Just give up, guys. It's Scott's world, we just live in it. I mean, he has a podcast. How can we even hope to win an argument against such a foe?
I'm waiting for when Scott gets acknowledgement from a gaming company, developing or review-wise, that'll let him go off or give him the power necessary to make the super special awesome game or patch that'll blow people's minds.
It will never happen because good games don't sell.
HOW many millions of copies of Counter-Strike (a game you've called "one of the better FPSs") have been sold?
How many copies would Counter-Strike sell if it came out today? Counter-Strike only gets played so much because it has the benefit of history. It was first, it built up a ton of players, and it holds onto them.
If high-skill cap fair competitive games are so popular, why did Valve screw with TF2? Why is Blizzard doing what it is doing with Diablo III? If the market demanded Counter-Strike, they would be making more like that.
How many copies would Counter-Strike sell if it came out today?
How many copies of foo would sell today if we assume bar, baz, and blatz? Your argument wasn't that good games don't sell in the current market. It was that they don't sell, full stop.
If high-skill cap fair competitive games are so popular, why did Valve screw with TF2?
In the beginning, I'm sure, as an experiment. See what can be done to the game. After a while, it became a runaway machine. People got so used to the updates that they couldn't really stop.
Why is Blizzard doing what it is doing with Diablo III?
Because Diablo was never a high-skill-cap-fair-competative-game to begin with?
I agree with Apreche on this one. Good games used to sell because there weren't any bad games for people to choose. In fact, Counter Strike, at the time, was simpler than the competition (meaning Quake).
Name a new high-skill game recently that has sold well.
Super Street Fighter IV? It sold ok, and Evo had the highest viewership ever. But Capcom is in big trouble. It's not selling enough, and mostly to just the hardcore.
Starcraft 2? How well is it selling really? I have no idea, but DotA and its clones are getting much more press than SC2 nowadays. Perhaps when they release the Zerg/Protoss campaigns people will pay attention again?
Starcraft 2 I think sold really well. I haven't looked into it, but I know /a lot/ of people who bought it, and many of them aren't 'hard core gamers' per say.
Starcraft 2 I think sold really well. I haven't looked into it, but I know /a lot/ of people who bought it, and many of them aren't 'hard core gamers' per say.
But who is playing it? And how well is it really selling? Wii Fit sold over 20 million worldwide. The original Starcraft only sold 11 millions. The Sims 1 (not counting other Sims) sold 16 million.
I think there is a fundamental problem with Scott's definition of "high skilled". All of the stuff Scott cites is just "how quickly and precisely can you click units/heads/combos". Yes, Action per MInute/reaction time/combo memorization is impressive, but there are other sorts of skills than that and making muscle-memory-based mechanics the be-all, end-all of game design is both limiting and a smug, nerdy declaration that, unless you commit to mastering the reflex actions associated with a game, you don't deserve to enjoy it. I'm not saying that it's bad to enjoy games based around those mechanics, but I think that declaring all things that are not based on those mechanics to be void somehow is silly, especially considering the existence of turn-based games that you enjoy, like Advance Wars. Slower paced games like Team Fortress 2 (putting aside stateful bullshit for a second) have value because they test other skills as well; by making Scott's amazing click on heads ability less important, it forces Scott to be more careful about how he positions himself, what weapons he carries, where he is relative to the rest of the team, and the current objectives on the map; things that technically exist, but ultimately barely matter in a Quake match or Counter-Strike game where a single player with amazing clicking on heads skill can dominate the match and marginalizes every other feature. There is room in the world for both these experiences and for players who enjoy both these things, as well as for players that appreciate immersion as part of their gameplay experience and will take a hit to "pure" game design for varying degrees of realism. Liking these things don't make you a bad person, they don't make your experiences less legitimate, and they aren't some indication that the game is bankrupt.
As a separate point, as much as this may blow your minds, games aren't strictly about competition. In actually, they are about entertainment. If you are having fun, then nothing else matters.
There are other skills besides clicking on heads quickly. I mean, seriously, board games, hello!
There are many FPS games out there that fall into all sorts of categories. Some indeed are nearly no-skill, many are low-skill. But the biggest problem is multiplayer games that are not equal and fair competitions. Even if you made an old school PC FPS that was faster than any Quake, it would be complete fail if some players got to have extra weapons because they paid extra real money or got some achievements.
Even if you made an old school PC FPS that was faster than any Quake, it would be complete fail if some players got to have extra weapons because they paid extra real money or got some achievements.
