Points of clarification about Casual Vs. Competitive that everyone needs to read(WOP)

[DippnDots]

Yes, because all casual whine about games they're not good at. All casuals want nothing more in life than to be a pro smash player. I'm glad the generalization train is still chugging along proudly in this thread. CHOO-MOTHER****ING-CHOO-CHOO!

My statement didn't imply that "all casuals whine about games they're not good at." or that "all casuals want nothing more in life than to be a pro smash player."

Since apparently you don't grasp the ability to read for context, what I said means the following:

For everything a casual player whines about, Sliq disproves their "arguments"

I never said anything along the lines of what you said I did, and furthermore, I'm not generalizing all casual players into a group of whiners.

CHOO CHOO IM GLAD THE STUPIDITY TRAIN IS STILL RUNNING THROUGH YOUR POST!

 

[Spellman]

Why do you hate those terms? They're just words used to differentiate between groups of players. They're describing words, just as much as "fat" or "skinny".

Oh uh, because most people relate "casual" to "unskilled" or "uses items and is thus unskilled". I think "amateur" is a better word for describing players who don't play the game at tournaments.

But really now, I'm not letting myself get sucked back into this cumbersome topic.

 

[Adi]

This thread is a ****ing **** fest.

 

[Deleted member]

Nvm people thought i was serious. Sorry if i offended u.

 

[DraginHikari]

You don't have to sugarcoat it, casual players suck at the game (doesn't mean they are sucky people), and would get OWNED, by a lot of us, like 4 stocked.

What you call sugar-coat is called being somewhat respectful towards others... which is the only real problem I've had with your posts particualarly in this topic.

There are other ways to get your point across without say a group sucks or is stupid in some way.

That goes for the insults by others in this topic as well.

 

[Del Money]

Del money hasnt responded to me yet. Either he has a life, or he cant understand the riddle i set before him.

Your parents must be proud....

Many in this discussion have used this "logic" to explain how competitive players really are not much better than casual players, which is an absurd statement given that the very nature of competitive players is to learn the game to a deeper level.

If I were a homo, I'd be beating off to this quote right here. THIS is actually a legit statement that I can agree on fully. Saying that casuals automatically sucks is an ignorant generalization.

 

[Kio Iranez]

Ur right, but this isnt about being a better person Del money, becuz u dont go to tournaments, u are a loser who sucks at smash and life. There i said it. Also: u fit into any of the generalized bull**** we've been posting about people who "don't play in tourneys and therefore are teh loserarz

It's because of people like you that Casuals hate us. =|

 

[The Hypnotist]

I am confused with the debate. How is a casual player defined now? Is he a person who does not use advance techs? Does not go to big tournies? Regional tournies? Small tournies? Doesn't attend smashfests with respectable smashers? Doesn't attend whatever tournies he attends frequently? Only plays his friends on tuesdays for two hours? What about people who play on weekends for three hours? Don't even get me started wondering what a competative player is now.

I think some people are having identity problems with which group they fit and have trouble lumping some other people into certain groups, too. We need real, clear cut definitions that doesn't have as much subjective stuff.

Casual means a player who doesn't use advanced techs, doesn't know about tiers, plays on virtually all stages and generally plays with items. They also don't (until this thread assuming they read the OP) know how tourney's work. Casuals are not good at the game at all compared to competitive players.

 

[Deleted member]

Haha ur funny. But seriously, casuel players dont generally suck, they ALWAYS suck. No not really, they just arent as good as people with tourney exp. which would mean that in comparison, they are not as good, which on the internet means that they suck.

 

[RDK]

This thread is a ****ing **** fest.

Adi wins at internets.

 

[DraginHikari]

Casual means a player who doesn't use advanced techs, doesn't know about tiers, plays on virtually all stages and generally plays with items. They also don't (until this thread assuming they read the OP) know how tourney's work. Casuals are not good at the game at all compared to competitive players.

That quite a wall your building but I don't think it's very accurate considering how many objectives you put behind it.

 

[NES n00b]

Casual means a player who doesn't use advanced techs, doesn't know about tiers, plays on virtually all stages and generally plays with items. They also don't (until this thread assuming they read the OP) know how tourney's work. Casuals are not good at the game at all compared to competitive players.

Yet, some people who use advance techs, know tiers, know the basics of how tournies work, and play on mostly MLG legal stages consider themselves casual because they don't go to tournies. That is why it is hard to address one of these groups at a time, because some people consider people casual who don't go to tournies and others consider them casuals when they don't know anything about tournies or the metagame. It gets really confusing.

 

[Del Money]

My statement didn't imply that "all casuals whine about games they're not good at." or that "all casuals want nothing more in life than to be a pro smash player."

