Let's talk about what makes a game "casual" versus "hardcore"

Let's talk about what makes a game "casual" versus "hardcore".

The RNG loot and playspace aspects of battle royale games. Do these RNG elements cause a less "competitive" environment for "expressing skill" than a game where everything is structurally the exact same every round, such as Counter-Strike?

I suggest:

In the *short-term*, structurally non-random games such as Counter-Strike (disregarding ballistics) are more "competitive" and suitable for "expressing skill", in venues such as tournaments where only a few rounds must be decisive proof of the superior player.

In the *long-term*, games with structurally random elements such as Fortnite BR demonstrate a better player than is possible in games that play the same or very similarly every round. Risk management and adapting to chaos are hugely complex and important skills which are ruled out of symmetrical, predictable games such as Counter-Strike. The better player is proven by their overall lifetime performance, as 6-hour-daily Twitch streams are more relevant to most in this age than annual tournaments, and games with random elements serve themselves better for the former than the latter.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=LfEVcZ3anG0
youtu.be
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

bump

>Smash bros Melee
19 year old game still played in tournys to this day

>Smash bros brawl and Smash bros wii u
Literally dead

What are your opinions on Tom Clancy games and have you played the division?

the RNG that is found in Fortnite is different from RNG is other games like Dota for example, where's there is the risk management and you can control it to some degree. Will you solo attack the guy who can evade your hits 17% off the time or are you going to wait for your next item to be able to deal with him better? that sort of thing

In Fortnite it's mostly something that you can't control at all. I don't think games like Fortnite and PUBG are never meant to be played in a serious competitive environment

After playing fighting games for so long I can't stand playing Team Based games or First Person Shooters competitively. Too much randomness. It's rarely dependent on individual player skill to win.
In conclusion: First person shooters are babies ""competitive"" game. Go play a real "hardcore competitive" game like a fighting game. Thanks.

I'm not immediately sure of how this is relevant so I'll just assume you're from the discords where I asked for a bump and asking me this personally.

The only Clancy game I've played extensively is Siege, which for my money obsoletes CSGO and is a far more interesting and complex game, but I used CSGO as the example for the discussion since it's considered a de facto cornerstone of competitive action games.

>I don't think games like Fortnite and PUBG are never meant to be played in a serious competitive environment

The question here is: are "serious competitive environments" really the best expression of skill anymore? Are they even necessary?

CSGO players grind de_dust2 forever, and maybe a couple other maps. They've memorized and anticipated every possible approach to every one of those angles in the handful of corridors around the map. They know everything that is possible within the game.

But a game with random elements outside the player's control has a bigger possibility-space, has more unexpected things that can possibly happen. Is it not more skillful to be able to adapt to and outplay those novelties in every round, over the longer term?

>randomness isn't a deciding factor in fighting games
youtube.com/watch?v=LfEVcZ3anG0

1. You're conflating all FPS as "team-based". There are plenty of solo MP FPS games and modes, and you can effectively gauge your individual skill regardless of team performance overall (this, after all, is how matchmaking and ELO works).

2. If you have to blame your team, you are probably trash anyway, and lacking the social skills to play with a competent team is itself lacking a necessary skill to play the game competently.

3. Team-based games are inherently more complex than solo games. You can't handle them. That is entirely on you. Social skill is, ultimately, an "individual" skill.

Hard to say actually. I think to an outsider the chain of events that include bad luck that the player managed to overcome will always have a stain of being less skillful than what it really was. When it comes to how things really are, I actually can't argue either way. I have conflicting ideas in my head when it comes to this

bump 2

Forgot to add: I used to play a lot of Melee back in the day with various friends and usually we had no items and all the flat maps that compfags use. Me and one of these guys wanted to play with items though and we thought it was more skillful to be able to overcome the luck variable that was introduced with items. We also really enjoyed playing fun maps like pokefloats, even though we took the game somewhat seriously. Well there's no realy end to this story, we became the best players in that group and soon we had only each other to play with as people dropped out. Maybe they got bored because there were no randomness who knows

Most "competitive" FPS played in 2018 are team based.
Class based games make certain matchups impossible despite your skill.
If you play a game that isn't team based, it's literally impossible to blame your team.
You can't account for all of the factors that a team based game provides because you can't control your teammates, thus, it is out of your control and considered "random" which reduces overall skill.
Team based games are stupid because in a non-team based game you have 100% control over your winning and losing, with a team based game, you do not. Why would you ask for constructive criticism of your ideas of what is competitive then instantly refute something that doesn't align with your beliefs?

