Why is snaking bad?

[metalmonstar]

So lets put this in simpler terms, there are three types of players in Mario Kart DS people who can't or don't snake, those who do but aren't good without it, and those who can and are good. For those who aren't very good they like snaking because it gives them an inherent advantage over others by simply having a level of tech skill. In brawl simply knowing how to chain grab with the ice climbers can net you a few tournament wins. Those who can snake and are good like it because they feel it adds a level of depth to the game and makes it easier to spot non challengers. In there mind the actual breakdown would be newbs, posers, and challengers. For them it is exciting to push the game to its limits and the best way to do that would be to pit their skills against someone of an equal level. Players who don't snake don't like it because it is a tech barrier. They either have to conform to that play or be forced to lose every game. If you deem yourself a competitive player than conforming is your only option because you want to win and compete. You have to keep up with the demands of competition.

This brings us to the problem which is two fold. The first issue is pseudo competitive players. These are gamers who think they are good because they can beat their circle of friends, however when faced with a real challenge they make excuses as they don't won't to admit they aren't the best at a game or can't win against competition. The competitive community calls these players scrubs. They are players who want to win but aren't willing to put the work in. They tend to find it easier to complain about a game mechanic rather than to adapt to it or conform. The second issue is Bridge games. These are games that appeal to a wide audience. Bridge games are great because they cater to so many and make the game accessible to all skill levels. The problem with this is that "there is always a bigger fish." Unless you are the best, there are better gamers than you. Before the advent of online gaming pseudo competitive, aka scrubs, had no way of knowing that there were large quantities of gamers that were significantly better than them. However, once online there is no way to filter these players away from each other. Pseudo competitive players have their eyes opened as they begin to see the game pushed to its limits by those who care only about winning. How is the pseudo gamer going to handle this? The common reaction is to make excuses and proclaim that you won't play their way. The problem is these players still want to win. This creates a conflict as they cannot go back to being best in town now that they know the truth, nor do they want to give up their dominance. So these players take a moral high ground proclaiming glitches, hax, exploits, and design intention. The problem is that moral high ground does not exist in gaming. The rules of the game define the limits of its competition and all is fair.

We don't see this issue as much with competitive games. Competitive games have already defined their market. When you buy street fighter you know that you are playing a game where people go to tournaments every weekend and their are clear best of the best players. Players are less likely to get worked up when destroyed in MvC, blazblue, or even starcraft. Matchmaking also helps to seperate players. Wow keeps casual and competitive aspects of the game completely separate from each other keeping both sides appeased (in a way). League of Legends has a fun Co Op mode and Normal mode for those that don't want to partake in the ranked ladder. However games like Mario Kart and Brawl don't have this. You can play anyone at any time. We get this mix of two different sections of players which in truth would rather not play each other. I think all types of gamers would be happier if skills and interest were separated out.

So to the original question, is snaking bad? The actual question is "Are tech barriers bad?" This debate is hotly contested in competitive gaming communities. The pro barrier side states that these barriers are necessary to divide players and give the game an added layer of depth. On the other side they state that these barriers limit potential players, create artificial depth, and break risk and reward. For instance with snaking there are times were you shouldn't do it but for the general case there is no downside to performing a mini turbo boost. In fact failing the mini turbo boost has insignificant consequences and is more like not performing it at all. This is the same argument brought up against L-cancelling. It breaks risk and reward because there is no downside to not doing it and failing to perfom l-cancelling is no different than not trying it all. The debate gets more interesting when we add in competitive RPGs though. In order to compete one has to have at the very least a max levelled character. This isn't a tech barrier but it is still a barrier. Many players reason that this is simply how RPGs are to work if don't have a maxed out team you don't deserve to compete. In fact the level barrier is much less a hot topic than tech barriers. Why is this both are barrier that limit who can and can't compete? What about noob slayers? Techniques or tatics that are designed to crush inexperienced players? Often times these can be normal mechanics of the game. In melee, Gannon was a really strong character against inexperienced players thanks to his combination of speed and power. Falcons could destory people with a simple down throw to knee of justice. Down tilt to forward smash gave Roy an early game kill option. What about ledgehogging? The developers gave you points for doing it, performing it against an actual opponent allowed you to kill them much earlier than no grabbing the ledge. What about massive shortcuts? Should these game intricacies not be there because of how the change the game? What makes something legal and another cheap? Should we try to understand the developers intention for each action we discover in a game?

Personally I feel that tech barriers are good provided they don't break risk and reward. Failing to perform such a task should have a consequence especially if it gives a slight advantage to those who don't perform such an action. Such a design decision would further increase the separation among players, however I feel that it would muddle the in between a bit more. Good players who don't use such tactics would still have a chance of winning against those trying to abuse a mechanic for easy wins without a full understanding and skill to pull it off. I also feel that the limits of the game are the only limits we as gamers should be concerned with. Games become too confusing should one have to contemplate intent each time something is discovered. Also enforcing such arbitrary rules would be complicated and impractical. My final opinion (also the harshest) is that if a person beats you regardless of how they did it then they are better than you.