The reason I cannot accept this perspective is due to the historical use of those two terms over the years. Your perspective as quoted above simply throws out years of use of those terms. Since I cannot say it any clearer than this and since this post brings the issue home so well, I won't be repeating this point any longer.
I think we need to define three terms, not just two; Competitive Competitiveness Casual Competitive and Casual are straightforward. Anything you compete in is by nature competitive - if there is a winner, you're competing - doesn't have to be team-related. In this sense, even minigames are competitive. If it's an aesthetic map or some such, then it's casual. I will describe competitiveness as the level of luck and skill to play at the maximum potential game mechanics will allow. Race can be competitive - you can talk to Xzamplez about Trials... Hopefully this post rids us of the sticking point of defining casual and competitive..
MLG is a standard of it's style. That style being team-centric metagame focused gameplay. As for how to quantify that, an easy way would be to compare the significance of specific strategies. For example MLG games favor pushing as a combined team. Players who break away from their team individually and attempt to flank will generally see a lower success rate. In games like Infinity Slayer however, flanking is more rewarding because the greater number of variables let an individual player accumulate enough power to overwhelm or disrupt a coordinated team more easily. Casual and competitive have been purported as diametrically opposed ends of the spectrum, but I think that's a result of the ambiguity and the fervor with which they're employed. Saying there is overlap is recognizing that it is a spectrum and not a boolean true or false. It also doesn't hurt to acknowledge that there can be a balance of the two, as evidenced by some of the extremely popular maps from Halo 2 and 3 that saw both competitive/MLG and MM/casual acclaim. Historically it might be better to refer to usage as abuse, because it's been used as code for "good" or "bad" for quite some time now. Realistically, the majority of the population aren't fascinated by terrible maps. It's a different style of gameplay. Competitive and casual are probably the worst words to use to compare the styles though. Historically, nobody is a casual player because nobody really likes a bad map. People just have a hard time acknowledging a different style in a game where it's all about comparing yourself to others.
For what it's worth, I agree with what mock said. My posts were more about the definitions than how they're interpreted in practice.
Your perception is not supported by the evidence. Specifically, there have been competitive and casual forums for maps. It is easy to excuse away as abuse to redefine terms to fit your argument today. Let's just stay focused on how it is used in the main stream. That should eliminate a lot of confusion.
Well that's limiting the history to one particular case. Are we discussing forgehub-specific definitions here, or the usage of the terminology within the community in general? I mean, if that's the case this should probably be in customer service with a reference to the forum titles, or somewhere specific to FH. If it is specific to FH, I suppose all we need to know is the logic by which the decisions were made in the first place. Who created the Reach map forums?
It is not my experience that casual means anything different in any other community. Perhaps I am wrong, but that is my experience over the years. In fact my experience is that casual is never a code word for bad, but literally a different classification of intent by design.
Well that meaning isn't immediately apparent. So what of dev maps? Do we ask them what their intent was or deign to guess? And what about maps that got moved from competitive to casual? I know I've seen maps moved that were deliberately posted in competitive.
Whacky, everything you said is nothing but opinion and saying the halo community thinks this over that is comedy. Let's see some logic behind your reasoning because I see none. As for this thread, saying any gametype or any map is more competitive than another is bogus. This is the point I've been trying to make all day. A map or gametype is not competitive, the player is. A player can be just as competitive on any map or gametype. One map may favor a particular skill set or style more but that has nothing to do with how competitive it is, because it is not. IT ALL HAS TO DO WITH what you're preferred style of play is. You cannot classify maps by level of its' competitiveness! (not getting angry, it's just so blantenly obvious) The MLG community is a very competitive community and loves the whole cat and mouse/bait and trap style of play that's all about controlling the map and poking at each other with BR's/DMR's all day. I hate that **** and don't want to play peek-a-boo all day. This is just like saying one sport is more competitive than the other. It's not the sport, it's the players. Some communities may be more die-hard than others when it comes to certain gametype/map style followers, but that still doesn't mean one map is more competitive than the other. A MLG layout is more suitable for MLG rather than a racetrack or w/e. In both games you're there to win, the only difference is style of play. Edit: And one style of play is not more competitive than another. Styles of play are not competitive, their styles of play. A race gametype community can be just as competitive as the MLG community but real hardcore race fans are going to invest there time into a racing game and not halo. Either way though they can be equally competitive. MLG just is more stylized toward halo while other gametypes like Flood, Grifball, SWAT, and the like are more straying away from Halo. It has nothing to do with how competitive it is, it's just different styles of play. If you're a die-hard zombie gametype fan, more than likely you're favorite game to play isn't flood mode on halo. This all comes down to what I originally posted. Competitive maps should be classified under the support of official gametypes or Halo specific gametypes. Straying away from the official gametypes and you're approaching a fan base that would be better suited with a different game. Take flood for instance, if you really want to be competitive in this style, you're more than likely to dump halo and get a zombie game. But for people who like this gametype and like to switch things up a bit can enjoy these maps without having to be very competitive. So Competitive maps should be ones suited for official gametypes of halo that don't alter the main scheme of things.
