Follow TV Tropes

Following

History Main / Scrub

Go To



A {{Player Archetype|s}} in competitive video games. A Scrub adamantly believes that their "house rules" should apply to everyone to promote their view of "fair play". If a scrub sees a move or strategy they don't like (or can't beat), they ban it (if only in their own mind), and complain that anyone who uses it is cheap.

to:

A {{Player Archetype|s}} in competitive video games. A Scrub adamantly believes that their "house rules" should apply to everyone to promote their view of "fair play". play." If a scrub sees a move or strategy they don't like (or can't beat), they ban it (if only in their own mind), and complain that anyone who uses it is cheap.


Some people do not hold to this. They develop house rules designed to bring what they feel is a game imbalance back into [[CompetitiveBalance balance]], so that there is more variety (after all, if a game has 20 characters, but [[CharacterTiers two of them are so strong that they're practically unbeatable]] [[CharacterSelectForcing unless you use one of them yourself]], then the game effectively only has two characters because the other 18 aren't worth playing). Essentially, a self-made game patch. This is all well and good. A classic gaming example of this was the "No Oddjob" rule from ''VideoGame/{{GoldenEye|1997}}'', often put in place because Oddjob was a GameBreaker due to him being too short for anyone else to shoot without taking the time to manually aim their gun downward. [[note]]In fact, the game's developers [[https://news.avclub.com/the-creators-of-the-nintendo-64-goldeneye-have-official-1828520705 have officially declared using Oddjob to be outright cheating]], they just didn't bother to include any in-game restriction on using him because they ''wanted'' players to come up with their own house rules. Or so they say.[[/note]]

to:

Some people do not hold to this. They develop house rules designed to bring what they feel is a game imbalance back into [[CompetitiveBalance balance]], so that there is more variety (after all, if a game has 20 characters, but [[CharacterTiers two of them are so strong that they're practically unbeatable]] [[CharacterSelectForcing unless you use one of them yourself]], then the game effectively only has two characters because the other 18 aren't worth playing). Essentially, a self-made game patch. This is all well and good. A classic gaming example of this was the "No Oddjob" rule from ''VideoGame/{{GoldenEye|1997}}'', often put in place because Oddjob was a GameBreaker due to him being too short for anyone else to shoot without taking the time to manually aim their gun downward. [[note]]In fact, the game's developers GoldenEye’s gameplay and engine programmer Mark Edmonds declared (not entirely seriously) that using Oddjob [[https://news.avclub.com/the-creators-of-the-nintendo-64-goldeneye-have-official-1828520705 have officially declared using Oddjob to be outright was 'definitely' cheating]], they just didn't bother but was happy to include any in-game restriction on using him because they ''wanted'' let players to come up with their own house rules. Or so they say.[[/note]]


Some people do not hold to this. They develop house rules designed to bring what they feel is a game imbalance back into [[CompetitiveBalance balance]], so that there is more variety (after all, if a game has 20 characters, but [[CharacterTiers two of them are so strong that they're practically unbeatable]] [[CharacterSelectForcing unless you use one of them yourself]], then the game effectively only has two characters because the other 18 aren't worth playing). Essentially, a self-made game patch. This is all well and good. A classic gaming example of this is the ultra-common "No Oddjob" rule in ''VideoGame/{{GoldenEye|1997}}'', often put in place because Oddjob is a GameBreaker due to him being too short for anyone else to shoot without taking the time to manually aim their gun downward.[[note]]In fact, the game's developers [[https://news.avclub.com/the-creators-of-the-nintendo-64-goldeneye-have-official-1828520705 have officially declared using Oddjob to be outright cheating]], they just didn't bother to include any in-game restriction on using him because they ''wanted'' players to come up with their own house rules.[[/note]]

to:

Some people do not hold to this. They develop house rules designed to bring what they feel is a game imbalance back into [[CompetitiveBalance balance]], so that there is more variety (after all, if a game has 20 characters, but [[CharacterTiers two of them are so strong that they're practically unbeatable]] [[CharacterSelectForcing unless you use one of them yourself]], then the game effectively only has two characters because the other 18 aren't worth playing). Essentially, a self-made game patch. This is all well and good. A classic gaming example of this is was the ultra-common "No Oddjob" rule in from ''VideoGame/{{GoldenEye|1997}}'', often put in place because Oddjob is was a GameBreaker due to him being too short for anyone else to shoot without taking the time to manually aim their gun downward.downward. [[note]]In fact, the game's developers [[https://news.avclub.com/the-creators-of-the-nintendo-64-goldeneye-have-official-1828520705 have officially declared using Oddjob to be outright cheating]], they just didn't bother to include any in-game restriction on using him because they ''wanted'' players to come up with their own house rules. Or so they say.[[/note]]


However, the video game is what it is. It defines what you can do and what you can't do. In competitive games, the rules exist as written into the game world. Sometimes, this leads to an over-powered character; sometimes, it leads to a GameBreaker. Some competitive video game players accept that some characters/races/etc. are more powerful than others. When they're being competitive, they play one of the characters/races that are on the [[CharacterTiers top tier]] and ignore the rest.

Some people do not hold to this.

They develop house rules designed to bring what they feel is a game imbalance back into [[CompetitiveBalance balance]], so that there is more variety (after all, if a game has 20 characters, but [[CharacterTiers two of them are so strong that they're practically unbeatable]] [[CharacterSelectForcing unless you use one of them yourself]], then the game effectively only has two characters because the other 18 aren't worth playing). Essentially, a self-made game patch. This is all well and good. A classic gaming example of this is the ultra-common "No Oddjob" rule in ''VideoGame/{{GoldenEye|1997}}'', often put in place because Oddjob is a GameBreaker due to him being too short for anyone else to shoot without taking the time to manually aim their gun downward.[[note]]In fact, the game's developers [[https://news.avclub.com/the-creators-of-the-nintendo-64-goldeneye-have-official-1828520705 have officially declared using Oddjob to be outright cheating]], they just didn't bother to include any in-game restriction on using him because they ''wanted'' players to come up with their own house rules.[[/note]]

to:

However, the video game is what it is. It is; it defines what you can do and what you can't do. In competitive games, the rules exist as written into the game world. Sometimes, Sometimes this leads to an over-powered character; sometimes, character, and sometimes it leads to a GameBreaker. Some competitive video game players accept that some characters/races/etc. are more powerful than others. When they're being competitive, they others, and they'll play one of the characters/races that are on the [[CharacterTiers top tier]] and ignore the rest.

Some people do not hold to this.

this. They develop house rules designed to bring what they feel is a game imbalance back into [[CompetitiveBalance balance]], so that there is more variety (after all, if a game has 20 characters, but [[CharacterTiers two of them are so strong that they're practically unbeatable]] [[CharacterSelectForcing unless you use one of them yourself]], then the game effectively only has two characters because the other 18 aren't worth playing). Essentially, a self-made game patch. This is all well and good. A classic gaming example of this is the ultra-common "No Oddjob" rule in ''VideoGame/{{GoldenEye|1997}}'', often put in place because Oddjob is a GameBreaker due to him being too short for anyone else to shoot without taking the time to manually aim their gun downward.[[note]]In fact, the game's developers [[https://news.avclub.com/the-creators-of-the-nintendo-64-goldeneye-have-official-1828520705 have officially declared using Oddjob to be outright cheating]], they just didn't bother to include any in-game restriction on using him because they ''wanted'' players to come up with their own house rules.[[/note]]



The mistake the Scrub often makes is making up rules too soon. The {{Metagame}} can often turn an apparent imbalance on its head. A lower tier character can become a higher tier one, or vice versa. Or something that seemed [[SkillGateCharacters initially very unbalanced can be countered with time and effort]] at learning the tactic. Alternately, with the advent of patching, more modern titles may rebalance the game so that the former Game Breakers aren't as unbeatable as they used to be. The Scrub circumvents this by simply banning something without making a good faith effort to actually get around it with the in-game rules.

