I doubt that it’s true that it’s simply a matter of clicking a memorized sequence of moves fast enough. It would be incredible if high-level play did not require sending observers/scouts out into the map in order to be aware of what your opponent is doing, adjusting your strategy accordingly.
But maybe you’re right. I hardly ever play these games anymore, and never played at anything like a high level.
If it turned out that there is a single, always-winning strategy, in which the only question is who can click through the strategy faster, then I think that would mean the game itself, as programmed, is ultimately not a strategy game. You can sort of eke out an idea that we can play this other game, a similar game, that is a strategy game, as long as we play against people who don’t know how to win the game-as-programmed. But what exactly the nature of that game is, what its rules are and so on, is very hard to say. It’s not clear to me that such a game coheres together with intelligible and consistent rules at all.
My friend’s wife insists that putting spin on the ball amounts to cheating at ping pong. It has risen to the level of “marital issue,” since they have a table in the basement.
In my experience it’s practically impossible not to spin a ping pong ball… :dubious:
Actually, he does know exactly where to draw the line. It’s the same place all of the scrubs draw the line:
When the “cheap” act makes a formerly interesting and fun game uninteresting and unfun to play.
He happens to set that line at a different place than the folks he calls scrubs, but ultimately it’s an identical concept. The scrub is interested in playing the game “for fun” and isn’t interested in spending untold hours delving into minutiae in order to learn the skill to counter the “cheap” move. Thus the need to study these moves in depth makes the game boring, and countering the cheap move is just as impossible to them as defeating Akuma is to him.
The writer finds a particular character impossible to beat, and banning its use is OK. A scrub finds a character or set of moves impossible to beat, he just needs to work harder at becoming an expert in this video game. It’s irrelevant to the writer that the scrub may find “becoming an expert” to be a tedious and un-fun waste of time.
But there are many games out there with slight to major balance issues that lead to an almost certain victory. Say there was a way in Monopoly for the Shoe to always buy up Park Place and Boardwalk in the first turn by the logic of that article that would be fine because it didn’t doom the other players to an instant loss but I wouldn’t want to play that game. I also wouldn’t want to play with other players that used that strategy unless they agreed to some other trade off. I remember playing a fighting game (the name escapes me) where once you’ve tripped the other fighter you could do it continuously until they died unless they jumped at the exact right time. The trip was a simple button press that could be mashed at will the jump had about .03 seconds of grace. Sure you could practice and practice and practice that jump and finally beat someone that only knew that move but why? To me that’s not a brilliant way of overcoming a superior strategy it was a waste of time I could spend a ton of energy and effort to beat a balance flaw or I could just say “Hey could you knock that off? Every fight just turns into a trip war between us”.
Like hell he spends the entire time saying everyone else is a ‘scrub’ and generally acting like he knows what is acceptable and what isn’t. Notice he doesn’t mention a single grey issue he merely lists what is acceptable and what is not no debate. He’s not even consistent he goes on and on about how good players play to win no matter what and then says Akuma in SF isn’t acceptable. Why? Shouldn’t all ‘good’ players pick him then? And shouldn’t people be building their brilliant counter strats for him? No? Umm ok.
Depends on the situation. Someone uses an intelligent strategy to bring me to my knees I’m likely to think “wow that guy is onto something I need to sit down and think about how to beat that”. Someone uses a bug or exploits the game mechanics where the only response is to do the same to him I’m likely going to switch to another game.
That goes without saying, but it’s probably a more fair objection, IMO. If two people of unequal ability are playing a game, it’s kind of obnoxious for the better person to turn it up to 11 and PWN!!.
I hate this. I had a friend who had Madden Football, played it all the time, and I had never played it before. We played each other, only once.
I did my best with the (flawed) belief that the game did whatever it could to accurately simulate reality. My friend knew that my assumption was wrong, and he exploited it repeatedly.
He would run his quarterback from the line of scrimmage all the way back to his own goal line, regardless of where the line of scrimmage was. His QB would run in the wrong direction perhaps 70 yards. My defender would try to chase him down for the sack. Just before the sack, he would throw the ball 100 yards in the air to the opposite goal line in a “Super Hail Mary” where his receivers would be waiting.
Obviously, he had much more experience receving the ball than I had at intercepting it or knowcking it down, so he could rack up touchdowns on just about any play with this techique.
I told him that was a “cheap” move because a QB cannot throw a 100 yard bomb, let alone with that kind of accuracy, in real life. He reminded me that this game is not real life, this tactic works in the context of this video game, and the tactic is not a violation of the rules, so it’s a fair move. In other words, my error was in thinking we were actually playing football instead of playing a computer simulation somewhat approximating real football but with different rules of physics and player capabilities not found IRL.
I didn’t want to just quit and be a sore loser, so I kept playing, pissed off, and knowing the result would be a blow out. At least I tried to figure out how to beat him, and I tried to replicate the move myself, but he knew how to defend the pass and would intercept the ball or knock it down. We finished the game out with a score of someting like 90-7.
Later, he asked if I wanted to play again. “Nope.”
Of course, this is the same guy that knew in a civilzed game of actual touch football on a paved street between friends, an opponent will often give a warning of a penalty before actually calling penalties for the same act on subsequent plays.
My friend exploited this notion by absolutely plowing into the other teams’ player and knocking him down onto the asphalt knowing that he would be only warned about “unnecessary roughness” before actually incurring a penalty. In other words, he knew he had one free cheap shot on someone at the beginning of every game, and he took it. He was always on my team when this happened so I never called him on it.
You didn’t have time to block because Vega could slide again as the opponent was standing and before they could counter or attack. Heck, I used to get Perfect games (end each round at 100% health) with Vega against the CPU using that. It’s not really a point I wish to argue all that much since I don’t have the game I used to play in front of me and it’s been 12+ years.
