Following an earlier discussion, I felt I should properly elucidate my earlier position on tier lists. By playing Devil's Advocate lol.
I don't think it's entirely water-tight to be honest. Made some logic jumps so I actually changed my mind on it (see post script) but I think I have a pretty decent argument here. Refute me, dear readers, find the faults. All in good fun, of course.
---
A tier list, in fighting games, is a ordered list of most or all the characters in a certain game, ordered by character strength. By character strength, we mean the ability for a certain character to win. So a tier list is a certain person's opinion on which characters in a fighting game have overall the best chances to win.
Now:
1. People choose their own character in a fighting game for a variety of reasons, all of which are equally valid.
1a. Some people primarily choose their character because of their ability to win.
1b. Other considerations may still factor into the decision, one can choose a character that has the ability to win AND looks appealing to you for example.
1c. Conversely, some people primarily choose their character for reasons other than them being able to win. Aesthetic considerations, such as the fighter's looks or personality may be most important to these people. Or perhaps they don't care much about winning, or have a poor understanding of what makes a character powerful.
2. People as in (1c) evaluate characters primarily on attributes irrelevant to winning.
2a. As such, their tier lists will less objectively list characters ordered by the ability to win.
2b. As such, their tier lists are of lesser value to a discussion about character strength.
3. (Non-matchup) Tier lists normally include the author's own character.
If the author's own character is not in the top group of their tier list, it stands to reason to then ask "Why did you pick a character you think is weak? Why don't you play these characters that you say are stronger?"
In my opinion, the reasons for a situation such as this are:
- When evaluating characters, the author does not primarily care about their ability to win. In this case, their tier list is of low value.
- The author cares primarily about a character's ability to win, but he picked a weaker character anyway. That's dumb. Tier lists from dumb people are of low value.
- The author is duplicitous. While they care primarily about a character's ability to win and they secretly believe their character to give them the best chance of winning, their tier list does not bear this out.* A dishonest tier list is also of low value.
*This is commonly known as 'down-playing'. The reasons for this may
include a need to make themselves out to be a better player for
supposedly doing so well with a weaker character, or a fear of their
character getting nerfed in a patch if they admit their strength.
Conclusion
The position of the author's own character in a tier list can give the reader information about the validity of the tier list as a whole. If their own character is low on the list, in my opinion that list is rarely worth paying attention to.
Recommendation
Downplaying is a plague that makes tier lists virtually useless. Be honest about your character instead.
Post Script
Honestly, my current position could more fairly be stated as
1. Tournament players care about winning
2. As such, their character choice is strongly influenced by that character's chance to win
3. If by their own admission in their own tier list someone is playing a weak character, they may be downplaying or just an idiot
4. Downplaying reduces the value of a tier list, because it is then an ordered list in the incorrect order. How can you know any of it is right?
5. Being an idiot also reduces the value of your tier list. Idiots might be right sometimes but you can't depend on it, you know =P
Conclusion: If someone's character is low on their tier list, approach said list with caution and a pinch of salt.
This I actually stand by, no problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment