No, it's not completely fair to make a comparison, but I was just trying to be inclusive about all people who have played dancing games and show the extremes of both sides.ĥ) What they see is a player vastly better than them, and thus they consider that player to be good. Many of us I assume (and I know assumptions are terrible) walked onto a pad and at least understood some rhythmic concept. The cheerleaders aren't fat, and you aren't bad.Ĥ) Ok, I'll try not to make a comparison again, but the point of my comparison was to show that many people walk onto a pad and are totally utterly lost. It doesn't mean they are, heck, they rarely are, but since there are thinner cheerleaders than them somewhere else, they think consider themselves fat since they see it as relative. You yourself may not consider it good, but cheerleaders often think they're fat.
However, while you may not consistantly get 99%, youmay consistantly get above 9X.XX%. Consistency is probably one of the best qualities in an ITG/DDR player, I agree. Can you sightread a 10? Many people would consider that good. Sure, then we'd probably be 35%, if not lower, but most ITG/DDR players, even people who play it fairly often, get stuck around the 9/10 range.ģ) Again, I think the whole "good" issue is relative. Thus, 35% isn't completely accurate again because we shouldn't only include the vocal minority of forum browsers that show off there scores and make us look bad. Also, I don't know how we rank with other players out there, but I tend to believe skill is a pyramid where most people suck and a few people are masterful. Note none of my friends play, so they don't care, other random people at school and regulars at my arcades do. Thus, that 95% I was talking about might actually care more than you think. Everyone I have ever talked to that has played DDR (Probably over 100 people) think it's completely awesome I "play Heavy OMG".
Thus, it is less of a delusion than realizing that others may recognize a skill set we have. That being said, all of my friends consider my "good" or "crazy" at DDR. All of my friends hate it when I talk anything about DDR or make sure to avoid arcades at all costs when they're around me because they think DDR is the stupidest thing ever and couldn't care less that I can play it at the level I do. Is that not good? I know that good is a somewhat relative adjective, and to some extent I addressed that, but saying I don't know what "good" really is isn't completely fair.Ģ) I never said people truly cared how good we were believe it or not. Why is FC'ing LoM NOT good anymore? Many of us can or have done it on these boards. In fact, adjectives such as "great" or "masterful" would probably not be out of the question. If good is being consistent on your Summer score between 20 and 18 Excellents, I would tend to say you're better than just "good". Just because we may not hold the same opinion doesn't mean I DON'T know what good is. I am one of the worst forum-using players in the PNW and I know that from tournaments and score comparisons.ġ) There are different levels of good. If you look closely, I said that I'm guilty of saying that I suck a lot. I suck because I lack consistency.Ĥ) You can't make a comparison between us and people who just walked on a pad.ĥ) People say we are good because they don't have a critical eye for what makes a good player. It's more like PNW players are better than perhaps 35% of ITG/DDR players out there.ģ) Most of us are not consistent enough to be good. You can't use figures like this when that 95% couldn't caer less. Sure, in COMPARISON to others who play we may suck, but honestly we're all at least good at dancing games.ġ) You obviously don't know what "good" really is.Ģ) No one else cares if we are good or not, dont delude yourself. ALL of us are better than 95% of people who have walked onto a DDR pad and tried a song, and most everybody would say we're good at the game. Anyone on these boards who says they suck at dancing games (and I'm guilty of this a lot) is either being emo, stupid, or fishing for compliments.
0 kommentar(er)
