


On Gamers Whining About Cheese 200
Thanks to GameSpot for its editorial discussing the fine art of 'cheesing', and the annoyance of those who complain about it. The write explains of 'cheesers': "These gamers (either intentionally or unintentionally) use the same moves or tactics over and over again [in games such as Soul Calibur II or Top Spin] to defeat opponents and, as a result, are often treated as the redheaded stepchildren in gaming circles." However, he argues: "Repetitive moves and tactics can become annoying, but what irritates me more are the people that whine about them", and concludes by suggesting: "The challenge then, for those who prefer to take the high road, is to find ways to beat them... Don't get mad. Get better." But is whining actually a good, natural part of videogaming?
hmmmm (Score:4, Funny)
Is anything good and natural about gaming?
Obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Obvious (Score:2)
Yeah, what about KoF or Mortal Kombat? (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyway, these kind of tactics are usually annoying, but that same friend I just
Cheesing, gaming and whining (Score:5, Insightful)
No, whining is a good, natural part of being a human being. No matter the circumstances, we need to have something we can whine about or we are unhappy (and end up creating artificial problems so we can whine about them).
That said, I can understand people whining about cheese. If someone just acts following a tight formula (that in most cases wasn't even made by them, they found it on a FAQ site) he's somewhere around the capacities of a script kiddie.
However, if they are capable of doing more than just cheesing (and just prefer not to because it just works, not because they are too dumb to do something more challenging), then more power for them and learn how to play (and stop whining because you are not able to counter a tactic that has been used against you several times in a row)!
Spawn sniping (Score:5, Insightful)
Absent such technical solutions, admins are free to kick or ban players they see as using cheap moves, and players are free to discontinue playing with those they feel can't play fair. There is no a priori reason that video games have to be anarchistic. What does this mean? Well, it seems the writer of the article assumes that just because something can be done in a video game, that it is perfectly acceptable to do so. But I disagree. Suppose I was playing a real-life tennis match with Sampras, pulled out a gun, and shot him in the knee. Would my subsequent win (assuming I wasn't arrested or handcuffed) be honest or fair? Certainly not.
Similarly, just because we are used to being able to get away with anything in video games doesn't make those things we get away with right. There are already rules against automated helpers in most games. There is thus no reason to assume that just because an action is possible in a game that it should be allowable or rewarded.
Re:Spawn sniping (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Spawn sniping (Score:2, Insightful)
So the question is, what can you do while waiting for someone to make a game with fully random spawn points?
(oh, wait, they did [bzflag.org].)
Re:Spawn sniping (Score:4, Insightful)
Also realise that a spawn camper isn't taking or defending flags.
I don't think spawn camping is necessarily bad. Most people will whine about it, then turn around and do it to the other team as "punishment" anyway.
Another thing, most games allow you to choose your spawn point. If you have only one spawn point left, and it is getting 0wned, then you're probably about to lose anyway... Get over it.
Re:Spawn sniping (Score:4, Insightful)
There are a few easy ways around spawn camping. First and foremost are server admins who pay attention, and ban lame-ass campers. Secondly, if you have about 2x the spawn points as the # of players, it becomes almost pointless to try to camp one point. Lastly, a couple seconds of invincibility for newly spawned peeps should kill any remaining problems.
Personally, we run two things to prevent spawn-camping - a 2 second invincibility period, and the Matrix Moves. Our mobility is good enough that even if we spawn in where someone is camping, we can usually get away or at least get to a decent weapon.
Frankly, only n00bs camp, and if a n00b camps on our server, they will get their ASS handed to them. About half our regulars would probable smite them with the default weapon, and everyone else would take the time to hunt them down and smite them until they quit playing. We generally don't have to ban people - if a handful of clanners get pissed off at someone, they gang up and obliterate them. There's nothing like spawn-camping with a major weapon, only to have someone sneak up behind you and beat you to death with a melee weapon...
My take on spawn camping... (Score:3, Informative)
Sometimes a team will put more(all) people on defense than offense, that way the other teams defenders will get bored and go off to the enemy team - not for capping flags though, that's up to the
Re:Spawn sniping (Score:3, Interesting)
This is eactly what UT2004 does. Unfortunately, many server admins deliberately turn it off.
