It's not often that I can identify the exact moment in my life when my mind set changes, so in those rare cases when I notice it happening I try to remember it. When it comes to the matter of valid versus invalid in video games, the moment occurred when a friend of mine got upset at me for ridiculing his "cheesy" tactics in Quake III Arena (Q3A). I still remember some of the details rather vividly, despite it being many years ago. We were playing our favorite map, Q3DM17, and he was bouncing up and down on the center pad, whoring the megahealth and tossing rockets off at me on the ground.
Neither one of us were nearly as good at such games as we've since become, and, for reasons that presently escape me, his bouncing was rendering him largely invulnerable. Don't ask me why I didn't nail him with the railgun or the machine gun, for I honestly cannot say. Again, we've both improved a lot since then, and I today think of the obvious solutions that were escaping me at the time. I don't remember exactly what was said, but the gist of the situation was that (1) I complained about his "cheesy" tactics, and (2) he got upset in response, challenging me to explain precisely why his tactics were invalid.
At that point, I could have done what it seems to me that most other folk do; i.e., I could have stubbornly maintained my view despite any evidence or reason to the contrary. Instead, to my credit, I reacted as I always hope to react: re-examining my beliefs as objectively as possible. My friend and I broke for lunch, and we had a pretty good discussion about the whole thing while eating. The result was that I had to apologize and retract what I'd said. I had to change my view on such things. The purpose of this essay is to explain why in the hope that others might see the light as well.
Let's start with the most recent illustration of the failure at hand. I found some time to play Raven Shield (RS) today, which features absolutely wonderful team-based multi-player action, and I ran into ridiculous hostility on two different servers within minutes. The whole thing was so egregious on the latter server that it's hard for me to believe. To be more specific, I joined the "|OCG| - Proving Grounds" server, which I assume to be a clan server, given its naming convention and the clan tags sported by some of the players. After a few rounds, I happened to notice that my default kit had been altered; i.e., my FNC assault rifle didn't have its typical extended capacity magazine or "cmag" for short.
So I asked a simple, innocent question: "Why aren't cmags allowed?" The responses I got varied from the comparatively polite "Shut up" to "Cause only pussies like u [sic] use em". In an unusual display of restraint, I didn't say any of the more vulgar things that came to mind. Instead I said "That's not a response. Why aren't cmags allowed?" This time the responses were a bit different. One fellow, who claimed to have admin rights, issued me a warning that I was about to get banned from the server. Another player initiated proceedings to kick me out of the server via an open vote. Since it looked like the vote might very well pass, and more importantly because I'm not interested in playing with such cretins, I left of my own accord.
That was roughly the same sort of thing that I had just encountered on another server a few minutes previously. The main difference in that case was that I killed some guy with my assault rifle when he apparently thought the map called for playing with pistols. Honestly, I had just joined up, so maybe the players had agreed to a pistols-only round. I don't know. I just know that I was quickly called all sorts of vile things, and a vote was initiated to kick me from the server. I sure am glad we live in a modern, enlightened era of tolerance. Sheesh.
Though the most obvious problem with those examples is the clearly unwarranted hostility, there is nevertheless an underlying principle at work, namely, that something that is part of the game is somehow invalid. I have to qualify this, of course, because there are all sorts of jerks in the world who feel the need to cheat by hacking the game executable, hacking the drivers for their hardware, using "trainer programs", etc. Such means are clearly illegitimate because (1) they are not part of the game, and (2) confer an unfair advantage (or disadvantage) to some player(s). I'm not talking about such such illegitimate means at all; rather, I'm talking about the deliberate exclusion of something that is part of the game and is not necessarily limited to the privileged few.
In the aforementioned cases with RS, no reason was ever given as to why cmags or weapons other than pistols couldn't be used. And, regarding the latter, it's not like RS doesn't supply the means to restrict the gear available to players. Quite the contrary, the game server provides fine control over exactly what hardware can and cannot be used. If people want to play a pistols-only server, then they should limit the gear available to pistols. I, for one, am not going to agree voluntarily to restrict myself to pistols if a game lets me select an assault rifle.
The principle at hand is hardly confined to RS. When playing Unreal Tournament (UT), I've often been castigated for using the redeemer, the flak cannon, and even the bio-rifle if you can believe that. The sorts of charges hurled are that the redeemer requires no skill, that the flak cannon is a "n00b" weapon, that the bio-rifle is lame, and so forth. Others complain about the use of powerups, armor, dodging, or the translocator. Still others complain about more general tactical choices like "camping" or "spam". All such whining stems ultimately from my doing something that other players don't like, which, if I am to be completely honest, only makes me all the more likely to do it.
When playing Battlefield 1942 (BF1942), the complaints are about the use of aircraft, use of a flak gun against ground vehicles, use of the engineer's dynamite in novel ways (e.g., detonating a jeep full of it near enemy units), "spawn camping", and so forth. In Tribes 2 (T2), the complaints ring out about "base rape", "mine-discing", the shocklance, snipers, satchel charges, and pretty much everything else one might find unpleasant. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what game I choose to play. It seems I always manage to find servers full of wankers who think that I should stand perfectly still, preferably sans weapons it seems, so that they can slaughter me with impunity.
I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but to those who would lodge the sorts of complaints mentioned previously I can say only this: grow up. If you want to play UT without sniper rifles, then find a server that doesn't have them in the game. If you want to play BF1942 without any spawn rape, well, you're simply out of luck; the game is poorly designed in that respect, insofar as it's positively unavoidable. If you can't live with that, then you'd better find another game to play, or perhaps you should take up a defensive position guarding a spawn point. The bottom line is simple: if it's part of the game, then it's legitimate, regardless of how little you like it, how little skill you think it takes, how much of a "n00b" thing it is, etc.
If you think otherwise, then I offer a challenge: explain precisely why the thing(s) you consider verboten should not be allowed. What you'll find is that it's going to be impossible to make a case for thing x without the reasons given working also for things y, z, etc. For example, let's say you're one of those people who complains about the use of the redeemer in UT. Why should the redeemer be banned, we ask? The chorus responds: because it's a no-skill weapon!
Two things need to be said in response. First, that's simply false, and no proof is needed aside from the huge numbers of new players who consistently manage to vaporize themselves and their teammates. Quite the contrary, using the redeemer well takes a bit of practice. Second, if the redeemer is a no-skill weapon, then so is the rocket launcher. After all, the rocket launcher can fire a group of six rockets or grenades, either of which is certain death to anyone unlucky enough to get hit. True, it's sometimes easier to hit someone with a redeemer blast, but sometimes it isn't. Anyone with half a clue will whip out a minigun, shock rifle, or other weapon and take out that redeemer missile, whereas the same cannot be done with rockets.
As my friend pointed out to me so long ago, it's not like the weapon/tactic/whatever is unstoppable. Just as bouncing on the center pad in Q3A's Q3DM17 can be stopped easily with the railgun, machine gun, etc., so too redeemer missiles can be shot down in UT, spawn-camping armor can be taken out in BF1942 by lots of anti-tank soldiers, and so forth. There's always a counter to the deprecated circumstance, and the very same circumstance is available to the other team as well. As the military teaches infantry, terrain is always neutral; i.e., any advantage it confers to one side will be conferred to the other side as well. In any well-balanced game, the same is true of the various weapons and equipment.
To be clear, I'm not claiming that no reason can be given for running a RS server without cmags. That's the choice of the server admin(s). I do think it's ridiculously unreasonable to insult and ban a player simply for asking why, but that's a separate issue. What I am claiming is that if something is part of the game—be it a weapon, vehicle, power-up, tactic, strategy, or anything else—then it's legitimate, and you need to quit whining about it. I saw the light when I found myself unable to make any coherent case to my friend as to why his tactics were "cheesy". Those who are intellectually honest will likely find themselves in the same position. So save yourself some trouble and give up the whining; it's all part of the game.
05/29/2003