2 ms·
> If that's the new player experience, you done fucked up. Have you really though? I'd argue that what made arena shooters great was the steep learning curve
by bashwizard 2mo ago
> If that's the new player experience, you done fucked up.
Have you really though?
I'd argue that what made arena shooters great was the steep learning curve and the grind to improve as a player.
The feeling of having practiced duels for months and finally being able to beat players that used to 50-0 you every game was better than any achievement in any modern FPS game I've ever experienced.
Gamers these days just doesn't really care about becoming better themselves. They want the instant gratification and that's why you have FPS games with super low TTK, perks, abilities, heroes etc. All to narrow down the skill gap between actual good players and completely new players.
Maybe it's just me but I find those games boring.
- TulliusCicero 2mo agoIn the 90s, almost everyone was still bad at these games (because they were relatively new as a genre), so the skill discrepancies were smaller. I was there, I remember. When the skill gaps are smaller it's not as big of a deal to play "stronger" players. But when the skill gaps are huge, it becomes a real problem.
- bashwizard 2mo agoSkill gaps back then were HUGE. At least in the games I used to play and compete in. Mainly Quake, CS and StarCraft. If you were an average/decent player, you'd get absolutely destroyed by a good player every single time and it was never even close. Modern FPS games with SBMM creates this huge "blob" of low-to-average players that will rarely if ever even have the chance of playing against an actual good player and they have no clue of how huge the difference in skill gap it is.