like a shooting gallery game rather than a first-person shooter.
Give me a fuckin break.
You are quite the eloquent writer, aren't you?
The designers of FPS games like UT2003/4 gave players the ability to run, walk, jump, and crouch. They gave them the ability to stand still as well. Obviously, they did not design the game with the intent that people would run and jump continuously.
Ummm, right. Try standing still in a UT map with even a few decent players, and see where that gets you. In any good FPS, if you're not moving constantly, you're toast. One of the best things about the genre is the high-adrenaline, superkinetic rush of playing it. Personally, I think constantly leapfrogging when you're not being chased by someone is retarded and makes you look like an asshat. I also don't find it any more difficult to plant a rocket in someone like that than I do someone who's usually on the ground.
It sounds like the real issue here is that you're not very good, and it's easier for you to blame something insignificant like continuous jumping than it is for you to improve as a player. Does your jump key not work or something? If you feel that it gives others such an advantage (and it really doesn't), then why not use it?
You are quite the eloquent writer, aren't you?
Only when the situation necessitates it. In this case, the old "garbage in, garbage out" adage seems to apply.
It used to be called "cheap", not "cheese".
WTF?
No, I lose consistently because I just can't move as fast or as accurately as the "serious" gamers. I will never be able to understand how people can build up an army so fast in Starcraft. I've looked for tips on best balance for a fast startup, and not been able to find anything particularly helpful. That doesn't mean I say "20 min no rush"--it means I've stopped playing Starcraft on Battle.net, because dying in under 5 mins isn't much fun. I only play LAN games against people I know have similar skill levels to my own.
I will admit that I haven't played most of the more recent FPS games--my favourite will always be the Marathon series. It's possible that the newer ones have made camping less profitable with balance changes, I don't know. But what's never changed is these 2 facts: 1) people do it, 2) it detracts from everyone else's fun.
It's not that I believe in some "artificial standard" unique to me. As you can see from many people here, and as you would know if you paid attention to the people yelling at you when you do it, it's quite broadly accepted that camping and cheese are bad.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
Actually, I attacked your credibility after I presented a counter-argument.
And, like I said, you have totally missed the point. There are plenty of people who feel that camping and cheesing are not "legitimate and good techniques." I refuse to use techniques like that, and so do most of the people I play with, at least when they play with me (obviously, I don't know how they play otherwise). They are techniques that game the system, rather than actually trying to build up a real strategy. Sure, you can win like that, but if you have to use techniques that entirely negate the skill of the other player to do so, then what's the point?
It's one thing if, when you're playing against someone with much more skill and experience, you use clever strategies to minimize the situations where he can bring it to bear. But camping and cheesing (which, by my definition, is generally repeated use of techniques that prevent your opponent from actually doing anything) entirely remove the skill element.
Someone else remarked, quite cogently, that cheesers are very much like script kiddies. Since they don't have any real skills, they find a predefined formula and follow that over and over again.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
I know what you mean now, and I see that you and I simply disagree on what the point is.
What you're describing is a game within the game... Since you don't use the techniques you describe, you've established a rule that noone else can use them either. This might be acceptable, of course, but I think you should be understanding when someone doesn't want to play YOUR game.
As for the second and third argument; you're implying that camping and cheesing aren't skills, which is wrong. They're skills that can lead a player to victory, and especially against players like you. If a player can successfully make you annoyed and frustrated about his style of playing, he's increased his chance of winning and lowered yours.
All in all I think you fail to justify why players should only use the techniques that you've preselected. I think you're just a sore loser.
Quit your bitchin' or I'll beat you like a rented red-headed step-mule.
Even so, if you want to be good, it's not about how serious you are or how much tiem you put in. Being great is dependant on time, being good is about a minset.
In starcraft the rush is 1 strat new players can't counter. because it happens fast. But it rarly works against anyone with any skill(ladder 1100 and up).