Since apparently you don't grasp the ability to read for context, what I said means the following:

For everything a casual player whines about, Sliq disproves their "arguments"

I never said anything along the lines of what you said I did, and furthermore, I'm not generalizing all casual players into a group of whiners.

CHOO CHOO IM GLAD THE STUPIDITY TRAIN IS STILL RUNNING THROUGH YOUR POST!

I apologize for misinterpreting your post. Can we derail the stupidity train now?

Del money, becuz u dont go to tournaments, u are a loser who sucks at smash and life. There i said it. Also: u fit into any of the generalized bull**** we've been posting about people who "don't play in tourneys and therefore are teh loserarz

You want fries with that?

Casual means a player who doesn't use advanced techs, doesn't know about tiers, plays on virtually all stages and generally plays with items.

By your definition, casual players more than likely wouldn't even BE on Smash World Forums to begin with. I guess we're all competitives then. *high fives everyone*

Adi wins at internets.

I must say I was riveted.

 

[flyinfilipino]

Yet, some people who use advance techs, know tiers, know the basics of how tournies work, and play on mostly MLG legal stages consider themselves casual because they don't go to tournies. That is why it is hard to address one of these groups at a time, because some people consider people casual who don't go to tournies and others consider them casuals when they don't know anything about tournies or the metagame. It gets really confusing.

I agree with this. Someone could try to define competitive players too. You could say it's the opposite of everything listed by the Hypnotist as 'casual', but there are lots of people that would relate to things from possibly both categories. One of the reasons this debate has been going on so long is that we're not even clear on what group of people we're talking about because I don't think there's a clear distinction.

 

[The Hypnotist]

What you call sugar-coat is called being somewhat respectful towards others... which is the only real problem I've had with your posts particualarly in this topic.

There are other ways to get your point across without say a group sucks or is stupid in some way.

That goes for the insults by others in this topic as well.

It's not rude, it's just true, they suck at smash. Doesn't mean they are bad people, I suck at Spanish and I'm a bad singer. And I'm not going to lie and say that bad logic isn't bad, a lot of the logic some of the people here, especially casuals have terrible logic.

I
By your definition, casual players more than likely wouldn't even BE on Smash World Forums to begin with. I guess we're all competitives then. *high fives everyone*

So your saying everyone here plays with advanced techs, on MLG stages, with no items and knows the tourney rules. Phailure.

 

[DippnDots]

Burntsocks, seriously, shut the **** up. Quit talking down to casual players like they are pieces of dirt. You're only making yourself out as a stupid little 14 year old who's splooging his pants over thinking he's better than other people he's never even met. If you have a problem with what someone says or believes, address their speech or beliefs, not their personal character.

If you think you're being funny, you're not. All you have accomplished is appearing as an annoying little ***-****.

As a pre-flame, you're probably going to try to say I'm being a hypocrite by telling you not to attack people and then doing it to you, but that would be an invalid assumption because I've only said what you're making yourself look like, not what you actually are.

Let's grow up and get past the insults.

 

[Xanderous]

Can we make Burntsocks choose a different avatar? He's like my evil twin.

 

[flyinfilipino]

And I'm not going to lie and say that bad logic isn't bad, a lot of the logic some of the people here, especially casuals have terrible logic.

I don't mean to be a nit-picker, but it's stuff like that that makes people tend to believe that you are biased and keeps this debate going.

@Dippndots: I think he's not being serious, he's just talking like that as an example. I think you only read one of his posts.

@Xanderous: Heh, everytime I see his avatar, I think you've popped up.

 

[NintendoWarrior]

If a casual plays to win, is that said person not competitive?

 

[DippnDots]

I apologize for misinterpreting your post. Can we derail the stupidity train now?

I accept your apology and offer up my own, it's been a stressful night(hardly an excuse). The train is derailed.

 

[The Hypnotist]

I agree with this. Someone could try to define competitive players too. You could say it's the opposite of everything listed by the Hypnotist as 'casual', but there are lots of people that would relate to things from possibly both categories. One of the reasons this debate has been going on so long is that we're not even clear on what group of people we're talking about because I don't think there's a clear distinction.

I think you can be a competitive or advanced player without going to tourneys. If you know MLG rules and play with them and don't play items and have great teach skill and use a ton of advanced techs then I wouldn't consider you casual. But that's just me.

 

[Del Money]

Yet, some people who use advance techs, know tiers, know the basics of how tournies work, and play on mostly MLG legal stages consider themselves casual because they don't go to tournies. That is why it is hard to address one of these groups at a time, because some people consider people casual who don't go to tournies and others consider them casuals when they don't know anything about tournies or the metagame. It gets really confusing.

