7 ms·

I felt the same way when grenades were removed from TF2. In TFC they were hard to learn, but very rewarding to players who did. Conc-jumping was severely OP and

I felt the same way when grenades were removed from TF2. In TFC they were hard to learn, but very rewarding to players who did. Conc-jumping was severely OP and fun. I guess they remove advanced gameplay mechanics to make the games more appealing to noobs and lower-skilled players. I think one of the reasons for CS' enduring popularity is even noobs can get lucky or trick a better player and kill them. In Q3? Nope.

kbenson 10y ago
> I think one of the reasons for CS' enduring popularity is even noobs can get lucky or trick a better player and kill them. It's probably better for the better player as well. No matter how good you are, a stray bullet or two could take you out. There was no relaxing, and the game promoted caution enough that if you felt unchallenged, there were risks to take.
- ManlyBread 10y ago
  >No matter how good you are, a stray bullet or two could take you out. And this is why I never really liked this game: it takes the control out of the hands of the player and gives it to a random number generator. If I'm good at the game, I should be the one who is in control, not RNG.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    I think this is one of those situations where most people don't really know why they like what they like, or at least have a hard time comparing between two things. People like winning, but people like challenge. In a game where the more skilled or already winning player continues to win, that's enjoyable for them short term until it gets boring, but importantly it's often not enjoyable for the other players. In a game where some randomness is introduced (and/or other mechanisms to reduce the advantage of an already winning player) which prevents a single person from completely controlling the board/map, that person may feel it's less fun than situations where that is allowed, but I think that level of less fun (but still fun!) may last much longer, since challenge remains. In fact, to remain consistently at the top actually requires more skill, IMO. Personally, I never liked Quake deathmatch (all the way back to the original). To me it seemed to reward prior map knowledge too much, and allowed someone with a known path that optimized item respawns to deny pickups to other users. Anything that makes the game easier for the person in the lead in a multiplayer game is a net negative IMO, as much fun as it feels to be that person.
    - feintruled 10y ago
      And let us consider the infamous Mario Kart blue shell, a weapon that specifically targets the player in first place. Still, for all the complaining about it making races random, the better players still seem to win most of the time.
      - Asooka 10y ago
        In some iterations you can avoid the blue shell. IIRC the 3ds one shows you what items the others are holding and if you see a blue shell pop up, just move behind the guy in second place. Even if the blue shell is fired, it makes a distinct noise and if you aren't too far ahead, you can duck behind the second place guy and let him take the hit.
    - qrybam 10y ago
      It took me a while to really _get_ the difference in mentality between different types of gamers and this difference would go a long way to explain what one person finds enjoyable vs another - of course everyone wants to win but if you didn't have to put in any real effort to win then it's not going to be as rewarding. In a nutshell there are two types of gamers: 1) casual and 2) serious FWIW (which may not be all that much), certain games cater more to casual players by having a shallow learning curve and a low skill ceiling while others are more favourable towards serious players by providing a steep learning curve and a surprising amount of depth. I'd compare games that have a steep curve and skill depth to real sports, like tennis or golf. If you've never played tennis and you go up against an enthusiast player who's played a few hundred hours of tennis, guess who's not going to be having much fun? How long will it take you to catch up if you both continue to practice the same amount from this point onwards? You'll probably always feel that the other guy has a certain edge over you even once you catch up to where he originally was. If you're serious about wanting to get better then you'll keep practising until you reach a point where you become competitive against players of a given level and things get a whole lot more rewarding and fun then. This is actually the main reason why I loved playing Quake and Starcraft so much (there are many other games, but these are the two I was most involved with), It's also the reason why they were (and still are) great competitive platforms. [edit] grammar
  - digi_owl 10y ago
    I feel i must ask, define "in control"? It feels like people here talk about control and skill as some kind of Neo like ability to dodge bullets. This rather than the tactical control of deciding when to engage, withdraw or anything like that.
  - neckro23 10y ago
    Counter-Strike has very little actual randomness. Bullet recoil follows a fixed pattern which only appears random. (See http://twowordbird.com/articles/csgo-recoil-mechanics/ http://twowordbird.com/articles/csgo-recoil-mechanics/ for example.) Expert players can (and do) learn to compensate for better accuracy.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    An RNG is not a bad thing, if the rest of the game is designed to compensate for it. In FPS, such random mechanics tends to make solo gameplay less dependent on skill, but rewards team effort, insofar as coordination can minimize such random chance affecting the outcome. I can't speak for CS, not having experience there. But in Red Orchestra, where weapons are even more instakill, and there's even more randomness (with things such as artillery strikes, that have unpredictable patterns on terrain - you can be in a trench, and if you're unlucky, a shell can land inside and kill you), good team commander and squad leaders are absolutely necessary to win, and a team with better leadership will run circles around the one that doesn't, even if the latter has better players, for this exact reason.
    - Bromskloss 10y ago
      There seems to be several versions of Red Orchestra. Do you have a particular one in mind? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Orchestra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Orchestra
      - int_19h 10y ago
        All of them, really (that are video games). It's a single series. I would say that the most recent incarnation is the most tactical - ironically, largely because it disposes with some of the first game's realism, and makes squad leaders into moving spawn points for the rest of the squad. This means that squad leaders need to balance staying alive (to provide better spawns) versus the need to keep advancing (to provide spawns closer to important objectives); and squad members, on the other hand, need to protect their leader even at great personal risk to themselves. It also makes flanking and other maneuvers that much more worthwhile, because the payoff for having your entire squad spawn on you near a gap in the enemy's defense line (or, better yet, behind it) is immense, and can make for a very rapid takeover of the objective, or deny the enemy reinforcements and allow the gap to grow faster than the other team can plug it. So the team that provides the best collective cover for their squad leaders' advance is more likely to win compared to the team that just goes for kills, even if the latter is noticeably better at the run-and-gun mechanics.
edem 10y ago
I have a friend who played Q3 for 6 years in a hardcore manner. I have played fps games for like 10 years but when we fought the result was 50 to -1 in his favor. (I managed to kill him once but I landed in lava 2 times) 4 years later we played again (he was not playing Q3 for 4 years) the result was 50 to 2 in h is favor. The skill cap in Q3 is just so damn high but it is also a rewarding experience.
Bromskloss 10y ago
I abstain from rocket jumping in TF2 because I feel it's such an outrageously unrealistic thing that it shouldn't be there in the first place. I also don't use anything but the default equipment, because I feel everything else gives an unfair advantage to players who hace played a lot and thereby gained items. I mean, what is this? Play to win?!
seanp2k2 10y ago
This. Overwatch is fun, but Weapons Factory Arena was much more so, esp with half of the classes (including the sniper, engineer, and some of the attack classes) given off-hand grapple, which could be used to "grapple jump" and massively increase the movement speed and agility of a skilled player. Here's a video showing some fairly high-level play: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3UW7eCYqGpQ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3UW7eCYqGpQ More: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-IDF_wWPUME https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-IDF_wWPUME IMO it's a massively more fun game than Overwatch, but it no longer has an active player community. The best shot I have at playing with others is QuakeCon, but there used to be a few servers with 32 player limits, and I can tell you that anything beyond about 8x8 was just stupid fun. I've played hundreds or thousands of hours of this and it was amazing. I've never found another game which did it for me quite like WFA did. As the cherry on top, it runs great on a Pentium 3 500 with a Voodoo 3 MP on 56K at 1024x768 on a CRT. It also runs fine with 60fps constant on the original Motorola Droid. Better graphics and loot boxes don't make a game fun IMO. Great mechanics and an awesome tight-knit community do.

