SKILL NO SKILL SKILLED UNSKILLED. It's going nowhere.

Looking at it from the aforementioned wiki defining, "A skill is the learned ability to carry out a task with pre-determined results often within a given amount of time, energy, or both. In other words the abilities that one possesses," skill is defined more along the lines of a trade than of a graded proficiency. Either you have the skill, or you don't. I don't think that's what we're looking for here.

Another definition is, "Proficiency, facility, or dexterity that is acquired or developed through training or experience." (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition) If we attempt to shoehorn in the skill/skill-less words thrown around here into this definition, we get examples like:

1. Snipers deserve one hit kills way beyond 150m because they have developed the manual dexterity and proficiency to do so, and anyone that says otherwise says so because they don't have the manual dexterity and proficiency to do it.

2. Snipers have no proficiency in fighting because they can only perform when no one can shoot back, while everyone else has the proficiency in fighting because we can perform when people are shooting back.

3. SMG snipers have are not proficient in fighting because they are not proficient in sniping.

4. People who complain about SMG snipers aren't proficient in fighting because it requires no proficiency in fighting to kill them.

Etc. There are all sorts of different definitions, but I want to seize on something here. There's no such thing as general skill. I had to significantly change those examples to make them work with the definition, because skill without context is simply a buzzword without a meaning. Someone is skilled at something. A surgeon is skilled at performing surgeries; a psychiatrist is skilled at diagnosing and treating mental conditions. A sniper is skilled at sniping and all it entails; an assault is skilled at assault and all it entails. Just saying something is no skill or skill is not sufficient to make any kind of meaningful statement, there needs to be context for the skill.

Another issue I tend to see floating around is the idea that skills can be comparatively valued; they can't. Just because a surgeon requires greater manual dexterity to perform his task than a psychiatrist doesn't mean the surgeon is more skilled than the psychiatrist. They are two different things. Just because a sniper takes more planning and requires more mouse control and leading than an assault's ratta-tat tatting doesn't mean the sniper is more skilled than the assault. They are separate things. Yes, they're both shooting guns, but everything that goes into doing that is different. The sniper needs to position, aim, and make his shot compensating for motion and distance. The assault needs to maneuver, flank, and keep his shots on target and his enemy's shots off his. The motor skills and tactical planning involved is different. You can compare skill within a category. Some snipers are more skilled at sniping than others. That's a valid comparison. Saying snipers are more skilled than tankers, however, is not a valid comparison, unless we pretend that sniper rifles and tank cannons are the same thing (in the right context, they can be, but in most cases they aren't, or rather they shouldn't be).

Combine those two paragraphs, and some statements that individuals make here come out incredibly silly. SMG close combat is nothing like sniper combat; they aren't at all comparable. Ground pounding is not comparable to rocketpodding. Saying something has no skill required doesn't at all make any sense when there's no context to place it in; I don't know of anything that conveys no skill winning except aimbot programs (the making of which involve another non-comparative skill).

I'm pretty much out of steam. I guess this is an agreement that the word skill has become a buzzword to mean whatever the person saying it wants to be, when it is a general term requiring a specific context to function as intended and convey anything but vague meaninglessness. Use it if you must, but use it in some sort of valid context ("Striker is no skill!" I agree I'm no good at doing my laundry with the Striker, but I can kill you in a video game with it well enough), and do not attempt to compare apples and oranges with green beans and tofu. When you throw out a vague term that can have a multitude of meanings without specifying what meaning you're referring to, it might as well be politics you're spouting for all the clarity that will result from it.

Or "There is no such thing as cheating. There is only the successful and the rodents."

In regards to FPS when people say skill they are saying "The amount of fine aiming required" and ONLY that... well most people anyway.

No matter how much awareness, area knowledge, timing, coordination, prediction, or preparation something requires if it doesn't requiring fine aiming then it is "no skill".

"Smg snipers."

If you snipe me with an smg at 300m away you are the most skilled player ingame. Also you are getting reported for aimbotting.

Pretty much this. It's annoying as hell to hear.

**** really hits the fan when you add competitive and organization to skilled.
now we have some serious trouble.
Competitive players use the easiest weapon, but are they unskilled? is tje weapon every Competitive player uses OP?
is a Max/Engi/Medic team skilled? is a Liberator team skilled? Is a Galaxy team Skilled? (hell yes, fighting with gals is hard )

Well, Luperza made it clear that "Spot-Light" means being the most eager Stat&%$#( you can be. And that's the image I'm getting from most players right now, I mean look how they shoved K/D and KillBoards right there. So in such an environment what are you complaining about, OP? Of course it's all about L2P, "SKILL", MLG.

I know, KD does show SOMEthing. It's cool if it's high and all. I like mine too, be it as it is. I too occasionally give in to the KD Farmer in me. But that Thread spoke volumes and I'm wondering where PS2 is headed, what crowds it aims at and how will these affect it, since I came here to play a Friendly Match with and against other randoms- Not to rub shoulders with and grind teeth at MLGers.

I think I might have gone a bit off topic here, or may have missed the point of the OP, but I woke up early and I haven't had coffee yet, so...

well to be fair most of them are projections of your insecurity and don't actually exist.

It need not be a cynical deconstructionist postmodern hipster paradise of self-aggrandizing sarcasm, either.

Heaven forbid people ever talk in a way that isn't drawn from the front page of /b on 4chan.

Two can play at that game.

And what is this post, then? What are you projecting?

Nah, you were pretty close to the mark I think.

I did want to emphasise the dilution of the word "skilled" through its overuse, but it is only symptomatic of the more poisonous side of gamer culture where every little thing in what is supposed to be a fun, neat, entertaining game activity has to be diced and processed down to the slightest molecule and valued as such.

It's like when kids want to play improvised baseball in some backyard and then some rather foolish adults swarm around them and force them to abide by specific rigorous standards and turn it into a miniaturized version of whatever they're watching on TV.

This is the best reply I've seen in this thread.

You put it better than I could have, and I sort of wish I said it first and made it my OP.

mad cuz bad thread, if there ever was one

Welcome to the Internet.

You're only demonstrating how blandly, mindlessly knee-jerk your position is.

"Madcuzbad" is the cousin of "skilled/unskilled" and is arguably even more devoid of meaning due to overuse by cretins.

I disagree. Even here, even now, this forum is head and shoulders above, say, Battle.net's forum.

And there's some fine art and historical post-graduate honors forums that are quite engaging, if not exactly focused on video games.

Saying "this is the internet, so it's a free pass to act like tribalistic manchildren" is definitely an easy position to take, but I don't share it.

lol u jelly?

I get it. You're being deliberately useless and memetic in your reply in a contrarian fashion.

Is there anything else? I can take the time to let you tab out to a messageboard of your choice to find something else to add.

why so serious? lol baddie

It is important to differentiate between knowledge and skill.
To choose the most effective weapon requires knowledge (and cash/certs), but not skill.
To utilize a weapon, while in combat, requires some skills.

The weapon which is best suited to the task, requires the least skill to utilize it.
The weapon which is least suited to the task, requires the most skill to utilize it.

In regards to tactics, same reasoning applies:
To choose a tactic, knowledge is required.
To utilize a tactic, skill is required.