Support NeoGAF

[StrikerObi]

The first Harry Potter flick is on ABC Family right now and the Quidditch scene is on right now. I really don't understand this game at all. The concept of Quidditch is so unbalanced.

Scoring a goal is worth 10 pointes. Catching the snitch is worth a whopping 150 points and at the same time ends the game.

What's the fucking point of even playing most of the game? As soon as one team catches the snitch they will automatically take a commanding lead and end the gaming, removing any chance the other team would have to catch up.

Here's two examples:
Team A: 50 points
Team B: 70 points

Team A catches the snitch and goes up to 200 points and the game ends. They win.

Team A: 10 points
Team B: 200 points

Assuming this situation, why should Team A even bother trying to catch the snitch at this point? Even if they do get the 150 points and go up to 160 points, they still loose because Team B has 200 and Team A just ended the game by catching the snitch.

This game is very cool in concept (and fun to watch in the movies) but it makes so fucking sense at all. Only a woman could think up a sport that's so unbalanced.

 

[Phoenix]

The point of all of that is to give you a chance to beat the crap out of your opponents before the snitch shows up and makes the game meaningful.

 

[Flaming Duck]

Yeah, the rest of the game is there because otherwise everyone would just be sitting there waiting for someone to catch the snitch. Some teams like to end things on their own terms, too, and if you see that the team in the lead is about to catch the snitch, of course you're probably going to race and try to beat them to it. If the game is going to end it might as well be on your terms, especially if you're the loser.

 

[StrikerObi]

It just seems to me that the game would make a lost more sense if Quidditch was played more like a regular sport, with multiple periods of play. Also, if the Snitch were only worth something like 50 or maybe 100 points and could only be cought once per period (and didn't end the game, or period) then it wouldn't be such an amazing deciding factor, but it would still be very important to snag it.

 

[Willco]

Also, Quidditch sucks. Lord of the Rings rules!

 

[StrikerObi]

Also, Quidditch sucks. Lord of the Rings rules!

Gandalf is a loser, Spiderman could kick his ass.

 

[Willco]

Gandalf is a [loser], Spiderman could kick his ass.

You can get banned for that term (edit get!) and yes, Spider-Man can kick anybody's ass.

 

[Eggo]

If you devalued the snitch, then that would make the seeker (aka Harry) not as important to the team. If Harry were not important, he would end up a drunk, lose all his fans and the books would not sell and JK would not be a multi-jillionaire and own her own island.

 

[SyNapSe]

I think typically the snitch isn't caught.

 

[StrikerObi]

I think typically the snitch isn't caught.

Then how does the game end? You need to catch it to end the game.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

 

[Ghost]

Its a sport invented by a woman who writes childrens books about wizards, why would you expect it to make any kind of sense?

 

[Luscious LeftFoot]

If you devalued the snitch, then that would make the seeker (aka Harry) not as important to the team. If Harry were not important, he would end up a drunk, lose all his fans and the books would not sell and JK would not be a multi-jillionaire and own her own island.

LoL

I think it's mentioned in the books that games can go on for days or weeks depending on how long it takes to find the snitch.

 

[Flaming Duck]

If you care that much, see if you can find a copy of Quidditch Throughout the Ages. It's a history of Quidditch written by Rowling herself. All proceeds go to a charity. I haven't had a chance to read it, though, so I don't know what kind of information it would have in it.

 

[Belfast]

The snitch HAS to be caught to end the game. I don't think every game is a sure victory just because you catch the snitch. It requires that a team both perform on the field and in getting the snitch. As you said, if a team is so far behind that catching the snitch keeps them from winning, then either A) they suck or B) they'll try and use their beaters to attack the opposing team's seeker. B entails that they'll be able to buy some extra time in order to catch up and then, at the last minute, catch the snitch and win. So I would say that, no, the snitch alone does not often discern who wins a game. If one team decided they would just wait the entire game for the snitch and not score any goals, then the other team would obviously try to distract them and start scoring goals on their own. Also, I believe that the snitch appears randomly and, while the movies/books may not lead us to think so, its likely that the snitch can disappear for portions of the match and come back later (this is assuming that the seekers lose sight of it). Thus, when victory seems almost certain, the snitch can just up and hide itself, prompting even more competition on the field until it appears again. Of course, we're talking about a fake sport here, so its all really a moot point anyway. :\

I could see it being a little more fair if the snitch was worth maybe 100 points, but the system works well enough as it is, IMO.

 

[BuddyC]

In one book, 4 or 5, there's a Quiddith match in which the team that catches the snitch loses because the other team had that much of a lead. True story.

 

[Sagitario]

In one book, 4 or 5, there's a Quiddith match in which the team that catches the snitch loses because the other team had that much of a lead. True story.

Actually, in both I think... 4) Viktor Krum in the Quidditch World Cup. 5) Ginny (after Harry can not longer play because Umbridge took his broomstick) catches the snitch but Gryffindor loses (still they won at the end =P ).