Your admission that you stopped means you will never get better. I'm at a very average skill level but I can overcome the cheese, the key is to play and to lose. Lose and lose and lose and learn from your lose. Eventually you'll find your reflexes getting better, your timing improves. You can predict the cheese and coutner and eventually you can beat most people online.
I play Warcraft casually but I own literally all my friends. I'm not all twitchy but I have an enlightened view of the AI and play deep strategy learned form Starcraft. I play Starcraft casually as well. In every Counter strike game or Quake game I'm 2nd or 3rd because I choose a strat suitable to my skills. I'm nto good twitchy but I can be a good observer so I'm a flanker, I take odd routes to try and surprise the enemy.
I don't have mad skillz or mad reflexes but I'm a compeditor. I don't want to be good according to my rules, I want to be good according to the games rules. And no madder how many people share the same idea that "throwing is cheap" or "he's a camping shithead", it won't change the fact he owns you and that you two are playing different games. You will find players with skill won't complain, they will get even whiel all the low skill players whine.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
I played tournament-level Soul Calibur, and I currently play Soul Calibur 2 in tournaments. I also worked in an arcade for about 5 years, so I am familiar with the complaints and rages of people who claim "cheese."
Most people who play fighting games in the United States, at least in arcades, are mashers. These are the people who bring about the premature death of the controls of machines by cranking the stick and smashing the buttons. These people often hit them harder and faster at times, thinking it will somehow make them do better.
There are also 3-move players who figure out a few moves that are really effective and use them over and over. I remember back in Street Fighter, I'd see people accused of "cheap" of "cheese" because they did a lot of low sweeps. Of course, their opponent didn't understand about blocking low, or jumping over the attack, but no, because they weren't winning it was "cheese" or "cheapness."
I saw a few comments here saying that games like Soul Calibur were designed to be easy. That's quite far from the truth. Just because Joe Blow and Jim Blow can mash the buttons and get lots of moves to come out doesn't mean the game is easy.
I also saw a few comments about how newbs to the game or buttons mashers can win against good players. This is also completely false, and is a myth perpetuated by mashers winning against people who think they are good, but in actually just know a few moves. I've never lost to a masher in all my years of playing Soul Calibur and Soul Calibur 2. They don't understand the concepts of the game, like guarding, tech rolling, air controlling, and the like. I just hit them once, which is easy enough, and just hit them as they get up over and over, because I understand the game and they don't.
Many people don't understand the level of strategy and knowledge needed to play the game well. I picked a character from Soul Calibur 2 at random: Xianghua, and counted up her moves. She has around 120. On http://www.soulcalibur.com/forums/ , you can find system directory posts that are full of technical data. Want to know how many frames moves are, how to air control, how to tech roll, how to exorcism cancel with Taki? It's all there, compiled by the good players of the game around the world.
I mention Soul Calibur only because I know it well, but games like Virtua Fighter 4: Evolution contain the same depth, just with a different engine. They too have forums with technical data, they too never have their good players lose against mashers.
Now, of course, sometimes game-breaking tactics are found, which is nothing but a lack of good testing on the game developer's side. In Soul Calibur 2, upon arcade release, a couple of the characters had infinite combos (in other words, you hit them with a move, and then you could just continue hitting them and kill them without them being able to escape). However, this was obviously banned from tournament play, and was fixed by Namco in the next arcade version. No masher or newbie to the game ever used these though, because they didn't understand the system enough to know it was there.
Games are hard to balance, but the majority of players never devote enough time and thought to them to actually see what the real issues are. Heck, I remember thinking vultures were worthless in StarCraft, and then I started watching tournament replays and reading strategy forums. I soon realized how much I had to learn.
in soulcalibur 1 im pretty devistating with sigfried, my advantage isnt cheese but the ablity to adapt and be willing to learn (same goes for nightmare in SC 2) if i get whomped by somthing cheesey i have been known to ask the other person to do it again so that i may pratice and find away to avoid it and resume trounceing. i have one friend that plays bloody roar 3 non stop (dont ask me why i dont get it either) and he gets mad at me when i play him because i actully circle strafe instead of trying to block/ dodge his crazy combos i get outta the way and punch him in the back of hte head =D it frustrates him to no end... quite funny really
It sounds like the real issue here is that you're not very good, and it's easier for you to blame something insignificant like continuous jumping than it is for you to improve as a player.
