The Skill Debate

[Legendairy314]

Hey all, something's been bugging me for quite a while recently (my own damn fault for visiting the Bungie forums) as far as skill in video games is concerned. As you all know Halo: Reach was recently released with it's manly multiplayer competitive goodness. Unfortunately for those who were looking forward to another MLG romp they were disappointed. Reach did not take nearly as much effort to play as the previous iteration and they're not very happy about it. I'm the exact opposite.

Recently I've begun finding that the co-op and casual multiplayer games are what keep me engaged the longest. The less emphasis on winning the game, the more I enjoy it. As long as losing isn't detrimental to your personal experience than everyone should be happy when playing. Somebody should tell this to DICE before they cause even more holes in walls (I'm looking at you Bad Company 2).

Getting to the main point, I'm enjoying less emphasis on beating the other team and more on just enjoying the game itself. I'm not saying that there can't be any fun had from playing competitively but I've just found that even attempting that without proper teammates is a hopeless and infuriating endeavor. But when you take away competitive aspects away from video games are you actually helping the community or hurting it?

Single player games have become the staple of most of gaming's masterpieces and I know that there is more to games than just multiplayer. But I also understand there are gamers out there who have yet to touch something outside of a matchmaking game. Are these people missing out or would they find climbing up giant collosi and destroying sadistic robots less fun than micromanaging a couple of tanks and harvesting vespine gas?


FOR DISCUSSION: How important do you find competition and challenge as far as video games go? Do you think that more fun is to be had from just avoiding multiplayer altogether or is teabagging really the only joy you find in a game? Would games be better off without those competitive players or are they needed to prove that games are more than just pressing buttons? Is skill in video games important at all?

No need to stick to my guidelines. Feel you need to say something than go ahead. Don't forget that this can also relate to challenge in single player games as well.

 

[twistedheat15]

Hard to say, most multiplayer games are fun but it's the ppl that fck it up. I like games that have a good co-op mode like say lost planet 2 and i'd love an indepth rpg like oblivion or fallout that let you co-op the whole game together not just set up random quest outside the main game to do together. Demons souls woulda been great as a muiltiplayer if u could actually invite friends and specific ppl to join your game, not have so many guildlines to get someone in. I think the multiplayer in saints row 2 was pretty good, ya could team up with a friend to take down missions and such in the main story, or do a random mini games and pvp if needed too.

 

[RowdyRodimus]

Skill in gaming is different for everyone. Take me and my brother for instance. He can memorize every attack and block in every fighting game he looks at whereas I can't do anything but button mash no matter how hard I work at learning the game. Then again, if we are playing a baseball game he will strike out 98% of the time while I can tell you what I'm going to hit and where I'm going to hit it. Both games are about timing, but where he can get the timing down of button presses in a fighting game he can't get the timing down on one button when the pitch speed is varied.

I suck at shooters that use the right stick for aiming because I have limited use of my right hand and can't even feel the buttons with my thumb (I have to use a modded controller with a glove like thing to keep my thumb on it at all times lol), but I can use it well enough for games that just use the X,Y,A and B buttons to pull off some kick ass shit in action games.

As for multiplayer, some people just get off on competition. I was the same way when I was playing baseball as a kid through high school or like many people I knew who played football. There's a certain satisfaction you get by knowing you beat someone at something when you are both giving your all. That's part of the psychology I used in my matches when I was a wrestler, I wouldn't do squash matches (where you just run through your opponent and they never get any offense in) because it didn't let the crowd get that sense of satisfaction. The crowd lives vicariously through us, so beating someone that is giving just as good as they get gives the crowd a high that they feel they were a part of that victory.

Now some people do take the coimpetitive nature of MP a little too far. If a person lives and breathes just to take down "noobs" in a shooter or cheats just to win then they are doing it wrong. It's supposed to be fun for everyone. If everyone gets pissed that people are cheating then quit playing, what will that cheater have accomplished? All they did is make the game unplayable and their lifes work (lol) is all for naught.

I actually like single player the best. I use games as a way to escape from people so to speak, the last thing I want to do is be playing a game full of what I'm trying to get away from. When I do play MP, i prefer the old split screen or co-op games wher I can play alongside someone with me.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

FOR DISCUSSION: How important do you find competition and challenge as far as video games go? Do you think that more fun is to be had from just avoiding multiplayer altogether or is teabagging really the only joy you find in a game? Would games be better off without those competitive players or are they needed to prove that games are more than just pressing buttons? Is skill in video games important at all?