I've been dating a middle school teacher and she says all her male students talk about Fortnite, being PC Master Race, and watching Linus Tech YouTube videos.

None of them talk about Nintendo except one black kid.

I'm not well-versed on Smash but if the compfags felt the need to disable most of the maps and items, then that means either the game failed or those players have, but surely something failed.

The other maps certainly add more complexity to the game which the compfags either cannot or are unwilling to handle, or they only care about the simplest blunt expression of skill as that is all they practice by consensus. The items maybe not so much, but only because some of them (and their occurrence) may be badly designed. They certainly have no real positional / circumstantial spawn logic to account for them.

Sincere thanks for this really vital anecdote. I've long suspected Nintendo is losing relevance among actual youth and is coasting on the weird line between manchild nostalgia and yuppie trendiness.

>badder player loses to bad player
nothing to see here

I'm sure they have their reasons for every map and why it was disabled. I guess it has to do with maps favoring certain characters too much. Still, they could use a system like CS:GO does where they can ban maps that they don't want to play etc

Also, different characters being good in different maps doesn't sound so bad to me either if you are always going to play a series anyway where one game won't decide the whole outcome but what do I know

>You can't account for all of the factors that a team based game provides because you can't control your teammates, thus, it is out of your control and considered "random" which reduces overall skill.

That is really solipsistic.

This thing called "communication" exists. It's how you influence and bear co-responsibility for the actions of yourself and others, as a team. It's how you practice together and learn to accomplish complex, skillful acts that are too much for any one person to perform. It's how the possibility-space is greater for team-based games than 1v1 games can be, and how it takes more minds to master the potential of that space.

Improving yourself and your team are one and the same goal. If you can't work with your teammates, or get better teammates to practice with, it means you are simply too autistic to function as a team player and thus lack the most important skills of anything in life altogether, period.

bumpito

When it comes to a competitive videogame I would prefer not to have to influence others and bear "co-responsibility of the actions of myself and others" because "others" are fucking retards. The game should just let me fucking play the game and allow me to do "skillful acts that are too much for any one person to perform". Nothing about a team based game is too complex for one person to do. No, the "possibility-space"(wow you're stupid) is not "greater" for a team based game compared to a 1v1 game.
Why the fuck are you trying to compare videogame skills to real life skills? Who gives a shit if I don't want to work together with a bunch of retards. Team based games fucking suck. They don't have more depth than one on one games. They're literally made so that people that are shitty can get carried by a team. Ever wonder why so many people play them? Because skill doesn't matter as much.

>turn items on
Fox is now even more broken, as he and other fast characters are going to get a majority of the items that slower characters cannot outside of lucky spawns.
>enable larger stages with more randomness
Fox and other fast characters can now run circles around the stage against slower characters and camp the everloving fuck out of them. Like infinite stages in Tekken, but with an 8 minute timer and less neutral interactions.
Allowing said stages also allows for millions more ways to cheese/jank out wins in a game that is already overflowing with cheese/jank on the most neutral stages. The current stage pool still allows for bans and counterpicking that favors specific characters already.

t. GG player who used to play Melee

>because "others" are fucking retards

There's that autistic solipsism.

No, you are simply too retarded to find people as skilled as yourself (or better) at the game. And finding people compatible with you is ultimately the hardest and most important skill in life. Do not neglect it, and especially don't expect others to be impressed with you for doing so.

>They're literally made so that people that are shitty can get carried by a team.

This is only true if you're playing under the lowest skill circumstances possible; i.e. queueing with randoms for pick-up games.

Meanwhile, look at any pro-level 4v4 Warcraft III match and the sheer scale of the battles and base management occurring blows the absolute fuck out of the "will the other dude actually guard or throw?" simpleton mindgames of fighters.

you forgot the part where fox and friends have most advantage on flat maps like oh i dont know, final destination and battlefield

How come infinite stages in Tekken are tournament legal when there are characters that benefit highly from wall bouncing and shit? Also, how come fast characters in fighting games aren't as over powered as fast characters in Smash Brothers?