I'm not very good at it. I don't spend untold hours practicing. I don't have superhuman reflexes. I'm just an average player. But it's not that important. My self-esteem doesn't hinge on how many frags I get in UT or where I stand in the rankings. I play games to have fun -- that's all. Are you perhaps using your self-proclaimed prowess at FPS games to make up for some other area where you feel inadequate?
Does your jump key not work or something? If you feel that it gives others such an advantage (and it really doesn't), then why not use it?
It might give me an advantage in chess to distract my opponent with twitching, loud coughing, wheezing, and a day-glo orange shirt. But I don't do it because it's a despicable way to win the game -- even if it's not specifically against the rules.
Only when the situation necessitates it. In this case, the old "garbage in, garbage out" adage seems to apply.
Please don't blame me for your vulgarity. You came up with that all on your own.
Your missing th epoint, your anology of coughing and weezing is liek using a map hack or a wall hack. What he means is more like your cryign foul because you can't use the knight as well as your opponent can so you tell him knights are cheap.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Anyone remember Primal Rage? That was a (fairly average) fighting game with dinosaurs. If you started using the same move (or combo, in some cases) over and over again, it would flash a No Cheese icon on the screen and disallow that move for a while. Pretty cool - it made you mix things up a bit, and kept the game interesting.
Maybe that's the point. If the game gets too repetitive, it gets too boring, and people get too pissed off with it to have any fun.
Attack its weak point for massive damage!
It is extremely difficult to be "cheesy" in SC2, at least, at anything other than a beginner level. Being predictable is exactly what will get the bajeezus beaten out of you -- once the other person gets your timing down, they will guard-impact you and proceed to beat you senseless.
As for characters that just have combos with a number of hits, like Ivy or Sophitia or Xiang Hua, that's just part of the character's style.
A game that allows a player to be "cheesy" is, IMHO, flawed.
May we never see th
When you beat someone with tactics that they are unprepared for and not experienced in countering, they get frusterated and angry.
It happened to the British in the American Revolutionary War -- "hiding behind trees and rocks is unfair and cowardly!".
It happened to the US in Vietnam -- "using ununiformed troops and ability to blend into civilian environments is unfair and cowardly!"
Now it's happening to the US again in the form of bin Laden's tactics -- hit and run, avoiding allowing the enemy to get a good swing at you, attacking vulnerable points.
War is war. It is not a card game. If you want to play a limited strategy game where certain behavior is prohibited and you want to see who wins with such constraints and you have agreed on such behavior, with either technological or social power to enforce these constraints, that's one thing. If someone is playing an FPS, they should by default expect someone not to make the most of the map, the game system, their abilities, and the weaknesses in that player's own playing style.
May we never see th
I totally agree. I don't particularly relish spawncamping with a tank or similar overpowered weapon, but it's part of the games. BF1942 has a particular weakness to this tactic, but basically since the enemy controls the spawnpoint, you have to spawn somewhere else and regain control from there. It's tactic, not cheating. And sniping or camping is a legitimate military tactic which makes each soldier effective. Charging across Omaha Beach in the open with a Thompson submachine gun is simply a great way to die over and over. It 's better to use up your enemy's tickets with sniper shots until you've worn out the timer enough that you can rush a bunch of flags. I get irritated as well when people call out accusations of camping diring team-play. It's idiotic bitchy whining.
Your problem has nothing to do with "cheese" (I can understand cheating complaints, where there is clearly a bug in the implementation, but that's different). I can think of very few games that actually do not provide you with any way to counter "cheesy" tactics. Many are difficult to counter, and may force you to lose once you make one initial mistake (failing to counter something), but it sounds more like you are simply out of your depth.