No need to stick to my guidelines. Feel you need to say something than go ahead. Don't forget that this can also relate to challenge in single player games as well.

I think games for the most part should take skill to master, both single player and multiplayer. It also depends on the game as well. For example, I really want to play Enslaved for the experience it offers. I know the gameplay isn't great; it just overall works to deliver the experience Enslaved is going for. I also love games that are thinking games that allow you to go about completing a level in various ways like Deus Ex and Hitman. You don't really need any great skill to kill the enemies in those games, it's about using the skills the game gives you to take out (or not take out) the enemies with relative ease. I love a good game that lets me sit back and enjoy the experience without needing quick reflexes.

With that said and back my opening sentence, I love certain games to be tough on me and require the time to master the gameplay. I loved Bayonetta because as I played through on Normal, Hard, and Non-stop Infinite Climax difficulties, I had to keep getting better at the game and changing up my tactics. I also love online multiplayer games that stress skill over luck (like Mario Kart). My favorite online shooter is Metal Gear Online because there is just so much to master to become good; the difference between a low level player and a high level player is probably the biggest of any current gen shooter. And, a bit of a side not, I HATE TEABAGGING, I don't do it, and I think it's just plain stupid. Just go about your business and don't trash talk unless the other guy starts it, or just mute them to begin with. I used to play several sports when I was a kid, and now video games scratch my competition itch.

 

[Slash47]

When I want to 'have fun' I play single player games or go do something outside of gaming. I only play multiplayer for the competition and challenge, not to socialize or mess around. I'm not hyper competitive, not at all actually, but it'd bore me otherwise.

I hate any multiplayer game where you can die or lose when you or your team didn't do anything wrong. The truly skilled players should be allowed by the game to beat the noobs 100 to 0 or 72 to 28 so that there's a clear indication of how good you are (or your team is). That's what keeps me playing on.

Of course, the gameplay and graphics should also be varied and fun so boredom doesn't creep in from those angles.

I also HATE games where you have to wait when you die. Again, it makes it kinda pointless for me.

 

[Keava]

It really depends on the mood. When i just want to chill out with a game i'll jump into some nice singeplayer cRPG or strategy, keeping it slow without any rush just enjoying the gameplay. From time to time tho i want to play against someone, just for sake of it, not to 'prove' anything, since videogames ain't for that in my opinion, but because it's always something different than beating predictable AI for n-th time around. I'll fire up CoH/DoW2 get into automatch and see how far i can get, eventually some MMO with PvP works too.

In the end i don't really care for the whole 'pro' vs 'n00b' aspect of competetive gaming. I play for -my- enjoyment first and foremost, i'll win some, i'll loose some, as long as i am having fun it's great. The whole deal with 'skill' always seemed more like excuse to brag about something no one gives a damn about.

 

[Thaius]

In other words, you play games for fun more than competition.

That's great: really, it is. But there are other people who are different from you, and play games for the competition. This isn't a problem, nor is it bad in any way, it's simply different. Multiplayer games would do well to either cater to both audiences, or go completely for one of them. Halo, by its nature as an accessible FPS with a lot of room for individual skill and strategy, caters to both. So it would be good of Bungie to cater to both, as both are legitimate.

However, I will say this: multiplayer video games will never be socially accepted as important or valid until they develop into a form of legitimate competition. Fun games are well and good, and can be beneficial to an extent on a personal level, but seeing as they have little to no value as a social or cultural tool, games without a legitimate competitive element are generally looked down upon, seen as nothing more than toys. This is why chess is valued more highly than, say, Chutes and Ladders: the former is valued for its strategic and competitive nature, whereas the latter, lacking in those qualities, is not. It's why football is the most loved sport in America, and Hide and Seek is a child's game. Of course Chess and Football can be played casually, but it is their value as a legitimate form of competition that make them as culturally loved as they are. So in the long run, I would say competition is much more important to video games as a medium.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

i play for the fun of it, usually i get first or second just from shootin around having some fun, but there are THOSE guys...that just completely turn the game into this fight to the living death deathmatch of camptastic noob strategy natures

now i normally dont get mad about stuff, hey ill even congratulate someone for a good stick on me or something, but when people do those certain strategies..good god it makes my blood boil, they dont move from that spot the whole damn match regardless of where you are or what you are doing, just because they are THAT competitive over not dying in the game.

yes i know i know, people play for competition, believe me i have a friend or two that only play multiplayer on multiplayer games because they think video games are meant only for competition, however that doesn't mean you need to go into the social slayer area of the games and act like a complete nard douchebag about it.