to:

The mistake the Scrub often makes is making up rules too soon. The soon, as the {{Metagame}} can often turn an apparent imbalance on its head. A lower tier character can become a higher tier one, or vice versa. Or something that seemed [[SkillGateCharacters initially very unbalanced can be countered with time and effort]] at learning the tactic. Alternately, with the advent of patching, more modern titles may rebalance the game so that the former Game Breakers aren't as unbeatable as they used to be. The Scrub circumvents this by simply banning something without making a good faith effort to actually get around it with the in-game rules.


The video game is what it is. It defines what you can do and what you can't do. In competitive games, the rules exist as written into the game world. Sometimes, this leads to an over-powered character. Sometimes, it leads to a GameBreaker.

Some competitive video game players accept that some characters/races/etc. are more powerful than others. When they're being competitive, they play one of the characters/races that are on the [[CharacterTiers top tier]] and ignore the rest.

Some people do not hold to this. They develop house rules designed to bring what they feel is a game imbalance back into [[CompetitiveBalance balance]], so that there is more variety (after all, if a game has 20 characters, but [[CharacterTiers two of them are so strong that they're practically unbeatable]] [[CharacterSelectForcing unless you use one of them yourself]], then the game effectively only has two characters because the other 18 aren't worth playing). Essentially, a self-made game patch. This is all well and good. A classic gaming example of this is the ultra-common "No Oddjob" rule in ''VideoGame/{{GoldenEye|1997}}'', often put in place because Oddjob is a GameBreaker due to him being too short for anyone else to shoot without taking the time to manually aim their gun downward.[[note]]In fact, the game's developers [[https://news.avclub.com/the-creators-of-the-nintendo-64-goldeneye-have-official-1828520705 have officially declared using Oddjob to be outright cheating]], they just didn't bother to include any in-game restriction on using him because they ''wanted'' players to come up with their own house rules.[[/note]]

to:

The However, the video game is what it is. It defines what you can do and what you can't do. In competitive games, the rules exist as written into the game world. Sometimes, this leads to an over-powered character. Sometimes, character; sometimes, it leads to a GameBreaker.

GameBreaker. Some competitive video game players accept that some characters/races/etc. are more powerful than others. When they're being competitive, they play one of the characters/races that are on the [[CharacterTiers top tier]] and ignore the rest.

Some people do not hold to this. this.

They develop house rules designed to bring what they feel is a game imbalance back into [[CompetitiveBalance balance]], so that there is more variety (after all, if a game has 20 characters, but [[CharacterTiers two of them are so strong that they're practically unbeatable]] [[CharacterSelectForcing unless you use one of them yourself]], then the game effectively only has two characters because the other 18 aren't worth playing). Essentially, a self-made game patch. This is all well and good. A classic gaming example of this is the ultra-common "No Oddjob" rule in ''VideoGame/{{GoldenEye|1997}}'', often put in place because Oddjob is a GameBreaker due to him being too short for anyone else to shoot without taking the time to manually aim their gun downward.[[note]]In fact, the game's developers [[https://news.avclub.com/the-creators-of-the-nintendo-64-goldeneye-have-official-1828520705 have officially declared using Oddjob to be outright cheating]], they just didn't bother to include any in-game restriction on using him because they ''wanted'' players to come up with their own house rules.[[/note]]


A Scrub is a player of a competitive video game who adamantly believes that their "house rules" should apply to everyone to promote their view of "fair play". If a scrub sees a move or strategy they don't like (or can't beat), they ban it (if only in their own mind), and complain that anyone who uses it is cheap.

to:

A Scrub is a player of a {{Player Archetype|s}} in competitive video game who games. A Scrub adamantly believes that their "house rules" should apply to everyone to promote their view of "fair play". If a scrub sees a move or strategy they don't like (or can't beat), they ban it (if only in their own mind), and complain that anyone who uses it is cheap.



