****ing lol, i totally understand what you mean. I usually get totally pissed at my teamates and almost feel like ive made friends with the opposition On a side note, i pretty much agree with peggy to the letter. I just hate when people label me like that because i prefer competition.
Holy. ****ing. ****. WOAH. Whatever happened to you being journy? +rep melty Really I do this to though occasionally, some games I'll be cool and just talk with people. Other games I'll be a total troll just for the fun of it, and then mute them when I get tired of their retaliation. You can't expect people to follow moral or ethical values over the internet. There are no consequences, and some of us don't give two shits about how other people feel. I'm kinda off and on in that area.
I hate the trash talkers who complain about someone's player model. I see it more frequently in reach, and I hate it. It's my personal choice if I choose to be an Spartan, or Elite, and the **** they say will not change my choice.
This is no attempted to undermine what anyone has said... In fact I agree pretty much everything. Though I have to point out something - something that is VERY often over-looked. Spoiler HUMAN NATURE Yes, that thing everyone seems to be annoyed about when I bring it up; That ideological black hole that Psychologist bathe in. One of the only ideas that is both a problem and a justification for that problems occurrence... People are biologically predisposed to do certain things... One of those things (If your a Freud enthusiast) is to be an immature, animalistically competitive D-bag at every moment that you can get away with it. There is this thing psychologist do where they sit out of sight - and out of mind apparently. For some reason a person will feel a strange sense of anonymity, as they are around someone, yet the have the freedom to say what they want and it won't socially affect them. This leads to the process - or more of a phenomenon - called Free association, where every disturbing, violent, perverted memory/emotion/thought can make its way to one's conscious mind and then roughly, and rather incoherently, verbalized. Now just say you have another way to have someone present, yet you are able to remain anonymous. A "veil of anonymity" is a great description of it. But say also that there are a few social constraints/influences, like some of your online buddies are "with" you. So things that are "socially looked down upon" to your buddies are out of the question. But everything else is there. What you would get, I wouldn't go as far calling it therapy style free association, though the internet sets up the conditions for something pretty damn close. So what Im saying is for some people, most people I would argue, the internet is a place that can allow people to - in painfully basic terms - "vent" their frustrations and emotions and stuff. So "trash-talking" is not just them thinking it is 'fun because they can get away it', it can actually be classified as a emotion cooping exercise. Now to get them to stop is different. I think probably the most successful and lasting way is to bring up that they are being emotional and stuff when they are trash-talking, because then their anonymity is threatened... But you would have to bring it up BEFORE they start because when they start trash-talking, it makes you look right. My Actual opinion in the matter: I LOVE retaliating to people's bullshit. No, seriously, internet arguments make me happy. And the more ignorant the better, because smart people either own me, or stop talking.. But stupid people just go on and on and on. It makes me better at articulating my opinions, and I get attention so I win no matter what. But I never start anything, because that is just lame.
I myself usually stay in a friends xbl party or i make my own. I don't bother with trash-talkers. There are two different types of MLG's: - One type are mostly dicks who totally disregard anyone has to say due to their skill rank in H3. - The Other type can be nice and cool at times, even fun to play with. Last night in a topic poll to have an option to remove bloom in custom games on Bungie.net-halo:reach forums, two guys who are 50highskill kept bagging on what i had to say and call me a retard a lot of times, even disregarded what i said cause i have a highskill of 25 on H3. Frankly, if people are going to use their highskill on Halo 3 to be the deciding factor to what others think or say, are just fools themselves. But yeah, for now... just mute them and move on is the best suggestion.
Were it so easy... Although I don't generally agree with Pegasi's views on MLG (not because of the fallacy of confusing correlation with cause e.g. "many players I play in MLG are dicks, therefore MLG turns people into dicks/all people who play MLG are dicks", but more because I've never liked the idea of competitive video gaming to the level where it is considered, by some, a sport), he makes a great point about the internet and people growing up with it. Effectively, the new generation of 'kids' should, once they mature, be more accustomed to anonymity then we are. What I'm saying is that, at some point, the tables will turn, and those who are trash-talking now (the kids, I mean - those who are around the age of 10-13) will learn to communicate better via the internet, and become more mature than we are now over the internet when they reach our age (i.e. over 18, or whenever they actually become mature). Meanwhile, we will most likely not adapt much more than we already have, and remain as 'mature' as we are now for a longer period of time. Then will come the time when we start complaining about the 'distant past', when people communicated more via face-to-face interaction, and not over the internet with vague, usually indistinguishable alibis that can be changed whenever we please, and may be completely disassociated with us as people (my 'alibi' is EpicFishFingers, which contains no information about me whatsoever). However, dwelling on the past is, in itself, arguably immature. If you can't grow up and get out of old habits and go with the flow like everyone else, how are you any better than the kid who has to assert his anonymity on everyone he meets by incessantly swearing down their mic and generally making as much of an arse of themselves as possible? I'd consider this argument separate to my one against MLG, because, frankly, I just don't like MLG because I'm not that competitive. Don't try and argue that I'm living in the past by not accepting MLG, I just don't like the concept, and not because it's new. I've always thought of sports as something you can spectate in an open space, involving physical exersion to determine an ultimate winner. Just because that's how it's always been in the past doesn't go to say that I'm dwelling on the past by not relating MLG to a sport. I don't consider golf, chess, fishing, or darts to be sports any more than MLG. No matter how competitive they are, they don't fit the definition. I'm also very against, but all too aware, that our generation is one that dwells on the past waaay too much, as are previous generations. Hopefully, future generations will learn that just because they grew up in their past, that section of history that they gre up in isn't necessarily any better than any other section solely due to the fact that you grew up then. It's merely an opinion, and one that I consider immature to assert onto others (as generally, asserting your opinions, beliefs and values, is frowned upon. How many Jehova's Witnesses have you ever listened intently to?) /general rant on the morals of modern society regarding change, compared to the morals of those in the past regarding the same 'issue'
You're Right! MLG isn't a sport, its is just a game. I have known no one, even in the MLG community who would call it a sport. So you mean anything that is in a stadiam is a sport... How american of you... I will say.. no.. What constitutes something as a sport though isn't how much physical exersion is needed to effectivly play it, but rather the type of physical activity needed. I define a sport, as a competition who's objective requires a certain prowess in a single or a collection of physical feats. Taking Golf for example. maybe it isn't very exciting to watch, sure; there are no beefed up 25-year-olds aggressivle battling eachother in some weird ****-erotic fashion to achieve some primitive form of achievment, but Golf, does in fact take pysical talent. A talent that takes years and years to master. Control. This Idea goes for alot of games i think you wouldn't call sports. Darts included. Chess no and fishing no. Both require Knowlege, but little physical prowess in any way. This however has NOTHING to do with how competitive something can be. I don't really understand your argument behind why MLG is bad. I got the impression that you think that if things dont fit you definition of a sport, then they shouldn't be a professional - let alone organized - competitive activity at all. Also you attribute the existance of MLG having to do with the past or something....? I did't really understand what you were saying there. I don't think MLG exists due to sentimentality, rather I think people just like the idea of a community of people who are skilled in gaming. There is a certain prestige to being apart of it.. And when people feel special, the douche-baggary begins.
I know what I meant, but I was arguing two different points: 1) the main point, about the maturity of gamers, and about how mature those same gamers will be in the future 2) just my two cents on MLG the thing about MLG was just me, not arguing as to why MLG is bad, but me showing that I don't need to provide reasoning as to why I dislike MLG. And, long story short, it's just my opinion, and I just don't like the idea og gaming that's competitive on that level.
Completely agree. the majority of MLG players love to tell you what you're doing wrong, rather than what you're doing right, or just SHUTTING THE **** UP. Its obnoxious, it kept me away from MLG in H3 unless I had a party of 4 for my team. My favorite is when a MLG player gets someone one shot, dies, then expects us to be able to get him, even if he's HALFWAY ACROSS THE ****ING MAP. When you point this out, he gets pissed that you weren't near him. You can't win I have no problem with the gametypes, they can be fun, but the majority of the people there are awful. Even when you win, its sucks the fun out of it.
Epic is from England... But that doesn't change much tbh, football (aka Soccer) is just as big as any US stadium sport over here, I agree with the below that this is way too specific in terms of what defines a sport, and concerns the activity of watching more than the activity itself as a definition. Would you consider motor racing a sport, out of interest? I know it's generally considered such in the US and UK, yet it isn't even testing physical prowess, but control over a machine. Ah now, if you consider Darts a sport then I can't see how you don't consider MLG Halo a sport. The only physical attribute really being tested in Darts is hand to eye coordination and aim, pretty much exactly what's tested in Halo. Sure the hand to eye coordination is being used to control a stick rather than actually aim the gun, but it's still the same thing being tested. Plus, Halo has the strategy, communication and teamwork of a highly fast paced team game on top of that. If people have the definition that physical strength must be tested (not just involved, it must be what is actually tested in the result of any game/match, as well as a level of strategy/teamwork in team games obviously), then I'll concede that Halo is not a sport under this definition. But if you consider motor sport or darts etc. a sport, then I don't see how you can say you don't consider Halo one too. Bolded: I agree. Last sentence of bolded: doubly so. I agree that you don't really have to justify yourself, but I still don't get quite what you mean. If you don't consider it a sport then fair enough, if you dislike many of the people who take part in it then even more fair enough considering how many of them act. But I honestly don't get how you can dislike something being taken seriously, why do the actions and attitudes of other people that have no effect on you (since the parts that do, ie. them being dicks, is covered in the above, and this is concerning the mere existence of competitive gaming) provoke dislike? It's kinda like someone who kicks a football around with their friends (even if you don't accept MLG as a sport, that's not the point I'm making with this example, the parallel should be clear), somehow taking exception to the fact that it's a highly regarded and nationally favoured sport. Can't you just say 'it's not for me, thanks'? There's a difference between not having an interest enough to take part in something, and flat out disliking its existence. I'm not trying to have a go here, it's just that I see this kind of thing a reasonable amount and I've never really understood it.
You might catch highlights of it on ESPN, but it isn't considered a sport. I wouldn't consider it a sport. I'd consider a sport pushing your body to the limit to achieve greatness. Chess is a game where you must push your brain to the limit to outsmart your opponent. Halo doesn't exactly push either to their limits. (I mean that I feel that being a grandmaster has real world merit for the fact that the person must be a genius, where as Halo you must have good reflexes, but the strategies are simple and the only thing that matters is that your team be better as a whole than the other team.) I don't think that MLG should be considered a sport. It has it's merit as competitive gaming, but if you're seeking for it to gain merit amongst a larger crowd I doubt you'll get it. The only merit to be obtained from MLG is by bringing home the money. Other than that you're a video game nerd and I'm fine with that.
Fair enough, I've talked to Nascar fans who disagree, but I do see your point. And as I said I'm fine with it not being considered a sport, I just see holes in some people's arguments when they say it's not and other stuff is. Tbh I'm fine with it too. I don't see any exclusive merit gained from any actual sport other than bringing home said money (keeping fit sure, but you can do that in plenty of ways so it's not a strict benefit imo). Gaining merit from the larger crowd isn't something I'm too fussed about, and I don't really mind being called a nerd either, just seems like a double standard in some circumstances which I think may disappear with time as games stop being the reserve of teenage boys. In general, good points.
