Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LouKangKus

Do you think gamers today are too soft?

Recommended Posts

Halo 2-Reach, Gears 2, and Black Ops 2 are the ones I can think of off the top of my head with some sort of visible ranks. Halo obviously did it best. I think other console shooters also have had ranked playlists (but invisible tru-skill ranks) but even those are disappearing or games add crutches to minimize the skill gap.

 

Gears 2 is not an FPS. My point is that the goal was never to grow competitive gaming. It grew outt of hardcore FPS dedicated servers on PC . Look up info before you randomly spout baseless arguments...

Share this post


Link to post

What if someone doesn't care if they win or lose and just want to have having playing a game.

 

Do you categorize that person as "soft"?

Generally from what I have seen from gaming for many years is that if that particular person doesn't care about winning/losing then usually that means their skill level is poor because they don't put in the work/effort to get better.  Which means they belong at or near the bottom of the food chain when it comes to online gaming in general.  Not saying all gamers that are in this criteria are bad in skill.  But most are because of their lack of work ethics in online gaming.  Therefore, It's common sense and very reasonable that just like in real life one should expect not to be able to be rewarded for being average and/or bad in something.  Common sense here people.

 

If someone at work puts the bare minimum of effort, does that employee deserve a raise?  If someone in online gaming puts the bare minimum of effort into getting better doesn't deserve to win.    

 

If you really want me to say it, then yes I do think the majority of gamers have become soft.  Mainly because gamers aren't forced into a situation where its either do it or die, sink or swim.  The vast majority of course aren't ever going to put themselves into situations where someone who is better than them will destroy them until they get better, Quakes and other hard games death is complete evidence of this.  Back then when it was nothing but hard games where the majority just had to deal with it, we didn't have the current problems we have today.  Those casuals who grew up and became competitive gamers were rewarded for their actions and efforts.  It's called common sense, social order, and to put it in most simplest way I can think of... Life.  People raised on both games where skill gaps and ceilings are lowered to make sure competitive gamers can't single handily take over the match, and match making systems that ensure "fairness of playing only your skill level" are hardly ever challenged to the point where they are forced to make the ultimate decision.  Do I get better or do I stay losing?

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I think it's silly to go back to a game that most have learned and understand at this point, but I will admit that a lot of younger players never had the chance to experience Halo 2, and therefore, it can be a rather successful MP title despite being outdated in terms of meta. However, getting rid of button combos and other skillful glitches would not contribute to the game at all.

This said, I think we just want a game that we can say has a safe skill gap, because at this point, we're all kind of expecting (or afraid of) 343 to screw up after looking at Halo 4. H2A is a safe bet for the series right now, and it would give 343 more time to make Halo 5 something balanced, along with give them obvious pointers regarding what a true Halo game should be.

To answer the initial question, I don't think gamers are too soft, but I do think that devs are catering to the lazy minority and it's not working out at all, and leaving most frustrated. So blame the developers. Gamers don't care how hard / difficult to learn a game is as long as it's good. Titles like Dark Souls, LoL, SC2 to name a few all prove that.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Don't solely blame the gamers, also blame the developers of the games. 

 

Can you really blame the devs though? We're the ones too lazy/stupid to do simple research on a hobby we love. We're the ones who force the devs' hands. They just adapt to what the crowd wants. We're the ones who drive sales and spawn hype for shit. We're the ones who continue to buy shit even though we clearly see the obvious trajectory of mediocrity of the industry or a series.

 

Same shit with the music industry. mediocrity prevails because most people are mediocre and that's where the money is.

Share this post


Link to post

Can you really blame the devs though? We're the ones too lazy/stupid to do simple research on a hobby we love. We're the ones who force the devs' hands. They just adapt to what the crowd wants. We're the ones who drive sales and spawn hype for shit. We're the ones who continue to buy shit even though we clearly see the obvious trajectory of mediocrity of the industry or a series.