>blows the absolute fuck out of the "will the other dude actually guard or throw?" simpleton mindgames of fighters.
You haven't played a fighting game, clearly. I have played a team based game however and I prefer to play one on one games as they require more skill than having someone better than you just easily carry you. Also, you type like a fucking faggot and use huge retarded words like "solipsism" or "possibility-space". You also space your posts like a reddit user. You've also admitted in this thread that you use Discord and intentionally posted a Sup Forums thread there so that retards would bump it for you. Please go back to whatever shithole you came from and stop posting forever and if you won't, see me in Third Strike or Super Turbo on fightcade, or Guilty Gear Rev2 or Street Fighter V on PC.

>You also space your posts like a reddit user. You've also admitted in this thread that you use Discord

are you seriously now forfeiting the argument to scalp Sup Forums-cred

really now

>Fox's best stages are FD and BF
xD
Literally because Tekken is a balanced actual fighting game that doesn't break when you play it with infinite space. This isn't even an infinite stage and look how dumb this is.
youtu.be
/mTNaAUJZz5k

Just like I wouldn't listen to someone with no fighting game experience try to critique the fighting game, I wouldn't listen to someone with no Sup Forums experience trying to make posts on Sup Forums. It's why I don't listen to game reviewers or people who think they are hardcore for playing team based 3D games, because they aren't.

>xD
maybe you weren't that good after all if you didn't know this

>completely ignoring PS in favor of a stage that Fox can be chain grabbed on by almost half the cast, most of them being easy as fuck
xD

>tfw OP dodges your challenge
Dodge

>1. You're conflating all FPS as "team-based". There are plenty of solo MP FPS games and modes, and you can effectively gauge your individual skill regardless of team performance overall (this, after all, is how matchmaking and ELO works)
Name them. Name ONE MP game where a team won a championship off the back of one guy. You can't. Stop talking out of your ass retard. Even COD pro tournaments are built on team play. Every single modern FPS game is Team 1 vs. Team 2. The fact that you think otherwise is hilarious and pathetic. Let me guess, you play Siege and love to talk about how you carry your team? Join a pro team and see how stupid you really are. Don't worry, they'll tell you before you realize it.
>2. If you have to blame your team, you are probably trash anyway, and lacking the social skills to play with a competent team is itself lacking a necessary skill to play the game competently.
Spoken like a true virgin. Bad players exist, shifting the blame to the person who notices a player is bad outs (You) as a moron who doesn't have the slightest clue what they are talking about. Do you think people get along and jerk each other off all day? There is a thing called chemistry, which you would know if you actually played competitively. If one guy is clearly statistically the best player on his team, does that mean he is shit? Dumbass.
>3. Team-based games are inherently more complex than solo games. You can't handle them. That is entirely on you. Social skill is, ultimately, an "individual" skill.
That's an opinion not fact. No competition or sport is more complex/difficult than the other. Apples and oranges. If there was an "easy" game/sport, everyone would play it. Social skill applies to everyone dipshit. If you can communicate to your team but there is a guy on the team that doesn't give a fuck and does what he wants, does that mean you can't communicate properly because you lack social skill? Wow, you sure are an imbecile.

Really hoping this BR fad fades soon.

have you ever considered there's more than "winning or losing".

I mean take Red Orchestra or Insurgency/Day-of-Infamy or Squad

Those/that game is basically entirely reliant on a team working together in order to score/secure objectives. In fact there are complaints when a single-player can be "too effective" because it ruins the experience/poetry of the game to have some jackass rambo-ing with a MG-42. (though the commander role typically gets the most kills thanks to Artillery barrages, kills outside objectives are only worth 1 point while giving ammo is worth 5 and kills in an objective are worth 6 and capturing an objective (or staying-in/defending an objective until it's captured by the enemy team) is worth something like 10-20)

Frankly I think the strive towards "esports" or "competitiveness" or "ranking" is ruining many multiplayer games.

EA/DICE has used their "statistics"-tracking (used for weapon-balance and players epeen) to justify locking their games down (no-user-hosted-dedicated-servers, no-server-tools, pussified-admin-powers) resulting in games that are a lot less interesting and a lot less "open" to weird experimentation.