In any event, it’s not even exceptionally important to my point – in games played in my dorm lobby, spamming the slide kick was a quick way to have a boring fight that no one wanted part of. I don’t blame them for not wanting to be part of it. Spamming it was a “cheap” move and it lowered everyone’s enjoyment.
There was a 2PF called Time Killers that showed up in our dorm one year. All of the characters had a ‘instant kill’ attack that had a good chance of beheading your opponent if it hit them, done by hitting all 5 buttons at once. With most characters, it was actually difficult to hit with it unless your opponent was stunned. But with one, her instant kill bascially protected her from any attack that didn’t come from the rear (probably killing you in the process) and moved her forward. And it could be done over and over easily.
There was one guy who did nothing but this when he got on, and then hooted an hollared about how good he was, and how everyone sucked, and anyone who said anything about how he played got an earful of how ‘hes just playing the game, he cant help it that they suck’, etc. So we found a guy who had a missle attack, a rare thing in the game, that went right through her attack, and was fast enough to use against her. So I tried it. People had long given up playing when he was around, but I walked up and played him. He immediately started using his insta-kill, and I started hockin lugeys (it was the caveman’s spit attack). Everytime I hit, it knocked him back, and did some damage. He didn’t vary even a little, and I killed him with it. After the first game he was red in the face pissed, but just mumbled ‘thats bullshit’. Second game he did the same thing, and lost again. This guy blew a gasket. Who the fuck did I think I was cheating at a video game, nothing can go through her attack, it was bullshit, he shoulda won, etc. People cheered as he stomped off, and he never came back.
Taking advantage of balance issues or bugs in the game is cheap. I’ve seen lots of them. Thinking that you’re god because you can take advantage of balance issues or bugs is just pure fucking asshole.
I didn’t, really. It was an easily learned lesson that not doing that made for longer and more entertaining games with people who’d want to play again. Even against the computer, I only did it as a novelty. Why spend a quarter to waste ten minutes holding the stick down and pressing the kick button?
The essay though suggests that those people should have sucked it up and there was nothing wrong with me using it.
I’m positive such a thing doesn’t exist with Vega, unless it was a hack. I’ve been playing that game, and every version of it, competitively for at least 12 years. Hell, the original author of the article, Sirlin, if it is Dave Sirlin who used to go to all the tourneys, too, will tell you that such a move doesn’t exist. I’m going to guess broken controller.
Anyway, the point I’m trying to make is that there is no such thing as cheap. Broken, yes, but cheap no. If Vega’s slide worked this way, this game would be broken, because Vega would not have to do anything else but slide all day. IOW, something broken is an element of the game that can be done with absolutely no to little risk and has no effective counter. CF Sub-Zero, trading hits is part of MK. If SZ is getting punched or harpooned, but manages to trade his ice ball, he can combo into an infinite. That’s broken.
For a gray area, see SF WW (the OG SF): Most people would think that Guile is the best and that the game is broken. At high levels of play, it’s arguably not. Dhalsim, however, is actually the best, over Guile. The fight is a snooze-fest, with Dhalsim winning by either a throw or blocked fireball damage. Is the game broken? Probably not, because the strategy isn’t one repetitive button-mashing of a move, but more of a juggling of space between the characters and one character (Dhalsim), trying to lure the other into attacking.
Another gray area would be SFII:Turbo: this game probably has the longest standing amount of play of any of the SFs. Highly regarded as the most balanced with characters either having a 50% chance of winning against the entire cast, or lopsided wins against half the cast. The perfect example of why games are not cheap or broken. However, there is the nasty Akuma special character, who is outright banned from tourneys, because in a highly-skilled player, Akuma will win every time (usually by not attacking and not even scoring a KO).
So another guy had a ‘cheap’ strategy, and you found a way to counter it, and he couldn’t adapt. Sounds like what the article recommends to me.
To me there’s a grey area. Games that have things like infinite combos don’t necessarily have to be abandoned, people can be expected to not exploit that (Except for games like killer Instinct, where the game was supposed to be about getting monsterous combos off).
With things like the tripping thing, where there was a counter, but the counter was very difficult, I think you really have to know your audience. If you’re playing a guy who plays for competitiveness, at a relatively high level, then the tripping is probably fair. You’re playing a guy who has a chance of knowing the counter, will be interested in the challenge, and is likely trying the same thing. But if you’re playing a relatively new player who plays just to pass the time, then tripping extensively is probably not going to lead to a good time.
Could be. Like I said, I don’t really have the means (or desire) to argue it so I’ll assume what you say is correct. I don’t mean that dismissively – you’re probably right.
It’s not much fun either for the better player to play deliberately badly and lose - especially if the weaker player then boasts how ‘good’ they are because they won.
If one player wants to learn how to play better, that’s fine. (Table-tennis)
If the game has a built-in handicap, that’s fine. (Go)
Otherwise it seems neither player will get anything out of the game.
I actually have the game called “Street Fighter 2, hyper fighting” which I presume is what you’re playing. If you’re getting 100% wins against computers, you’re playing on easy or normal difficulty levels. There is no point in a slide-combo with Vega in which the slide is unblockable, but it’s counterintuitive to most people that they can block while they’re still “getting up”, so they either miss the block entirely, or push block instead of low-block. Against people who know how to play that game, you’d get tossed around the screen until you learned to knock it off.
But you’ll notice the goal wasn’t to win and enjoy the game it was to drive off the idiot that was spoiling everyone else’s time. His cheapness lowered the fun level of the entire room and nobody felt good about the game strategy they felt good about getting rid of him.