 

Same shit with the music industry. mediocrity prevails because most people are mediocre and that's where the money is.

tru dat

Share this post


Link to post

Gears 2 is not an FPS. My point is that the goal was never to grow competitive gaming. It grew outt of hardcore FPS dedicated servers on PC . Look up info before you randomly spout baseless arguments...

 

My original post had nothing to do with your's. I actually didn't even read what you had posted. I was just making a post relating to the OP, It wasn't an argument but an opinion. You asked me which games I was referring to and I did. Yeah, Gears isn't a FPS, but that was my bad. I shouldn't have said FPS, I should've said console shooters. No need to be a jackass about it. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

My original post had nothing to do with your's. I actually didn't even read what you had posted. I was just making a post relating to the OP, It wasn't an argument but an opinion. You asked me which games I was referring to and I did. Yeah, Gears isn't a FPS, but that was my bad. I shouldn't have said FPS, I should've said console shooters. No need to be a jackass about it. 

 

Even if you said console shooters you would still be wrong lol. Not being a jackass, just making a point that there is little to no past (2001 - 2010) precedent in FPS ranking systems on console that were good and nurtured competitive gaming aside Halo 2 and 3.. That is why online leagues like GB were important to console players.

 

If anything more Devs are moving towards competitive gaming.

Share this post


Link to post

What kind of nonsense is that? How did CE not have Multiplayer? could you not set up matches between MULTIPLE people and play? Multiplayer =/= Online play only. Also, Halo 1 is active on XBC...you can find games every night, as a matter of fact there are some guys from here playing right now....so again...wtf are you talking about?

 

Your definition of multiplayer is way too narrow minded and just flat out stupid. How can you say because a game wasn't played online it didn't have multiplayer? How can you say a game released 13 years ago has no effect on today's multiplayer...when it was the best halo game ever made as far as multiplayer goes. Console developers today can learn something about shooters from that game alone, from level design to the amount of skill, depth and fun packed into a disc.

 

You are basically saying every game that could be played with 2 or more ppl before the Dreamcast made online play popular on consoles didn't have multiplayer....brah....stop it.

 

Lol @ Goldeneye not having multiplayer

 

Lol @ No Mercy not having multiplayer

 

Lol @ Street Fighter 2 not having multiplayer

 

Lol @ Mario Kart not having multiplayer

 

smh...the ignorance

lol at melee not having multiplayer

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

CS can't be classified as skillful because it has bloom, random spread and non-neutral mechanics :Halo:.

 

OT but is the spread in GO random?  As far as I know in 1.6 it wasn't and could be controlled.  Or maybe I missed the joke.

Share this post


Link to post

OT but is the spread in GO random?  As far as I know in 1.6 it wasn't and could be controlled.  Or maybe I missed the joke.

There is and has been random spread on all weapons in CS, just to varying degrees. Even if you're stood completely still your first bullet will still have some degree of randomness it's just usually extremely minimal over the practical ranges of the game. Moving, falling states (including ladders) and RoF (indicated by bloom) all affect the potential spread that trends along each guns various spray patterns - shooting in Counter-Strike is basically about limiting / controlling these factors to make the most out of the various situations you face.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think it's that older gamers have become soft. It's just that gaming is growing through games that are easy to get into.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I would say the advancement of technology and the ability for the algorithms to let the game forgive peoples mistakes is what makes people lazy and soft. Bullet Magnetism is a huge culprit of this. HC:E had very little bullet magnetism (Minus the needler lol) which made players need to be more accurate. Now a days people can mis a head shot or a snipe by 5 feet and the game will give it to them because they were "close enough" for the bullet magnetism to kick in and give them the kill. So it is very much so on the developers in that sense that players are getting soft and the games are getting easier which lowers the skill gap. This link is a great example of how developers have done this

However I understand that because of network quality and lag, this was somewhat needed back when Halo 2 came out to combat ping, lag, and other network communication problems, but now, that stuff can go away. I think we've gotten better technologies for that stuff. 