Exactly.

It's not rude, it's just true, they suck at smash.

Yes, because you've play every casual player out there and 4-stocked all of them.

So your saying everyone here plays with advanced techs, on MLG stages, with no items and knows the tourney rules. Phailure.

You obviously don't know what "more than likely" means...Phailure.

 

[DraginHikari]

It's not rude, it's just true, they suck at smash. Doesn't mean they are bad people, I suck at Spanish and I'm a bad singer. And I'm not going to lie and say that bad logic isn't bad, a lot of the logic some of the people here, especially casuals have terrible logic.

How you say something is just as vital as what you say.

 

[flyinfilipino]

If a casual plays to win, is that said person not competitive?

True statement, but it will get lost in a sea of argument spawning from misinterpretations of certain terms.

@The Hypnotist: I agree with your last statement, but other 'competitive' players will disagree.

 

[Deleted member]

Huh? Im confused. Since when was i insulting people. I guess i should put /sarcasm after everything i say that is sarcastic. Nvm. And Xanderous, i love PM2, i dont wanna change my avatar. When did i insult peoples personal character... im so confused. OH I GET IT. Sorry ill edit that post, since people think i was serious. Sorry, hope u didnt take it personally, its teh internetz.

 

[RDK]

Yes, because you've play every casual player out there and 4-stocked all of them.

The whole point of the ****ing standstill a few pages back was to clarify that casuals will almost always lose to an experience competitive player.

There's really no getting around this. It's been proven many times. If both parties try their absolute best, the experience competitive will most likely win.

 

[NintendoWarrior]

True statement, but it will get lost in a sea of argument spawning from misinterpretations of certain terms.

Yeah no kidding. I'll ask it again and see if anyone else sees it.

If a casual person plays to win, is that said person not competitive?

 

[The Hypnotist]

I don't mean to be a nit-picker, but it's stuff like that that makes people tend to believe that you are biased and keeps this debate going.

It's not me being bias, it's true. I don't know if you've actually read this entire thread but I have. More casuals have used bad logic then competitive players. Some casuals are really trying to say it takes just as much skill (if not even more) to play with items on banned stages then with MLG rules. Some casuals think that playing with items would make the game more balanced. Seriously, wtf?

 

[Del Money]

The whole point of the ****ing standstill a few pages back was to clarify that casuals will almost always lose to an experience competitive player.

There's really no getting around this. It's been proven many times. If both parties try their absolute best, the experience competitive will most likely win.

Exactly. But I realize now that the reason for this standstill in the first place is because of The Hypnotist's confusing definition of a casual player. By his definition, I'm a competitive player. So he probably thinks I'm making no sense.

 

[Loooooni]

I have nothing to say except this...

………………..,-~*’`¯lllllll`*~,
…………..,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-,
………,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,
……,-*lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllll.\
….;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll\
…..\lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/………\;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,
…...\lllllllllllllllllllll,-*………..`~-~-,…(.(¯`*,`,
…….\llllllllllll,-~*…………………)_-\..*`*;..)
……..\,-*`¯,*`)…………,-~*`~.………….../
……...|/.../…/~,…...-~*,-~*`;……………./.\
……../.../…/…/..,-,..*~,.`*~*…………….*...\
…….|.../…/…/.*`...\...……………………)….)¯`~,
…….|./…/…./…….)……,.)`*~-,……….../….|..)…`~-,
……/./.../…,*`-,…..`-,…*`….,---…...\…./…../..|……...¯```*~-
…...(……….)`*~-,….`*`.,-~*.,-*……|…/.…/…/…………\
…….*-,…….`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*……….|.,*...,*…|…...\
……….*,………`-,…)-,…………..,-*`...,-*….(`-,…

 

[RDK]

f a casual person plays to win, is that said person not competitive?

Uh, no, not if you're using it in the context that we're talking about.

You're using the literal meaning of the word. "Casuals" and "competitives" are describing words for the two groups of players in this instance. There's implications to being one of the said groups.

 

[flyinfilipino]

It's not me being bias, it's true. I don't know if you've actually read this entire thread but I have. More casuals have used bad logic then competitive players. Some casuals are really trying to say it takes just as much skill (if not even more) to play with items on banned stages then with MLG rules. Some casuals think that playing with items would make the game more balanced. Seriously, wtf?

'Scuse me, but I've been with this thread since the beginning, and I have read every post. The last post I remember in which someone said anything like that involved that Uchi-whoever guy and he stopped posting a long time ago. And I said people will think you're biased whether you are or not.

 

[NES n00b]

Yeah no kidding. I'll ask it again and see if anyone else sees it.

If a casual person plays to win, is that said person not competitive?