:-) ), but I do not have the time or interest to put in a game that a fifteen-year-old kid will have. That doesn't mean that I want to continue to play a game where I keep losing (especially if they keep losing).
Your problem is that you are playing with people who play more than you do, and have a higher skill level. As a result, you are not having fun. Most people would feel the same way. I played Team Fortress until I got at least passable at it, but I still can't even touch the really good players.
The problem is threefold:
(a: Psyche) People like to win more than they lose. People like to play against other people because they provide an "AI" unparalleled in complexity. This is bound to produce problems. I think that the only answer to this is a modification of game design -- either produce cooperative multiplayer games (Halo, for instance, is not all that fantastic or balanced in competitive mode, but is a very good cooperative game), produce games with scores rather than binary "win/lose" conditions, or play games that have multiple players, but the player is competing against their own historical behavior in some way, rather than the other players.
(b: Timeframe) Once a game has been out for a while, there will be people that purchased the game and played it day in and day out. As a result, they will be more experienced than anyone else. This makes it very difficult to "get in" on an older multiplayer competitive game. (Note that I find that team-based games can help alleviate this -- your teammates can pick up some of the slack while you learn what's going on, and many such games let you make useful contributions without being a top dog yet).
(c: Dedication) I like to win (feels good
Now, there are a lot of things that have changed. "Camping" was a real problem back in the days of, say, Quake 1, but games have been improved to largely avoid (or seriously alleviate) "camping". Cheating everyone objects to. "Cheese" is simply (if I had to come up with a definition) apparently not-difficult tactics that are difficult to counter.
I think that generally, complaining about "cheesy" tactics is a bad idea. Games are designed and balanced better these days. On the other hand, playing a game that is intended to be open-ended and allow you to try many different tactics, and then forcing you to work on one particular difficult tactic to counter someone's "cheesy" tactic is, obviously, less fun. However, if we expect people to follow unwritten rules, we create a lot of problems -- especially since what one person considers "cheesy", another does not. That, I think, means a lot of arguments in the brewing.
The Quake server design (and similar games) fixes some of this. Server operators can choose parameters for the game they serve, so players can play a game in which the tactics that they consider "cheesy" are reduced in strength or less worthwhile.
In general, though, I think that the game rules should be considered to be like the written law that we abide by in Real Life -- there is significant value in adhering to that law, simply because everyone recognizes a single line of legality and illegality.
If, of course, you want to agree ahead of time to play with certain constraints with someone (if you can do it, in an unwritten manner), it's quite reasonable to play like this. If you want to play with a good friend, and both of you hate tank-rushers, and you have both been consciously avoiding tank-rushing each other for a year, then it seems reasonable to expect that frie
May we never see th
Yeah, i've copped that shit plying BF:V and DC online. It is not camping, it's trying to hold a spawn point/flag, ffs. Although, I have noticed how frustrating it can be in both BF:V and BF1942/DC to be down to your last spawn and have the opposing team covering it with snipers, napalm drops and artillery. It's frustrating, and makes some people VERY upset, but the reality is you wouldn't be in that position if you could hold on to your spawn points anyway. If you've been driven back to your final spawn, what do you want the opposition to do, hold off shooting your players till you even it up? Never gonna happen. And you know what? It shouldn't either. That's life, kids.
Never fight naked, unless you're in prison...
Do you like to dip your ginger nuts into your cup of tea?
Any cheating like this could easily be captured and worked around in playtesting, it's not like it's difficult to fix. It just smacks of lazy programming.
More to the point...there ARE games with nearly _infallible_ strategies, which are VERY akin to game flaws. Hell, I don't think I've crossed a football game yet that accurately simulates a real passing game...practically every one out there you can throw 40 yards passes every down and expect at least one to complete.