The new fad in UT2004 is "lev lifting". Due to a physics bug, you can lift the huge tank-like vehicle with the Raptor (a flying vehicle). This should be fixed in a patch.
you just suck (Score:3, Insightful)
And your analogies to real life are ridiculous. In real life tennis or whatnot, there are rules. Shooting someone in the knee is against the rules. If you did that in a real match, you'd be
Re:you just suck (Score:2)
Actually that depends on the game and the map. In RtCW and Enemy Territory, the spawn points would usually be placed outdoors. The end result being... well either being gunned down by MG42s, torched by flamethrowers, blown to bits by artillery/airstrikes, or being hit by mortars. On some maps (Enemy Territory's Goldrush map most notably) players know exactly, what spot,
Re:you just suck (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been playing FPSs for over ten years as well, my favorite probably having to have been the original UT. I didn't play the specific map you mention much, but I was a damn good sniper, and in a good match I have never been able to freely sit and target spawn points. But I was usually the guy wiping the
Re:you just suck (Score:3, Insightful)
In general, your arguments should not be contingent upon any specific facts of the person you are debating with. One, it's invalid reasoning, and two, it makes you look especially silly when those assumptions turn out i
Re:you just suck (Score:2)
Re:you just suck (Score:2)
Besides, have you seen the average panzerwhore? He usually blows himself up in the process of a kill, which is a crappy ratio if you ask me. Not to mention thay're practically useless between shots, running around with their little pistol. Give me engies, medics and fops any day.
Re:you just suck (Score:2)
Re:Spawn sniping (Score:2, Insightful)
I can. The one example was Top Spin, a tennis game. In video game emulation of tennis, you are thrown right into the mental aspects. His "cheese" was to hit an acute angle shot, a drop shot, that the other team could not return. Quite frankly, that is exactly what you are supposed to do. You play enough, you learn how hard and where to hit the ball to increase your chances.
If your opponents are living at the baseline, come to the ne
Re:Spawn sniping (Score:2)
Using a gun isn't within the rules of tennis. Cheesing is (in fact, cheesing is expected). Your analogy is invalid.
Rob
Re:Spawn sniping (Score:2)
BTW, cheesing within the standard rules of the game (i.e. camping, using overpowered weapons) tends to be far more acceptable than using cheats. This is pro
Re:Spawn sniping (Score:2)
I said the opposite of this. Read my post again.
Rob
Re:Spawn sniping (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Spawn sniping (Score:2)
Re:Spawn sniping (Score:2)
*WHINE* (Score:5, Funny)
*WHINE*
Hahahah (Score:5, Insightful)
So, if you have a poorly designed game in which cheese exists and you want to play it with friends and have fun. Don't do the cheese or you're going to ruin everyone's fun. If there is a cheese whore in the current group of gamers you must play a game that has no cheese. So as a whiner even though I'm saying with my mouth "Stop that you cheesy whore!" what I really mean is "ok, this game sucks and has bad design, but we can have fun with it anyway if we don't do the cheesy crap. Losing isn't a big deal fanboy, pick a different character for once".
Re:Hahahah (Score:2)
And this guy is a hypocritical prick too. He tells people to get better at the games and then says,
"In Soul Calibur II, I use only two moves with Raphael--not because I ha
It's always the losers who whine (Score:4, Insightful)
If anything, I think these people are letting themselevs be fooled by the game. The whole point of introducing the possibility of loss in a game is to leave the player with a feeling of being treated unfairly. But it is not so.
I think the point when these gamers can admit to defeat and say "I got owned" is the point when they'll start enjoying the game.
Either you miss the point, or you're one of them (Score:3, Insightful)
I have been a casual gamer for about 9 years. I have *always* been by far the worst among the people I play with, at least until a couple of years ago. I never objected to losing, since I knew I was bad at it, and was likely to lose a lot--UNLESS the person who fragged me was camping.
Even when playing against someone of totally unknown relative ability, I don't mind losing so long as they adhere to the same standards as me, which are unwritten rules of polite gaming: don't cheat, don't camp, don't cheese
Re:Either you miss the point, or you're one of the (Score:2, Interesting)
If you can't beat a person who relies only on camping or on cheesy techniques, why should you expect to do so? Camping and cheesing are legitimate and good techniques that present a real challenge to some players. Like yourself. Demanding that players stop using these techniques is like demanding a handicap.
Re:Either you miss the point, or you're one of the (Score:2)
Actually, I attacked your credibility after I presented a counter-argument.
