Um, not fucking Lago, the part where he said "There is a large serious tournament scene" refutes the part about it being not good for tournaments.
See, there are three types of games, when it comes to tournament scenes.
1) Games without large tournament scenes that would be good for them, but aren't for some reason.
2) Games without large tournament scenes that would be bad for them.
3) Games with large tournament scenes that by definition must be good for large tournament scenes, because large tournament scenes keep happening.
Fighting games, tiers, and downloadable errata.
Moderator: Moderators
Um, not fucking Lago, the part where he said "There is a large serious tournament scene" refutes the part about it being not good for tournaments.
See, there are three types of games, when it comes to tournament scenes.
1) Games without large tournament scenes that would be good for them, but aren't for some reason.
2) Games without large tournament scenes that would be bad for them.
3) Games with large tournament scenes that by definition must be good for large tournament scenes, because large tournament scenes keep happening.
See, there are three types of games, when it comes to tournament scenes.
1) Games without large tournament scenes that would be good for them, but aren't for some reason.
2) Games without large tournament scenes that would be bad for them.
3) Games with large tournament scenes that by definition must be good for large tournament scenes, because large tournament scenes keep happening.
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
Yeah, tournament scenes are a different beast from tabletop games. If the game is bad, people will stop showing up. Magic tournament attendance fell by half back when Affinity was utterly dominant, and that's with no substitute available. For video game tournaments, people can switch to a different game.
If you have a thriving tournament scene, then the game is doing something right. That's not an argument about popularity, it's an argument about functionality.
If you have a thriving tournament scene, then the game is doing something right. That's not an argument about popularity, it's an argument about functionality.
-
Lago PARANOIA
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
I think we're accidentally equivocating past each other at this point on our definition of good for tournaments. As in some people are using a definition of 'is proven to buttress a tournament organization style anywhere from tens of thousands to millions of people'. Other people are using the definition of 'is technically competent in a way that is conducive to tournaments without needing some kind of black swan/hook'.Kaelik wrote:Um, not fucking Lago, the part where he said "There is a large serious tournament scene" refutes the part about it being not good for tournaments.
I claim that a game like Chess fits both definition. Bingo only fits the first. [Random fanboi cult classic game that no one plays] fits the second.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
Okay, but see, we can tell why Bingo still exists and is played in large numbers even though it is a shit game. Do you have some explanation for why tons of people still go to and play at Marvel vs Capcom tournaments if they are not both highly competitive and fun to watch?Lago PARANOIA wrote:I think we're accidentally equivocating past each other at this point on our definition of good for tournaments. As in some people are using a definition of 'is proven to buttress a tournament organization style anywhere from tens of thousands to millions of people'. Other people are using the definition of 'is technically competent in a way that is conducive to tournaments without needing some kind of black swan/hook'.Kaelik wrote:Um, not fucking Lago, the part where he said "There is a large serious tournament scene" refutes the part about it being not good for tournaments.
I claim that a game like Chess fits both definition. Bingo only fits the first. [Random fanboi cult classic game that no one plays] fits the second.
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
-
Lago PARANOIA
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
And with this question my argument falls apart, because MvC -- despite my ragging on it -- is after all a legitimately pretty kick-awesome game.Kaelik wrote: Do you have some explanation for why tons of people still go to and play at Marvel vs Capcom tournaments if they are not both highly competitive and fun to watch?
And really, any explanation I gave that claimed 'MvC doesn't deserve to be popular' is going to ring hollow, because A.) it actually has quite a few redeeming values and B.) there are much, much worse games than MvC that are inexplicably popular.
Last edited by Lago PARANOIA on Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
I missed the UMVC3 finals.
Koumei wrote:I'm just glad that Jill Stein stayed true to her homeopathic principles by trying to win with .2% of the vote. She just hasn't diluted it enough!
Koumei wrote:I am disappointed in Santorum: he should carry his dead election campaign to term!
Just a heads up... Your post is pregnant... When you miss that many periods it's just a given.
]I want him to tongue-punch my box.
The divine in me says the divine in you should go fuck itself.
-
Pseudo Stupidity
- Duke
- Posts: 1060
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 3:51 pm