The only justification for being an asshole is if someone is being an asshole to you.
But that just leads to "asshole stew" and a bad time.
But that just leads to "asshole stew" and a bad time.
You will generally not be likeable by being "an asshole" and therefore it is not "justified" to act like one. But you can be a likeable asshole, if you are Hugh Laurie/Dr. House.Jacco said:"Lack of skill" of other players is not a legit justification for being an asshole
There are valid design reasons for stating that skill should take priority. The gist of why this is so is that inexperienced players may be demanding that a seemingly unfair part of the game should be toned down without realizing that there are legitimate ways to counter or play around those parts. When they improve their skills to counter the unfair element they may notice new depths of the game that interact to form a more challenging and ultimately more rewarding experience. If they would just nerf away any perceived unfairness then they may disrupt that complexity and make the game lose depth.Jacco said:I don't get why you have to be "skilled" at the game to have fun, both from a design and a player standpoint.
Problem with the "noob lounge" games is that those "competitive" people will come down to those rooms when they are having a bad day and stomp people just to make themselves feel better. There will always be enough high end players having bad days to make the lower end games unplayable because of them.Dirty Hipsters said:I think there should be separate lobbies for people who just want to have fun and for people who actually want to play competitively. That way people who have lower level gear, less playtime, and less skill can play together in one lobby, and players with high level skills who want to play against higher level people can play in their own lobby, with certain things restricted in each lobby to provide a more balanced and competitive atmosphere in one, and a more fun and carefree atmosphere in the other.
It does definitely suck to be on the losing end of a total stomping, but as someone who played as part of a competitive clan for a few years I can say that it also sucks when you're completely stomping another team and they can't offer any kind of resistance. The most fun games are the ones where everyone is on or near the same skill level.
I do however think that "get more skill" or "learn to play the game better" isn't necessarily a cop out answer. There are many games where there is a very simple technique that's a complete bane to new or inexperienced players and yet completely gets shut down and destroyed by players of a higher skill level, and in that case the answer really is to just get better at the game and not whine.
He's talking about a world without noobs. Where the high level and extra skilled people don't have newbies or "sucky" players to grief. Where they actually have to deal with people of equal skill.Kheapathic said:They all did at one point or another, we were all nubs at one point. Some game skills carry over from game to game and across series, but there was a time when getting your teeth kicked in was all that happened.
You can still contribute in missions...Sorry, "jobs" in GTAO. The problem is that you will still get griefed online, especially (but not limited to) during the open world that they touted. Even pacifism mode doesn't make you safe. I know that OP brings up deathmatches specifically, but others have moved on from that and I think there's some import to pointing out the larger scope here.dylanmc12 said:In class-based online games, everyone can contribute in some way. If you're one of two medics, one LVL 50 and one LVL 20, you being the lower, you can still contribute, just not as effectively. I'm not sure how one would avoid a situation in a non-class based game, though.
Whoever they were, it works.ShinyCharizard said:I just don't get it. What fuckhead thought it was a good idea to give the best weapons and skills to the players who invest the most time into the game.
I agree with most of what you said, but this is just....Well, it's not true. I mean, yeah, you're sometimes restricted. And you're sometimes not. But seriously, you didn't expect the game to be more restrictive during missions?SKBPinkie said:- the game claims to be open world - yet every single action in any single player mission is restricted (down to the car you must drive),
Online communities in general are awful. Even if you nerf the hell out of the community, you'll still get someone drawing dick pics on their Wii U.TristanBelmont said:the communities for Xbox Live and PSN are absolutely dreadful.
i will admit, halo requires map and weapon control (weapons spawn at certain spots,etc...) but with a group of friends its definitely one of my favorite online games.JoJo said:I agree to an extent, the reason I play Team Fortress 2 occasionally and Halo multiplayer never is that even as an unskilled noob, in TF2 I feel like I can contribute to a team and actually achieve something, whereas in Halo I literally get slaughtered every time I see an enemy and end up frustrated. I guess that's good for a player who's willing to dedicate many hours but for the casual player, it's doesn't work.
First off, anyone you see who's RP is above 150 is a hacker/glitch exploiter. They're ruining the game for everyone.Jacco said:I have been playing GTA:O the last few days and I have come to absolutely loathe it because of all the high level players using tanks and assault rifles in lower level lobbies. Pretty much every lobby I go into has a 100+ level player just driving around in a tank killing everything that moves. Being a lower level, i think my character is 12, I don't have any way to compete with that which makes the game really frustrating and unlikable. So I went online to see what I could do to counter high level players in death matches and tanks using high level weapons and all I see are people on the Rockstar forums talking about how "if you don't have the skill to deal with them, then you deserve to be spawn raped" or "quite wining and get better at the game."
Now, these kinds of comments annoy me greatly. Not only does skill not factor into unlocking more powerful weapons with higher levels, but I, as a student and employee, do not have the time to spend 8 or 10 hours a day leveling up and getting "good." Nor would I want to. Where did this attitude among gamers come from that you have to be skilled to enjoy a video game? You see similar comments on Battlefield and CoD forums where people are asking for nerf'd guns and are shot down by other players who tell them to get better at the game.
I simply want to enjoy the little time I have playing video games and not have to pour 100's of hours into it just to get to a point where I can enjoy it. To me, that's not fun. Getting killed by someone in a tank that I literally have no means of defending against is not fun. Getting killed by machine gunners with the most powerful class weapons in Battlefield is not fun.
I don't get why you have to be "skilled" at the game to have fun, both from a design and a player standpoint.
Am I off the mark here? Am I being a little too sensitive or do you agree?
This isn't a bad idea...VoidWanderer said:And this, is why PvP should be divided into Level brackets.
And what about if you're trying to get good but haven't put enough time in yet? There's a whole lot in between only wanting to play single player and reaching the peak of multiplayer skill. It's unreasonable for the top players to expect everyone to be at their level straight away.manic_depressive13 said:It's not fair for someone to ask you to sink all your free time into getting good at a game. It's also ridiculous for you to expect someone who has sunk a lot of time into the game to accommodate you. If all you want to do is have fun, play single player. It's absurd to me that someone would enter a competitive multiplayer environment and then complain that their enemies aren't being nice enough to them.