 

On the other hand, many people now a days are soft at life and need handouts to survive. This just translates into games. People needing welfare, charity, ect... (not including charities and donations for people who are sick or have disabilities. Only the fucktards who think they deserve money because they have 5 kids and they work at McDonalds) they are failing at life and the world is making it easier for them by letting them fail and then saving them by fixing their mistakes. No one learns to succeed so why would games be any different. People don't want to try and cry when their half ass effort doesn't let them win. 

 

A personal example: I'm a Halo guy. I can't snipe for shit in Halo 3. I tried and tried and I just can't get the hang of the headshot. I can body shot all day, but that's just a waste of ammo in the end. But as soon as Reach came out, I was braining people left and right because the sniper was so easy to use. The head hitbox was increased in the later Halos and before I knew it, everyone was popping headshots with the sniper all day. Not exactly a challenge anymore, and not so much fun. I can go back and play H3 and suck ass with the sniper and it's more fun than Reach because it's a challenge

 

Imo, the developers need to make things less lazy like they did in the old days. Make the lazy, soft people learn what it is to fail, and then they will either play the game and get better and it will be more enjoyable, or they will suck and put up the game and move on to something easier, like Angry Birds. 

 

 

Off Topic: If developers would take out the things that make the games easier, they could put that extra computational power into things like graphics, frame rate, or other big topics of discussion that people are begging be 

  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

This sounds like an old man saying "Back in my day..."

 

How can anyone call a group of people soft because they have fun differently than you?

Because they lack the resolve to keep trying when faced with adversity. They will never know the heights of joy that come from working really hard for something and beating someone difficult. They'd rather play things that aren't challenging and get their little stats. Soft.

Share this post


Link to post

Because they lack the resolve to keep trying when faced with adversity. They will never know the heights of joy that come from working really hard for something and beating someone difficult. They'd rather play things that aren't challenging and get their little stats. Soft.

So they are "soft" because they do not like to lose repeatly until they get better?

 

Aight cool.

Share this post


Link to post

You know for me the more competitive side of halo is forging maps and getting better at it, making a better map than the next guy, coming up with better features and more unusual and novel concepts.

 

I want to be one of the best forgers around. That is why I frequent this site... to learn what the competitive players who know what they are talking about can share and help me get better at it.

Share this post


Link to post

So they are "soft" because they do not like to lose repeatly until they get better?

 

Aight cool.

How do you define soft?  What would it take, in your mind, for a gamer to be soft?

Share this post


Link to post

Don't solely blame the gamers, also blame the developers of the games. 

 

I don't really see how you can blame devs though. I mean, when it comes to H4, there were plenty of parts of that title copied from CoD that didn't need to be. But as far as an actual CoD game goes, what else do you expect 3arch or IW to do in only one year? They have to develop a game that will sell in an extremely short amount of time, and the cookie-cutter approach is really the only way of doing that.

 

As a whole, the games industry makes crappy, generic, and repetitive games because people will buy them. So, don't buy them. And if you don't think enough people are willing to use their wallets to demand something better from their games, well...

 

 

 

 

PC MASTER RACE!

Share this post


Link to post

Starting with Reach the whole Halo population changed.

 

In H1, 2, 3, the ranking system and its game mechanisms promoted a hardcore competitive gaming environment. Gamers adapted to the game.

 

In Reach emphasis was put more on fun, Big Team Battle, firefight modes without direct competition and, of course, a progression-based ranking system. Add to that game mechanisms that were inherently anti-competitive (Reach's bloom, AAs, sprint etc.). Halo players weren't nearly as competitive anymore and, to me, moved into the direction of world of warcraft players.

 

I don't need to talk about Halo 4. Most of the current Halo 4 players are incredibly bad, have no idea about communication, spawns, fundamentals. As the game is so anti-competitive now, yes, Halo players have become very, very soft.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy.