So as I was on my long hiatus, I manged to check out EVO 2012 as it's in my own backyard of Las Vegas. For those folks that don't know, the Evolution Tournament Series is the largest fighting game tournament in North America. It's the culmination of hundreds of tournaments stretched across the country, as well as the globe, and can be equated to the Super Bowl of fighting games. So every year I pack my backpack full of sandwiches and water, and prepare myself for a long day of excitement. This year I was particually excited about watching the Marvel vs Capcom 3 brackets. Yet, as I watched I noticed something that bothered me as well as the rest of the crowd. There was a player, who will remain nameless, that used a team that seemed...cheap. Spamming fireballs and assists, the player just forced his opponent to navigate a maze for 90 seconds. So his opponents were either killed by the fireballs trying to look for openings to escape, or chipped out by blocking all the fireballs. The crowd, like myself, expressed their displeasure at this by booing the player when he won. Yet, I couldn't help but think, "Why am I booing this guy?" I mean the idea of a competitive video game is to win, right? So if he's winning, then why am I upset?  Could this be the video game buzz word "cheap" that I'm experiencing with all it's glorious ambiguity?

Now, I've always heard the word cheap be used in a singular all encompassing fashion in regards to video games:  To express displeasure at a frustrating situation. The game presents the player with an enemy that is unbeatable and the players obviously have a negative reaction to this. Yet in the world of competitive gaming the idea of cheap changes with the game. For instance, fighting gamers embrace long stylized combos and cheer when somebody is caught in one of these loops. Yet it's the same idea as the unbeatable enemy; a situation that you can't escape from. Yet, fighting gamers would argue that the strategy of the game comes from avoiding setups that lead to these combos. So is it the transferral of responsibility to the player to avoid the situation entirely, or counter it with action of their own, that makes these combos not cheap? Then why was I booing the player at EVO? Surely his opponent had the ability to stop his fireball spamming barrage? Let's look at another game then, say Starcraft 2. In the Starcraft community they have a word for "cheap" moves: "cheese". These cheese strategies usually involves rushing your opponent early on in the game and attempting to catch them unprepared. So without proper scouting of your enemy, or the wrong starting build, a "cheese" proves lethal. Sounds like a unwinnable, and very cheap, situation to me. Yet, 3 time GSL Code S winner NesTea uses "cheese" builds all the time. It's like the Starcraft community views cheap like this: "If my opponent, who I'm assuming is at the top of his game, loses to this then he deserved to lose." So the Starcraft community has fully embraced the idea of winning by any means, and cheers the players that successfully win with these rushes. Yet, I wasn't cheering when EVO spambot won his matches.

Maybe, I was booing because of player ethics. In  pro level Starcraft 2, a player will utilize a rush to deviate from his normal play and catch his opponent off guard. Sounds strategic. I think, that's where my qualm sat with that player. There was clear strategy in the engineering of his team. Yet, the strategy involved the player not playing the game but running away from his opponent.  This, to me, is the same as the all famous "campers". "Campers" are players that in first person shooters, such as Call of Duty or Counterstrike, sit in one place to amass kills. There is a clear divide between a player that is strategically playing as a sniper or a "camper". Most FPSs offer players sniper perches or nests, to allow players who want to show off their digital sharpshooting, the opportunity to. On the flipside "campers", find dark corners and overlooked areas to sit and catch opponents that are running by. Again, like with the EVO player, there is strategy behind the idea but, they aren't playing the game. The strategies circumvent gameplay for wins.  That to me is the definition of "cheap" in video games: A strategy or idea, that allows players free wins, exp, kills, while not performing the natural and necessary tasks of the game. Yet, this is probably all relevant to who is playing, as some players feel that "If the game allows me to do it, it's not my fault." So, I will continue to tredge through games on Insane difficulties, knowing that I'm utilizing every thing the game has to offer to complete my experience. And still get pissed when fourteen year old, who is 40 levels higher than me, shoots me in the ass in Call of Duty. Cheap.