http://www.sirlin.net/archive/playing-to-win-part-1

If you're ever going to beat me in Brawl, you better know how to play to win. This breaks down the "Scrub mentality". I expect anyone I've good Brawl records against to read this.

The article makes no sense. I stopped reading a few paragraphs into it, up to the part where he says a Street Fighter-playing scrub blocks all the time and doesn't actually fight. Bullshit.

A scrub, in Street Fighter, is a player who can't learn advanced techniques, so they resort to constantly spamming the same special moves over and over again (actually, that's only ONE of the things they do). My brother does that to me, he'll only use a characters Hadouken (Fireball) move rapid fire in an effort to win by pinning me down and overwhelming me with ranged attacks, preventing me from advancing.

I block constantly to defend myself against that bullshit. But I'm not a scrub. I can't really combo, and in advanced Street Fighter games like Street Fighter III, I can't parry attacks that aren't projectiles, but I'm good in a sense that I can use a variety of offensive moves, I mix my attacks up, and I'm familiar with techniques like pokes and whiffs.

But when someone rains an endless fury of Hadoukens on me, what the hell else am I supposed to do? Jump over one, land on another and take damage, resulting in a loss that shouldn't have happened if I were playing against someone who knew how to fight? Screw that, I block and wait for an opening. Eventually they'll tire themselves out.

The writer of that article is an ass.

If you didn't read the article fully, then you never read everything in the article, including the major points. A scrub is someone who doesn't know how to play to win, and limits him or herself to his or her own defined set of rules (a common one is "not spamming").

Your logic behind the definition of "scrub" is flawed. If you actually read the article, you'd probably know that people are not doomed to carry the title of scrub. They are not doomed to never get any better.

That's all well and good, but I note your use of the term "spamming", describing your brother's strategy. Would you do the same if you knew it would give you an added advantage? If you halt yourself from using certain abilities to their fullest potential, aren't you hurting yourself in the long run?

The good players will find counters to these strategies. Simple as that. If you ever want to be competitive, get studying.

The author may be a total asshole, but he knows his shit on competitive gaming. Every competitive gamer plays to win. In that realm, they are not bound by the fictional characteristics of "honor" and "cheapness". Therefore, he'll win, and that's what matters.

He wrote this article to help people break out of the scrub mentality. I don't see the negativity in that.

Took me a while to realize you wern't talking bout me :/

olol

Sorry hun, but you know damn well you're the coolest.

Sorry in advance for the wall of text.

See, there's the problem. The author is an asshole, because he's assuming that if someone isn't "playing to win", then they're a scrub. Not true. There's this magical concept out there. Maybe you've heard of it. It's called having fun regardless of skill. He's assuming that if they aren't playing competitively, they're garbage.

Gaming isn't about competing, it's about having fun and playing a god damn game. Not to win some imaginary pissing contest, but to enjoy yourself. If a person plays because it's fun, are they scrubs? They could be godly in a game and still play for fun, or they could play to win.

The whole article is inappropriately labeling people wrong.

For fighting game players, rapid-firing projectile moves is NOT a good strategy. There are godly Street Fighter III players out there who don't need to do that shit, so what's that say about people like my brother who are so bad that they can't win without that strategy? And a player who must constantly block those projectiles constantly are not scrubs either. Know why?

It's called SURVIVAL. Do what you can to outlast your opponent. Let me give you an example of survival and people who bitch to me for doing it.

Metroid Prime Hunters. When my energy is low, I run away to grab health-retoring items. Why? Because I want to LIVE. People yell at me all the time for doing it, but we'll see who's yelling at who when I'm standing over their dead damn bodies because I just outlasted them in a gun fight.

You don't appear to understand the basis of "competition". It is a very very primal urge. Man has always had the urge to prove himself better than others. That why there is major hype over the Playoffs and other tournaments in the world of sports, and that is why arcade games have high-scores. As much fun as playing the game itself, you don't get nearly as much satisfaction when, on a competitive level, you must read your opponents every move, and even your opponent's counters. Although, everyone will have different tastes.