Clearly you are not engaged in the conversation we are engaged in. There is a reason that FH has had categories for competitive maps and casual maps. To come along and say we are applying the adjective incorrectly is... well... ignorant at best, and intentionally misleading at worse. I don't want to get into an argument with you. But please step back and try to understand what we are discussing here.
You're just refusing to accept the premise of the discussion. I've been stating my logic all the way through. I get the impression that you're just stuck on the actual literal meanings of the words, and maybe the idea that you disagree with me. But have it your way - there is no way to quantitatively compare maps and discussion on anything is irrelevant because knowledge is subjective. Nihilists rejoice. lol Or you create a casually competitive map and I create a competitively casual map, and then we compete to see who's casualty is more competitive. (Assuming you're trolling and responding in kind - not having a stroke)
I fully understand the discussion. "It's been debated for a long time what really defines a competitive or casual map?" This... It seems to me Mr. Green that you got your panties in a wad. I am providing very straight-forward logic here to the discussion and the main question at hand. Sorry If I disagree with you and provide a very reasonable response to your remarks. This is why I just wanted to back out earlier b/c you guys get very upset when someone goes against what you say. I'm not upset at all and still not upset but you guys are acting like there is this magical secret formula that classifies a map competitive or not. I find it funny and entertaining, especially when people start making assumptions about what the whole halo community thinks like you're "all-knowing." Since you're so against what I'm saying and want to insult me, let me ask you one thing Mr. Green, how would you classify a Halo 4 map as "competitive" and not "casual?"
So MLG maps are casual? They run on the premise that the gametypes will have significantly stripped down mechanics. Or is there just no second category? And what about Swordbase? You'll have a mountain of arguments against it being 'competitive', despite it supporting all of the official gametypes (barring Invasion etc.). Not magical or secret, but there has to be a way to differentiate an MLG/AGL/Tourney map that is customized to that style of gametype from an Infinity Slayer map that is customized to that gametype. They are different. You might not like the terminology that's been applied, but the intention is to examine a difference that does exist, and not just to mince words when calling a map bad.
You post is a mess. It seems to me like you're having trouble understanding. I'm saying no map or gametype is more/less competitive than the other. It's more focused on the community. Since we're talking about Halo 4 here the more die-hard fans that are more competitive than casual players are going to favor halo style gametypes (Infinity Slayer, BTB, CTF, KotH, Oddball, MLG) over non halo style gametypes (Flood, SWAT, Race, etc.). The non halo style gametypes are less competitive because players that like that style are more than likely to become competitive in them on a different game that better suits that style. They exist in Halo only to switch things up and have fun, rather than be extremely competitive. And for that ^^^, read this...
hmmm.... are you sure? Not my intend, apologize if I had. You might consider using the terms as how the terms have historically been used. The original question is how does one define characteristics of maps with these terms, and I think it is the most safe to assume that this question can only be taken in the context of "how have those terms been used historically." One cannot reasonably apply the question to any other context, for no specific/alternate context has been given by FlyingShoe. Anyone can come up with a list of definitions for these terms, but it doesn't make any sense to the context of the original question.
Well I wouldn't go as far as say wrong. Wrong depends on context. The words have been used how they have been used because that was the context that best fit them.