And, like I said, you have totally missed the point. There are plenty of people who feel that camping and cheesing are not "legitimate and good techniques." I refuse to use techniques like that, and so do most of the people I play with, at least when they play with me (obviously, I don't know how they play otherwise). They are techniques that game the system, rather than actually trying to build up a real strategy. Sure, you can
Re:Either you miss the point, or you're one of the (Score:5, Interesting)
I've gotten accused of camping for defending a power node in Unreal 2004 Onslaught mode, and it boggles my mind. Why *wouldn't* our team want to defend power nodes? Especially the important one at the middle?
Anyway, rant over.
Re:Either you miss the point, or you're one of the (Score:2)
Re:Either you miss the point, or you're one of the (Score:2)
Game design (Score:2)
Your problem is that you are playing with people who play more th
Re:Game design (Score:2)
You make a lot of good points; I would like to reply first in general, then to a couple of specific parts of your post.
First, I guess the heart of the issue is this: it's about courtesy--the courtesy to say, "Well, I'm here to have fun, so you probably are too. Thus, so that we can both have fun, I won't use repetitive, annoying techniques that will simply prevent you from acting." (that being, essentially, my definition of cheese) Whenever I play against someone whose skill level is significantly lower
Re:Either you miss the point, or you're one of the (Score:2)
Re:Either you miss the point, or you're one of the (Score:2)
No, I lose consistently because I just can't move as fast or as accurately as the "serious" gamers. I will never be able to understand how people can build up an army so fast in Starcraft. I've looked for tips on best balance for a fast startup, and not been able to find anything particularly helpful. That doesn't mean I say "20 min no rush"--it means I've stopped playing Starcraft on Battle.net, because dying in under 5 mins isn't much fun. I only play LAN games against people I know have similar skill
Re:It's always the losers who whine (Score:2)
I am disappointed that I already have a signature; I find your statement to be both pithy and insightful.
The thing is... (Score:4, Insightful)
(Cue "WELL DUH!" from the article)
The thing is, skill isn't acquired immediately. It's not like you can just "get better" as the article suggests and start kicking ass. If that was the case everyone would be tournament-level material. It takes time, and in the meanwhile, you're faced with a "cheesy" move you can't find a way around.
Plus, fighting a "cheeser" isn't going to increase your skill in the least: The only thing you're going to learn is how to win by spamming one move.
Re:The thing is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fix the Cheese (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's face it, these games require very little skill, and this is no accident. There are purposefully two ways to play: one for beginners who aren't even sure which button is kick and which is punch, and one for the people who spend all their time memorizing combo moves. But the thing is, the beginner's technique is often more powerful than any advanced player's most complex combo attack!
Is this a flaw? No, it's definitely a feature, but perhaps it's a feature that a player should be able to turn off. How about customizable rulesets like in Worms? This is an obstacle that can easily be circumvented if the players really want it. But for now, it is part of the game, like it or not.
Re:Fix the Cheese (Score:2)
Re:Fix the Cheese (Score:2)
Re:Fix the Cheese (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you could implement a Tony Hawk's Skateboarding-style system, whereby the more you repeat a given move, the less damage it does.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pfft... (Score:2)
Savage -- Only one 'cheesy' move (Score:2)
Most of the early Savage [s2games.com] games were predictable; rush forward, get mines, build, and put up some towers to protect what you've built. Specific maps had "the way" to win. Anything else was ignored. After about a month, the commanders figured ou
Re:Savage -- Only one 'cheesy' move (Score:2)
Re:Savage -- Only one 'cheesy' move (Score:2)
I picked a copy up at a retail store (EB Games in the US) a few months back. They have a samuri mod that I haven't tried yet. It was initially only for European players but they said that it would eventually be a download for everyone else. (checks) Yep, it's a 11mb download (2 parts).
Wacky whiners (Score:2)
Re:Wacky whiners (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem is this is not always even possible, hence the whole idea of the "cheese" move in the first place. The best example I can give is in DOA2 for the XBox, some of the characters are faster than the others, but to balance gameplay the slower ones deal more damage on average. You can get into situations though where if a faster character (like Kasumi or Ayani) knocks you down and
Cheese = Skills. (Score:4, Interesting)
Mortal Kombat 2 - Most players used Jax (Ground pound was over powered) or Millena (Jump away and air throw sai all day).
