If some people are playing a game, is it good if a higher skilled player/team wins? There is also the "sister" question to that one: Is it bad when a less skilled player/team wins?
It would be nice if you could explain the "why?" of your answers.
I mean depends, if I'm playing a game with friends and I'm like, curbstomping them (because I am just that good at videos games), I try to like, erm, easen it up a bit ("miss shots", be overall slower, etc.) because I don't want it to reach a point of frustration.
fortunately I very rarely, if ever, have to do this considering I'm not that good and my friends aren't that bad
Good for what? The people involved? The sport? The viewer?
What are you actually asking?
I had the feeling I forgot something important.
well yea, being good at a game should always let you win it, but if you're on the losing side it should feel like you lost fairly
take quake instagib for example, practically every fight in that game feels fair because your performance is solely based on your positioning and aim, where on the other end of the spectrum you have overwatch, where the people at the top do have a lot of skill, but it feels like shit to lose just because someone hit Q and all your team died
CS imo is also pretty good for skill, guns like the awp, despite being objectively better than any other weapon in the game, aren't always picked due to risk and the fact that lobbing grenades can counter them all the time. CS feels pretty fair to lose (unless theres a cheater on the other team)
If games reward higher skilled play, lower skill players have something to work towards, which its self is a rewarding experience.
The alternatives (that I can come up with right now) are rewarding wins based on luck (which can be frustrating) or experience/ time played (as in progression rewards).
I think weighting towards skill is a good idea, but a mix is usually what makes for a good experience.
The person who put more effort into any hobby, has taken the time to learn the mechanics and rules and has more expierence than the other person who just bought the game should 100% have the advantage and full right to kick the ever loving shit out of the newer player- because in most cases that's how scenes are built. In a fighting game sense let's pick apart SFV briefly.
SFV took out a lot of mechanics, abilities, and inputs in a effort to water down the core gameplay so that a less expierenced player wouldn't be intimidated by the thought of pros beating their asses. I can't speak for the scene as it is now but doing this killed the game at launch and for a good year or so because there was nothing there to reward people who invested time to learn to build up skills, and the hook wasn't good enough for the casual fanbase to remain either. It for all intents and purposes was a corpse shuffling about aimlessly in the gameplay front and it just kept failing from there. It wasn't fun to watch because there was no mechanical depth to it and pros wanted to drop it and go back to more popular entries like 3rd Strike and even SF4.
When your game has depth and the ability to get better and assert yourself that's when people get invested. That's what makes a game have legs if you want it to have a long competitive life.
If your just talking about something like mario kart or mario party or some shit tho then who cares. On casual party games I'll throw matches just for fun.
It depends on the situation.
Social/party games benefit from being less reliant on skill. It's easy to laugh at loss when it can be attributed to the game screwing you over as opposed to your own inadequacies. Sometimes it's more important to make sure everyone is having a good time than rewarding skill.
In other situations skill is important, such as in decidedly competitive scenarios like CS. Much like in sports, skill is part of the appeal of the game, and thus designing the game around a high skill ceiling is important.
Player skill can also be part of the game progression, where players need to hone their skills in order to proceed rather than complete straightforward tasks or solve puzzles. In this case overcoming the challenge through development of skills is integral to creating the sense of accomplishment.
I think there's no universal answer to this.
I'm not entirely sure which I had in mind. I got the idea for the question from somewhere else, I don't know what that person meant in specific.
OP are you asking this because you're not good at video games
A better question would be "If you're playing 1v1 with a friend and they suck ass and are getting frustrated, but they would feel shame if you purposely played poorly so they could win, should you play for real or ease up on them secretly?"
The answer is "play something else where you have similar skill levels"
I mean I guess its fine sure. Unless its a high skill player going up against a player with a disability or something then maybe don't utterly smash them into the dirt.
Mostly, yeah. But players who focus on honing their skills with the most blatantly broken and op mechanics/weapons in a game are still dicks. I still rage every single time I get repeatedly killed by someone in TF2 using bullshit loadouts. Spies who abuse the dead ringer are the absolute worst, because they're barely even playing the class as it was originally intended.
But that's ultimately on Valve to fix, and their record on this has been abysmal for the entire history of the game. So I don't get too mad. And I am more than fine with narrow losses on the basis of skill. In fact I prefer that to matches that are blatantly stacked in my favor because the matchmaking screwed up the team balance. That, sadly, seems to be the minority view, given that back when community servers made up the bulk of TF2 multiplayer, tons of them had bullshit paid perks that prevented you from ever getting autobalanced. Every single time I joined one of those servers, it was always unbalanced as hell. That's why I mainly stayed on official Valve servers before the Meet Your Match update.