Cheese IS a reality, and it really _DOES_ detract from the enjoyment of a game. The passing conundrum is a perfect example. Here I am, wanting to play a true-to-life, semi-realistic game of football, but once my opponent learns all he has to do is pass deep all game, what's the point of playing then? Why not just release a game called "Throw the Ball Far"?
Meh, you people make me sick. We don't whine. We just want enjoyment from the game, winning is not that big a concern.
The expression refers to the fact that;
a) people are more likely to prefer their own blood children than a stepchild
b) people are more likely to prefer a blonde/brunette than an ugly redhead
So basically when you say 'beaten like a redheaded stepchild' you are saying 'treated like the least desirable of all things'.
I've been playing games near 15 years, I've seen it all from Mario kart to Mario sunshine. I've seen every cheesy tactic ever used and they all have one thing in common.
NO COUNTER. 99% of the moves are used because they are near impossible to counter. Thats the whole point of using them, if there was a counter then people would know it and use it. It's like Bowazons in Diablo 2 before the latest patch. They were near untouchable with the Buriza.
I refuse to give these people the name "gamers". They are cheats, I could exploit a bug in Windows to screw there PCs up. Does that make it fine? No. Why should I have my game ruined by 5-6 medics bunny hopping all over my base so you can't handle all 6 at once?
Online gaming is making it so you can't punch people for doing this. You can't walk out (at least it wouldn't matter to them) and generally it's like playing single player now. As far as they are concerned they may as well be playing against bots, plus they arealways the people who suck upto the admins, like hell so they can get you banned through sheer wait of numbers whining about you telling them to stop throwing grenades into your spawn over and over.
--- [Insert intresting Sig here]
Are you perhaps using your self-proclaimed prowess at FPS games to make up for some other area where you feel inadequate?
When did this degrade into a series of personal attacks? Seriously, it doesn't much help your cause at all, and it adds nothing of value to the discussion.
I never claimed to have any great amount of skill in playing FPS games. I don't even really like them, to be honest.
It might give me an advantage in chess to distract my opponent with twitching, loud coughing, wheezing, and a day-glo orange shirt... even if it's not specifically against the rules.
Actually, it might be. I'm sure there are indeed rules regarding player conduct during a match in any kind of serious match play. I'd also contest the validity of that analogy: a player's conduct in chess is extraneous to the game itself, while jumping techniques and such are things that actually happen within the game.
Please don't blame me for your vulgarity. You came up with that all on your own.
Blame you for my vulgarity? No. Lack of eloquence? Probably.
in foil fencing, people who constantly use the same attack/defence only beat opponents who don't yet know how limited they are. Any attack or defense can be deadly when executed with appropriate timing and speed (timing being most important, even slow attacks can land if the timing is right). But when that attack or defense is anticipated, it becomes much more difficult to pull off. Watching a potential opponent for a bout or two will give you a good idea of what they are likely to do. Novices usually try to pull some kind of move to get a point, and they try it on everybody. Same thing applies to fighting games, although there is much less skill involved... The problem with some fighting games is that the fighting engine does not properly balance attack/defense capabilities, allowing certain moves to be impossible or too difficult to defend against. Every attack or attack combination should have some kind of defense/counter attack. This is usually not the case in video games. (your defense options are: run away, or hit block) Fencing has developed over hundreds of years, fighting video games have not been around quite as long.
TallGreen CMS hosting
I never understood it to have anything to do with the chip on the redhead's shoulder, merely the fact that they were not the (abusive) father's son; and this fact is that much more obvious since the kid's hair color is different from the (more-typically-colored) father. In other words, a redhead is a more obvious cuckoo.
demi
In Return To Castle Wolfenstein multiplayer, on the beach map, there are people at the start of the game run directly to the war room and hide. They then spend 30 minutes staring at doors while standing on file cabinet to protect the documents. They say the same as you do.
I guess I just play for fun, rather than winning. (not to slam what you just said, because I agree with it)
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.