For being an imaginary pissing contest? Sure. That's how you can describe it. But many competitive games have populations in the hundreds of thousands, normally with lots of money at stake for the tourneys. I'm pretty convinced it's not imaginary when demography and the economy starts to get involved.

If a game is not meant to be competitive, but has the basis and depth to be competitive, whether or not the game was meant to be competitive when the company made it will have no effect on whether it will develop a competitive base. Brawl was not supposed to be competitive, but here we are, several large communities dedicated to the competitive side of Brawl. Mario Kart Wii is also developing a considerable competitive base, and I honestly doubt, with the influence of items, Nintendo wanted that to happen (although, the ghosts and tournaments on the MK Channel say otherwise).

On another note, what is so insulting about the term "scrub"? It only describes someone who doesn't play to win, nothing more. There can be very skilled scrubs, or there can be very terrible competitive players. It only applies to how you mentally approach video games. He even stated that you can change how you see games, and break yourself of the scrub title. What is so insulting about it, compared to the term "tourney fags"?

Now, you honestly cannot believe in merely playing for fun? Every Brawl match has at least one party who does not win. Most games are built on a winners-losers core ruleset. Would you not want to be in that losing party?

A perfectly acceptable example of playing to win, but you're missing the point entirely. Of course, we can argue with each other about the specific strategies and techno-babble about every single competitive game. It's the general mental approach that one must take in order to win. Many competitive Melee players are also competitive in Brawl for having a "play to win" attitude, and the physics in both games are very much different.

If you break yourself of the rules like "no spamming" or "no alt abuse", and simply use the strategies and moves in a way that will optimize your winning chances the most, you're ready to really discover the inner workings of the game.

Unless you read the article fully, I honestly doubt you have no idea what you're talking about.

The fact the writer believes trying to tell me defending myself in a fighting game as being scrub-like behavior, I have very little faith that the rest of his article will be any less asinine.

Competition in games is not all there is to games. Designers have always made games for one reason; to present players with something fun to do. It's when people see how others play, then challenge them to a competition to see who get's through it better and faster than the first player, that's where these senseless competitions come into play.

As far as I'm concerned, competitve tournaments are imaginary pissing contests. Each one is a metaphor to describe the other one. Saying that games were made to allow people to brag that their way of getting through said game is better another gamer's way of getting through the same game is pretty much exactly the same as two guys standing around peeing onto a wall and comparing the size of the arc of their urine, the force at which it's shooting out, the total amount released and even it's color. Both are completely useless wastes of time considering the true purpose of gaming is to have fun and the true purpose of urinating is to release poisonous toxins from your body.

Jackasses all over the world need to wake the hell up and stop dicking around trying to prove their hardcore mothers. I'm talking about ALL things competitive. Oooh, that Japanese guy ate a million hotdogs in 5 minutes. Hey, that guy over there reached level 50,000 of Tetris one-handed and blind-folded, someone pass these tools the Nobel Peace Prize. NO ONE CARES. There are more important things in this world that I'd like to concentrate on:

1. Saving up enough money to live a decent life.
2. Not going to prison.
3. Not dying.

I've reviewed the article thoroughly, and see nothing of the sort in that article. There's no reason to explore why you believe that he hurt your feelings so bad, because the notion itself is pretty ridiculous from the beginning.

And competition is not "fun"? If it wasn't "fun", then competitive anything would not be as thrilling as we see it to be. From what I read from your posts, you see everyone who goes to tournaments to be a no-nonsense dickwad who's only there to show off how much of a dickwad he can be.

Far from the truth. It's actually a prime socializing event, where many people can meet and mingle in between tournament matches. It may be amazing, but competitive events are just another medium to have fun, and isn't that what games are made for in the first place? Entertainment?

