Camping is Cheating

IF there's any game that is "realistic" to war, it's either Arma or Mass Effect. Both games capture the unpleasant sides. Arma, the boring,uneventful stints between adrenaline-filled battles, and Mass Effect, the trauma and overwhelming feeling of helplessness you get when a comrade is gunned down in front of your eyes. Spec Ops: The Line also does a fair job by making hard to end a person's life. This is war. Battlefield is not war. In Battlefield, the guns look real. The feel real. But when a comrade dies before you, you feel nothing because you know they feel no pain and will come right back. I'd just like to get that out of the way. There is no way in heaven or hell that any piece of interactive entertainment could ever come close to the horrors of real war (not even the titles I mentioned). Now, to the actual argument. You said that, in real war, people camp all the time. I'll tell you what. If my life depended on it, and if the well being of my country depended on it, I would camp like crazy. However, people play games not because they want to know what real war is like (see above paragraph), but because they want to have fun. Killing a camper is satisfying only because you feel that you're bringing justice to someone who was so competitive that they'd sacrifice your enjoyment for the bragging rights of high numbers on a digital screen. By saying that games are made without rules, you'd also be saying that's its perfectly fine and dandy for anyone to hack a game whenever they want and make themselves invincible. How are you distinguishing between the two? They both take advantage of the game in ways that the game is not meant to be. One messes with code, the other with careless developer oversight. Also, I completely disagree when you say that people play games to win. If they do play games only to win, then they need to get out and do something with their lives. Winning a game means nothing. Sure, it's satisfying, but it's no excuse to camp. Finding advantage points is okay. It would be stupid not to try to gain the tactical upper hand. Hide behind a corner, get to the high ground, I don't care. Most of these "tactical" locations were purposefully included by the developer as miniature war zones, places for meaningful encounters with opponents. These locations, however, always have a weak spot, so that the other team isn't automatically screwed when they're pushed away. When the developer accidentally creates one of these locations without a weak spot, that's where people usually camp, and that's when the game becomes unfair. There's a difference between a tactical position and a camp spot. Tactical positions are meant to give you a slight edge, just enough so that the opponent has a chance of taking the position back and has incentive to. But when a position become un-infiltrateable and gives one team or person an unfairly large advantage over the other that has nothing to do with skill, than it becomes a camp spot. It's okay to use them every once in a while. Maybe grab a single kill to even the odds in a badly matched game. But generally, players should use their morality and sense of fair sport to control their greed for XP and points, and try to win the game legitimately.