Street Fighter Alpha 2 - Most players used Chun Li (insane damage on custom combos) or Ken (alpha counter with glitched range which made it too long)
X-Men vs Street Fighter - People would constantly fly off screen with storm and use her "float" move to stay off screen to charge their super meter then come down, use a super, and fly back off screen.
Killer Instinct - there were a number of infinate combos in KI, which I saw used in tournaments plenty of times.
All in all I see the same crap playing games online today. Go play any FPS and 80% of the players are running around with whichever weapon is overpowered, not to mention the ones that run maphacks, aimbots, etc. Log onto a MMORPG and who usually has the most money? The people who are duping, macroing, or just exploiting stuff in game. A good example is in Star Wars Galaxies, a Jedi who uses their powers in front of any other player is subjected to instant PvP. This means Macroing any of these powers to gain experence while you are AFK is suicide. So, what the Jedi's do is they go inside a large house with a balcony, climb to the top where no one can get them and AFK macro there. While using their powers inside the house would push them outside with a temporary enemy flag to everyone, for some reason on the balcony they are immune. So that is where they camp and level.
The point is, any game with 2 players that isn't co-op is going to have exploits/cheese and the players who exploit the cheese along with having skills in the first place are always on top of the heap.
Re:Cheese = Skills. (Score:2)
This reminds me of a saying I've heard in several forms from competetive Magic: The Gathering players: "If you're not trying to break a card, why are you bothering to use it?" The people that win are the people that use the most broken unfair cards and combos.
Re:Cheese = Skills. (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyway, yeah people are crap, but that doesn't mean the designers can't make the game so that people have to play fair.
No cheese = boring. (Score:2)
Play To Win (Score:4, Interesting)
Regarding shooting Pete Sampras to win in tennis: You wouldn't win the match! That's not legal within the limits of the game. Spawn camping is legal in several FPS games. Maybe the games were designed so poorly that this is the best tactic. If that's the case, you should do it better than your opponent if you want to win. If that means the game is not "fun" anymore, then play a better game. Possible within the rules of a game by definition DOES mean allowable (including exploiting bugs). Competitive games are about winning within the rules of the game... if you make up your own rules about honor, you are playing a different game that you've made up && you have no basis in reality or even agreeable reason. Scrubs cry "unfair!" but they just need an excuse to soften the blow that they can't defeat a simple tactic or that their game does not stand up well to serious competition. Do you want to win or whine?
Regarding Soul Calibur II requiring very little skill: Think again. Soul Calibur II was designed to have a more gradual learning curve than most other fighters on purpose to be easy to pick up but don't kid yourself in thinking your "beginner attacks" could in any dreamworld be "more powerful than any advanced player's most complex combo attack". You are way off base. If this is your opinion, I know I could defeat you 63/0 with one hand. Enter a competition to test your theory rather than replying with some anecdotal evidence about your living room experiences.
Regarding "cheese" practitioners having the capacities of "script kiddies": What do you say to someone who wins tournaments against the best players in the world with your so-called "cheese"? That they have no skill? They may have the best execution skill of anyone on the planet && also the best understanding of the game to know the greatest tactic (which could be a simple one). You're right that a simple tactic is often easily defeated so anyone wishing to win should figure it out but just because a tactic seems simple doesn't mean it's not the best thing (which you should do too && do better if you want to win).
Regarding fighting a "cheeser" isn't going to increase your skill in the least: Of course it will increase your skill if you constantly experiment with all the tools (moves) at your disposal in order to find the best counter. In Soul Calibur II particularly, almost every move in the game (including throw attempts) can be parried (called Guard Impact [guardimpact.com] in SC2 terminology) which was designed in as a balancing feature. If you know when someone will attack next, you have the advantage. Studying even a simple tactic in order to either emulate or defeat it does make you a better player. You explore areas of the game you might not have needed to otherwise. Isn't this obvious?
Regarding "riding a move or two all the way to victory" as the same thing as "exploiting flaws in games": If a game has a design flaw, then it is not a good game. Get over it. If there are moves in a game that are arguably the best tactics, you will learn, practice, && execute them consistently if you want to win. Your fake morality about some arbitrary realism element in FPS (players not getting tired from jumping) is foolish. Jumping is a fair part of those games. If you think games should penalize jumpers with noticable fatigue, write such a game && play it. Otherwise, you're just making up your own weird rules that most reasonable people wouldn't even agree are right. Are you playing a game? What are the rules of THAT game? I'm not asking what you think the rules SHOULD be or what you wish they were. Nobody knows your made up rules except you && I bet your rules change even on you once you start getting beat by some other tactic. Learn to play the real game.
