Sportsmanship should take precedence over viability, but I mostly agree. They put the damn camo and boltshot in, and people are going to use it, especially when going for a perfection challenge - that's all on 343.
Exactly my point. Winning is everything, "fun" is described as some kind of psychosis. It's one of the reasons I liked the Arena concept - it let me know which playlists to avoid.
"Winning" based on a score is the only objective measure we can use though. "Fun" for one person is not the same as "fun" for another. For me personally, "fun" means competing in a balanced arena that rewards players proportional to their ability, decisions and actions. It means something completely different to other people.
We can't expect players to play solely based on our idea of "fun," because it's a subjective thing. When we enter a competitive setting, we should expect players to be competing for the only objective goal possible; winning. When developers try to bring "fun" into the competitive setting by adding uncompetitive components, its a futile effort that ultimately results in the game being
less fun for most people.
I'm not saying everyone should only have fun by winning, but they should go into every game expecting the rest of the players to play to win. If winning isn't your definition of fun, thats fine, but don't get upset when other players play to win. Most people I've talked to don't care about getting beaten by tactics they view as "fair," but they do have a problem when they get beaten by tactics that are "unfair."
Am I saying they're wrong, that there are no cheap or unfair tactics? No, there are unfortunately plenty of tactics that are "cheap" or "unfair," meaning they disproportionately reward players for performing actions that require little skill or strategy. It's the developers job to create a more balanced environment because that will actually make the game more fun for everyone involved.
Like I've always said, more balanced = more fun for the majority of players.