Usually with friends I try to only play co-op, because if I play against them in a game they like (that I seem to be better at) they might lose repeatedly ans get frustrated, but they inevitably want to win on their own merits and will keep playing over and over until they do. Then I'm at an impasse because playing well will piss them off further if I keep beating them, any tips I offer they already know, and if they think I'm throwing a game they'll get pissed.
I had a friend a long time ago who invited me to his house to play video games sometimes, and he'd always want to play Smash Bros on the N64, but I was really good at the game (was a stupid kid who thought I had to beat Very Hard 1P game without dying on 1 stock to get Ness, and actually did it and didn't get the character because you actually had to beat it on Normal with 3 stock without losing every stock under 15 minutes) and would trounce him every time. He would tell me to play at my best, and one time I had beaten him five times in a row and he fucking raged, yanked his controller and knocked his N64 off his bureau straight on to a hardwood floor (the console was fine thanks to being made out of Nintendium) and screamed at me to get out of his house. He eventually apologized but I kind of stopped hanging around with him later on and we lost contact.
Basically for me the winning move is to not play versus with friends.
Yep, pretty much. This is also why games like Smash have things like items - so that even playing against the best of the best, you can still do okay and have fun. My friend introduced me to Rocket League hardcore. He knows I pick up games I like fast, and when he first introduced me this summer, I was square in Silver and he was high Plat. As of last month, I'm still mid-plat, and he's the highest tier possible (I think Master?). He straight up practices aerials when he isn't actually in a game. So, naturally, if we play together, whether queued up on a team or against eachother, it's gonna reach a point where he gets angry because I'm not as good as him.
But that's why we have games like PUBG, Killing Floor 2, and Portal 2.
The OP continues to seek validation for an appeal to absurdity with this premise, for which he was barred from posting in the TF2 thread entirely, due to singlehandedly derailing several of them into endless circular arguments of “but why”, “you can’t prove that/my motivation” and “that’s just your opinion”.
And now there’s a new thread to begin this nonsense anew. May the ruinous powers save us.
OP is the guy that constantly complained that random crits aren't unhealthy for TF2*
Yes it is.
What if we designed a game where the lower skilled player always wins?
Playing Street Fighter against a 4 year old and losing is the worst thing that's ever happened to me
My personal thoughts on this are:
It doesn't really make sense to say it's good/bad if the better/worse player wins. Even if we use a more specific definition.
If we say good/bad in the morality sense, then it is completely absurd.
If one meant entertaining for an audience (like that one meaning suggested by @Mako ), then that isn't really related to whether the better or worse player wins. It's more due to other factors.
I think that's the case with most or all meanings of good. It doesn't depend on who wins, but rather the context of the victory.
I'm not really sure what's your point. Wanting validation is normal, that's what a lot of people seek in discussions.
It kind of feels like you are jumping to conclusions. If you are trying to convince me of something, you are going about it wrong. Look at it from my perspective:
Some guy who I have never seen before pops in with some wild stuff. And from what I know, it's pretty inaccurate. I don't know if he remembered incorrectly, I don't know if he got this information second hand, or whatever. It's not really convincing.
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?
You should go and leave this thread. I was mistaken, I have seen you before. You are the guy who called me a child rapist, when I asked someone to stop flaming me.
You spent two months insulting me, regardless of how many times I asked you to stop.
You are basically the personification of this image:
This thread argues for videogame communism, good sir!
Some more thoughts:
Not all differences in skill are insurmountable. Sometimes worse players do defeat better players. Unless it's truly a massive difference, then fighting someone better than you doesn't make victory impossible. It just makes it hard. That's why you see underdogs win.
It must have felt great for the kid though.
So rather than encourage an underdog to actually improve to feel that sensation of progress, you'd rather a random bullshit dice roll decide that they get a hollow victory, their opponent gets a meaningless loss that's mildly annoying, and no one actually winds up walking away an improved player or having felt a genuine experience. This is a great way to make any game with a semblance of skill-indexing absolutely miserable to play.
From your posts, it's evident that you deliberately just want to play party games where the stakes don't exist, the skill/teamwork doesn't matter, and yet still expect people to take you seriously. This is the exact same type of post you got barred from posting in MUS for threadshitting/hijacking with your circular non-responses. If you want to play party games, that's fine. Just don't try to project party game concepts onto other things and get confused and indignant when people call you out on it again.
Keep your sweaty brow away from my video games
It feels like you are responding to points I didn't even make here. If you are going to respond to something from well over 6 months ago, then you need to show me exactly where (or even if) I said it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.