Proposition: Replace the Labels "Casual/Competitive" with a Simple Rating System

[Deleted member 245254]

I understand the prospect of hating labels but it is simply false to say that different types of players don't exist within the Smash verse. There ARE players who value competitive performance, and there are players who do not, I don't see how it's offensive to either camp to differentiate between the two.

 

[DairunCates]

I understand the prospect of hating labels but it is simply false to say that different types of players don't exist within the Smash verse. There ARE players who value competitive performance, and there are players who do not, I don't see how it's offensive to either camp to differentiate between the two.

I think the problem isn't the label, but the usage here. If you use the label yourself, it's an identification, but if someone else is using it, it's a way to show exclusion. There's obviously a HUGE difference between:

"Oh. I don't follow most of the advanced technique stuff. I'm just a casual player"

and

"Of course, you wouldn't like this. You're just a casual player."

Similarly, the two labels, as have been shown aren't necessarily mutually exclusive or even fully inclusive of either. I actually wouldn't consider myself either a casual or competitive player. Game playing has kinda become a form of artistic expression for me over the years. I like to play games in unusual and new ways, not necessarily optimal ways. This often requires a lot of skill and practice, but I'm not exactly doing it in the name of competition.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

What the **** is going on?

 

[the8thark]

The terms "casual" and "competitive" are divisive and vague. All players cannot be reduced to two oversimplified, poorly defined categories, so I propose that we expand those terms into a more clearly defined rating system that will allow us to argue certain matters more maturely and clearly.

What you say is a great idea. But it does something totally different to what you aim. You have just ranked people based on the amount of experience or player skill they have. That's great. But it says nothing about if they are casual or not.

Someone could be insanely good at the game, a 4 or 5 on your ranking system but have zero want to play the game competitively. They just play Smash for fun on the weekend for a few hours and totally dominate their friends and the harder CPU settings. He is certainly a casual player. Only playing Smash a few hours a week at the very most. But he is very skilled.

I think you get my point. Your scale is great but it doesn't differentiate competitive or casual, what your scale does is something different (but useful) all together.

 

[greenluigiman2]

Someone could be insanely good at the game, a 4 or 5 on your ranking system but have zero want to play the game competitively. They just play Smash for fun on the weekend for a few hours and totally dominate their friends and the harder CPU settings. He is certainly a casual player. Only playing Smash a few hours a week at the very most. But he is very skilled.

The person you described is casual, yes, but not because he doesn't want to play competitively. He's casual because he only plays for fun on the weekend. He plays the game casually.

However, someone like me, who also doesn't play competitively, but plays the game regularly, strives to be the best I can be, and gets on Smash forums every day to talk endlessly about the game does not fit the description of a casual. I am extremely dedicated to Smash.

There's nothing wrong with the labels "casual" and "competitive" because there are plenty of people that fall under both labels, but we need to expand our vocabulary because there are lots of different types of players that don't. The OP has the right idea, but the execution is a bit wonky.