I almost want to challenge Scott, to attempt to do a large gaming project. But I don't think he believes within himself that he can actually break the mold, or even if it doesn't sell well, it will not give him the satisfaction he wants. The happiness of a great game or a modification/patch that'll make a good game better won't be enough.
Even if Angry Birds has sold and been downloaded so many times, and has a rather big advertising ploy behind it, it doesn't really break any new ground. It's luck more than anything, because it had an addictive gameplay system that no other cellphone game could beat at the time. I really don't expect it to have longevity, outside of it's marketing and brand. Will anyone have fond memory of the series if it were to go down in flames? Very doubtful.
Yes, but players who get those achievements don't get any bonuses/advantages over other players.
I know, however, that's irrelevant. But note Scott didn't specify at all, and I'm sure that if we ask, he'll be kind enough to tell us his opinion on achievements in general. But in the same breath he will tell us that this doesn't count, of course - He's very predictable, or consistent, if you prefer to put it that way.
Let's assume Scott is right, and the validity and quality of a game are entirely dependent on the measurement of skill and ability that the game entails. Now, let's assume that all physical reactions and movements don't matter (WoW and Counterstrike are fundamentally the same game; it's all button presses and clicking objects, just at different speeds). Now, that means that games that test out intellectual capability with absolute minimization of random chance are inherently the best games possible. This in turn means that the only games worth our time are games like Chess and Go, or mechanistic games with such complexity that they'll never be solved until we have AIs millions of times more powerful than human brains.
So, why bother with Quake? It's just a contest of reflexes, which are genetically capped. We should all be playing Chess and Caylus and Go. Otherwise, you're just dick-measuring.
So, why bother with Quake? It's just a contest of reflexes, which are genetically capped. We should all be playing Chess and Caylus and Go. Otherwise, you're just dick-measuring.
I'm moderately sure I'd beat Scott's ass at go, if only because I've lost a one or two hundred games more than he has, and probably learned from my mistakes. Maybe. This is me we're talking about.
Pretty sure that not being able to beat the first level of Deus Ex and never playing Stalker 1 or 3 disqualifies you from making value judgements on the quality of modern single player FPS gaming.
Pretty sure that not being able to beat the first level of Deus Ex and never playing Stalker 1 or 3 disqualifies you from making value judgements on the quality of modern single player FPS gaming.
I would put money down that Scott won't see it that way - He's like the Amish of FPS.
I'm unable to hit a bullseye with a compound bow. I had fun playing with a Frisbee as a kid. Are all projectile-based sports stupid? Discuss.
I probably could, if it was a really big bullseye. I'm not so great with bows - I can kinda hit a target, but I'm no marksman with them. But regular frisbee? Pfft, baby game. Get thee out and play some disc golf.
I would put money down that Scott won't see it that way - He's like the Amish of FPS.
I think the problem is really that narrative question that floated around. Limit the environment freedom to build the narrative, or limit the narrative to allow for environment freedom. finding a balance between the two is hard, and more games do it poorly than do it well. Cutting out one or the other almost completely isn't really an option these days. Inferring the plot of a game from the box art is a relic from a bygone era; Some narrative is expected. Games that limit exploration to pace their narrative correctly try to identify the draw of the genre apart from that, and usually land on linked set-pieces in which they can stage skirmishes. It makes for chest-high wall syndrome, but it's not completely boring and some do better than others. Compare Bioshock to Gears of War, two ostensibly FPS games that end up playing very differently. Even then the appeal is going to be different from gamer to gamer.
Disqualifying a game for RPG elements is ridiculous. See that armor powerup on the ground? RPG element with an incredibly simplified interface. RPG elements let the player customize options that usually were already in the game, but with better fine-tuning. I was actually disappointed with the aforementioned Bioshock when I found out you couldn't open an inventory screen to see what you were carrying. A quest system is also a great way to manage narrative without limiting the player's ability to explore. It doesn't matter that its been seen in other games; you could cherrypick anything and claim it "doesn't belong". Characters with hair? What am I playing here, a fighting game?
I probably could, if it was a really big bullseye. I'm not so great with bows - I can kinda hit a target, but I'm no marksman with them. But regular frisbee? Pfft, baby game. Get thee out and play some disc golf.
From the heart of real golfing hell I stab at thee, frolfer.
There are many FPS games out there that fall into all sorts of categories. Some indeed are nearly no-skill, many are low-skill. But the biggest problem is multiplayer games that are not equal and fair competitions. Even if you made an old school PC FPS that was faster than any Quake, it would be complete fail if some players got to have extra weapons because they paid extra real money or got some achievements.
