I think this question has no real answer, as most game genres require a skill of some kind. Whether it be reaction times in FPS or tactical analysis in RTS, some people are just better at certain game types.
What Genre takes the most "skill"?
- Thread starter Durxom
- Start date
Recommended Videos
From what I've heard, Ninja Gaiden 2 on master. The last game I played on its hardest difficulty was Mass Effect 2, that was kind of hard(If your not a soldier class)
This needs to be split up between competitive games and single player games. And I will amend what has been said before that it largely depends on the game and isn't bound by the genre.
For competitive games:
I think its going to be Real Time Strategy games. They require immense amounts of knowledge on matchups and possibilities and require you to put that knowledge into practice by making decisions in split seconds. And then there's the physical and mental requirement of keeping tabs on twenty things at the same time without losing track of them. There's a reason why not even the Korean pros (those guys who play 80+ hrs of Starcraft per week) are capable of playing a 'perfect' game.
For non-competitive games (ie single player):
This simply depends on how narrow the programmer has made the margin of error for the challenges. Bullet-hell schmups are notorious for not allowing you to deviate more than a few millimeters from certain patterns or die. But you've also got shooters with nigh-impossible difficulty levels, where the ammo given is insufficient to kill all the enemies and opponents will one-shot you, forcing you to find exact patterns in their behaviour to abuse.
In the end I think the second category is a lesser challenge though. Given enough time any challenge like this can be analyzed and beaten. Especially in turn based games which you can attack by noting down what works turn by turn and just keep going at it with no manual skill hurdle to step over at all, just keep iterating to find the best possible combination of moves for the situation at hand.
For competitive games:
I think its going to be Real Time Strategy games. They require immense amounts of knowledge on matchups and possibilities and require you to put that knowledge into practice by making decisions in split seconds. And then there's the physical and mental requirement of keeping tabs on twenty things at the same time without losing track of them. There's a reason why not even the Korean pros (those guys who play 80+ hrs of Starcraft per week) are capable of playing a 'perfect' game.
For non-competitive games (ie single player):
This simply depends on how narrow the programmer has made the margin of error for the challenges. Bullet-hell schmups are notorious for not allowing you to deviate more than a few millimeters from certain patterns or die. But you've also got shooters with nigh-impossible difficulty levels, where the ammo given is insufficient to kill all the enemies and opponents will one-shot you, forcing you to find exact patterns in their behaviour to abuse.
In the end I think the second category is a lesser challenge though. Given enough time any challenge like this can be analyzed and beaten. Especially in turn based games which you can attack by noting down what works turn by turn and just keep going at it with no manual skill hurdle to step over at all, just keep iterating to find the best possible combination of moves for the situation at hand.
It's not really a question of genre, it's a question of how the skill is applied and what metric you are using to measure the skill. I consider most platformers to be fairly easy, yet there are some videos out there of people playing Super Mario Bros. that are seriously impressive.
Dunno, but I can tell you what takes the least skill: Mario Kart. A lottery decides what items you get, and what items you get decide if you win. So I'll have to say that the genre that takes the most skill is everything where no random elements are included.
All genres take skill but at higher levels I would say that RTS take the most skill. There's more to take into account and do and it's about managing your resources while trying to out think your opponent in a way that fighters and fps' just don't match.
Fighters and fps' both require you to out think your opponent - yes - but resource management is no where near as complex not to mention the overwhelming micro and macro you need to engage in. You're not just controlling one guy, you're controlling hundreds vs hundreds of smaller guys.
Fighters and fps' both require you to out think your opponent - yes - but resource management is no where near as complex not to mention the overwhelming micro and macro you need to engage in. You're not just controlling one guy, you're controlling hundreds vs hundreds of smaller guys.
Point N' click adventure games I suck so bloody hard on those things so I don't even try anymore.
I'd have to say fighting games. Anyone who actually believes that anyone can be beaten by a button masher, obviously lacks "skill" themselves.
Not going to say you're totally wrong, but I have several arguments against you.Onyx Oblivion said:
1. Online multiplayer adds lag, which adds unpredictability and randomness to the fight. Other than online, you're more close to being right. But there are a few other points to cover.
2. Tiers. Almost every fighting game has characters who are recognised as high-tier, characters who are recognised as low-tier, and some have characters who are recognised as button-mashing characters (more on this later). In most fighting games, an expert player using a low-tier character will rarely beat a decent player who's decent, and using a high-tier character. Forcing people to use the best character isn't skill. It's an unbalanced game.
Side note: The Armored Core games also do this, and a handful of high-tier equipment gets banned from tournaments soon after each new game comes out, and a handful of low-tier items are almost never used. But the level of customisation leaves plenty of room within the high-tier items for play style and strategic depth to play a part.
3. Button-mashing friendly characters. Not all fighting games have these, Eddy from Tekken 3 is probably the most painfully obvious example. I've seen a button masher playing as him score several consecutive perfect rounds against a guy who routinely wins tournaments. Often they just have really easy moves to string together into combos, sometimes the character is recognised as being so high-tier they're unfair to use in tournaments.
None of this actually rules out skill entirely, because a highly skilled player will MORE OFTEN THAN NOT (there are exceptions to this) be ALMOST unbeatable (with HUGE emphasis on ALMOST) against a button masher. This is true for basically every genre of game, assuming the game is decently made.
But, good fighting games, while requiring their own specific brand of skill, require better reactions, while good strategy games require more strategic thought. It's not about requiring more skill, it's about requiring different kinds of skill.
wow take a joke. i don't actually believe you have to be a ninja. and besides, this topic isn't about that, it's about games that require skill, something which is definately required in ninja gaiden. perhaps you weren't skilled enough to finish it, and that's why you seem so angry at it.obliviondoll said:
the main problem with the original Starcraft was that its really hard for them to NOT make a balanced AI without making it omnipotent.Jazzyluv2 said:
but other people; now that takes a lot of creativity and one hell of a strategy
OP: i would have to agree with almost everyone and say RTS, but when i played muramasa: the demon blade on Shiguri mode (1 health; everything is 5x harder) it was so frustrating.... but also obscenely challenging
Taking into account my biases as a near pure RPG gamer; I actually think RPGs tend to require the least skill, simply because you can always level up and get better equipment and abilities.
I know there are many valid contrary arguments for this but compare one of the hardest RPG bosses ever E.G Satan on Digital Devil saga 2. It requires hours upon hours of leveling and maxing all stats and then still requires great luck and judgement.
what about a game where you dont level up at all, you cant really get much stronger but you still must overcome some kind of superboss? at least you dont have to spend 30+ hours on leveling up. leveling up isn't really a skilled practice.
I know there are many valid contrary arguments for this but compare one of the hardest RPG bosses ever E.G Satan on Digital Devil saga 2. It requires hours upon hours of leveling and maxing all stats and then still requires great luck and judgement.
what about a game where you dont level up at all, you cant really get much stronger but you still must overcome some kind of superboss? at least you dont have to spend 30+ hours on leveling up. leveling up isn't really a skilled practice.