Compare and contrast with StopHavingFunGuys, who are at least as annoying as the Scrub. The Scrub is the antithesis of the "Stop Having Fun" Guy, although one could argue that the two are [[NotSoDifferent very similar]] -- "Stop Having Fun" Guys demand that everyone use the most efficient and powerful choices (with failure to do so considered "inferiority"), while Scrubs insist that everyone follow their personal house rules (with failure to do so considered "cheating"). Both make the mistake of taking things [[SeriousBusiness very seriously]], both are more than willing to start a FlameWar rather than let another kind of player exist in peace, and both are eager to [[WithUsOrAgainstUs argue with anyone who doesn't agree with their style of play]].

to:

Compare and contrast with StopHavingFunGuys, who are at least as annoying as the Scrub. The Scrub is the antithesis of the "Stop Having Fun" Guy, although one could argue that the two archetypes are [[NotSoDifferent very similar]] -- "Stop Having Fun" Guys demand that everyone use the most efficient and powerful choices (with failure to do so considered "inferiority"), while Scrubs insist that everyone follow their personal house rules (with failure to do so considered "cheating"). Both make the mistake of taking things [[SeriousBusiness very seriously]], both are more than willing to start a FlameWar rather than let another kind of player exist in peace, and both are eager to [[WithUsOrAgainstUs argue with anyone who doesn't agree with their style of play]].


Scrubs may also put down others who use certain characters/teams/etc. for simply using them like everyone else is using in order to win. In other words, they don't like it when people use something that everyone else is since it's not "original" and will even go as far as accusing these people at sucking at the game for not using anyone or anything besides the top tiers. In {{Collectible Card Game}}s, this is often referred to as "net decking" because they believe the player took their deck idea from a successful deck they found on the internet.

to:

Scrubs may also put down others who use certain characters/teams/etc. for simply using them like everyone else is using in order to win. In other words, they don't like it when people use something that everyone else is is, since it's not "original" "original", and will even go as far as accusing these people at sucking at the game for not using anyone or anything besides the top tiers. In {{Collectible Card Game}}s, this is often referred to as "net decking" because they believe the player took their deck idea from a successful deck they found on the internet.


The mistake the Scrub often makes is making up rules too soon. The {{Metagame}} can often turn an apparent imbalance on its head. A lower tier character can become a higher tier one, or vice versa. Or something that seemed [[SkillGateCharacters initially very unbalanced can be countered with time and effort]] at learning the tactic. Alternately, with the advent of patching, more modern titles may rebalance the game so that the former Game Breakers aren't as unbeatable as they used to be. The Scrub circumvents this by simply banning something without making a good faith effort in actually getting around it with the in-game rules.

to:

The mistake the Scrub often makes is making up rules too soon. The {{Metagame}} can often turn an apparent imbalance on its head. A lower tier character can become a higher tier one, or vice versa. Or something that seemed [[SkillGateCharacters initially very unbalanced can be countered with time and effort]] at learning the tactic. Alternately, with the advent of patching, more modern titles may rebalance the game so that the former Game Breakers aren't as unbeatable as they used to be. The Scrub circumvents this by simply banning something without making a good faith effort in to actually getting get around it with the in-game rules.


[[http://www.sirlin.net/ptw This book]] and [[http://insomnia.ac/commentary/domination_101/on_cheapness/ this article]] contain some of the most thorough investigations of the "scrub" phenomenon you can find anywhere. See also TallPoppySyndrome.

to:

[[http://www.sirlin.net/ptw This book]] and [[http://insomnia.ac/commentary/domination_101/on_cheapness/ [[https://web.archive.org/web/20180905024650/http://insomnia.ac/commentary/domination_101/on_cheapness this article]] contain some of the most thorough investigations of the "scrub" phenomenon you can find anywhere. See also TallPoppySyndrome.


