It is longstanding Guild policy to discourage complaints about certain tactics used in video games. Terms like “noob tube” and “camper” often have little meaning to Guild operatives; if the tactic works, it is valid, and if not, then whoever is using it is a fool. Recent debate regarding tactics in Crysis Wars, however, has led to two Guildsmen of the old school actually resorting to similar terms in order to describe actions undertaken in the game by various parties.
If the language sounds stilted, it’s because the author is attempting to be scrupulously objective. Not that the author considers that to be a valid excuse.
One party argues that Wars’ stealth mode is too effective, thus making it almost imperative that players adopt a passive, defensive posture rather than an aggressive, offensive posture when playing, thereby neutralizing—to an extent, at least—the effect of basic FPS skillsets on the outcome of a game and reducing “deathmatch” games to something more closely resembling “hide and seek.”
The other party suggests that Wars’ stealth mode addresses a problem in the original Crysis, where stealth was seen as a liability, and that Wars’ new, more effective mode is an improvement over the former. Furthermore, as all parties have equal access to stealth, the offended parties could simply adopt the tactics used by their opponents. Guild doctrine, obviously, supports this stance; in fact, whether or not all parties have equal access to stealth is irrelevant. Traditional Guild doctrine would hold that stealth would still be a valid tactic even if it were unbalanced.
However, something came up in discussion today that calls into question how much support this old doctrine really has in the modern Guild: one Guildsman suggested that the problem could be alleviated by adjusting graphics settings down so that the stealth mode effect stood out more. Another immediately protested that this would be “cheating.”
…This is in obvious conflict with the doctrine above stating that, if a tactic works, it is valid.
Of course the Guild has always looked down (at least selectively) on underhanded techniques like hacking; changing underlying game files to net an advantage over one’s opponent is bad form, and at the very least calls into question the player’s true ability. (Interestingly, the Guild has traditionally imposed very light punishments for such infractions as “looking over the enemy’s shoulder to see where he might be” and other similar forms of cheating.) However, as things like “graphics settings” are a part of the game and require no such underhanded modification—indeed must be turned down, often to the detriment of the player’s experience, if a rig cannot handle a given game—one wonders if this can actually be defined as cheating, and more particularly if the old school Guild could have defined it as such.
At this point, the author does not seek so much to question one argument or the other, but rather the old doctrine itself, and so the question is:
Fundamentally, has the Guild changed in such a way that “fun” may now be considered more important than “winning”?
The author—Bishop—asks this because it is his opinion that his win-at-all-costs attitude may have had significant influence on the old doctrine and wonders if, having been made wiser (or at least less apt to win) by the wear and tear he has experienced over the years, it might be time to reevaluate these old standards.
Loading ...
Recent Comments Gravatars