My close friend, David Sirlin, has written four popular articles on this
Re:Play To Win (Score:2)
To be entirely fair -- up until recently, many games had low production budget
Re:Play To Win (Score:4, Insightful)
Is there actually a clause in whatever rulebook tennis has that says you are not allowed to shoot the other player? Even if that one is covered, is there a rule that you can't take a baseball bat to their knees ten minutes before the game starts? I seriously doubt it.
If you tried to assult the other player before the game you'd get arrested if you were caught, however it probably wouldn't be breaking the written rules of the game itself. Steroids were presumably only made illegal because lots of people thought they were unfair and whined about them, i'm sure the original rules for most games didn't cover drug use.
Rules change over time based on what people consider fair, and some "rules" are enforced by an authority other than the literal rules of the game. You break your opponents kneecaps and you'll get arrested by the police, spawn-camp or bunnyhop too much and you'll be ostracized or banned by the other players.
speaking as a sniping bastard (Score:3, Interesting)
The thing is, I make no secret of this. In fact, I don't like "perfect" sniping spots. If you can't hit me, the game's no fun. I think the UT "lightning gun" was a beautiful compromise for snipers. My goal is to make people cringe and cower every time they enter an area with an overhead vantage point. Their extra paranoia (often justified) slows 'em down enough that I actually have a chance when I do come down to ground level.
My preferred vantage point is on the top floor of a level within sight of the elevator or top of the stairs. That means that I have to watch my back and be ready whenever I hear the elevator. It also means that when I reveal that strategy after the game, the guy who was hit with half a dozen head shots -really- kicks himself. >:-)
Re:speaking as a sniping bastard (Score:2)
My brother comes al
quit yer whining! (Score:2)
If there's an easy-but-powerful move in a game, the best thing you can do is learn how best to counter it.
I've put a great many hours into Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter, Soul Calibur, Q3A, etc., and in all those games, there are "cheesy" moves, but they're not unbalancing for a hardened fighter.
OTOH, there are times when there's a bug in a game that gives one side an advantage. Eg. In EA's NHL 93 or 94, if y
redheaded stepchildren (Score:2)
What is the natural history of the infamous red-headed stepchild? Where did this line of homo sapien subspecies arise? Ireland? Madagascar?
Cheese, the noob myth (Score:5, Insightful)
1. You have the rules of the game, that everyone knows, and in a computer game they cannot (usually) be broken.
2. In addition to the rules of the game that are clearly laid out, there is another subset of 'unwritten rules' that act much like a code of honor.
3. Each new player has his own little version of these unwritten rules, and cries foul each time that their own version of the rules is broken.
4. These new players that play by two sets of rules consistently, and without fail, LOSE. ALL THE TIME.
Such players will continue to lose until they see the light, and move on to the next level of gaming: playing only by the game's rules rather than their own.
I.E. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CHEESE
Now, I don't know about you, but I dislike losing. If your goal when you play a game online is to make up some sort of imaginary rule-set for yourself and the other people you are playing with, and then proceed to bitch and moan when these rules are violated, then go right ahead and do so. I won't stop you. In fact, I will aid you by becoming the person you can bitch and moan about.
However, if your goal in playing online games is to experience the evolution of learning that good games put the player through; to practice the process of ability refinement, knowledge, and experience in a game; to just become better, then you might want to put that childish subset of rules behind you and step into a truer gaming experience.
I firmly believe that games are thorougly healthy pursuits, and that in them you can practice many of the skills that make you successful in real life in a short amount of time. That is why I still play them, and that is why I try to play every game I play well.
SoulCalibur 2 (Score:2)
The idea is, if a player uses the same move over and over and over again, their timing will become regularized. If his opponent takes notice of this, he can attempt to press towards and Guard at the same time to perform a GI, parrying the attack. This leaves the attacker wide open for a heart-stopping half-second, and the defender can then launch a counter-attack the only defense to which is perfor
Re:SoulCalibur 2 (Score:2)
Re:SoulCalibur 2 (Score:2)
Different cultural viewpoints on cheese? (Score:2, Interesting)
One comment the commentator made was on the difference between how Korean and American players deal with cheese tactics. He said that the American would probably say "OMG!! This cheese is so imba! Nerf it! NERF IT!!!!!" while the Korean would probably say "Ok folks, there's this new cheesy strat going around. What's the best way to
Different ways to lose (Score:2)
I'm all
Devil's Advocate... (Score:2)
Generally, I find "cheap" to be gamerese for "I lost, but I don't want to admit that someone better beat me." Obviously, genuine game bugs are a (rare) exception.