I was once in a game of CS:S (or Quake LIve pick one) where one team had more players than the other team. Unfair non equal bullshit gameplay I say.
I was once in a game of CS:S (or Quake LIve pick one) where one team had more players than the other team. Unfair non equal bullshit gameplay I say.
CS:S has auto-team balancing. In Quake! you mostly play deathmatch, but it also has auto-balance for team modes. In a real competition, teams will always be even.
I like to play multiplayer games with unlockable or random drop items. Especially if I'm pubbing, Its a personal goal to shoot for. I can't think of an example of an item that became an instant "I win" button, so I don't see the problem. Usually if you're bad at the fundamentals you'll still be bad with the special items.
I like to play multiplayer games with unlockable or random drop items. Especially if I'm pubbing, Its a personal goal to shoot for. I can't think of an example of an item that became an instant "I win" button, so I don't see the problem.
Whether you know it or not, all of your entertainment options boil down to "perform task x to receive dopamine surge."
Obviously, but you can choose which box to be in. Do you go into one that empties your wallet and your soul, or one that makes you better or stronger, albeit in a very small way?
You know what, I'll actually seriously reply to that. Given the choice, I'd rather wait in a grocery store with a gumball machine than one without one. Your move.
With FPS games, it doesn't matter. Fast twitch reflexes are capped by hereditary traits. Involuntary muscle tremors defeat attempts to aim at minute hitzones. The only way to improve past a set point is to either be born better, or to pay for better peripherals and chemicals to improve your play, which is arguably the same as unlock grinding.
Strategy and near-totally mechanistic games are the only games that offer improvement that someone can consider "unlimited" (though there is likely a cap to intellectual gaming ability), so why even bother playing a reflex-based game?
Comments
Don't fall in to Persecuted Minority Syndrome, Scott. It weakens your otherwise fairly justified position.
Plus, gamepads really do suck. FUCK gamepad FPSin`.
If high-skill cap fair competitive games are so popular, why did Valve screw with TF2? Why is Blizzard doing what it is doing with Diablo III? If the market demanded Counter-Strike, they would be making more like that.
Super Street Fighter IV? It sold ok, and Evo had the highest viewership ever. But Capcom is in big trouble. It's not selling enough, and mostly to just the hardcore.
Starcraft 2? How well is it selling really? I have no idea, but DotA and its clones are getting much more press than SC2 nowadays. Perhaps when they release the Zerg/Protoss campaigns people will pay attention again?
Angry Birds has sold over 100 million.
As a separate point, as much as this may blow your minds, games aren't strictly about competition. In actually, they are about entertainment. If you are having fun, then nothing else matters.
There are many FPS games out there that fall into all sorts of categories. Some indeed are nearly no-skill, many are low-skill. But the biggest problem is multiplayer games that are not equal and fair competitions. Even if you made an old school PC FPS that was faster than any Quake, it would be complete fail if some players got to have extra weapons because they paid extra real money or got some achievements.
Even if Angry Birds has sold and been downloaded so many times, and has a rather big advertising ploy behind it, it doesn't really break any new ground. It's luck more than anything, because it had an addictive gameplay system that no other cellphone game could beat at the time. I really don't expect it to have longevity, outside of it's marketing and brand. Will anyone have fond memory of the series if it were to go down in flames? Very doubtful.
So, why bother with Quake? It's just a contest of reflexes, which are genetically capped. We should all be playing Chess and Caylus and Go. Otherwise, you're just dick-measuring.
Disqualifying a game for RPG elements is ridiculous. See that armor powerup on the ground? RPG element with an incredibly simplified interface. RPG elements let the player customize options that usually were already in the game, but with better fine-tuning. I was actually disappointed with the aforementioned Bioshock when I found out you couldn't open an inventory screen to see what you were carrying. A quest system is also a great way to manage narrative without limiting the player's ability to explore. It doesn't matter that its been seen in other games; you could cherrypick anything and claim it "doesn't belong". Characters with hair? What am I playing here, a fighting game? From the heart of real golfing hell I stab at thee, frolfer.
Funny Stalker pic:
Whether you know it or not, all of your entertainment options boil down to "perform task x to receive dopamine surge."
Strategy and near-totally mechanistic games are the only games that offer improvement that someone can consider "unlimited" (though there is likely a cap to intellectual gaming ability), so why even bother playing a reflex-based game?