Coming up on a left turn. Coming up on another left turn. Coming up on yet another left turn. Finally another left turn. Anyone that can watch that for three hours is either easily amused (incredibly stupid) or drunk. I think video gaming is gaining a larger status in society, but I feel in the wrong direction for getting societal legitimacy. Games are continually appealing to the younger less mature generation or a select group of single, pale adults. Casual games are entering the market and people are more familiar with them, but as far as gaming becoming an acceptable life style for a large majority of people, I just don't see it. I think the only real world example of a society becoming engrossed with a game would be South Korea and their love for Starcraft. I think Starcraft has mass appeal while having that legitimacy for requiring high intelligence to master it. Halo, and for the most part shooters in general don't require it. Especially with the new trend in FPS's, it really is taking any effort out of my hands. I'm finding that a lot of enjoyment I'm getting in CoD styled shooters is ruining the fun for everyone else by exploiting game and map mechanics. (I.E. camping!) Games like Counterstrike and UT forced the player to move around the map and the community steadily reinforced non-camp tactics. (Players could get booted from counterstrike servers for camping). I think it also has a lot to do with skill. How far can you push a game before it's simply to hard for the majority of people, yet keep it competitive? If it goes too far then it loses it's market. I think shadowrun was a good and balanced attempt at a competitive game with depth to it and movement, yet it was lackluster in it's graphics and too difficult for most gamers. I certainly every game has it's merit for any crowd and games like CoD are great for casual players who want to experience what it's like to run into a group of people and **** them up. It's too easy though for competitive gaming and the competitive strategy to win would be to camp. Halo is a step above it, but reach isn't the best for competitive gaming. It's at the top right now, but only because of the large community that backs it. Games like shadowrun and UT still had that badass factor while maintaining a large skill gap. You could still make badass moments happened, but it takes an immense amount of skill to pull off. I think UT is a step above shadowrun though because it shadowrun is a class based shooter which is adding to much complexity to the game in a bad way. It becomes which class can I choose to have a tactical exploit. I'm very much a fan of Halo and UT's style that every player is the same apart from their skill level. I don't mind class based shooters either, but shadowrun is too fast paced to be effective for class based combat. It should be more strategical in it's approach like with chromehounds. So basically, shooters need to be more difficult, while still being fast paced.
Lol true. Didn't say I agreed with them, but I think F1 is pretty good tbh, Rally too. I'd disagree, the number of people who never would have bought a game who now own a Wii or a DS is staggering, at least over here. I don't think it'll become a lifestyle, but an appreciated part of a normal lifestyle, and I think casual gaming helping to dispel the image than anyone who plays computer games is a nerd goes a big way toward this. There will always be division, same as with any media, people who are obsessed with music of a certain genre against people who just listen to some tunes now and then, same with film buffs vs. people who go to the cinema on occasion or put on a dvd at the weekends. To be honest I think that's a very special example, it's a signifier of the massive acceptance of a highly technology-oriented lifestyle which is prevalent over there, as you say it's very much a game of intense strategy and split second timing. I don't think you can find a similar example of anything comparable even in non gaming terms in the western world. True, I just gave up on playing Black Ops for the day because I get bored of sitting in a room, watching my character on screen...sitting in a room. I try playing the game in a more entertaining way and fall prey to other people who apparently enjoy this, good luck to them, I put Halo back in my Xbox for the moment. Halo finds a good balance between skill, strategy and widespread marketability, but I agree that it's a long way off SC2 in terms of sheer skill and strategy. But to be fair, it's not like the most popular sports require a massive amount of strategy, so I don't see why games should have to increase that aspect massively to see success. As I said, I think the Korea/SC2 situation is a very specific and special one, not as simple as what needs to happen to make gaming a widespread, acceptable and even celebrated competitive activity. Graphics is one of the problems tbh, as well as the nature of games as a media form as well as a game. You don't find actual sports being updated every 2 or three years, or designed on the basis of having to sell well, they just are what they are. Games, so far, have to sacrifice being well designed and solid to be appealing and new to a mass market, and even if something isn't broken you have to fix it (or rather 'update' it) so people won't get bored and will buy the new game over the old one. Again, SC2 is a great example of this not being true, but only because Korea took up SC with such strength that Blizzard could afford to design the game like this and not have to pander to a more casual, more fickle market. I disagree about SR's classes being a downside. It's not as if they weren't incredibly well balanced, thus I think your point about tactical exploits isn't really true. If you'd seen the highest level players always gravitating towards certain classes, or certain choices always winning out then I'd agree. But that was the beauty of the game, that this simply wasn't the case. I find that the increase in skill with things like UT hurt the strategy side, and I personally think that FPS games are at their best competitively when played in a team settings, since it adds coordination, communication and a much deeper level of strategy on top of the individual skill aspect. In this respect, I actually feel that UT was behind games like SR for being highly competitive, being little else than a test of coordination and reactions in the highest terms.
I just never found SR to really promote the individual at all. It was very much a game where you had to work together to take down key members of the other team, but once you were in a down situation it continued to go downhill. UT is different in that you can lose a member, but still pull off clutch maneuvers. UT still requires teamwork to gain map control and power items. I feel that adding a class based system to a shooter makes it more of thinking man's game rather than something that is faster paced. I feel that while skill incorporates decision making it is really about out-aiming your opponent. Essentially that's the goal of an FPS kill him before he kills you. Maps are meant to compliment that through power positions, quick routes, etc. Basically, the decision process revolves around player positioning with respect to your team and being aware of enemy presence. I feel that class based systems in a fast paced shooter slow the game down. I feel it's more appropriate in a game like chromehounds, which is essentially a shooter, but there was great depth to the class system and player customization. UT's speed makes it difficult to aim, more so than most other shooters. Combine that with the quality in maps and the nature of the weapons it's quite the competitive experience. The weapons themselves along with power-ups give that class based vibe without actually slowing game play down. You're at an even disposition from the start of the game and the maps promote different styles of team tactics and you're able to contest over weapons and map control. The harder a weapon is to use and the harder it is to aim in general and at a moving target the higher the individual skill gap and that's something I like about UT. It promotes the individual and doesn't water down gameplay to let's just roam together. That's boring and essentially what reach is, for the most part.
My point was that Stadium sport are gigantic over here. Sure people do an uncountably many other things, but the things that get the most publicity are (American) Football, Baseball, Basketball, Soccer, Track, etc... And to say a sport has to be in a stadium/arena/coliseum/whatever is wrong... I actually wouldn't consider Motor Racing a sport, or horse racing for that matter. It, sure it is highly competitive and is a very large organization. I could see why people would look at it as being sport like, though I still see it as just a unique type of game. This is were it gets fuzzy as far as my articulation goes. Darts is a sport because it focuses completely on certain physical abilities - that hand eye coordination and accuracy that you were talking about. Halo Reach is a game, because while it uses hand eye coordination and quick reflexes, those attributes are just what are used to play the game; I would argue that the actual competition comes from the strategy used in playing the game. And when I use the word stratagy, I don't just mean "you flank left, and Ill charge up the middle", I also mean "shooting your DMR slower to keep high accuracy" or "when you hit someone, run backwards so that they can't hit you"... The smaller stuff
race car drivers have to be in top physical and mental condition. its not like they're just driving your mom's honda around. they have to be in shape, have strength and control enough to control the vehicle and have to have the wits and reflexes to react to split second decisions. imo, it is a sport. its not as physical as football or hockey of course, but if baseball is a sport then so is racing.
It demands some physical fitness, F1 especially, but your physical prowess isn't directly what's being tested in competition, your control over the car is. And if wits and reflexes are the key (since they are what's being tested against your competitors) then this is true of competitive gaming too. Hypothetically, if cars were advanced to the point of negating the need for physical fitness to drive them effectively, would it suddenly stop being a sport? I think the key is what's actually being tested in competition (in the case of football, physical prowess is definitely one element of what's being directly tested), not a sort of required by-product due to the nature of the process. In this sense, motor racing is no more a sport than gaming.
Trash talkers are the same annoying kids you see on CoD and any other M rated game. I have two solutions: 1. Troll their ass off 2. Mute If lots of people mute someone, they get mute banned.