Re:Different ways to lose (Score:2)
The down side of being cheesy. (Score:2)
Re:The down side of being cheesy. (Score:2)
Frequently, game manufacturers have trouble with piracy. The easiest way they have to work around piracy is to convert the game into a "service", so that you miss out on significant functionality if you pirate the game. Half-Life, for instance -- sure, players can pirate the game
Campers ever prosper (Score:2)
Personally, I'm a camper. I like dark maps, dark corners, boxes to hide behind, etc. And I just love catching the same person 3 times in a row in the exact same spot. They spawn, run into room, I get them from behind box. They respawn, run into room, I get them from behind same box. They respawn, run into room, I get them from behind same box. Then they tell me I've got no skill
A matter of tactics (Score:3, Insightful)
It happened to the British in the American Revolutionary War -- "hiding behind trees and rocks is unfair and cowardly!".
It happened to the US in Vietnam -- "using ununiformed troops and ability to blend into civilian environments is unfair and cowardly!"
Now it's happening to the US again in the form of bin Laden's tactics -- hit and run, avoiding allowing the enemy to get a go
A specific workaround (Score:2)
Any cheating like this could easily be captured and worked around in playtesting, it's not like it's difficult to fix. It just smacks of lazy programming.
Re:Bigotry (Score:3, Flamebait)
But...
this kind of comment really pisses me off...
You proved the bigots right!
Re:Bigotry (Score:2)
Actually, it's a reference to Little Orphan Annie; the full expression is 'he/she was smacked around like a red-headed stepchild.'
older than that... (Score:2)
I've found one older reference - Little Orphan Annie came out in 1932 in its first incarnation, but this play was published in 1931 (from a google search):
| AUTHOR: George, Charles, 1893-1960.
| TITLE: The red-headed stepchild,
| a comedy-drama in three acts,
| PLACE: Chicago,
|PUBLISHER: T.S. Denison
Re:Bigotry (Score:2)
In other words, I would like to close by saying that red hair is hot. Unless you're a guy in which case... never mind, red hair is still hot, I'm jus
Re:Bigotry (Score:2)
Re:Irony (Score:3, Funny)
So, redheads have fiery tempers because people discriminate against them for having fiery tempers, which they have because people discriminate against them...
Anyway, I don't think me getting annoyed by years of blatant and stupid bigotry should really be reduced to me having a temper. I'm actually pretty calm in general, but obvious injustices bug me, as they damn well should do. I mean, if you're a black, lesbian, paraplegic, mentally-deficient grandmother, you get treated like a bloody martyr, but hey
Racism galore! (Score:2, Insightful)
If it will make you feel better, go ahead and mock my racial heritage. Do it all you want! Don't feel bad about it, either, because IT DOESN'T MATTER. What matters is that we recognize the qualities in individuals, and don't get so worked up about it that we end
Re:Racism galore! (Score:3, Insightful)
It's just that it's one of those things that pretty stupid to begin with, but the thing that gets me is that it's seen as acceptable to ostracise someone due to a particular genetic factor (redhead), but not for another (sex, race, etc.).
Hey, I'm all for ostracising people for things they've chosen to lab
a beer or two to fix (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No Cheese (Score:2)
Whenever I hear of whiners, it brings me back to MK2's heyday. I used to hear people WHINE all the time that if you threw (use throws) that it was cheap and cheesy. This is a pure case of bitchy whining. Hey dopey, if you stay in one spot, crouched and blocking and I'm able to walk right up to you and throw you, I think you need to revise you gameplay tactics
Very difficult to be "cheesy" in SC (Score:2)
As for characters that just have combos with a number of hits, like Ivy or Sophitia or Xiang Hua, that's just part of the character's style.
A game that allows a player to be "cheesy" is, IMHO, flawed.
Re:Oh man (Score:2)
That's a collection of belligerent drunks or something, not normal people.