I’ve been reading this for a long time on twitter, facebook, and (mainly) the MLG forums. This idea of “competitive” merit and this idea that there is such thing as a “competitive game” archetype. Now I've always considered it to be a minor problem - focusing mainly in the console community - but I've been hearing it from some people i respect now.
I’d like to say this: all games are competitive. Inherently. If score is being kept and theres a winner and a loser, the game is competitive. Don’t believe me? Ask the Donkey Kong players. Or DDR players. Hell even the cooperative play of some games could be considered competitive due to scoring, leveling and other aspect which have become common place in today's games.
So why do people consistently bring this point up? Mainly because they are misunderstanding what they are actually talking about. instead of using the word “competitive” which doesn’t make any sense in the context as I've provided they should be using “good” games. Something that has seriously been lacking modern games. In terms of pure gameplay mechanics(small bodies and crosshairs, autoaim etc) and measurements of raw skill(aim/accuracy for FPS and APM in RTS) most modern games do not compare to games like CS, quake, and SC:BW. Anyone who has played both will tell you that.
Why is this important? Basically because when the people who are complaining the loudest about the games are being ignored - simply because they are not approaching the developors correctly. For example the MLG community always talks about making games competitive/designing for them to be competitive - like HaloCE, CS, Quake and starcraft(all being accidentally competitive mind you) - missing the fact that if they simplay saying that are average instead of saying they are competitive(IE ~>5% of the average gaming population) just add the critique as if they are an average fan.
No comments:
Post a Comment