https://culture.vg/features/art-theory/ ... jrpgs.html
https://arch.b4k.co/vst/thread/450749/#450937
Anonymous wrote:>>450749
mediocre argument for a good position. The point of video games isn't to prove who has a better wholistic understanding of warfare. It's an aesthetic experience. You're meant to ENJOY it. Do you remember how that felt? think back to gaming when you were 8.
The argument against compfaggotry in rts is that it obliterates the aesthetic experience in favour of a meta-related outcome, the power-trip of winning. a game that needs something outside of itself to be worth playing is a shit game. Learning competitive rts to a high competitive level isn't interesting or fun. if we were to remove the 'competition' aspect these games would be considered shit. imagine if the experience of becoming an rts champion were a single player affair. The 'campaign mode' or whatever of the game is just the same handful of contextless deathmatch scenarios over and over again thousands of times against an enemy that moves so fucking fast that your primary problem will always be doing really fast and accurate logistics. Remove the knowledge that you're making another person feel bad when you win and competitive rts is just the ultimate padded game.
OP your last paragraph argument is okay but ultimately comes down to why we should just make strategy games turn based. note that good turn-based games never really get ruined by compfags because there's only so much external stuff you can do to boost your performance before we all reach that level plain of 'who can actually think this through better?' Though this does happen to turn based games too, but generally takes longer and isn't as severe, see this clip of bobby fischer talking about chess opening theory for a good rundown on the fate of all games people start to take seriously for reasons other than the sheer aesthetic experience of playing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P349BdHUxlc
also read this
https://culture.vg/features/art-theory/ ... jrpgs.html