Take it as you will then, but, quite frankly, if I could win $10,000 dollars from pissing competitively, and if many other shared my interests so we could talk about the meta game of pissing, frankly, I'd do it. It's all in the competitive spirit.

And the purpose of the game that the game had originally (fun) is no different from what competitive players seek. I go to tournaments for a few reasons, yeah. But one of those is HAVING FUN.

ALL things competitive? You've never, EVER been in a tournament of sorts? I imagine you have.

You've insulted a lot of jackasses in that last paragraph, only because they do what they want to do, and win by doing it. Everyone has different tastes in what they believe is fun, and we can live with that. But I don't believe "scrub" is an insulting term, much as the term "jackass" and "dickwad" is.

I believe we've strayed from the main point of the article, which is meant to teach people to "play to win". This is only a medium of self-improvement which can be actively pursued not only in the competitive realm of video-games, but the competitive realm of life. Take it as you will, but considering your reaction to this specific reaction to this specific form of self-improvement, I'd advise you rethink your approach to life itself before you get your panties in a knot.

By the way, pursuing a career in competitive gaming can be a profitable one. PC Chris won $10,000 from one Melee tournament. Chances are, you're not going to prison for playing games, and chances are, it's not going to kill you, so those satisfy the 3 Non-Refutable Laws of Life you just presented...

Listen to you, you're friggen treating games like they're war, that there's only room for winners and not people who try and fail at winning, or people just trying to have a good time without some botard walking up to them telling them that their way is wrong.

Not all games are made for people to use as a way to compete against other people. Talk to fucking Shigeru Miyamoto and he'll tell you his games are for having fun, not for metaphorically waging war on someone else. And there are countless others who would say the exact same thing.

If gaming was only about cometition, then why the hell do we see tons and tons of single player games released? Nor games that focus entirely, and not partially, on multiplayer? One of the most popular genres of video games, RPGs, dont' have any sort of comppetitive gameplay involved, and games like Halo and Half-Life have campaign modes, not just multiplayer modes. That should tell you something.

And, holy hell, my last paragraph pretty much flew over your head. My list of 3 important things I find more important than competitive game playing are just that. They aren't three guidlines I use to look at something and decide if I that thing will apply to them. I said I'd rather worry about those than to worry about how what some crackhead feels about my game playing. I know playing games wont send me to jail, or kill me. I'm well aware of that. And you know how you can make even more money in gaming than you can by playing in a tournament? Making the damn things. Which is a far more profitable, and might I add less STUPID way of making money off of games.

*walks into topic*

*reads childish argument*

*leaves*

:custom2:

you guys are both taking this too seriously

I have every right to defend myself, guy. Tut is walking around like he's a badass trying to tell everyone the only way to have fun in a game is to compete against someone else, as if he has the right to tell us how we're supposed to have fun, and if it isn't his way, it's WRONG.

God forbid someone plays a single player game bythemself and that's how they enjoy their games. Nevermind that, it's wrong, it's all about bragging to other people that you can do what no one else can.

You don't read posts or articles at all, do you. Just pump some more unnecessary cusses into your points and insta-win, amirite? Then we can top it all off by dismissing any other points as "stupid".

Attaboy.

So now we've entered the realm of personal attacks. We're going to have to end what I assumed was a hearty debate fairly soon, before it ends up repeating itself.

My hypocrisy levels are going off the charts. Last time I checked, there were no dead bodies in Metroid Prime: Hunters (aside from the environment in the single-player).

Let it be said, I do not think as that about all games. I was an avid player of Animal Crossing: Wild World, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. There is one game where winners and losers don't apply.

But if you look at all the video-games, you will clearly see that most of them, they have at least some emphasis on being the best. High scores, time trials, skill rankings, speed-runs, clan wars, the list goes on and on and on. People do not like to lose. I only wished to help people on how to win.

Do you think I'm making this up? Let me illustrate this with a little something called YouTube...

Sonic the Hedgehog 2 Speed-run: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtDl-0B5U-g
Tetris High-Score Attempt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zItSN_8Jbk
Super Mario 64 Speed Run: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTzs9bcNgMQ
Super Mario Galaxy Advanced Techs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBkY7MRDFBI

And RPGs? Non-competitive? Look at Pokémon Diamond and Pearl, then get back to me.

Bottom-line is, we can make any game we see fit competitive, whether it was meant to be or not, no matter the genre, console, or generation. Why? Because in every game, there is at least some element of competition.

And boy, do you know how to twist my words. Never, did I say games were dedicated solely to competitive spirit, that would be in-factual. But for the games that have this element of potential (and there are MANY titles with this potential)...

I wouldn't want to lose when I have the same opportunity to win as anyone else. Perhaps you think differently, that it is "fun" to lose. Personally, I have more fun when I win than if I lose. I think as such so I can secure more wins. Everyone is different in how they think. That is why the community will remain divided on a competitive and free-style basis. On another note, I can have fun when I lose and have a good match, but all the better if I win a good match.

If you want to consider anyone who disagree with your idealistic views as stupid dickwads, go ahead and do that. Stay in your shell, don't explore the tricks and inner workings of the game. It's your money that you spent on your game, and I won't make you do anything different other than what you do. I won't tell you what to do.

This certainly says something about your character, though...

It's not hypocricy that I said you're treating gaming like it's war, even though I said that stuff about Metroid Prime Hunters. The object of every game is to not die off. I was comparing a competitive player's need to be better than everyone else to one side in a war claiming ill will of the other side. I was NOT comparing that to how I feel about people getting mad at me for wanting to reach that goal of not dying before they do.

No game has an emphasis on the player becoming the best. Retard players decide that for themselves amongst each other. The game doesn't tell them to clear Sonic 2 in the fastest time, or any other game.

Let me tell you a quick note about competition. It's supposed to be fair. All parties involved have to have the same advantage when competing against each other in a game.

With that said, these competitive urges are teaching people how to cheat. you know, somethnig scrubs do? Yes, cheat. Look up "Tool-Assisted Speed Runs" or "TAS" on YouTube. Look up the techniques these people use when making a Tool-Assisted Speed Run, then sit there and tell me that's competitive. Oh yeah, it's really fun and competitive trying to beat someone's Tool-Assisted Speed Run when they hack the game to slow down enemy NPC movement while they themselves move at a normal speed, then play it back as though everything was always moving at it's normal speed, making it look as though they're dodging enemies by mere millimeters. Or using save states to save your position before a level loads up so if they die during that level, they can load up that save state and splice it in with their recording to make it look like they never died at all. Yes, competitive indeed.

And I never once said the word "dickwad" in any of my rantings. That tells me tons about YOUR character though...

Let me backtrack a bit. You were talking about "playing to win", and you said my brother, who was spamming Hadoukens in Street Fighter, was "playing to win". You also read that I was complaining about that strategy of his. Guess what, I did beat him, by a huge margin, in Street Fighter Alpha 3, where he applied that tactic. The first match he whooped my ass. But the second? I countered his rain of fireballs by using a fast character who can leap over all of the fireballs on screen WHILE attacking. That character was Rolento. I used Rolento to "play to win". And indeed I did. So watch your mouth about me.

Backtracking to another point, you said people make a great living by competing in tournaments by winning prize money. Right. And what about the losers who TRY to "play to win" but end up losing miserably? What do they get? They sure as hell don't get nearly enough as the one who "plays to win" and actually does beat everyone else.

this statement was kinda badly put dude. slowdown is where they slow down the *entire* game. everything still travels at the same comparative speed but everything is slower. even during a slow down it takes many many tried to get it to the point where it is flawless.

also tut is a very competitive person. he is competitive becuase the fact that he wants to get better. he is also VERY good at brawl. and when you battle him it may seem that he is just purposely going full out of you. just tell me. if you are playing anythign and you have to dumb yourself down so bad that you arent even trying just to make it more even, is the game realyl fun anymore?

sure sometimes i get a huge laugh at when i just joke around in a game doing completely irrational moves and still end up winning in a helarious way, but it gets old.

also if a person plays to win but they still lose badly, it is a learning experience to get even better. most of the time i play to win but tut is one of those people who can get me a lot, but every time i play him i learn a little more about attacks dodging and timing. if a person playing to win always loses then they really arent trying very hard. and still there is nothing wrong with just being a regular gamer. just playing for fun can be very satisfying for a lot of people. maybe next time you want to play a really good person in brawl force them to use the random button (makes life more fun)

Even so, the terms relating your experience to mature themes that do not even exist within the game's reality (I.E. "dead damn bodies") seems very hypocritical, considering how you refer to me as an uncaring figure who desires only to win.

Truth be told, I am quite chivalrous when I'm in a clan war. I fight my hardest, and I try my absolute best to represent the clan I'm fighting for (that's why they trusted me to represent the clan), but that doesn't mean I can't aspire to treat others with respect. If someone's kicking ass, I shake their hand. If someone beats me, I suck it up, say congrats, and spectate.

That said, chivalry and respect is pretty important if you want to be popular, but playing to win is the most important part.

Again with the negative comments on these people. They spent their money and they will do whatever they please with the technology they have. There is no reason to associate them with mental retardation. They are only having fun in their own way, just as you have fun with... whatever you do.

Nekolo explained that in the post above mine, so I won't have to touch that one...

You expect me to disagree with that notion. I don't, now that I know you adapted. You read your opponent's movements in one match, collected info, and countered your opponent with that info, instead of whining and crying about how "cheap" it is (which is quite tempting, kudos).

So, what is so wrong with playing to win?

I never said you could earn a great living. I said it was profitable. One of my friends went to a Brawl tournament with an entering fee of $10. Here are the top finishers:

1: Cort ($435.60)
2: PC Chris ($237.60)
3: Nuro ($118.80)
4: Jinx
5: Solid Jake
5: Darc

It's quite a bit of payout for the top 3 considering the small fee, isn't it.

And, of course, there will be losers. There always will be. But, that's the great thing about tournaments. They serve as excellent events for one to improve his or her own abilities in that game, to gain some perspective, if there are better players than themselves. It's also a solid means of socializing, and account for great evenings of fun.

Ok, Nekolo explained it. You are competitive. You're very competitive. I get that. But you are not god damn special. The world does not revolve around you, and it's not your way or the highway. Not everything you say is law. In respect to what get's done here, you are law, because you're a admin here, but your opinions are not. You may be admin, but you're not the administrator of the entire community of gamers out there, the majority of which do not play to win as you do, but rather play for fun.

Because if everyone out there who plays games takes it as seriously as you say they all do, like you do, then this world is royally screwed. While normal people play video games to socialize and relax and excape this world, there are people like you out there who take it to a competitive level for no dam reason, turning something as innocent as clearing a maze in Pac-Man into a god damn death match, like it's going to decide your fate. They're just games. Get over yourselves. Grow up.

Zing!

Someone snapped. xD

In case you didn't noticed, I merely approached this topic with the intention of debate, which I assume you have as well, and I've been attempting to perform conduct in a fairly civilized manner (although I am aware I slipped up at points). I am fully aware I'm nothing special, and I'm not God or something. I never said everyone thought as I did. I'm also slightly amused how you brought my position into this. I had the same attitude for games before I was made an admin, and it remained unchanged.

I also respect the fact that there will always be 2 communities for games, and I like to wade in between them as the game applies. I posted the article to teach people one simple fact.

If you don't try in anything in a way that optimizes your chances of success, your chances of success will be comparatively hindered. Nothing more.