>play fortnite
>start game
>drop onto a building
>no guns just health pack and ammo
>walk out
>gets shot

>another game
>droppin a small town
>walk 5 steps
>1 shot by some random guy

>another game
>hide for few minutes collecting guns
>look acros the field for a split second
>sniped from who knows where in 1shot

>have guns, see enemy back
>shoot him, do 50 dmg, get ready to finish him off
>in a split second a wall and ramp shows up and he kills me in 1 shoot from a bove
>entire fight couldnt last more than 2 seconds, the fucker turned around and build a wall the moment he was shot, how, i have no fucking clue

Damn, i can feel my skill growing already.
I uninstalled it after 5 games or so, its fucking shit as i expected.

It's a difficult topic, as easily seen by how Sup Forums completely fails at it and calls everything they don't play skillless/casual/whatever
Simplified, they mean easy to learn, easy to master and hard to learn, hard to master
The more there is to master, the higher the skillcap in the game
Skills are diverse, while brainlets will think that only shootan is relevant, people who are actually good at vidya will know that many more factors go into it, even for something as simple in structure as CSGO. Positioning and mindgames can make huge differences, and they're subtle skills that aren't as easily demonstrated as shooting people in the head.
Brainlets will also claim that any game where a worse player can luck out and beat a better player is not actually hardcore or whatever. They'll post webbums of someone hitting five crits in a row in doto, and say that clearly it doesn't matter what the player does- ignoring the variety of ways one of the players could have manipulated the situation to push the odds in his favour. It's all about the odds ratios- the better player is going to consistently do better, win more games based on that.

Yesterday some user told me that there is no positioning in fortnite because people can build, that about sums up the level of understanding of the topic from the average Sup Forumsirgin

>be noob who doesn't know shit
>play like shit
>get wrecked
>bitch about the game without trying to improve
This is a great example of a casual shitter

>Fighting game mindgames
>Will the other dude actually guard or throw
Wat
Is that seriously what you came up with?

>In Fortnite it's mostly something that you can't control at all.
Yes and no
You can't control where the circle will hit
But you can control where you drop and walk to have the best possible access to the next circle
it's the same kind of maximizing your odds

>This is a great example of a casual shitter
More like an intelligence test.
Its test if you are retarded enough to waste your time on such a bad game.

look at all the examples you listed retard, you got your shit pushed in cuz ur a clueless noob

Yeah, only those who figured out the rng are the enlightened.
Fuck off, your game is shit.

The casual shitter will often try to find excuses as to why he is totally above the game and didn't want to play it anyways and if he would then he would be a pro right away and the game is bad that's why he sucks at it!

You could use this idiotic defense for any game, even ones with universal 1/10 scores.

I don't have to defend anything, I'm here to mock you for being a casual shitter that falters when he doesn't start winning 5 minutes after starting a new game

>you for being a casual shitter
While defending the most casual crap twitch bait game with no depth in existence.
The shill knows no shame, truly, irony is beyond you.

>i-it has no depth I just lost all the time because reasons I am not a crying casual babby I swear!
Soon you'll have hit all the casual bingo marks keep it up

Is this a real question? If player A and player B are equally skilled at a game but a random event gave one of those players the upper hand whether it was a weapon/skill/buff just because it happened to trigger/spawn or whatever near one of them. Is that more competitive?

>casual crap with no depth
>loses and gets mad because he's not winning
So you're even below a casual, BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS.

Skillful?*

Skill is hard to determine when all I can find is a pistol and I get killed by someone with an AR and/or even a scope
but would someone more skilled than me kill me with a pistol even though all I had was an AK with a 4x?
yea

Not him, but holy fuck dude. You actually had a half decent point until you went "REEE" and fucked it all up. Just admit you have no proper argument

>19
17.

lmao fd is often a counterpick vs fox (for marth, peach, samus, others). his best stage is probably pokemon, which incidentally has the wonky transformations.

This
So if it's a game for casuals shitters, that means that you were getting your shit pushed in by casual shitters. You are quite literally too casual for a casual game.

Also the rng does fuck you over sometime sbut never THAT much. Try not landing in a shack or perhaps learning the mechanics you little baby bitch.