Some people do not hold to this. They develop house rules designed to bring what they feel is a game imbalance back into [[CompetitiveBalance balance]], so that there is more variety (after all, if a game has 20 characters, but two of them are so strong that they're practically unbeatable [[CharacterSelectForcing unless you use one of them yourself]], then those other 18 characters are not worth playing). Essentially, a self-made game patch. This is all well and good. A classic gaming example of this is the ultra-common "No Oddjob" rule in ''VideoGame/{{Goldeneye|1997}}'', often put in place because Oddjob is a GameBreaker due to his shortness making him far more difficult to shoot at than everyone else.

to:

Some people do not hold to this. They develop house rules designed to bring what they feel is a game imbalance back into [[CompetitiveBalance balance]], so that there is more variety (after all, if a game has 20 characters, but [[CharacterTiers two of them are so strong that they're practically unbeatable unbeatable]] [[CharacterSelectForcing unless you use one of them yourself]], then those other 18 the game effectively only has two characters are not because the other 18 aren't worth playing). Essentially, a self-made game patch. This is all well and good. A classic gaming example of this is the ultra-common "No Oddjob" rule in ''VideoGame/{{Goldeneye|1997}}'', ''VideoGame/{{GoldenEye|1997}}'', often put in place because Oddjob is a GameBreaker due to his shortness making him far more difficult being too short for anyone else to shoot at than everyone else.
without taking the time to manually aim their gun downward.[[note]]In fact, the game's developers [[https://news.avclub.com/the-creators-of-the-nintendo-64-goldeneye-have-official-1828520705 have officially declared using Oddjob to be outright cheating]], they just didn't bother to include any in-game restriction on using him because they ''wanted'' players to come up with their own house rules.[[/note]]


Some people do not hold to this. They develop house rules designed to bring what they feel is a game imbalance back into [[CompetitiveBalance balance]], so that there is more variety (after all, if a game has 20 characters, but you would clearly win only using two of them, then those 18 other characters are not worth playing). Essentially, a self-made game patch. This is all well and good. A classic gaming example of this is the ultra-common "No Oddjob Rule" in ''VideoGame/{{Goldeneye|1997}}'', often put in place because Oddjob is a {{Game Breaker}} due to his size.

to:

Some people do not hold to this. They develop house rules designed to bring what they feel is a game imbalance back into [[CompetitiveBalance balance]], so that there is more variety (after all, if a game has 20 characters, but you would clearly win only using two of them, them are so strong that they're practically unbeatable [[CharacterSelectForcing unless you use one of them yourself]], then those 18 other 18 characters are not worth playing). Essentially, a self-made game patch. This is all well and good. A classic gaming example of this is the ultra-common "No Oddjob Rule" Oddjob" rule in ''VideoGame/{{Goldeneye|1997}}'', often put in place because Oddjob is a {{Game Breaker}} GameBreaker due to his size.
shortness making him far more difficult to shoot at than everyone else.


A Scrub is a player of a competitive video game who adamantly believes that their "house rules" should apply to everyone to promote their view of "fair play". If a scrub sees a move or strategy they don't like (or can't beat), they ban it (if only in their own mind), and complains that anyone who uses it is cheap.

to:

A Scrub is a player of a competitive video game who adamantly believes that their "house rules" should apply to everyone to promote their view of "fair play". If a scrub sees a move or strategy they don't like (or can't beat), they ban it (if only in their own mind), and complains complain that anyone who uses it is cheap.

Added DiffLines:

Scrubs are often the result of MinMaxing / {{Whoring}}. When a player sacrifices certain skills they deem useless in order to bolster skills they deem superior, they usually aren't happy when another player has a build meant to exploit their weaknesses. These scrubs will often argue that whatever mechanic they are choosing to ignore isn't part of "the real game," and that it should be removed.


A Scrub is a player of a competitive video game who adamantly believes that his or her "house rules" should apply to everyone to promote his or her view of "fair play". If a scrub sees a move or strategy he doesn't like (or can't beat), he bans it (if only in his own mind), and complains that anyone who uses it is cheap.

to:

A Scrub is a player of a competitive video game who adamantly believes that his or her their "house rules" should apply to everyone to promote his or her their view of "fair play". If a scrub sees a move or strategy he doesn't they don't like (or can't beat), he bans they ban it (if only in his their own mind), and complains that anyone who uses it is cheap.



