Snakes in the Grass
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.
??????? on 
gazongmk on 
Christine Grefe on 
2Cold Scorpio on 
Loading ...
First off, this particular Guildsman regrets any derogative language that hasb een said in heated discussions on this topic.
It seems to me that the root issue isn’t in the use of either party’s “tactics” (for sake of saving argument on what is tactical and what isn’t, I’ll use this term, albeit loosely to quell any possible disagreements on that particular subject; I feel it to be irrelevant to this post), but rather two competing schools of thought that have emerged in these two unique battlegrounds that opened up new possibilities and abilities we never had dealt with before…and to compound matters further, there were some changes between the two that were for better or worse, depending on one’s point of view.
In the old days (with the exception of the Rainbow Six games, which were generally slower paced and more deliberate in all but the smallest of maps *cough*Killhouse*ahem*), deathmatch play was simpler, and generally more frantic more often. Which is odd considering in those older games, we didn’t have the degree of agility and free-movement that the nanosuit in Crysis gives. That isn’t to say that Crysis doesn’t have frantic gunfights (heavens no!), or that those older games didn’t fall into creeping around campfests either every so often.
Crysis does a lot of things we didn’t have back then: we can move faster than before, jump higher, crawl around on your belly, turn invisible temporarily, modify your weapons on the fly, drive not only land but also aerial vehicles, beat someone senseless with super-strength, etc. Parts of the battlefield can not be utilized that couldn’t have before without a ladder or a pile of boxes present. The battlefields are generally much more open than in the old days, but not “arenas”; instead, realistic outdoor battlefields with cover and obstacles that consists more of pillars, buildings, and courtyards. There’s a day/night cycle that actually influences things for once, as well as weather.
I think we’ve all been adjusting to it, whether we realize it or not, and in different ways, for better or worse. Do I think I’ve utilized tactics that were a bit on the cheap side? Yes, perhaps, depending on how one looks at things. Why? To win, of course…or to at least close the gap. Have others done the same? Maybe…again, it depends on one’s point of view, I suppose. Could this cutthroat behavior from all parties involved be guilty of lowering the “fun” level for the sake of winning? Possibly. We all know winning is fun, and is the object of the game. However, a good match or a good game can be fun…even in defeat.
Scorpio also wonders if his own win-at-any-cost doctrine (often marked by nefarious explosives in opportune areas or ambushing unaware adversaries from a dark corner) is a relic of a bygone era, and was inappropriately utilized when tactics lately had to be reforged from something that generally brought gross losses into cutthroat tactics that put points on the board at the expense of slowing the action down and possibly diluting the fun factor.
Winning is nice, but at what cost? Will Guild tactics eventually devolve into two combatants facing each other at gunpoint with a brick wall between them, each waiting for the other to make a move?
Perhaps two sets of ‘rules’ should be established: the ‘fun’ rule set that is more akin to the old days where there was more running and gunning and less hiding, waiting, and watching and results in a lot more gun play and dead bodies littering the field; and a second ‘tactical’ rule set that is generally slower-paced and utilizes all resources and tactics available? I don’t know.
Maybe we’ve been spoiled by new possibilities, or they didn’t fit as well into old playstyles as we previously thought might. Or perhaps we’re just seeing chinks in the Crysis armor we didn’t notice before, or hadn’t been noteworthy before. I don’t know; I don’t have the answers.
*shrugs*