Saturday, December 26, 2009

The Right Strategy

My brothers and I just spent the evening playing Star Fox: Assault. I was rather nightmarish as three of us played; but when a fourth person joined in, I began having much more trouble. It drove me nuts, but not nearly as much as the discussion S.Cobb and I had.

I tried to explain why I didn't enjoy the four-player match, and it culminated in an argument over how four players is experientially different than three. Setting aside such issues as whether I am a sore loser or just don't like getting blown up (and how points versus lives matters or how to get the kills you need -- please leave them at rest, SC!), my problem was that there was more to contend with in 4-player, and I had a hard time with it.

I put forth that there are more people to dodge, more people to shoot, more people to keep track of in stats: overall the mayhem increases. Cobb argued that while there are more people for you to deal with, there are more of them to keep each other busy, so what you face individually is no more dense.

He pointed out that he would get shot up just as much in battles with fewer people, and by personal experience there isn't a great difference in strategy as long as you are getting shot and have to shoot others. So how come I had a harder time when he didn't? "You must have been doing something wrong."

Annoying as this explanation is, I realized a certain quality about it. Most simply, I can turn it back on him. He must have been doing something wrong if he didn't have an easier time in 3-player. Or else I was doing something right, that I was better. Of course, I know he'll say he had to deal with me in greater frequency, and I'm the admitted best at the game.

But back to the point: what is the "right" way to do things? Most will agree that there is no single one; you do what works for you. Evidently we have two different approaches, both valid equations, but with disproportionate results depending on the variables. For me there is a need for significant adjustment in how I handle fighting more or less opponents. That is always how it is for any game, in some degree.

I conclude that my problem was lack of experience. It had been a very long time since we'd played the game, and the immediate experience I had was in 3-player. As I can no longer go into a 4-player match as the expected winner, I'll just have to re-formulate how I play those.

Of course, I'm the guy whose gaming skill has the trade-off of extreme accustomization, like being so connected to the controls that I have difficulty adjusting to which fires missiles instead of jumping in another game. So as long as I'm not too lazy to try, my siblings will have a while to enjoy winning. = )

2 comments:

Lady W said...

I suppose it's really what game you want to play in the first place, because so often games become whole different ones depending on how many people there are. We play a word game that's that way; I get accused of being a sore loser when more than four players join, too, but I just sincerely like having more space to work with and more letters to make longer words.

Shakespeare's Cobbler said...

Please. I said that only of the fact that you could consistently get three ships chasing you together.