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

I pretty much don't bother with multiplayer. I've tried a few times, but the problem is that I'm not "great" at any games, so I get my ass kicked pretty soundly every time. I don't have time to dump countless hours into the game to "improve" like some people apparently do, so I'm always going to be behind.

So the competitive aspect of gaming is completely pointless to me.

 

[mekanic5]

I prefer competing against the player and not the buffs. Unlocking weapons and such is fine. The biggest problem I've seen is the buffs and prestige ideas. Yes, it makes a game slightly more playable, but it puts too much emphasis on the grind instead of the play.

 

[Nouw]

Not important.

In shooters, KDR is important as it's for clans and stuff and besides, it's a fool-proof way of becoming a better player yourself.

In RTSs, the Win/Loss is important for me too.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I find it really depends on the game to me.. but I do tend to err towards competition even if I'm not always the winner. Whether it's a fighting game, which I'm generally pretty good at, or an FPS, which I'm generally only average at, the rush of competition definitely adds something to the experience.

I think back to the days when my friend and I would spend, literally, entire nights playing hundreds of matches of Soul Blade or Mario Kart (SNES, Battle Mode). The real joy of the game came out when it was just the two of us against each other and we would match our fairly evenly matched skills. Outside of those marathon sessions, I think I played maybe 20 hours of Soul Blade and I know I didn't even play through all of Mario Kart's single player mode.

Single player games are great, and I love many of them, but when it comes to multi player I always find myself leaning towards competitive play.

 

[s0m3th1ng]

Honestly... I love pwning idiots in BC2 and being an all around asshole. Like using the sv98 with 4x and c4 (Seriously...so OP in hardcore it isn't even funny...one shot kills, fast reload, nearly infinitely accurate, and the ability to take down tanks by yourself). Or chopper raping the other team. It's a game...the furthest from reality you can get. I'm here to have fun at the expense of others.

 

[Et3rnalLegend64]

I do enjoy a good single player game (Okami, Metroid, Zelda, etc), but I also very much enjoy testing myself against other people. I don't play shooters much, as I'm not that good. I also have a minor peeve against shooters that easily boil down to "point and shoot." Fighting games are tons of fun though. Every player you meet has a noticeably different style and skill level, and you have to adapt to every person. It's really exciting, I think.

 

[The Heik]

Hey all, something's been bugging me for quite a while recently (my own damn fault for visiting the Bungie forums) as far as skill in video games is concerned. As you all know Halo: Reach was recently released with it's manly multiplayer competitive goodness. Unfortunately for those who were looking forward to another MLG romp they were disappointed. Reach did not take nearly as much effort to play as the previous iteration and they're not very happy about it. I'm the exact opposite.

Recently I've begun finding that the co-op and casual multiplayer games are what keep me engaged the longest. The less emphasis on winning the game, the more I enjoy it. As long as losing isn't detrimental to your personal experience than everyone should be happy when playing. Somebody should tell this to DICE before they cause even more holes in walls (I'm looking at you Bad Company 2).

Getting to the main point, I'm enjoying less emphasis on beating the other team and more on just enjoying the game itself. I'm not saying that there can't be any fun had from playing competitively but I've just found that even attempting that without proper teammates is a hopeless and infuriating endeavor. But when you take away competitive aspects away from video games are you actually helping the community or hurting it?

Single player games have become the staple of most of gaming's masterpieces and I know that there is more to games than just multiplayer. But I also understand there are gamers out there who have yet to touch something outside of a matchmaking game. Are these people missing out or would they find climbing up giant collosi and destroying sadistic robots less fun than micromanaging a couple of tanks and harvesting vespine gas?


FOR DISCUSSION: How important do you find competition and challenge as far as video games go? Do you think that more fun is to be had from just avoiding multiplayer altogether or is teabagging really the only joy you find in a game? Would games be better off without those competitive players or are they needed to prove that games are more than just pressing buttons? Is skill in video games important at all?