Hope I clarified my position. You can keep playing games how you wish, I'm not going to stop you. If you thought I was arguing for anything aside from hearty debate, then I apologize for that then. I'll conclude that with a smiley. ::):

Pretz: Alright. We were arguing. By definition, it is merely a difference of opinions expressed verbally. People argue all the time. That does not make us less childish than we actually are, and I'd appreciate it if you recognized that.

The point of this was to tell you to do everything it takes to win.

How does that make Tut think he's God damn special? I just think you have a problem with being called a "Scrub." Whoa dude a scrub? That's the worst thing I've ever been called in my life.

:/



What's wrong with being competitive? I think you just had a bad experience, got whooped by someone who plays competitive, and you take it out on Tutan.

He was talking to me.

And the point I tried to get accross all along was that there's no need to always do everything it takes to win because you'll never always be in the position where you'd have to. We're talking about games.

If you'd pay attention Shooter, you'd see that Tutenkoopa never called me a scrub. The guy who wrote the article he posted in the first post was the guy who called people like me scrubs. I think I play quite well. I'm about a 7 on a scale of 1-10, which is a decent level of skill, but not impressive. What we were debating about is what games are, tools for competitive play or for fun. Tut clearly feels gaming is a serious business, while I play them to relax and have a good time.

The reason I said Tut isn't special is because the whole time we were debating, he was supporting his point like he was right and I was wrong. I was trying to get him to admit that neither of us are wrong, that it's a players choice, not his only.

And I was talking to you.

I've read this before and every time I see it pretty much the same argument goes down. I've always been kind of in the middle on this one and I had typed up an argument, but now I don't really feel like arguing about something as trivial as this.

But I just have to point out, at first I agreed with Graveman, but his arguments seemed to deteriorate as time went on.

And you quoted Shooter, not me. Specify who you're talking to a little more clearer. And make sure you quote the right person next time. Don't say you have a problem with what I say when you quote someone else and expect everyone to know you were talking to me.

I said, for the 10 millionth time, I don't have a problem with competition, but that's not the only thing games are for.

I gave my reply to Shooter. The reply was ":/"

Then I spaced, and went to you.

Then say it. Don't just assume everyone knows who you're directing your comments to as if we're sonehow a part of you.

I'd have to agree with Tut on this side of the debate.

I'm agreeing with his opinions.

I play games competitively.

I enjoy playing competitively over playing casually, because I believe that a battle on no items, played on Final Destination or any other neutral stage in Brawl, over all items on plying on 75m.

Why? You may ask. I just passionately enjoy competition in games I enjoy over madness.

I still love the madness :3.

THIS IS A REPLY TO GRAVEMAN

You should really watch the whole 'being a asshole to every member" thing. Even tho you're quite good at it.
And you haven't answered my question yet, which proves my point. Stop being pissy cause tut proved you wrong in all your posts.

THAT WAS A REPLY TO GRAVEMAN

Zomg. Do I smell a new word being learned? DEBATE.

Duh-Bayte. Learn it.

And I think that what the article is trying to say, is that playing to win means winning by any means necessary (But of course, if you're fucking hacking everything in the game, you may as well not even play.) while still keeping some kind of constraint on it. For example, I could just pick up Diamond/Pearl, grab an ARDS or some sort of cheating device, hack a team of legendaries at LV 100, with all stats maxed to 999. But of course, that would just ruin the whole game entirely, while it would still be playing to win. Now in Brawl, when you spam (Let's use olimar for example.) Olimar's Side+B, people are going to get mad, and call you a spammer, while you were there, letting the Pikmin rape your opponent, and then you proceed to smash them to their death. That's playing to win, while the other guy who can't accept all varieties of playing, gets mad at you and never plays you again, because you 'spam.' But you were 'playing to win.'

But, I'll let the argument continue. :custom2:

Way to go, the topic was 6 days away from being a month old and no one was posting in it anymore.

Idiot.

Don't you all love me now? :3