Trend in preference?

I'm wondering something. I understand that some people prefer to play without items and some prefer to play with (I count myself among the latter, but I don't really care). With that in mind, as psychology is a fascinating subject for me, I'm hoping to figure out why. I have one theory: that those who are already comfortable with games of chance (games involving dice, standard playing cards, collectible cards, etc.) have a preference toward items and those accustomed to strictly skill-based games (Chess, traditional fighters, physical sports) prefer to take out the random element of items. So, how is it for you? Which game style do you prefer both in Smash and in other realms of play?
To keep the notation short, you can use these simple terms. If you play games strictly based on skill, you are tight. If you play games involving some use of risk, you are loose. If you prefer to play without items, you're a purist. If you play with them, you're a materialist (or just say with or without).
That would make me a loose materialist. I play plenty of games that involve both chance and skill, because I feel uncertain conditions force you to become a better player if you want to survive sudden turnarounds. Items to me are just like topdecking something good in any card game.

To those who want to rant about items because you feel they simply unbalance the game and anyone who says otherwise is an idiot, I refer you to the Item Standard Play Project. That thread is dedicated to those who feel items can be balanced if controlled correctly, banning the items that most significantly unbalance the game. I do not wish to start a debate here, as I'm sure it has already been done before and I'm not advocating either side. I am simply looking for a correlation between preferences. I'm fairly certain that the serious/casual distinction is present here, too, but I'm hoping to define it further. Of course I also know there will be people who are exceptions to every rule. Thanks to those who contribute constructively.

Count thus far
Tight purist: 2.5
Tight materialist: 0.5
Loose purist: 2
Loose materialist: 0

I switch between tight purist with my big bro and tight materialist. I dont put all items on often even when im playing with items.

Sometimes a boxed in level, in super sudden death, mini size, super fast, flower, damage ration to 2.0 with bumpers set to high owns so so much (good way to practice wall tech)

I meant im a tight materialist with friends little bros etc

So people who play with items have a materialist disposition?

I don't get why you're defining item users as materialist...

Mabye people who play as Peach do so to cater to their opedial desires.

Psychology can be silly sometimes.

The "materialist" and "purist" descriptions are simply to describe how one plays Smash, not one's outlook on life. The "tight" and "loose," borrowed from poker terms, describe how one prefers their games on all fronts.

To Rigor, I agree, I never turn on all items when playing. I feel some of them are just game-breakingly powerful and remove skill from the game. I'm sure there are some out there that actually prefer that style, though, and that's ok. Whatever makes things fun for them.

Well for what it's worth, tight purist.

Hope it helps. :3

You probably will be finding a corrolation between tight players and "purism" and loose players and "materialism" (as you define them) due to the nature of those 4 concepts.

Is this for a class project or just for own funs?

Like I said, psychology is an interest of mine. I'm not going to school for anything right now. I've found that the more I know about how people think, the easier it would be to mediate peacefully between rival factions. It's kinda like trying to make everyone my friend. You can't befriend everyone, but it's still better to have more. (I'd love to make an adult comparison here, but it probably wouldn't fly with the rules.)

Indeed, I'm expecting an association for tight players with purism and loose players with materialism. If I find this is the case, I hope to use this to provide events suitable for people of both tastes. After all, there are tournaments for all games, even those involving nothing but luck, so it's an activity not just there for tight players. That's simply what gets the most attention because, getting into more psychology here, those who would feel comfortable organizing such an event are more prone to keep things tight to promote fairness and prevent confusion.

I'm none of the above really... I love games like Texas Hold'em, some other card games, etc, but I also love games that are not random at all, and require a lot of skill in terms of strategy etc... In Smash, similarly, I'll sometimes play with items on for fun/random factor, but in a competitive match prefer them off to remove the randomness.

Well, then I'd say you're at least a purist, but do you have at least a preference between tight and loose? I like to play games of strict skill, as well, and I'm actually fairly decent at Chess. Won a few tournaments, in fact. I just prefer the games with chance more.

Items make the game into a boring chuck fest.

As I said, this is NOT!!! a debate about whether items are good for the game or not. I'll thank you to actually read my post before just typing a worthless one-liner answer.

On something constructive, I can at least jot down 1 more purist.

Nope, I don't really have a preference there... I play just as many games where chance plays a big role(poker, Mario Kart, card games, etc) as I do more skill games(GTA, FPS games in general, GH/Rock Band, etc), and I enjoy them all about the same

Ok, I suppose I can respect that viewpoint. I can't believe I hadn't considered people that just play to play. Looks like this will be more enlightening than I thought.

Loose Purist. I go for risky moves that even Self Destruct sometimes but I usually don't play with items and with neutral-ish stages.

I dunno. I play card games, but there is a great deal of skill involved if you're betting, in knowing how much to bet, when, etc. But I also really like Chess.

And I like both with and without items.

I despise items.

I hate playing with items when I don't have to. When my opponent gets their *** kicked, I want it to be well-earned.

But when its just friendly play, I am willing to give in to my friends desire to play with items. If they want the match to be stupid, then more power to them. I will still win.

Tight purist, I guess. I hate it when games come down to luck on who wins.

However, I also play yugioh, and for some reason the extreme influence of luck doesn't seem to bother me as much there. It's as if you just... expect that luck to be a part of the gameplay. Most of the time a well built deck will always get at least a decent starting hand, while sometimes it will do poorly and sometimes it will do amazing, but having a consistent deck is a skill element itself.

I dunno. I guess I prefer straight skill where it's possible, but where it isn't, then depending on the degree of luck, I'll either consider it just part of the game (ie. card games), or something you've got to put up with (and take advantage of) if you're going to play that game (ie. something like pokemon or mario kart).

Loose purist, I think. I play luck-based games (Pokemon TCG), but prefer skill-based ones (Chess).
I sometimes turn on the less powerful items, like Screw Attacks, Banana Peels, and Smoke Balls. But I usually have all off, on a neutral stage.

Ok guys, thank you for being civil, but please don't just post to say you don't like items. It doesn't help anything to just see one part of it.

Tight Purist. I have been practicing Judo for a few years now so I know what a real competitive fight feels like. And there is definitely nothing random in the fights. Everything you do has to be planned and intentional because if it isn't your opponent will really bash you unless he is too stupid. Also are there a lot of mindgames in martial arts, just like in Smash.

I hate games like Mario Party. You only have to be lucky to win. The mini games at the end of each turn are an attempt to bring in a little bit of purism but most of them are based on mere luck.

Organous has a good concept going. I like a little poker but other than that I hate board games, card games, games of chance etc. and lo and behold I hardly ever play with items on in Smash.

Tight purist. This is a very interesting thread. +10 points

(Okay so I played with items on for a while to get to know them when the game came out, but once I knew all the item's quirks I turned them off).

Tight purist. It gets to the point where items become a liability rather than an asset. A hammer pops up on the right side of the map, obviously both people will run towards it instantly in the thought that the hammer is gonna take a life away.

It distracts from the battle. And no, i'm not starting a debate on items. This is just my personal view.

Er.. I r tight purist?

Well i love variety.
Chess is probably one of my favorite games of ALL time.
but i also love the luck of draw in poker and skill it takes to cheat and not get caught.

So i'd say im a loose purist.

Remember kids, it's only cheating if you get caught.

I can enjoy games of chance (involving, among other things, dice) yet loathe items for Competitive Smash play. In fact, I do quite often.