quote:

Originally posted by Mr Game+Watch They may be some of the easiest to play, but actually taking time to learn the different combos, and frame-count the moves, requires a lot of effort and patience. I've been playing games for 22 years and I still can't figure out Virtua Fighter 5 enough to play at a proficient level. For anybody who thinks fighting games are just button mashers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS5peqApgUA

Oh, absolutely. There is no doubt in my mind. I'd be willing to say that this is true for almost any genre; though some are easier to play than others (a sports title will more than likely be easier to get better at than, say, an RTS), every game has its own set of rules and play styles that take practice to get good at.

It takes an experienced player to be able to skillfully master everything the game has to offer.

And speaking of Virtua Fighter...I can't figure out literally any of them. I try and get better at Virtua Fighter 2 on the Saturn, and I'm just terrible. I'm in no way criticizing the game or its mechanics...I'm just not very good.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by CONNERMAN2000 It takes an experienced player to be able to skillfully master everything the game has to offer.

I would say this is very far from being universally true. A lot of games these days impose all sorts of restrictive skill ceillings. You often reach a point where you can't really be significantly better at it, and that point is sometimes very low. Games like Halo, or console shooters in general, have extremely narrow skill gaps compared to games that are designed to be competitive, like quake, street fighter, or starcraft.

___________________
Once bread becomes toast, it can never go back to being bread again.

quote:

Originally posted by Cpt.Cocaine I would say this is very far from being universally true. A lot of games these days impose all sorts of restrictive skill ceillings. You often reach a point where you can't really be significantly better at it, and that point is sometimes very low. Games like Halo, or console shooters in general, have extremely narrow skill gaps compared to games that are designed to be competitive, like quake, street fighter, or starcraft.

But I find that to be a very subjective observation. Okay, so I'll level with you and say that I can totally see what you mean in terms of a ceiling regarding skill, and that improvement beyond a certain point will eventually become near-impossible.

But then you have to look at other facets of the gameplay. I'll give you an example based on personal experience, and I'll even use Halo.

I thought I was the master of Halo 1. I would dominate my friends so hard that most didn't want to play, simply because it wasn't fun. Me pearling a spree of headshots was as easy as pie, and my being in first place was expected. Lemme brag here because I'm getting to the point I was making...

...at a job I was working last summer, I met someone who still happens to play Halo 1. He hates 2 and 3, but still plays 1 all the time with his friends. He knows people that are the best in the world...this guy was serious fuckin business. I hadn't played in a while, but of course I wanted to play again. I, after all, think 1 is the best out of all of them as well.

He fucking killed me. Again and again. He said that the game is only about 30% skill, and the rest is strategy. You may know how to strafe well, and aim your shots well, and jump accurately...but maybe you don't know the best corner to take, or the best place to throw a grenade, or when the overshields are set to respawn. All of these little details play a part in determining how 'good' you are at the game.

Now, does this pertain to absolutely every single game out there? Probably not, especially considering the oversimplification of gaming these days to reach a broader audience. But the point I was getting at is that actual 'skill' and your ability to win the game are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

I know I've written a hellishly long post, but I thought that maybe I was making sense. I'm not really arguing your point, but really just introducing a new perspective on how you judge a person's ability to play and win a game.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by CONNERMAN2000 He fucking killed me. Again and again. He said that the game is only about 30% skill, and the rest is strategy. You may know how to strafe well, and aim your shots well, and jump accurately...but maybe you don't know the best corner to take, or the best place to throw a grenade, or when the overshields are set to respawn. All of these little details play a part in determining how 'good' you are at the game.

thats a good point and all, but all games possess that, whilst simultaneously possessing a much higher level of skill required (ie quake or UT).

___________________

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Sure there's people who are good at halo, and they can probably own up 99.9% of the halo player base, but take the best of those guys, put them in a game like quake and watch 'mediocre' players run circles around them.



lol, try to ignore the weird rammstein montage

And about the point on strategy, item placement and such; increase the movement speed and player control and you increase all of those elements exponentially.

___________________
Once bread becomes toast, it can never go back to being bread again.

Last edited by Cpt.Cocaine on Jan-21-2009 at 00:13

Damn, I made myself want to play quake live.

___________________
Once bread becomes toast, it can never go back to being bread again.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN thats a good point and all, but all games possess that, whilst simultaneously possessing a much higher level of skill required (ie quake or UT).

Truth, but that wasn't my point. And maybe I didn't convey that clearly, so my bad. I was just saying that you could know all the special moves in a fighting game, be able to score a head shot every time in any FPS, and know the best units to build in an RTS, but still not be the best at the game simply by lacking strategy.

Maybe that's an obvious point; I was only added to Cocaine's post that having reached a skill ceiling in a game may not necessarily make you 'good' at the game, since it all depends on how you use said skills.

*Edit - I should rephrase...of course, if you reach a skill ceiling, you are definitely at least 'good' at the game...but you might not be 'great'...its the strategists that divide the 'good' from the 'great'.

quote:

Originally posted by Cpt.Cocaine Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Sure there's people who are good at halo, and they can probably own up 99.9% of the halo player base, but take the best of those guys, put them in a game like quake and watch 'mediocre' players run circles around them.

Sure, because those people are used to a quick game. But the same can almost be said vice versa - throw a vet UT or Quake player in a Halo match, and he's bound to get his ass kicked since he's not used to the slower pace.

This is where gamers like to say 'yep, that's why Halo sucks', but that's a completely subjective take on the situation. Different games have different speeds, and with that come different playing styles. Not everybody digs Halo, true, but then again, not everybody digs UT or Quake.

quote:

Originally posted by Cpt.Cocaine And about the point on strategy, item placement and such; increase the movement speed and player control and you increase all of those elements exponentially.

Absolutely. But it still doesn't change the fact that the element still exists...if you don't know the best route to take in order to get to, say, the enemy flag before somebody else...even though you are all running faster if you increase game speeds, everyone is still running the same, so lack of logic towards strategic elements will still put you at a disadvantage.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Cpt.Cocaine Damn, I made myself want to play quake live.

Is that the one coming for Xbox Live Arcade? Is it out? When is it out? I demand answers!

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by CONNERMAN2000 Is that the one coming for Xbox Live Arcade? Is it out? When is it out? I demand answers!

Obviousely not coming for live arcade, but you can play it on practically any PC even if you don't have a dedicated GPU. It's basicly a re-release of Q3:Arena with minor gameplay tweaks designed to improve the competitive aspect. It's free and playable through an internet browser. Still in beta, no set release date.

___________________
Once bread becomes toast, it can never go back to being bread again.

quote:

Originally posted by Cpt.Cocaine Obviousely not coming for live arcade, but you can play it on practically any PC even if you don't have a dedicated GPU. It's basicly a re-release of Q3:Arena with minor gameplay tweaks designed to improve the competitive aspect. It's free and playable through an internet browser. Still in beta, no set release date.

Ahh, my confusion stems from the announcement of Quake Live Arcade for the 360, also with no release date. Thought maybe you were speaking of it. Pretty cool though, I'll need to check that out.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by CONNERMAN2000 Sure, because those people are used to a quick game. But the same can almost be said vice versa - throw a vet UT or Quake player in a Halo match, and he's bound to get his ass kicked since he's not used to the slower pace. This is where gamers like to say 'yep, that's why Halo sucks', but that's a completely subjective take on the situation. Different games have different speeds, and with that come different playing styles. Not everybody digs Halo, true, but then again, not everybody digs UT or Quake.

It's not that simple. What pro halo players do is stuff any decent quake player does in an average game against average players. That includes strategic aspects of the game. Competitive games just have a ton more depth on top of all that. Quake/UT players would get beaten at halo because the game is designed in such a way that nullifies everything that makes them good. Beyond that, it all comes down to being proficient at using a very restrictive controller.

quote:

Absolutely. But it still doesn't change the fact that the element still exists...if you don't know the best route to take in order to get to, say, the enemy flag before somebody else...even though you are all running faster if you increase game speeds, everyone is still running the same, so lack of logic towards strategic elements will still put you at a disadvantage.

Basic map knowledge is a given, any half-decent player will have that. In any case though, not knowing how to get from X to Y increases in significance when the game speed is up and you end up going from X to Y much more often. This applies for any strategic situation. A fast pace multiplies the number of tactical decisions you have to make, and the rate at which you have to make them.

Compare it to a sport like football. Imagine if you took one of the slowest football players and then imposed a rule; no one is allowed to run faster than this player. Suddenly it becomes a very shallow game, and as a competitive sport, it would be non-existant. Sports like that are interesting because they allow a lot of room as well as many ways in which players can be better than others. It's the same thing with halo: It imposes the rule that anyone who's really good at player control, moving, quick thinking or strategy isn't allowed to use those skills beyond a completely arbitrary limit.

___________________
Once bread becomes toast, it can never go back to being bread again.