kbenson 10y ago

> I think one of the reasons for CS' enduring popularity is even noobs can get lucky or trick a better player and kill them. It's probably better for the better player as well. No matter how good you are, a stray bullet or two could take you out. There was no relaxing, and the game promoted caution enough that if you felt unchallenged, there were risks to take.

ManlyBread 10y ago
>No matter how good you are, a stray bullet or two could take you out. And this is why I never really liked this game: it takes the control out of the hands of the player and gives it to a random number generator. If I'm good at the game, I should be the one who is in control, not RNG.
- kbenson 10y ago
  I think this is one of those situations where most people don't really know why they like what they like, or at least have a hard time comparing between two things. People like winning, but people like challenge. In a game where the more skilled or already winning player continues to win, that's enjoyable for them short term until it gets boring, but importantly it's often not enjoyable for the other players. In a game where some randomness is introduced (and/or other mechanisms to reduce the advantage of an already winning player) which prevents a single person from completely controlling the board/map, that person may feel it's less fun than situations where that is allowed, but I think that level of less fun (but still fun!) may last much longer, since challenge remains. In fact, to remain consistently at the top actually requires more skill, IMO. Personally, I never liked Quake deathmatch (all the way back to the original). To me it seemed to reward prior map knowledge too much, and allowed someone with a known path that optimized item respawns to deny pickups to other users. Anything that makes the game easier for the person in the lead in a multiplayer game is a net negative IMO, as much fun as it feels to be that person.
  - feintruled 10y ago
    And let us consider the infamous Mario Kart blue shell, a weapon that specifically targets the player in first place. Still, for all the complaining about it making races random, the better players still seem to win most of the time.
    - Asooka 10y ago
      In some iterations you can avoid the blue shell. IIRC the 3ds one shows you what items the others are holding and if you see a blue shell pop up, just move behind the guy in second place. Even if the blue shell is fired, it makes a distinct noise and if you aren't too far ahead, you can duck behind the second place guy and let him take the hit.
  - qrybam 10y ago
    It took me a while to really _get_ the difference in mentality between different types of gamers and this difference would go a long way to explain what one person finds enjoyable vs another - of course everyone wants to win but if you didn't have to put in any real effort to win then it's not going to be as rewarding. In a nutshell there are two types of gamers: 1) casual and 2) serious FWIW (which may not be all that much), certain games cater more to casual players by having a shallow learning curve and a low skill ceiling while others are more favourable towards serious players by providing a steep learning curve and a surprising amount of depth. I'd compare games that have a steep curve and skill depth to real sports, like tennis or golf. If you've never played tennis and you go up against an enthusiast player who's played a few hundred hours of tennis, guess who's not going to be having much fun? How long will it take you to catch up if you both continue to practice the same amount from this point onwards? You'll probably always feel that the other guy has a certain edge over you even once you catch up to where he originally was. If you're serious about wanting to get better then you'll keep practising until you reach a point where you become competitive against players of a given level and things get a whole lot more rewarding and fun then. This is actually the main reason why I loved playing Quake and Starcraft so much (there are many other games, but these are the two I was most involved with), It's also the reason why they were (and still are) great competitive platforms. [edit] grammar
- digi_owl 10y ago
  I feel i must ask, define "in control"? It feels like people here talk about control and skill as some kind of Neo like ability to dodge bullets. This rather than the tactical control of deciding when to engage, withdraw or anything like that.
- neckro23 10y ago
  Counter-Strike has very little actual randomness. Bullet recoil follows a fixed pattern which only appears random. (See http://twowordbird.com/articles/csgo-recoil-mechanics/ http://twowordbird.com/articles/csgo-recoil-mechanics/ for example.) Expert players can (and do) learn to compensate for better accuracy.
- int_19h 10y ago
  An RNG is not a bad thing, if the rest of the game is designed to compensate for it. In FPS, such random mechanics tends to make solo gameplay less dependent on skill, but rewards team effort, insofar as coordination can minimize such random chance affecting the outcome. I can't speak for CS, not having experience there. But in Red Orchestra, where weapons are even more instakill, and there's even more randomness (with things such as artillery strikes, that have unpredictable patterns on terrain - you can be in a trench, and if you're unlucky, a shell can land inside and kill you), good team commander and squad leaders are absolutely necessary to win, and a team with better leadership will run circles around the one that doesn't, even if the latter has better players, for this exact reason.
  - Bromskloss 10y ago
    There seems to be several versions of Red Orchestra. Do you have a particular one in mind? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Orchestra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Orchestra
    - int_19h 10y ago
      All of them, really (that are video games). It's a single series. I would say that the most recent incarnation is the most tactical - ironically, largely because it disposes with some of the first game's realism, and makes squad leaders into moving spawn points for the rest of the squad. This means that squad leaders need to balance staying alive (to provide better spawns) versus the need to keep advancing (to provide spawns closer to important objectives); and squad members, on the other hand, need to protect their leader even at great personal risk to themselves. It also makes flanking and other maneuvers that much more worthwhile, because the payoff for having your entire squad spawn on you near a gap in the enemy's defense line (or, better yet, behind it) is immense, and can make for a very rapid takeover of the objective, or deny the enemy reinforcements and allow the gap to grow faster than the other team can plug it. So the team that provides the best collective cover for their squad leaders' advance is more likely to win compared to the team that just goes for kills, even if the latter is noticeably better at the run-and-gun mechanics.

edem 10y ago

I have a friend who played Q3 for 6 years in a hardcore manner. I have played fps games for like 10 years but when we fought the result was 50 to -1 in his favor. (I managed to kill him once but I landed in lava 2 times) 4 years later we played again (he was not playing Q3 for 4 years) the result was 50 to 2 in h is favor. The skill cap in Q3 is just so damn high but it is also a rewarding experience.

Bromskloss 10y ago

I abstain from rocket jumping in TF2 because I feel it's such an outrageously unrealistic thing that it shouldn't be there in the first place. I also don't use anything but the default equipment, because I feel everything else gives an unfair advantage to players who hace played a lot and thereby gained items. I mean, what is this? Play to win?!

seanp2k2 10y ago

This. Overwatch is fun, but Weapons Factory Arena was much more so, esp with half of the classes (including the sniper, engineer, and some of the attack classes) given off-hand grapple, which could be used to "grapple jump" and massively increase the movement speed and agility of a skilled player. Here's a video showing some fairly high-level play: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3UW7eCYqGpQ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3UW7eCYqGpQ More: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-IDF_wWPUME https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-IDF_wWPUME IMO it's a massively more fun game than Overwatch, but it no longer has an active player community. The best shot I have at playing with others is QuakeCon, but there used to be a few servers with 32 player limits, and I can tell you that anything beyond about 8x8 was just stupid fun. I've played hundreds or thousands of hours of this and it was amazing. I've never found another game which did it for me quite like WFA did. As the cherry on top, it runs great on a Pentium 3 500 with a Voodoo 3 MP on 56K at 1024x768 on a CRT. It also runs fine with 60fps constant on the original Motorola Droid. Better graphics and loot boxes don't make a game fun IMO. Great mechanics and an awesome tight-knit community do.