Some competitive video game players accept that some characters/races/etc are more powerful than others. When they're being competitive, they play one of the characters/races that are on the [[CharacterTiers top tier]] and ignore the rest.

Some people do not hold to this. They develop house rules designed to bring what he/she feels is a game imbalance back into [[CompetitiveBalance balance]], so that there is more variety (after all, if a game has 20 characters, but you would clearly win only using 2 of them, then those 18 other characters are not worth playing). Essentially, a self-made game patch. This is all well and good. A classic gaming example of this is the ultra-common "No Oddjob Rule" in ''VideoGame/{{Goldeneye|1997}}'', often put in place because, well, Oddjob is a {{Game Breaker}}.

However, it can go too far. When it does, you have the Scrub.

The mistake the Scrub often makes is making up rules too soon. The {{Metagame}} can often turn an apparent imbalance on its head. A lower tier character can become a higher tier one, or vice versa. Or something that seemed [[SkillGateCharacters initially very unbalanced can be countered with time and effort]] at learning the tactic. The Scrub circumvents this by simply banning the practice without making a good faith effort in actually getting around it with the in-game rules.

to:

Some competitive video game players accept that some characters/races/etc characters/races/etc. are more powerful than others. When they're being competitive, they play one of the characters/races that are on the [[CharacterTiers top tier]] and ignore the rest.

Some people do not hold to this. They develop house rules designed to bring what he/she feels they feel is a game imbalance back into [[CompetitiveBalance balance]], so that there is more variety (after all, if a game has 20 characters, but you would clearly win only using 2 two of them, then those 18 other characters are not worth playing). Essentially, a self-made game patch. This is all well and good. A classic gaming example of this is the ultra-common "No Oddjob Rule" in ''VideoGame/{{Goldeneye|1997}}'', often put in place because, well, because Oddjob is a {{Game Breaker}}.

Breaker}} due to his size.

However, it this self-limiting with house rules can go too far. When it does, you have the Scrub.

The mistake the Scrub often makes is making up rules too soon. The {{Metagame}} can often turn an apparent imbalance on its head. A lower tier character can become a higher tier one, or vice versa. Or something that seemed [[SkillGateCharacters initially very unbalanced can be countered with time and effort]] at learning the tactic. Alternately, with the advent of patching, more modern titles may rebalance the game so that the former Game Breakers aren't as unbeatable as they used to be. The Scrub circumvents this by simply banning the practice something without making a good faith effort in actually getting around it with the in-game rules.



Scrubs may also put down others who use certain characters/teams/etc. for simply using them like everyone else is using in order to win. In other words, they don't like it when people use something that everyone else is since it's not "original" and will even go as far as accusing these people at sucking at the game for not using anyone or anything besides the top tiers. In [[CollectibleCardGame Collectible Card Games]], this is often referred to as "net decking" because they believe the player took their deck idea from a successful deck they found on the internet.

Combined with the {{Noob}}, a scrub can quickly turn into a [[GodModders God Modder]].

Compare and contrast with StopHavingFunGuys, who are about as annoying to say the least. The Scrub is the antithesis of the "Stop Having Fun" Guy, although one could argue that the two are [[NotSoDifferent very similar]] -- "Stop Having Fun" Guys demand that everyone use the most efficient and powerful choices (with failure to do so considered proof of inferiority), while Scrubs insist that everyone follow their personal house rules (with failure to do so considered cheating). Both make the mistake of taking things [[SeriousBusiness very seriously]], both are more than willing to start a FlameWar rather than let the other exist in peace, and both are eager to [[WithUsOrAgainstUs assign anyone to the side of their enemies who doesn't agree with their style of play]]. And then there's the "tryhard", a low-level player with a scrub-like mentality who fancies themselves a high-level player and tries to adopt high-level tactics even though they have no idea how to actually pull them off. Also note that because all of these labels are "bad", most people do not consider themselves to be ''any'' of them--someone who fits the description of "Scrub" will just think they're normal while accusing any opposition of being "Tryhards" and "SHFG"s, or any such combination thereof.