Have you read Sirlin's article? Being competitive meaning play with the objective to win is exactly the word to describe the "casual" smasher. What smash competitive people call "competitive" is to play to win without any fictious rules and always striving to be the best (well, at least in some region or something). Playing to win also means playing to improve, too. So the "competitive mindset" comes from a Sirlin article so you might need to read that to get the reference.

 

[NintendoWarrior]

Uh, no, not if you're using it in the context that we're talking about.

You're using the literal meaning of the word. "Casuals" and "competitives" are describing words for the two groups of players in this instance. There's implications to being one of the said groups.

Then like how you guys use the word **** around here, maybe you need to pick different words. Because these words are not being used in their correct context.

 

[2.72]

I think that we have a problem here. We're using two different definitions of "suck." Compared to tournament players, very few if any casual players such as myself don't suck. I'm not sure that tournament players are a good basis for comparison, though, because by that definition the large majority of players, even the large majority of people who play consistently, suck. In particular, we just defined "suck" and "casual" equivalently. While valid from a certain point of view, this is both inflammatory and useless. We already have a word for casual players. It's "casual."

You could reserve the term for people who really are bad, and by bad I mean really bad. "Suck" has pretty strong connotations, so I'm not sure that using it too liberally really communicates the normal definition. Congratulations, almost everyone sucks in comparison to you.

By the way, I object to the use of the term noob here, too. A lot of casual players are not noobs; they have been playing on and off for years. They may not be tournament players, but there is a world of difference between the normal casual player and a true noob.

 

[NintendoWarrior]

It's kind of sad how people assume that those that don't go to tourneys have no chance against those that do. It's a horrible generalization.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

A lot of casual players are not noobs; they have been playing on and off for years. They may not be tournament players, but there is a world of difference between the normal casual player and a true noob.

Years of playing means nothing. I learned more in two months of competitive play than my first three years of owning the game. I played almost daily during those three years, but they meant nothing. Really, competitive play in real competitive environments (no, "competitive friends" don't count) makes a big difference. That is why many casual players are flagged as noobs. They may think they have wonderful amounts of "experience", but they don't know what they don't know.

 

[Deleted member]

I think that we have a problem here. We're using two different definitions of "suck." Compared to tournament players, very few if any casual players such as myself don't suck. I'm not sure that tournament players are a good basis for comparison, though, because by that definition the large majority of players, even the large majority of people who play consistently, suck. In particular, we just defined "suck" and "casual" equivalently. While valid from a certain point of view, this is both inflammatory and useless. We already have a word for casual players. It's "casual."

You could reserve the term for people who really are bad, and by bad I mean really bad. "Suck" has pretty strong connotations, so I'm not sure that using it too liberally really communicates the normal definition. Congratulations, almost everyone sucks in comparison to you.

By the way, I object to the use of the term noob here, too. A lot of casual players are not noobs; they have been playing on and off for years. They may not be tournament players, but there is a world of difference between the normal casual player and a true noob.

QFT. I know a few friends that aren't really tourney goers, but are quite good. And buzz just owned me

 

[RDK]

Then like how you guys use the word **** around here, maybe you need to pick different words. Because these words are not being used in their correct context.

You're just not getting it. Lemme define it for you all, since Mookie and 5150 stopped posting a while ago, probably due to fatal injuries from too many facepalmes.

Competitive Smasher:

A player that has at least minimal tournament attendance. Knows about advanced techniques, and can use them effectively. Has experience playing other competitive Smashers.

Casual Smasher:

A player that is most likely confined to an area that has little chance for social Smashing and tournaments. May or may not know about advanced techniques. Most likely cannot utilize them effectively if placed in a match with an experienced competetive, because their best practice with them is either 1) Watching videos of advanced techniques being used, 2) Using said techniques on computer players, or 3) Using said techniques on other casuals of similar skill levels.

 

[NintendoWarrior]

I think that we have a problem here. We're using two different definitions of "suck." Compared to tournament players, very few if any casual players such as myself don't suck. I'm not sure that tournament players are a good basis for comparison, though, because by that definition the large majority of players, even the large majority of people who play consistently, suck. In particular, we just defined "suck" and "casual" equivalently. While valid from a certain point of view, this is both inflammatory and useless. We already have a word for casual players. It's "casual."

You could reserve the term for people who really are bad, and by bad I mean really bad. "Suck" has pretty strong connotations, so I'm not sure that using it too liberally really communicates the normal definition. Congratulations, almost everyone sucks in comparison to you.

By the way, I object to the use of the term noob here, too. A lot of casual players are not noobs; they have been playing on and off for years. They may not be tournament players, but there is a world of difference between the normal casual player and a true noob.

Excellent post.