Sunday, December 16, 2007

Any Indication of . . .

This post will be so incredibly nerdy . . . Anyway, the last few days I've been playing Starcraft: Brood Wars with my friends. When I told my med student host this he was like, "People still play that?!" Um, yeah we do! While playing, I noticed how different my "style" of playing was compared to theirs in general. So I have this theory: the kind of game(s) one plays, the character(s) one chooses, and the way one plays reflects something about that person's personality, or at least tendencies. Let's start . . .

I very rarely play first-person shooters, as I stick mostly to strategy games (like Starcraft) or RPGs (like Zelda games). I lack the speed and reflexes for first-person shooters. I'm too methodical, calculating, and cautious. I could perhaps be good at sniping, but that's my limit. For this reason, I tend to stay far away from shooters.

I like strategy games like Starcraft because I can plan out my moves to some extent. And I can coordinate my armies and groups. I'm not the best at micromanaging and I don't tend to memorize hot keys, so I'm definitely not the fastest player. And again, if it's a game of speed, I will almost certainly lose; but if I'm left alive for a significant amount of time, it can prove difficult to kill me (or at least, I'll make it as annoying and harassing as possible).

So here's where I differ. I tend to play very defensively. I either concentrate on building defenses before troops, or I completely ignore defenses and build lots of troops and have them stationed in/near my base(s). I don't build expansions very quickly either, though I'm a decent resource-gatherer. I like to build ranged and highly mobile units so they can go from point A to point B in a flash. I am usually useful in team games because I make good support for teammates. I can usually get some of my troops to defend my teammates or to support their armies, most of the time. If we're able to coordinate our troops, we can make a good combo.

In RPGs I like to play spellcasters or ranged characters. I don't like to get hit and I prefer not to be "up and personal" with my opponents. For example, let's take World of Warcraft (henceforth called "WoW") when I used to play it a couple years ago. My two primary characters were a hunter and the druid. The hunter was great because he was a ranged character who didn't rely heavily on mana, so he could just keep going provided he had enough arrows. In groups I was basically ranged support. I dealt damage to the primary target, but I also protected the spellcasters (particularly healers). However, I liked my druid much more.

Why? Because the druid could do a little of everything: he could be a great healer, he could be a great tank, and he could be a decent damage-dealer. The druid can fundamentally fulfill the role of whatever's lacking in a group - the ultimate support unit. I find that I really like to be a support person in a group. I'll volunteer to be the healer, the one everyone depends on to stay alive. Or I'll volunteer to be the tank, the one that takes all the damage so everyone else doesn't. While I only really like to tank for a good group, I prefer to be the healer/backup healer in pretty much any other group. By the way, most people hate healing in WoW, and I'm not sure why; I guess it takes a special person to enjoy healing others.

So the moral of this post is, I suppose, if games are any indications, I can be a cautious, methodical, defensive, and supportive person. Hmm, sometimes I wonder why I post such random (and trivial?) things.

1 comment:

Hish said...

lol hey, your theory seems reasonable, at least.

I find that I play games almost exactly like you do, and that I am also cautious, passive(defensive, as opposed to active/aggressive), and supportive, haha.

Perhaps there is some truth in that theory :P