What's the point of a discussion then if you expect everyone to just agree with you. There would be nothing to discuss. Where do I come off upset? Here's the two original questions? [1.] What do you see as a competitive or casual map? Do any blur the line? What features define these maps as comp or cas? [2.] Can a casual map be competitive, and if so what keeps it from being considered competitive? Is competitive possibly a misnomer for the type of maps we generally label as such? I believe there is no such thing as rating a map competitive or not. I believe a map is designed for a purpose, and how well that map fulfills that purpose is what makes it a good map or not (which I think is replaced by "competitive" here). I think maps should be classified under what game style the map should support, not competitive or casual maps. To make things more clear here I think maps should be categorized as follows and not Competitive or casual; -Standard (Maps that support standard Halo gametypes including previous halo gametypes) -MLG -Recreational (Race, Flood, ect.) -Aesthetic *The standard map section can even be divided up into sub-sections (Slayer & Objective or 2v2, 4v4, BTB etc.)
1. Props to Overdoziz for much needed comic relief, whether intended as such or not. 2. "This thread is for an intellectual debate and discussion of the topic to take place, so lets to try keep it that way." We all have the ability to be adults. Think of this as a classroom style discussion, and remember that if you feel insulted or you are insulted outright, that is a chance for you to be the bigger human and not laugh in their face or drop to their level. 3. Let my explain my original reasoning for this thread: I was hoping this would be a thread where people could present their conceptions of what defined casual and competitive maps, or if they, like me, didn't really like those labels in the first place. I was hoping, then, that people could discuss elements of each other's definitions/ statements and analyze them, trying to come to a better understanding of them and promoting open-mindedness. However, as it seems happens often on the site, we now have several people arguing their opinions over all others and explaining why theirs is the right one. The idea here is that you may all have parts of it more right than others, or there could be multiple perspectives that make sense, so in exploring them we could all come to a greater understanding. There is no winner, and in the end this argument is going to go nowhere. While you might not agree with them fully, the point of this thread is to consider other's opinions on the matter and see if there might be a grain of truth, while simultaneously accepting that they might just see it in a different light or might be talking about it in a different way. Try to see things their way, and you may respectfully disagree, but remember that you are not necessarily fully right yourself. I'm not necessarily totally right, neither are any of you. But by looking at it from many different viewpoints we can maybe come to a better (or multiple better) conclusion(s). That is all. [br][/br]Edited by merge: "I believe there is no such thing as rating a map competitive or not. I believe a map is designed for a purpose, and how well that map fulfills that purpose is what makes it a good map or not (which I think is replaced by "competitive" here). I think maps should be classified under what game style the map should support, not competitive or casual maps." -Fenix I really liked this thought, it was similar to something I posted a while back. When looking at competitive gameplay in any category this makes sense. By the way, competitive gameplay in any category as well as in just standard maps are both great things to discuss guys. This is a very open ended question. [br][/br]Edited by merge: "Casual, on the other hand, is a word that in my mind describes the amount of strategy/mental focus that a player has to put into the game to play it. There's also a continuum here as well, but it has nothing to do with the "competitive-ness" of a map. Infection maps are a great example of a genre that spans the whole gamut - with lin-progs at one end espousing heavy survivor teamwork and strategy, and Fat Kid at the other where survivors just sit in the corner and mindlessly spam their shotguns. A great puzzle map might take an incredible amount of thought and focus, but Octagon is the very definition of casual." -Mock This was another idea that caught my attention. It is interesting to look at casual as a scale of how much mental focus/ strategy it takes, a way of looking at it I hadn't thought about but one that makes a lot of sense. I think I would go as far to say casual maps would be partially defined by having a rather low amount of mental focus/ strategy. Most mini-games would be fairly casual by this standard, as usually in mini-games the players win more based on luck or just how things play out and players are sort of just jumping/ driving/ ****ing around. Hogs from Heck, Jump Rope, and Sunday Driver are all games like this, with a much lower amount of critical thinking, strategy, and focus required than games like slayer, ctf, and even some infection. Someone brought up earlier that infection players would do better if they really are big zombie fans to play other games. I would contest that claim, as Infection does things that other zombie modes do not do. This statement is somewhat more applicable with race, where the mode is very comparable to racing games, but there are very few games out there that do zombies with no NPC's involved, something that I think makes infection very different and enjoyable in its own regard.