On the other hand, can be used by players to indiscriminately insult players they deem unworthy, or simply players they don't like. It gets thrown around so much in the ''VideoGame/WorldOfWarcraft'' community that in most of the cases it has lost its meaning. (Although in reality, the meaning of "scrub" to simply mean "incompetent" came first, and using the term Scrub as a trope to define the mentality as David Sirlin did came later.)

to:

Scrubs may also put down others who use certain characters/teams/etc. for simply using them like everyone else is using in order to win. In other words, they don't like it when people use something that everyone else is since it's not "original" and will even go as far as accusing these people at sucking at the game for not using anyone or anything besides the top tiers. In [[CollectibleCardGame Collectible {{Collectible Card Games]], Game}}s, this is often referred to as "net decking" because they believe the player took their deck idea from a successful deck they found on the internet.

Combined with the {{Noob}}, a scrub can quickly turn into a [[GodModders God Modder]].

Compare and contrast with StopHavingFunGuys, who are about at least as annoying to say as the least. Scrub. The Scrub is the antithesis of the "Stop Having Fun" Guy, although one could argue that the two are [[NotSoDifferent very similar]] -- "Stop Having Fun" Guys demand that everyone use the most efficient and powerful choices (with failure to do so considered proof of inferiority), "inferiority"), while Scrubs insist that everyone follow their personal house rules (with failure to do so considered cheating). "cheating"). Both make the mistake of taking things [[SeriousBusiness very seriously]], both are more than willing to start a FlameWar rather than let the other another kind of player exist in peace, and both are eager to [[WithUsOrAgainstUs assign argue with anyone to the side of their enemies who doesn't agree with their style of play]]. play]].

Combined with the {{Noob}}, a scrub can quickly turn into a [[GodModders God Modder]], who actually does cheat or abuses glitches to the extreme, but still considers his tactics to be fair.
And then there's the "tryhard", a low-level player with a scrub-like mentality who fancies themselves a high-level player player, and tries to adopt high-level tactics even though they have no idea how to actually pull them off. Also note that because all of these labels are "bad", most people do not consider themselves to be ''any'' of them--someone who fits the description of "Scrub" will just think they're normal while accusing any opposition of being "Tryhards" "tryhards" and "SHFG"s, or any such combination thereof.

On the other hand, the term "scrub" can be used by players to indiscriminately insult players they deem unworthy, or simply players they don't like. It The word "scrub" gets thrown around so much in the ''VideoGame/WorldOfWarcraft'' community that in most of the cases it has lost its original meaning. (Although in reality, the meaning of "scrub" to simply mean "incompetent" came first, and using the term Scrub as a trope to define the mentality as David Sirlin did came later.)


Some people do not hold to this. They develop house rules designed to bring what he/she feels is a game imbalance back into [[CompetitiveBalance balance]], so that there is more variety (after all, if a game has 20 characters, but you would clearly win using 2 of them, then those 2 characters are not worth playing). Essentially, a self-made game patch. This is all well and good. A classic gaming example of this is the ultra-common "No Oddjob Rule" in ''VideoGame/{{Goldeneye|1997}}'', often put in place because, well, Oddjob is a {{Game Breaker}}.

to:

Some people do not hold to this. They develop house rules designed to bring what he/she feels is a game imbalance back into [[CompetitiveBalance balance]], so that there is more variety (after all, if a game has 20 characters, but you would clearly win only using 2 of them, then those 2 18 other characters are not worth playing). Essentially, a self-made game patch. This is all well and good. A classic gaming example of this is the ultra-common "No Oddjob Rule" in ''VideoGame/{{Goldeneye|1997}}'', often put in place because, well, Oddjob is a {{Game Breaker}}.

Showing 15 edit(s) of 27

Top

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:

/

Media sources:

/

Report