No need to stick to my guidelines. Feel you need to say something than go ahead. Don't forget that this can also relate to challenge in single player games as well.

My preferred level of challenge really depends on a lot of things. The type of play is usually the most noticable.

For single player, challenge really is based upon what I wants out of it. I occasionally have fun mowing down the enemy, so I switch to easy. However, if being on the very edge of death is what I'm in the mood for, then hard is my enjoyment zone. That's why most games have a difficulty slider.

With casual multiplayer, the pace is usually more relaxed. It's because stuff like LAN is more to mess around and play with your friends than go for the high score. I generally prefer that relaxed atmosphere when playing with friends. It's not supposed to be competitive because it's simply me hanging out with my buds electronically. Occasionally we get serious when we're trying to do an interesting trick or are building a custom level, but overall the point is to simply have fun.

Only with serious multiplayer is challenge important, even central to my enjoyment. The whole point of things like MW2's online is to find a new challenge, to pit yourself against a foe who won't follow the same path every time, or be stuck to only a few reactions to an opponent. The thrill in online is to show that you can best others, to prove that you are supreme.

So in answer to your question, challenge really depends on what you want, but to either take it away or make it the only point just can't (and shouldn't) work. You make it too easy and it becomes tedious, but if you make it too hard, it becomes frustrating. That's why things like difficulty sliders and online ranking are such good ideas. They allow you to find your ideal level of challenge to maximize your enjoyment.

 

[Legion IV]

i raised myself with a competive mindset for games. Until stacraft 2 came out i activly played Stacraft 1 since 1999 hosting lan partys going to lan tournaments ect ect. I also LOVE fighting games at a high level. Memorizing those 1 frame link combos everything its wonderfull. Am not as into casual because everyone can do it am not trying to sound stuck up but i enjoy being able to do things most people cant in what i do. But with the way i play i need many very casual games to keep me from going nuts. So i play Company of heroes cassualy play any shooter ect ect.

 

[Motiv_]

It's really quite.. hard for me to decide.

Playing competitively against other players brings on this huge rush of adrenaline, my heart starts racing, so forth and so on, because it's my reflexes and brain power against the world's. However, "Competitive" usually means getting destroyed by a smack talking twelve year old with a hacked controller.

On the other hand, playing cooperatively has alot less headaches, and has the potential for some side-splittingly hilarious moments that you just can't get anywhere else.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I enjoy having my abilities fairly tested. Generally, when I am not having fun in an online game it is because I am placed into a scenario that is generally unfair.

Scenario 1: The other team is significantly better than my team. In this scenario, regardless of how good I am as a player, I will almost certainly be crushed again and again by the opposing team. No one likes getting their teeth kicked in in game after game.

Scenario 2: The other team is significantly worse than my team. In this scenario all I'm asked to do is go through a dry mechanical exercise to win. In Dawn of War 2 for example, when it becomes obvious that my team is significantly better than the other I don't bother bringing out more units and instead just start upgrading my tech level. This is fun every so often but a few games in a row and I'm bored with the experience.

Scenario 3: I am significantly better than the rest of the players. In this scenario, I generally don't have a lot of fun because I'm doing little more than a dry mechanical exercise to dispatch the other team while simultaneously dragging my own team along. This is no more fun than scenario 2.

Scenario 4: I am significantly worse than the rest of the players. In this scenario I simply get murdered time and again because I am unable to compete on a personal level with the other players. If the game does not offer an alternate route to success (Such as playing as a medic in Bad Company 2), all I can do is resign myself to choking the rivers of my enemies with my virtual corpse.

Games are the most fun when I am challenged every step of the way for a victory. I don't mind losing in a game when I was able to put up a reasonable fight and victory is all the sweeter when my adversary was worthy.

 

[Space Spoons]

I enjoy online multiplayer simply for the experience of playing with other gamers. I didn't really have that opportunity when I was growing up, so it feels like I'm making up for lost time. I like it when I win, sure, but for the most part, I'm just glad to be playing.

Except when it comes to Street Fighter, that is. SF is the one game I get full-on into competitive mode in. It's almost never a nice, friendly game- it's a "play to win" affair. Bring your A-game and fight like you mean it or don't bother playing at all.

 

[Lullabye]

My favorite genre is fighting games.
That should be enough of an answer by itself.